The Disappearance of Gendered Roles and Constructs in Wedding Rituals in American History
By Lily Foussé
I’m not sure if I will wear a white dress at my wedding. Most of my closet is vibrant, so my dress could be pink, blue, green, or dare I say… black.. I don’t know who will walk me down the aisle. Will it be my dad? My step-dad? Neither? It could be my best friend, my dog, or no one at all. Will I even walk down an aisle? I’m not sure. My bridesmaids will include a few men, I’m sure. I also would want for my husband to feel like he can be as emotional on this day as I most likely will be. My marriage officiant would not include any biblical references nor would I want to be signed off to a man as his object for the rest of my life after I marry. I would imagine that my husband and I equally split up the work of planning the wedding. These are some of the choices that I get to make one day, when I am ready to marry. I have participated in both of my parents’ second marriages, both of which were entirely different kinds of celebrations, which has presented the concept of weddings to me as one that shapeshifts to fit the style of the people that are getting married. Although, this was not always the case. Had I been born 100 years ago, I would have not had the say in the kind of marriage I would want to have, nor who I would want to marry. Although, as time has progressed, this has changed to stay current with the ways of the world.
The importance of researching wedding evolution comes from its strong presence in cultures globally, as well as my own life. They are such a long lasting tradition. However, what is particularly interesting is their evolution from the colonial times to current day, which is the timeline I will be focusing on. Throughout this paper, I will discuss and argue, in chronological order, how weddings, over time, in Western culture from the 18th century onward, have shifted from being a survival strategy with extreme gendered roles, to how they have become more recently, centered around love and egalitarianism. Weddings are also very fascinating as a concept because, as I will describe throughout this paper, they adapt and accommodate themselves to the state of society - as womanhood and manhood have shifted over time, so have the manners of a wedding. I will begin this paper by discussing the history of the wedding from the colonial time to modern times for background information and knowledge. Then I will argue my case and point of the disappearance of genderedness in weddings in relation to these historical moments. Finally, I will close with a brief counterargument before concluding.
In colonial times in the United States, between the 18th and 19th century, marriage looked entirely different from how it is perceived today. In today’s world, marriage involves a strong sense of love for one another, however, in colonial times, this was not a factor involved in the decision-process. It considered religion, increasing labor force, forging connections to other families to create mutual benefits, and combining resources (1). The kind of household labor that was required was very intensive and rigorous - a very hands-on experience, such as chopping down trees or killing and preparing animals to be eaten. Thus, the more hands the better. This meant that marriage was ultimately a survival strategy, not about love. It took into consideration reproduction in a very pragmatic sense. After all, you cannot build a growing society out of fleeting emotions, right? “Emotions were fickle and not to be trusted. Romantic love did not figure in the parents’ equations, and it was not until about the middle of the eighteenth century, when parental influence began to decline, that the concept of love got serious consideration as a matrimonial prerequisite” (2). With families joining hands, their “work force” could grow to be more efficient, making house chores more productive. Marriage was of high pressure for those of higher success and status because “the survival and consolidation of the families’ power and prosperity were at stake” (3). Marriage was also a decision that was helped made by family members (4). For example, the man of interest for courtship would have to sit at the table with the young woman’s parents, family members, or guardians to discuss the negotiations - he had to have what it took financially (with money and land) to take care of his future wife and keep her in good shape (5). Once married, the spouses would grow to respect each other, but not be too fond of one another. A woman would call her husband, “reverence,” not “love” (6). It is also important to note coverture, where marriage was one entity, one person; the husband. His identity covered hers, and her whole life belonged to him. In fact, there were few to no punishments for men abusing their wives at this time (7).
This scene from Peaky Blinders is a good depiction of an early 20th century wedding in a farm “style” setting. There are strong themes of coverture - John marries this girl he does not know for the sake of burying any previous political tension between these families, and the wife has no say in this decision (of whether she wants to be married or not).
This Ladies' Home Journal article from 1911 about wedding tables shows various styles of floral arrangements and explains the stylistic reasons for why one might want to choose that style for their wedding.
As we transition through the 19th century and into early 20th century life, Americans slowly move away from farm life to city life. Weddings adapt to these changes too; before the 19th century, weddings were not very elaborate and had a rustic element to them. Midway through the 19th century, weddings grew to have a more serious tone, and were regularly set in a church (8). According to The Book of Good Manners by Mrs. Burton Kingsland, written in 1905, weddings at the time required a very courtly etiquette. Not only that, but she makes it very clear that women and men distinctly have very specific roles to play in a wedding, from the announcement of an engagement, to the wedding invitations and responsibilities in the church. The theme of gendered roles kept people locked into certain responsibilities and expectations. The way in which the female receives congratulations in relation to the male at the announcement of an engagement, which can happen verbally to close friends and family at an afternoon gathering, is very different. “The engaged man is congratulated, but one wishes the woman all happiness since the implied success, crowning pursuit and effort, is more properly ascribed to the man… A man sometimes in receiving congratulations, attempts to cover his natural embarrassment by a would-be facetiousness that is in wretched taste. A warm hand-clasp, an earnest “thank you” suffice for acknowledgement” (9). There are a few things to note in this quote in regards to the genderedness of marriage. Firstly, the difference in societal reception to the idea of domestic partnership shows that men and women had different expectations and attitudes regarding positive emotions associated with marriage. The woman is greeted with warmth and praise towards her engagement and she accepts that as it is, whereas for the man, there is less warmth towards the engagement and he denies to show too much emotion or feelings towards it either. Additionally, the prevailing attitude is such that the spouses will receive different benefits from their partnership - the woman will receive protection and happiness, according to the book, and the man, success and dominion.
Another example of the genderedness of marriage that pertains to the 20th century is the role of the wedding invitation. An example of an invitation between a supposed John Smith and the bride-to-be would read as follows; “Mr. and Mrs. John Smith invite you to their wedding…” This signifies, once again, the importance of coverture in this time, where the woman is situated under the control of the male counterpart due to the fact that her identity is placed entirely under the man’s name. Not to mention, if the woman’s name were to be included on the invitation in the same space as the male’s name, it would weaken the image of the man due to the fact that the power would be split among the couple, rather than dominated by the man.
At the wedding itself, the bride walks down the aisle and the clergyman will say something along the lines of, “who giveth this woman to be married to this man?”, and the father of the bride will take her right hand in the hand of the clergy who, then, gives it to the hand of the groom (10). This kind of wording by the clergyman and the action of passing the bride’s hand from father to husband is very degrading for the woman as she is being passed from being the father’s property, to then being the husband’s property.
Progressing into the mid 20th century, the themes of marriage changed with a rapidly evolving society. From roughly 50 years ago of having the groom take control over the bride once she has been passed on from her father, to now, the 1950s, a lot has changed. While there are still elements of strict bride and wedding etiquette, the gender roles have shifted to be a little bit more balanced on both sides. According to Engagement Etiquette written by Bettina Loomis in 1955, the bride’s parents should still be the ones to have the privilege of giving the announcement party, however, everyone could attend this party. Both men and women. “If the party is to be a big one, you won’t be faced with the problem of editing the guest list, you’ll simply invite everyone” (11). This differs from previous times because the engagement parties and celebration dinners of the past would in most cases be split by gender, where the ladies honored the marriage at home, and the men at a restaurant or club (12). Not to mention, previously the wedding invites and other written cards would include only the groom’s full name, whereas in the mid 20th century, Engagement Etiquette suggests that you can make the announcement by distributing favors with the initials of both members of the couple. This detail seems inconsequential, but on a larger historical scale, it goes to show the progress of the slow fading of genderedness in marriage and wedding rituals. An engagement toast is still very important, especially to the father of the bride. Engagement Etiquette suggests that the father may want to do a witty or elaborate toast, unless he is the “retiring type, he needn’t say any more than “let’s drink to Mary Lou and Bob””.
This 1945 issue of Seventeen Magazine shows an advertisement for "Keepsake" jewelry and their high standards for their diamond rings. Not only is it interesting to pay attention to the price of these rings from this time, but also the kinds of styles of rings that are worthy to be "the one".
This Good Housekeeping article from 1934 provides insight into how one might have wanted to enjoy their engagement party during this time, and a guide to an appropriate way to style a "luncheon" for the occasion. It is interesting to note what kinds of decorations and elements of the planning people thought were suitable for an event like this in comparison to now.
Heading into the late 20th century, there is a vast contrast between the once regimented ritual that a wedding was, to being more complicated than ever before.
“Today’s weddings are often more complicated: couples are marrying later in life, and for almost 30 percent it’s the second or third trip down the aisle. Their parents, who don’t necessarily foot the bills, may have divorced and remarried. As a result, problems arise that never did before–and old-style etiquette can’t help” (13).
In Test Your Wedding Style by Ann Scharffenberger, the author answers questions about supposedly sticky wedding situations that the readers have. They range from questions about if it is ok to wear white at their second or third wedding, if the couple is allowed to pay for their wedding while being respectful to their parents, and even how to involve the kids of one’s spouse in the wedding from their previous marriage. This is a very modern adaptation to the wedding. To think that now, people have to account for all kinds of variables that they never once had to plan for in prior times, due to the fact that there is more freedom and flexibility in the event. The way that Scharffenberger answers these complex questions takes into consideration emotion and respect. It’s less about telling what the woman and man need to do individually, and rather how can the couple move forward together in these issues that they face.
This movie clip from Father of the Bride is a great example of a modern day approach to discussing marriage in a typical American family, which contrasts heavily from previous times. The father strongly disapproves of his daughter wanting to marry at the "young" age of 22, whereas in Colonial times, women were married at this age.
What’s more, men in the late 20th century pick up more active roles in the wedding planning process. They help decide the wedding site, attend engagement parties thrown in their honor, and have their families more involved as well, which in turn means that they share some wedding expenses too (14). In doing this, it shows that weddings were once a purely practical event for men, but they are now allowed to give the event more thought and share their own visions and details for the wedding. This was once predominantly a woman’s role, as they are the ones that are more “detail-oriented” individuals than men. So as seeing that men over time have employed these “detail-oriented” duties more and more, it erases the feminine connotation that is associated with it.
All of this being said, the slow disintegration of gender roles in marriage and wedding rituals is not a linear progression. American society has taken impressive steps to progress past the strict rules of the wedding as they once were in the 18th and 19th century. However, society still perpetuates themes of gender inequality in wedding rituals. A prominent and modern example of gender inequality in action is the expectation of the male marriage proposal. This moment for men in their lifetime is “scripted as a masculine moment…men are expected to play the active role, and women to be passive and reactive” (15). This is a very high pressure to experience as a man, especially as only a small percentage of women propose to their male counterparts (16). It is possible for women to play a more active role in this by having a mutual agreement prior to the proposal that they both want to be married, but it seems that from the woman’s perspective, they want men “to let them know that they have been chosen and are worthy of their partner’s love and commitment” (17). There is not necessarily anything wrong with sticking to the patriarchal tradition of the proposal, in fact, many gendered expectations are still appreciated for their romantic efforts. However it is interesting to note how many of the wedding traditions have changed overtime, but some still remain intact.
Similarly, another patriarchal tradition that has persisted through time is the woman’s changing of her last name upon marriage. The idea of this tradition is that the changing of the name indicates that women and their children belong to men in a hierarchical order in the way that they belonged to men in previous centuries (18). There are cases in which this tradition does not have to do with a hierarchical order, but something as simple as wanting to display nuclear family values, wanting to maintain “wife identity”, or maybe even because a spouse prefers the other spouse’s last name. In either case, a woman has the decision to choose whether she may keep or drop her last name, and should not be judged for her final verdict. But, because this societal standard still remains a common practice among married people, if a woman chooses to keep her own last name, she may encounter negative reactions from friends or family, extending to the point where her marital commitment may be questioned in unwanted settings (19).
With the wide variety of culture and religion integrated in today’s Western society, it is very hard to generalize wedding standards and rituals as everyone has a slightly varied idea of what their special day should look like. Being able to say that, however, really does emphasize that the wedding really is no longer what it used to be. If I am able to choose not only who I get to marry, but have autonomy over all the specificities of my marriage without the say of my parents or extended family, I know that the times have changed. There definitely will remain cultural and religious implications of marriage that keep some hierarchical and patriarchal traditions. Regardless, the wedding rituals of today’s Western cultures are ultimately defined by the individual, and no longer the institution.
Internal Citations
Lecture, March 23, 2023
Andrew Gardner, “Courtship, Sex, and the Single Colonist.” The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site, 2007. https://research.colonialwilliamsburg.org/Foundation/journal/Holiday07/court.cfm.
Ibid
Lecture, March 23, 2023
Andrew Gardner, “Courtship, Sex, and the Single Colonist.” The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site, 2007. https://research.colonialwilliamsburg.org/Foundation/journal/Holiday07/court.cfm.
Lecture, March 23, 2023
Ibid
Ibid
Burton Kingsland, The Book of Good Manners: “Etiquette for All Occasions” (New York: Doubleday, 1904) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89098851561&view=1up&seq=35&q1=wedding
Ibid
Bettina Loomis. "ENGAGEMENT ETIQUETTE: YOUR ANNOUNCEMENT PARTY." Good Housekeeping, 07, 1955 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1846743197?accountid=9676%20(accessed%20March%2030,%202023).&parentSessionId=YIss%2FjccuRZJakLMC%2BNy0nGypv8S19TdI61I%2FRzwXOE%3D&imgSeq=1
Burton Kingsland, The Book of Good Manners: “Etiquette for All Occasions” (New York: Doubleday, 1904) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89098851561&view=1up&seq=35&q1=wedding
Ann Scharffenberger. "Test Your Wedding Style." Redbook, 05, 1984, 109-109, 166, https://ezproxy.bu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fmagazines%2Ftest-your-wedding-style%2Fdocview%2F2016388771%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D9676.
Rosen, Margery D., and Jane Marks. 1985. THE MARRIAGE REPORT: MARRIAGE IS BACK IN STYLE ...WITH A DIFFERENCE. Ladies' Home Journal. 06, https://ezproxy.bu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fmagazines%2Fmarriage-report%2Fdocview%2F1926483123%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D9676
Ellingsæter, A. L. (2023). Resisting or maintaining gender inequality? Wedding traditions among Norwegian millennials. Acta Sociologica, 66(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993221074826
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
About The Author
Lily was born and raised in London, England with a French dad and an American mom. Being a third culture kid, she doesn’t necessarily resonate strongly with one particular place as “home”, rather, anywhere she ends up, as long as she has loved ones nearby, may be called home. Although she enjoys Boston, Lily loves traveling and moving around more, which is why after college, she would like to live in a new city. She loves fashion, photography, dogs, being blonde, and her hair feather. Lily will graduate in 2025 with a BS in Public Relations.