I don’t see how getting your pictures taken before the ceremony is a “feminist” thing to do.

I don’t buy this list of five current feminist bridezilla trends. And why? Because they’re kinda lame.

I understand the name change issue and I support it. If you don’t want to change your name, that’s fine. If your husband doesn’t want to change his name, that’s fine too. If your some how believe that making up a new name in any way is different than changing your last name to match your future spouses, you’re probably diluting yourself, but I support it anyways. I can buy the name change as a feminist trend.

However, I completely disagree that taking the pictures BEFORE the ceremony as a feminist trend. Is this the trend to combat the “don’t reveal your dress before the big day” thing? Is that really a part of the patriarchy that demands fighting against? Or is this really just an attempt at embracing good time management skills? The thing about weddings is that they are a cultural institution that changes. Couples getting their wedding pictures taken before the ceremony are doing that so they can free up time at the reception. And why do they need that time? So they can participate in having signature drinks available to their guests, a 12 course meal, dancing till dawn, and then a special midnight snack for their after party. So it’s almost a trick for brides to spend more money on the reception. Hmmmm.

And that brings me to Mangagement rings. I know a guy who’s worn one. For some brides, it’s very important that they propose, that they own the process, and that they aren’t surprised. And, hopefully, when they find the right guy to marry, he’ll be accepting of her needs and either won’t care about proposing or won’t mind not being the one to do the asking. Encouraging women to not be afraid to say “I want to get married” is a good thing. But there’s something about mangagement rings that bothers me. I use to think I’d wear one and I probably would have if it came to that. Who wouldn’t want to wear a fabulous piece of man jewelry? I guess I’m wondering if this is a one way trap. If the men get rings but the women don’t, that seems less about equality and more about trying to mix struggles against the patriarchy within your own engagement (and this concept of equality and what that means is something that I, as a person who advocates equal treatment to mexicans and latinos and other racial minorities, is something I struggle with defining and relating to people who don’t necessarily agree with me all the time). But if it’s merely a two way street, where the woman gets the ring, the guy gets the ring, and both are labeled as “taken” and, if you’re in New York State, both rings become legal contracts to say that you’re going to marry each other – which all engagement rings technically are here – then I think it’s a fantastic idea. It’s an extension of the New York Manhattan Bride trend of giving your guy an engagement gift like, say, a really expensive watch. Or, what I want, a really big plasma screen tv. Though that might be a pain in the ass to carry around in my hand all day long.