Continue reading »]]> In a historical change of mind, President Obama has come forward to proclaim that he supports same-sex marriage. Prior to this announcement, he limited his belief system to civil unions based on his own religion’s edict that marriage was only for men and women. Regardless of his new personal beliefs he still believes the legality of same-sex marriage should be dictated on the state level. I could find no information as to whether this would prompt him to change the federal policy which still doesn’t recognize legal same-sex marriages from the seven states that allow it.

The groundbreaking interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News With Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline.”

In an interview clip below, Obama explains how his personal views changed as he interacted with his own daughters, family members, staff members and neighbors.

Obama’s announcement comes shortly after his VP, Joe Biden publicly announced his own support for gay marriage. Though while Biden’s eagerness may have accelerated Obama’s own announcement (it seems he was going to “come out” in coordination with some campaigning efforts), it seems Obama is motivated by setting a good example for his own daughters.

“There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

This is quite interesting given that this announcement will likely make him wildly unpopular amongst conservatives, red states, swing voters and the African American population according to the ABC news article. Just yesterday, in North Carolina, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Obama carried North Carolina in 2008, him doing so again in 2012 is highly questionable.

Obama, at a crucial moment in his political career, is finally abandoning the politically safe position on gay marriage, and putting himself out there by defending his consituents’ right to equality. Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney opposes gay marriage. (Click here if you’d like to hear Romney’s Sr. Advisor, Ed Gillespie speak on Romeny’s position.)

[Obama] “…but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.”

Other related Feminist Bride gay marriage articles:

Washington House Passes Gay Marriage Bill

Washington State Revisits Gay Marriage Equality Law

A Testimonial on the Families Gay Marriage Builds

Diane Savino On NY Gay Marriage Bill: ‘We Have Nothing To Fear From Love And Commitment’ (VIDEO)

Religion and Marriage

Chilean President Proposes Rights for Unmarried Partners, Still Opposes Gay Marriage though

Petition Asks Bert And Ernie To Get Married On Sesame Street

Michele Bachmann Gets “Flippy-Floppy” on Addressing Gay Rights Debate

Military gay couples still won’t enjoy benefits

NJ Has A New Situation for Gay Marriage Rights

Maryland’s Gov. Martin O’Malley Pushes for Gay-Marriage

Continue reading »]]> The War Bride(2001) – Set during World War II, Lily marries a Canadian soldier. She quickly becomes pregnant and moves to Canada to live with her in-laws as part of a save the war-brides campaign. A sassy, fashionable city-Londoner, she finds herself in the plains of central Canada on a farm, severely out of her element and amongst hostile in-laws who find her UK style foreign, too sexual and think her marriage was a ploy to get her out of war-torn Europe. Not knowing whether her spouse is alive, she struggles with being a wife and a mother in a foreign land. (Subject: Marriage, War, Women) Director: Lyndon Chubbuck

Continue reading »]]> Ever stop to think about whether or not to say yes to that diamond engagement ring? I’m not talking about saying yes or no to the person doing the asking, I’m talking about the actual diamond ring! We put so much emphasis on the rock that sparks the start of two people’s lifetime commitment to each other – carat, cost, clarity and cut, that have we really stopped to think about if it’s an icon worthy of representing our love for another?

I’ve been working on diamond ring culture in my research and art, so I was thrilled to stumble upon a How Stuff Works podcast called, “How Diamonds Work.” Thanks Chuck and Josh for this informative overview of where diamonds come from, who controls them, and just about everything else one might want to know about these carbon forms. (If you’re not into podcasts, they also provide an extensive article on it with lots of links to quizzes and fun facts.)

But as The Feminist Bride, I cover the culture of diamonds though. And the more I find out the more I question if this is really a good wedding tradition. So I thought I would cover the pro’s and cons for you. I will start with the pro because unfortunately there are only a few:

Pro #1: Tradition. People love the idea of tradition. It gives us a sense of belonging, success and comfort.

Pro #2: Romance. What better way to say I love you than with a rock that is the hardest substance on earth to show that your love will survive (PS: it no longer is, see HSW’s article). A ring is symbolic because it has no beginning or end, a nice metaphor for your love and relationship.

Alright, now onto the cons:

Con #1: Tradition. Yes, it is a con too. Believe it or not, a diamond engagement ring is consumer culture, not naturally evolved culture.  Late in the 1800s, De Beers (PS: HSW called the De Beers corporation a cartel) discovered the world’s largest supply of diamonds in Africa and decided to take his diamonds to the Don Drapers on Madison Avenue in the 40s. There an advertising agency created a campaign to give a rock, that had been only used for industrial purposes, emotional meaning. The marketing strategy was very simple: convince men that buying a diamond ring for his bride-to-be was a masculine sign of leadership and a testament to his financial success and convince women that the bigger the rock the greater the love. What we’ve interpreted as meaningful tradition has been nothing more an engineered marketing strategy. Diamond engagement rings did not become popular until the De Beers campaigns, before any stone or plain band would suffice.

Con #2: Sexism and Double Standards. An engagement ring marks the lifetime promise between two people, but only one – the female, publically displays this promise. There is no visual difference between a single man and an engaged-one. Culturally, we place more value in a woman’s marital status than a man’s. The ring also acts as a signifier that someone is promised or committed to another, which is a symbol of ownership by another. Since only women wear such a ring, it recalls the days under coverture (when a wife legally belonged to a husband) and when fiances/husbands were allowed to gallivant as single men. Men are also the primary proposers today too, because historical they’re the ones in charge with better earning potential (hello wage gap dictating culture!).

Con #3: Money. Engagement ring culture has come to imply that the bigger the love…the bigger the diamond, which puts a lot of pressure on the purchaser to get one that sings. But that pressure can put a lot of financial restraint on a person or a couple, especially when the standard to put two-month salary towards it is nothing more than the De Beers marketing campaign guideline (i.e. how much of your money they want from you). This con is even more insidious since De Beers controls the price and value of your ring in the first place (see HSW for details). And they’ve set the standard that a previously owned diamond has even less value because of superstition. One’s money would be better invested in a home or retirement than something that adorns only one person in the relationship and looses value!

Con #4: Ego/Vanity/Luxury: We may ‘oh and ah’ in excitement over another’s diamond ring, but there’s a competitive culture no one is talking about. Many of us ‘hem and haw’ in secret critiques as to whether a ring is too small, ugly or gaudy and huge. Purchasers want to buy a ring that stands out from the multitude of other rings and ring wearers want the same. I find it interesting that a luxury item is so firmly associated with a life event (this exists in no other tradition). Take for instance, the ‘look at me’ culture that Facebook inspires with the plethora of ring picture posts. We see it as a celebratory act – to show and share with everyone ‘the ring,’ but in no other scenario is it acceptable or polite to show off one’s luxury gift.

Con #5: Human Rights Violations/Environmental Impact: The HSW podcasts gets into the human rights issues more, but there is no way to be sure that a diamond is conflict free. Blood diamonds, particularly those out of Africa, usually come at the cost of exploiting workers, illegal mining, and black market shenanigans that support violent rebel groups. Not to mention, the devastating environmental impact mining has on the local landscape and the dangers it imposes on those who work in them.

After all is said and done, the diamond engagement ring culture doesn’t seem all that romantic, which nullifies Pro #2. What does it really say about a tradition that requires a luxury item with so many loaded meanings and sordid implications to represent such a pure moment? There are a few solutions that can help improve engagement ring culture.

Solution #1: No Ring. Do away with an engagement ring entirely and you eradicate its sexism, double standards, vanity and financial constraint. The couple also proves that words are stronger than diamonds; and the only thing you really need.

Solution #2: Two Engagement Rings. This eliminates the double standard, but the question is who does the giving? One person can buy two rings (but that has its own issues too) or each person can buy one for the other (whether independently or together). Since a lot of couples discuss getting engaged ahead of time (some even go so far as to pick out their ring and then ask the partner to surprise them with it), make a plan to surprise each other with the rings. The words exchanged at this moment are worth more than the rings themselves, but if the couple wants to physically mark this new milestone with jewelry at least there’s more equality to it. Side fact: In Indian tradition, both men and women wear engagement rings.

Solution #3: Make A Promise With Wedding Bands. Now I think this option is really sweet and is similar to Solution #2. The difference is that the couple presents each other with their weddings bands only. In some ceremonious occasion (to replicate the surprise of the proposal), each person presents a wedding band to the other and makes a promise to love them forever. The wedding bands stand as a symbol of that promise which can be worn after the wedding ceremony (when the promise officially begins). You might wonder why wedding bands are more acceptable than an engagement ring? Well, the big difference is that wedding bands are not consumer culture. They actually date all the way back to ancient Rome.

I have my own diamond engagement ring. In fact, I had been picking out my perfect, dream ring since I was sixteen. I was no exception to the rampant romantic ring culture that surrounds us all and believed it was just part of a wonderful adventure into marriage. I thought I could be socially responsible by at least requesting a blood-free diamond, but the naivety of this idea didn’t come until it was already on my finger. I also failed to realize that there was much more symbolism on my finger than I had anticipated. Nor wanted. So now it sits in a box, hidden away and only sees the light of day on special occasions. I’ve come to realize that the success of my marriage is not dictated by the presence or quality of the ring on my finger, it won’t protect us from problems. I now know that I didn’t need an engagement ring to make someone’s promise to me (and mine to them) real.  The sentiment of my engagement was in the words exchanged between us, not in the carats and clarity in a diamond engagement ring presented only to me.

Continue reading »]]> This is my most recent lecture at the Tufts University GSC Research Symposium. It was me and a bunch of Ph.D. candidates lecturing on mostly science, but alas my speciality is in marriage culture. Here’s a breakdown of how marriage’s past, present and future effect our quality of life. It’s an interesting overview about how our time-honored traditions are totally irrelevant to Western lifestyles, which in itself makes a case for why it’s really important we respectfully modernize them! Enjoy.

Continue reading »]]> Ready or Not (2009) – With the Hangover coming out in the same year, its hard to say which movie came first but they are exactly the same except this one is less humorous. The groomsmen use an over-the-top bachelor party to kidnap the groom to Mexico a week before his wedding. Everything starts going terribly awry from jumping out of a crashing plane to angering a mobster, from getting put in jail to being put in front of an execution squad. The question of the movie is is the groom ready to leave his bros behind for marriage? (Subject: Groomsmen, Groom, Bachelor Party, Comedy) Director: Sean Doyle

Continue reading »]]>
The Affair of the Necklace (2001) (R) – While this may not be a movie about marriage or weddings, it is a unique movie in that it is about the true story of a woman who step outside her societal boundaries and dared to change the fate of her life, as a result she helped to bring down the rule of an abusive monarchy. Jeanne de la Motte Valois, a strong-minded  Contessa (played by femme-fort Hilary Swank), loses her station, family and homestead because her father was considered to liberal and anti-monarchy. She aims to reclaim her family home through a scam surrounding an extremely expensive diamond necklace. I give the movie high marks not only for its excellent story telling, but because not enough true stories are told about women who try to fight the ruling system.  (Subject: Women, Heroine, History, France) Director: Charles Shyer

Continue reading »]]> Mary Poppin’s “Give Women the Vote” song just joined the 21st century through a rendition of Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance. I’m thrilled that there are slowly more and more independent short films focusing on women’s issues and done in a funny way. It’s marvelous that producers, writers and directors can take a serious topic and approach it with fun and humor. I believe those tactics alone represent a new age of feminism (ahem, fourth wave feminism) that no longer isolates the objectors and objected but critically addresses a topic with less aggression so the message can be easily, effectively and enjoyably understood by all. Brava. I particularly cracked up at the line, ”We just want to wear pants.” Women may have gotten the vote in 1920 but contemporary reinterpretations reminds us modern gals that there is a lot to be thankful for. If you’re into 4th Wave feminist media, check out this classic: Jane Austen’s Fight Club.