History of Feminism
Related: About this forumPlease allow me to confess to some patriarchal thinking
Witness my shame here.
That thread was rare for me not because I was convinced of the error of my ways--which happens fairly often--but rather because I have seldom been made to see so clearly that I was so totally wrong.
I had hoped to discuss my thoughts about attacking the bigoted, intolerant views of an acquaintance, but in my framing of the situation I revealed my own equally egregious error, and the fact that it took me so long in-thread to realize it only makes it worse.
Please don't think that I'm seeking praise for getting my head out of my ass. Rather, I hoped to share a moment in which I was helped to see how readily and unconsciously I had overlooked my own habit of wrong-headed thinking, and how valuable such moments of realization can be.
Specifically, this reply by noamnety is what lit the lightbulb for me, and it's even better because it was a response to such early post in the discussion--really showing my basic error, close to its source in the thread.
In short, I'll gladly take a little public shaming if it helps me to realize how much I have yet to realize.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Other times, it does not. Sanctimonious people like your friend are using patriarchal cultural beliefs to shame people and make herself look pious.
In this case, is it beneficial to turn those beliefs back on her to affect change? I say no, but promulgating those patriarchal beliefs really isn't the reason.
For instance, as an agnostic, am I promoting religious intolerance by pointing out to bible-thumping homophobes that God hates shrimp but not gays? My point isn't really to get people to stop eating shrimp.
I don't think you were totally wrong... just likely to have failed.
ismnotwasm
(41,986 posts)How about some history? I found this and it's kind interesting
When the question Why do brides where white is asked, the most frequent answer is Because Queen Victoria did, or to show that they are virgins.
The first answer is more or less accurate, but glosses over centuries of white wedding dresses worn before Queen Victorias wedding, and decades of coloured wedding dresses after her wedding, and also doesnt explain why Victoria wore a white wedding dress. The 2nd answer is mostly rubbish and dates to the mid-20th century.
Long before Victoria, white was a popular choice for wedding dresses, at least among the wealthy nobility.
Weddings were usually more about political alliances and transfers of wealth than they were about romance, and so the wedding dress was just another excuse to show the wealth and culture of the brides family. Wealth could be demonstrated with jewelry (brides in some parts of Renaissance Italy, for example, wore their dowry sewn onto their dress as jewels), but textiles were also an important means to display wealth, and the more elaborate the weave of the fabric, and the richer the fibres uses, and the rarer the colour, the better the demonstration of wealth. Before the invention of effective bleaching techniques, white was a valued colour: it was both difficult to achieve, and hard to maintain. Wealthy brides, then, often wore white to demonstrate their money, not their purity.
http://thedreamstress.com/2011/04/queen-victorias-wedding-dress-the-one-that-started-it-all/
hlthe2b
(102,285 posts)and to change accordingly.