Posts tagged with history.
This picture is from a 'before and after' album that I posted on FB. Personally I think Jack and I look better when we're not exposing our foreheads. I really hate my hairline. =/
You can check out more before and after pictures on my FB. That's where the majority of you come from anyway. Creepers! Leave a comment once in a while. Eesh! =P
I've been reading up on what kinds of flowers people usually use at their weddings to get an idea of style, prices, and types of arrangements. What I've noticed is that there is a lot of hatred for carnations. Why? They are such beautiful flowers. They look like smaller versions of peonies and (in my opinion) they're better looking than roses. I've been trying to research the history of carnations and why there is so much hatred for them but I haven't really found anything other than 'older generations think they're cheap and tacky.' So here is my speculation on this topic.
A bouquet of carnations resemble a bouquet of roses (in comparison to other flowers like gladiolas, irises, calla lillies, orchids, etc.). Carnations are much more inexpensive than roses because they're easier to cultivate and they are much more hardy than hybrid roses (wild roses are different but who uses those in wedding bouquets). In bouquets carnations are more hardy than roses - carnations last longer and stay together better than roses which usually fall apart with minor distress. Roses are a symbol of elegance and privilege (think the Queen's tea roses). I think that previously when people could not afford roses they would use carnations as a substitute to mimic roses and attempt to gain status by being like the upper class. Roses symbolized status since those who could afford roses were financial stable to do so. Hence, roses became a symbol of privelege that has continued today. Because people can afford more than carnations now, it is seen as cheap and tacky because all they represent is the lower-class trying to be like the upper-class (hence, tacky). In a sense, since the lower classes have increased their own consumer power (even though it is nowhere in comparison to the upper class), the lower classes continue with the fiscade to minim the status of the privileged by having roses at their wedding. To go back to carnations would be disasterous to the progression of the lower class.
Carnations are making a 'come back', but that usually happens when enough generations have passed that nobody knows their history. I love carnations and I'm pretty sure I will use it in my bouquet. This is mostly because foxgloves (my favourite flower) are poisonous to humans and I don't want to kill any kids at the wedding.
Btw, when I was reading this page on the meaning of carnations, they stated, "Christians believe that the first carnation bloomed on earth when Mary wept for Jesus as he carried his cross." Who the fuck believes that? And are they referring to European Christians? Hello! There are other Christians in this world besides European Christians. Honestly, can't people keep their ethnocentric bullshit out of educational material. I should put my own twist on that statement and make it more Indian. "Christians believe that the first banana tree bloomed on earth when Jesus turned water into wine." I took out the Mary part since I'm not Catholic. And that was another problem too. Christian does not always mean Catholic. Eesh! =/
I had decided for quite some time that I would not change my name after I got married. I don't see why I should since it has always been my name and as you've probably figured out from my previous posts, I'm not a person that complies to traditions that are personally meaningless. I have encountered people who are all for women changing their names to their husband's surname - many of whom have different reasons for doing so (symbolizing becoming a single family unit, showing submission to your husband, thinking it is romanting, etc. BS etc.). I have also encountered women who are against women having to change their surnames for various reasons as well (against patriarchal structures, against women being possessions of men, etc.). Personally I think there is a lot of BS on both sides. Whether you change your name or not most likely you will be keeing the surname of either your father or husband - both symbolizing partiarchy. As well, taking upon your husband's surname doesn't necessarily mean you are a docile pushover woman or a woman who is so infatuated with romantic Diesneyland fairytale endings that you don't see how problematic the history of name changes are.
Whatever other people decide, I have my own reasons. The gist of it is, I think my name sounds better with my surname name than it does with Jack's surname. I am also proud of my ancestry and I do not see why only my male cousins should keep our family name. Plus it sounds really stupid hyphenated or merged.
Jack used to have a problem with me not wanting to change my name, but he came around to the idea once he realized how stupid it is to make someone change their name because of tradition. It alsogoes to show how Canadian soceity socializes people to think that a woman should be the only one to change her surname since in Taiwanese culture the women keep their surnames after marriage. I've also heard people of Chinese descent brag about how their culture does not except women to change their surnames, as if this somehow reflects the great degree of egalitarianism they have. Haha...right. The reason for this is because women were never seen as part of their husband's family because they were not blood related. A woman will always be a part of her natal home and in a sense, was only seen as a sexual and physical force of labour for her husband's family - pop the kids and take care of his parents. It is just another form of oppressive patriarchy.
Really, there isn't a win-win situation for this name-change issue. You can keep your surname which is your father's family's name, or change your name to your husband's family's name. Either way you're keeping a man's name. There is the option of hyphenating names or merging names, which I think is a better alternative since it is more egalitarian but not always practical. As well, even though in Canada it is legal for married peoples to have different surnames that doesn't mean that those who choose this option are treated equally to single-name households. Think about the constant explanations that will come from it - to strangers, government officials, stupid paperwork that is limiting to Others, etc. I think a lot of people change their names today even though they know the patriarchal, oppressive origins of the tradition, because it is just easier to conform than stand out and tell people to fuck off. Thankfully, I am a fuck off type of girl. If I wasn't, I would probably be a business major (read: shoot me) marrying an Indian boy (read: eww).
I always thought the reason that Christian and Jewish brides wore veils was because of modesty and the reason Christians (I'm not sure if Jews do this too) lift the veil during the ceremony is because of what happened to Jacob when he tried to marry Rachel and got tricked into marrying Leah. So to make sure the groom is marrying the right person they lift the veil before they consumate the marriage so they know who they are marrying. Well turns out there are more meanings behind wearing wedding veils. I didn't want to wear a veil before (didn't have a purpose and one less thing to buy) and after reading this I am definitely dead set against it. Sexist assholes!
[Source 1]
The bride's veil and bouquet are of greater antiquity than her white
gown. Her veil, which was yellow in ancient Greece and red in ancient
Rome, usually shrouded her from head to foot, and has since the
earliest of times, denoted the subordination of a woman to man. The
thicker the veil, the more traditional the implication of wearing
it.
According to tradition, it is considered bad luck for the bride to be seen by the groom before the ceremony. As a matter of fact, in the old days of marriage by purchase, the couple rarely saw each other at all, with courtship being of more recent historical emergence.
The lifting of the veil at the end of the ceremony symbolizes male dominance. If the bride takes the initiative in lifting it, thereby presenting herself to him, she is showing more independence.
Veils came into vogue in the United States when Nelly Curtis wore a veil at her wedding to George Washington's aid, Major Lawrence Lewis. Major Lewis saw his bride to be standing behind a filmy curtain and commented to her how beautiful she appeared. She then decided to veil herself for their ceremony.
[Source 2]
An occasion on which a Western woman is likely to wear a veil is on her wedding day, if she follows the traditions of a white wedding. Brides used to wear their hair flowing down their back at their wedding to
symbolise their virginity, now the white diaphanous veil is often said
to represent this.
It is not altogether clear that the wedding veil is a non-religious use of this item, since weddings have almost always had religious underpinnings, especially in the West: in the Christian tradition this is expressed in the Gospel passage, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder" (Mt. 19:6). Veils, however, had been used in the West for weddings long before this. Roman brides, for instance, wore an intensely flame-colored and fulsome veil, called the flammeum, apparently intended to protect the bride from evil spirits on her wedding day.
The lifting of the veil was often a part of ancient wedding ritual, symbolising the groom taking possession of the wife, either as lover or as property, or the revelation of the bride by her parents to the groom for his approval.
In ancient Judaism the lifting of the veil took place just prior to the consummation of the marriage in sexual union. The uncovering or unveiling that takes place in the marriage ceremony is a symbol of what will take place in the marriage bed. Just as the two become one through their words spoken in wedding vows, so these words are a sign of the physical oneness that they will consummate later on. The lifting of the veil is a symbol and an anticipation of this. In the story in the Book of Genesis, a man named Laban tricks Jacob into marrying the wrong woman. Because of the heavy veil that was not raised until after the union was complete, Jacob married the older and homelier of Laban's daughters, Leah, instead of the young and beautiful Rachel, whom he loved. The deceit resulted in Jacob eventually having both his wives. The story also resulted in the Jewish practice where a groom lowers the veil before the ceremony and lifts the veil before the kiss. This practice is known as badeken.
Read about more meanings behind Western wedding traditions here.
© Copyright 2012 Jack Hsu.