The nagging wife: symptom or cause?

The 'nagging wife' is a centuries-old stereotype that refuses to die. She's the subject of eye-rolling banter between men, the warning from the pulpit and the marriage guidance book, the defence of countless men who have committed murder. In recent weeks, she has resurfaced as a truly 21st century reminder to women that there's something else they're probably not doing well enough at - in the form of a piece entitled 'I wasn't treating my husband fairly, and it wasn't fair'.

The post, which appears to have gone viral in the grand tradition of 'pseudo-meaningful revelations about my relationship that easily translate into clickbait' (247,000 shares on Facebook), details a wife's realisation that her controlling and obsessive attitude to household matters was belittling her husband and buying into another hard-to-stamp-out stereotype - that of the 'useless' husband who can't be trusted to do a thing around the house.

Thousands upon thousands of women have apparently recognised themselves in this tale and I don't think she's entirely wrong. I've heard her tale in conversations in the office or on nights out with friends. 'Wife always knows best' - 'happy wife, happy life' - I've heard people say it and I've most definitely seen them post it on Facebook (there is a theme here. Facebook has a lot to answer for). And I don't buy into it because, really, what does it say when the only words that come out of your mouth regarding your partner, your husband, the father of your children - are about how 'useless' he is and how you won't 'let' him do things?

This works both ways. It's clear that men and women are called to respect and honour each other and sickly relationship-themed clickbait is, for all its faults, reasonably good at pointing this out. However what's often noticeable is the way this point is made differently, depending on whether the post in question is primarily about, or written by, a man or a woman. A key theme in relationship-focused clickbait from men (particularly of the loosely Christian variety): 'You'll be bawling your eyes out when you read about the amazing thing this guy did for his wife'. Conversely, a key theme in relationship-focused clickbait from women: 'The one thing I realised I needed to do more of/less of as a wife and mother'. As ever, identifying our inadequacies and how we must 'do better' defines us as women.

In writing about her tendency to take control and insist that things are done 'her way' - the purchasing of meat, the sorting of laundry - one woman has identified a key way that power struggles between couples often play out. She mentions that she doesn't believe men act in the same way towards women, referencing the fact her husband is 'just not as concerned with some of the minutiae as I am'. But what she doesn't identify is what is so often the reason for this, and the reason for the way women frequently feel compelled to assert power.

I don't know many women who are comfortable with simply doing nothing. Relaxing, chilling out, whatever you prefer to call it. I'm one of them. I've had countless conversations with friends where we've discussed our discomfort with sitting still. There are, quite simply, always things that must be done, whether that means housework or running errands or getting through our 'to read' list or writing another blog post. Not for nothing do we talk about the 'second shift' or the 'double burden' - the fact that women's increased entry into the workplace has not resulted, in the majority of cases, in an egalitarian set-up when it comes to housework, childcare, and the general organisation of family life. 

Even women who do enjoy a more equal partnership struggle to allow themselves downtime, knowing at the same time that their partners have no such qualms about relaxing - and for many it's learned from childhood in the way they've seen the household roles their parents have played.

The curse of modern womanhood, as we all know too well, is that whatever you do and however you do it, feelings of guilt and inadequacy will snap at your heels like an angry terrier. The majority of society, from politicians to journalists, to people on parenting forums and your own relatives have a wealth of opinions on what constitutes acceptable womanhood and unfortunately, most of us socialised to care a whole lot about what others think about us and out lifestyle choices.

This, of course, happens in different ways. I enjoy a pretty egalitarian marriage and couldn't care less if I haven't dusted my mantelpieces in living memory, but I've certainly considered myself a bit of a let-down for sitting on the sofa watching television when emails have languished in my inbox and projects haven't moved forward as quickly as I would have liked (and those are personal emails and personal projects, not even work-related ones).

Even today, especially today, the running of the home and of family life inevitably falls on the shoulders of women. Even if it doesn't, in theory - for those in equal partnerships for example - we still consider it our responsibility, berating ourselves internally when they let something slip. The minutiae of daily life all too easily becomes a source of anxiety - I know I've had to remind myself that I am, in fact, allowed to relax and that this is not the same thing as laziness. And for many women, the efficiency and performance of the minutiae of daily life is one of the few areas in which they can exert power and control.

Guarding against a hunger for power and control is something all humans must do. A toxic force within relationships and families, it often manifests in differing ways because of the ways men and women are brought up to behave and to gain power, and the ways society considers it acceptable for them to do so. Discouraged from speaking our minds and pursuing confrontation or appearing to 'dominate' a relationship, women are encouraged instead to resort to manipulation and only ever to demonstrate indirectly that they might 'know best', or indeed have feelings about anything at all. It's even a tactic that's encouraged by numerous Christian books on marriage: upholding traditional gender roles means subtly manipulating and influencing your husband rather than asking him or telling him. That would, of course, be 'nagging', or assuming a dominant role.

'Nagging', and the range of emotions and issues it encompasses - the wrong meat purchased, the blue sock accidentally included in the white wash, the fact that somehow, people do things differently to you and that's just not right - must therefore be looked at as part of the wider picture of how women are permitted to exercise control over their own lives and the lives of others. 

The key sphere in which women are permitted by society to exercise authority is the home. In a world of judgement, anxiety and the feeling that whatever you do will somehow be not good enough and that there are countless factors in your life that you can't control, household tasks are one of things that you can. Whereas men are allowed to assert authority in the public sphere and as the 'head of the household', women remain largely responsible for all that lies beneath, and even today, they know that their worth as women is often judged by it.

Men have - usually - not been brought up to notice the minutiae of the home and family life. They haven't had to, because, historically, it's always been women's work. It's something that's been done for them and they've often never really had to think about it - yet many (not all) expect it to somehow get done anyway. Even in relationships where both partners truly don't care about crumbs on the floor and the correct brand of mayonnaise being purchased, women feel compelled to set standards lest they be judged by society, their friends, their mother-in-law - and found wanting in a way that men never will. 

In a world where this burden still inevitably falls to women, in a world where humans want control and power, the woman whose anxiety and anger over things not being done 'her way' can be seen as a symptom, not just a cause, of gender relations that need restoration. Perhaps a more balanced and egalitarian approach to home life - where tasks and responsibilities are not gendered - might alleviate the need to control and 'take charge' over simple household tasks.

The Fifties: a warning from history

I purchased The Fifties Mystique, Jessica Mann's new memoir-cum-warning, at the weekend after reading her piece for the Guardian entitled "What do you mean, the good old days?" The article was an intriguing read, discussing how Mann feels that today's women are wrong to wish for a return to the supposedly simpler or happier times before the massive societal changes that the 1960s and 1970s brought, and the new opportunities and choices they afforded women. Mann remembers this so-called golden age, and doesn't remember much of it with affection. It's less "the golden age" and more "The Fifties: a warning from history".

As the country has struggled with recession and assorted economic woes in recent years, the newspaper or magazine feature about the women who simply long for the "good old days" has become a bit of a cliche. The unhappy career woman who's sick of slogging her guts out at the office in return for little in the way of fulfillment. The woman who's found she can't "have it all". The middle class stay-at-home mother who has found new joy in making cushion covers, baking and wearing floral dresses. The women who idolise the 1950s as a time when they could "just be women". We keep hearing about this fad called "the new domesticity" and it's possible to track down a plethora of articles discussing whether it's fun, empowering, or a step in the wrong direction for women.

I suspect that much of this "new domesticity" fad has a great deal to do with trends in "women's interest" journalism and selling products to affluent families rather than anything else. It's about marketing a lifestyle over encouraging a genuine interest in what it involves, and I think it's also possibly on its way out as a fad, as people grow tired of ditsy print cake tins and Kirstie's Homemade Home and circular debates about cupcakes and what is and what isn't "feminist". 

But "new domesticity" aside, Mann says she is concerned that too many of today's women are wishing they lived in the past without realising what this truly would have meant for them, and for society in general. She quotes one woman as saying "I'd love to be a captive wife," one describing the post-war years as "prettier and nicer", and another, commenting on the unfairness of having to "bring home the bacon as well as cooking it". What she sets out to do through telling the story of her early life, is make people more aware of the limitations and frustrations of the era she describes in terms of its greyness, boredom, bigotry, hypocrisy and obsession with deference, while warning them not to be complacent about gender equality.

Several times, she refers to reading Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique as an important turning point for her, because it led her to realise that she was not alone. Mann had a happy marriage and loved her young children, but she was also bored and frustrated, and felt that there must be "something more" out there for her to get involved in and challenge herself. I've been reading The Feminine Mystique this year, and while I don't agree with all Friedan's assertions and see the limitations of the book, it's fascinating as a book that really hits you with just why the women's liberation movement was so angry. It's a bit fashionable these days to sneer and smirk at those ranting second wavers, and for the more conservative critics of feminism to disapprove of their unbecoming behaviour, their supposed desire to do away with "the family" and their imagined anti-children stance. Maybe fewer people would sneer if they read through some of the quotes I ended up highlighting as I read the book.

Mann is correct in saying that things today have changed to the extent that there are obviously a lot of things that many people take for granted, things that don't figure in their nostalgia for the post-war years. Ignorance and complete shame about sex and bodily functions would be one of them - from anatomical terminology to the female orgasm to contraception, Mann describes the weirdness of being totally in the dark about it all - from the antenatal classes that would start with a discussion on "How did baby get there?", to a problem page in a women's magazine that featured a letter from a mother of four asking how she could prevent having any more children. The printed answer was that she should send a stamped addressed envelope to the magazine to receive a personal response - the point being, of course, that it would have been beyond the pale for the magazine to print advice about contraception.

Another of these things that has changed beyond recognition is the position of women in public life and in the workplace. While it's obviously not ideal even now, we've moved beyond the "good old days" when women didn't have a place in public life, and a job was something you did to keep you occupied until you got married, and many jobs were simply out of bounds. Mann remembers applying for jobs and being told "Certainly not - we don't take women". She remembers never learning about the achievements of women in history at school, the uncomfortable attitudes that still faced women who went to university and took their studies seriously. The issue of women and education is something that Friedan looked at extensively in her book, and I don't think I'll forget how completely miserable I felt reading through the descriptions of accepted thinking on women and learning from the time.

Being "too bright" was supposedly a hindrance, as was wanting to "compete with men" in terms of having a job and being able to manage money. A girl who "got serious" about her studies would be "peculiar, unfeminine", while young women undergraduates told Friedan that it was most important to them to "graduate with a diamond ring on your finger" and to not be "too educated" because that wasn't what men wanted. Personal ambition for the middle class woman acceptably extended to a husband with a good job, a lovely house and a brood of beautiful children. There was little sense of sisterhood among most women because they were set up to be in constant competition for a man. It hadn't always been like this - both Friedan and Mann contrast the 1950s glorification of the housewife with the "new woman" heroines of magazines in the 1930s and 1940s, and focus on its relationship with consumerism and post-war backlash. The women of the 30s and 40s were described in terms of their dreams and ambitions. Romance was often a factor in their lives, but they were portrayed as being adventurous, being involved in a variety of jobs, being pioneers and standing up for their beliefs.

By the 1950s, dreams and ambitions were described in terms of the happiness brought by a new pair of curtains or a kitchen appliance; fulfillment was a compliment bestowed by a husband following the purchase of the latest shade of hair dye; feeling depressed was solved by deciding to have another baby. Ultimate joy was realising that you were best off in your role as the "little woman", who didn't tax herself by attempting to go back to college or understand the family finances. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many women today who could identify with any of that, despite the media's insistence on wheeling out panic pieces entitled "Do men REALLY want an intelligent woman?" or "Men: still threatened by successful women" every so often.

More alien to most women today (whether it's a feature of their own lives or not) would be the concept of having no personal ambition, no sense of self, no right to want time alone or time for personal development. Mann highlights the more open, confessional, talk-about-everything culture of the 21st century, and this is often particularly evident in the books, websites and self-help articles that encourage us to get the job we really want, achieve the goals we're really passionate about, take up new interests, have a career change, sort out our relationships, find ourselves. Mann remembers how talking about feelings, or expressing discontent with your lot in life was simply not done, particularly if that involved feeling miserable about being a housewife and mother. And gender equality was old hat, the preserve of terrifying yet slightly comical 1930s spinsters in tweed suits.

By the end of The Fifties Mystique, Mann has dealt engagingly with her own early years as an evacuee, schoolgirl, student, young wife, mother and finally, a woman looking for "more". She turns her efforts to encouraging today's women not to look at inequality and their dissatisfaction and see turning back the clock as the answer, but to look towards the problematic issues of the 21st century that are causing it instead. She mentions the stressful long hours culture of work today, the still-elusive dream of shared parenting and equality in relationships, the admonitions that we "can't have it all" that discourage women and fuel judgmental attitudes, the "old-fashioned sexism" of biological determinism (quoting Natasha Walter's excellent Living Dolls), the one-sided and exploitative approach to women's sexuality and appearance, and the fact that as during the 1950s, mothers are still to blame for everything.

"The history of women in the last one hundred and fifty years could be described as two steps forward, one step back, as when they took useful roles during the Second World War and were herded back to domesticity afterwards. Those who take hard-won rights for granted and have choices and chances once undreamed of, should recognise that the price of women's liberation is eternal vigilance," she writes.

In her article for the Guardian, Mann writes about her daughter's complaint that today, not working outside the home and enjoying motherhood is looked upon with scorn. What I see is the wider issue that most of our choices, as women, are looked upon with scorn. To work, or stay at home. Have a "career", or a "job". Have children when we're 20, or when we're 30. Send them to nursery while we work, or spend all our time with them. Pursue personal interests, or have none. Be open about enjoying sex, or be open about having issues with it. Society sets us up to judge the choices of others, creating "wars" and "catfights" rather than encouraging us to press for change. And it is this that often prevents us from seeing the bigger picture, so keen are we to assert the validity of whatever choices we've made.

Perspectives on egalitarian relationships: @god_loves_women

This week's guest post comes from someone who really inspires me with her passion and motivation. @god_loves_women tweets and blogs about her faith, her convictions for overcoming gender inequality and injustice, and gender issues in the church and scripture. She is married, and has two children.

What does egalitarian marriage look like to me?

Beautiful, challenging and working through problems

Nobody top, nobody bottom

Living life in the tension, that neither is fully right

Neither of us having a full line of sight

We both can speak and both learn and both get it wrong

It’s part of the rhythm of marriage’s song

I pray to God for answers, as does he

Neither assuming the other better hears the Almighty

God created me with a mind, voice, soul and heart

My husband he created with the same

Together we’re better, stronger, lovelier

It’s not him being in charge…it’s not me being beneath

Because when it becomes about who makes the decisions

Or whether we get a blue or green car

When it’s one way or the high way

We can be sure that we’ve lost the way

Because love is too big for someone to be in charge

It’s not me or him but rather He, the Creator who commands our way

His will is highest and all that we desire

Not my way, or his way, but His way forever

Perspectives on egalitarian relationships: Jenny Baker

Today's guest post - on the theme of shared parenting - comes from Jenny Baker. Jenny is the director of the Sophia Network and has been married to Jonny for nearly 25 years. They have two sons.

Sharing work and parenting

I grew up in the Brethren church which had very clear divisions of labour along gender lines – men made the decisions and women made the tea. My mum and dad had a very traditional, and very happy, marriage with mum giving up her job as a teacher when she had children and dad working long hours as the breadwinner. As a teenager considering what was modelled at my church, I found myself on a pendulum swing – one day thinking ‘if that’s what God wants for men and women I don’t want anything to do with God’, and the next thinking ‘if that’s what God wants then I’ll put up with it because I want to follow Jesus.’

At university when I was in a relationship with Jonny, who is now my husband, someone gave us a book called ‘Marriage as God intended’ which had incredibly prescriptive roles for men and women. That was the clincher for me; it just made me determined never to get married because I knew that constraining myself into those roles would make me slowly die inside.

Fortunately, the church we were part of put on a series of evenings exploring what the bible said about men and women, which made me rethink all I’d previously taken in through osmosis as a child. It was really liberating to discover the full equality and partnership that’s described in the bible and to think through what the redemption that Jesus won on the cross meant for relationships between men and women. It also transformed my thinking about marriage much to Jonny’s relief and we’ve now been married for nearly 25 years.

We talked a lot about what a marriage of equals would look like in practice, and from the start shared all the domestic work that comes with being an adult, as well as both finding work. After all Jonny had cooked, cleaned, washed clothes as a student and it seemed bizarre that I should suddenly do that for him once we were married as if he were a child and I was his mum. We decided that if and when we had children, we wanted to share work and parenting too. I think it was really important to make those decisions early in our relationship and to be intentional about sticking to them. I can remember feeling incredibly guilty when Jonny ironed his shirts because something in my gut said that I ‘ought’ to be doing that for him, even though rationally it made sense that we should each do our own ironing as both of us hated doing it. That feeling soon went away, but it would have been easy to give in! As one of the slogans of second wave feminism says, the personal is political – what we do inside our homes and the way we organise our relationships does affect the time and energy and attitude we have to engaging with the world outside it. So many women do the ‘double shift’ of being employed and running the household and then wonder why they are exhausted.

We had children quite early in our marriage when we were both youth workers with YFC. Although I loved my baby, I struggled with being at home on my own with him on maternity leave. So when Joel was about three months old, Jonny and I started to job-share. We ended up working three days a week each, and found a child minder for one day a week so that we could have a team day for the meetings we both needed to be at. Harry was born a couple of years later and slotted into the pattern. We had quite set routines which suited us; whoever had been at home would cook the evening meal so that we could all eat together early evening then the parent who had been at work would bath the boys and put them to bed. We were fortunate to have a management committee who gave us a six-month trial to see if it would work, and having made the decision to rent rather than buy a house, we were able to live off one salary between us. Both of us benefited from being fully engaged parents and having the stimulus of work, although I know Jonny was lonely at times as there weren’t many other dads doing the same.

We moved to London when the boys were three and five, and as they went to school we changed jobs and increased our hours until eventually we were both working full-time but in flexible situations which meant that one of us could always do the school run while they needed that. Working in the Christian charity sector has given us more freedom than other sectors so we’ve been fortunate in that sense. We had to be very organised about our diaries and discuss trips away before committing to them, to ensure that one of us was able to take care of the boys and at times we did do the ‘tag-team’ parenting thing where one of us would get home just in time for the other to go out. For us, mealtimes were really important as a foundation of our family life and we’ve really valued the discipline of sitting down together around the table every day, taking time to talk to each other. And we had to recognise that there would be seasons when one of us was incredibly busy at work and the other would need to pick up the slack at home; but then a few months later it would work the other way round.

And the boys have turned out fine. Now 19 and 22, they haven’t grown up confused about what it is to be men as some people predicted. They are both quite different in terms of temperament and interests, and I am hugely proud of them. And very grateful that we made those decisions early and stuck to them.

Perspectives on egalitarian relationships: Ruth and Nick Wells

This week's guest post on egalitarian relationships comes from Ruth and Nick Wells, who are both youthworkers living in Bournemouth. Ruth and Nick have been married for nearly 10 years and have two children.

"But who wears the trousers?"

It seems to be a trend to write about marriage as a couple, and so as those who would not want to shirk away from what is trendy (!) we have decided to follow suit. We write as a couple, approaching 10 years of marriage, who met as young people and are both Christians. We also write as people who both hold an egalitarian view of gender and marriage. We are both youthworkers and have two beautiful children. This post is anecdotal rather than an over-arching theological exposition of egalitarian theology – it is our story.

It is not uncommon for the issue of how we ‘do’ our marriage to come up with various people. From the ‘oh so Nick looks after the children too’ to ‘what, Ruth was once your boss Nick?’ we are often met with looks of incredulity! To us this is how things work best, and how we believe we are both able to outlive what it means to follow Jesus.

When people have been able to move on from the fact that we both work, and believe that Jesus, not one of us, is the ‘head’ of our marriage, the inevitable discussion is around ‘but who makes the final decision?’ This question goes something like ‘but the buck has to stop with someone doesn’t it?’ Well we are happy to report that there have been no occasions at which one of us has had to ‘pull rank’ so to speak, and at which we could not reach a decision through negotiation and that mysterious art-form ‘talking to one another’. It isn’t that we always agree - we don’t - but we have never got to the point where we couldn’t resolve something through being together and chatting it through. We have been best friends for over 15 years and as such we find that we have some understanding of how we work.

We believe that marriage isn’t a relationship bound together through the subjugation of one party to another, but is one of mutual submission, respect and love. We also find it hard to imagine that if someone has to always ‘pull rank’ on decisions or forcible stop the buck, that there isn’t something fundamentally at odds in the relationship. It seems plausible to us that no-one needs be assigned the ‘in-charge’ monitor of the marriage. Just as Israel in the Old Testament sought to replace God with an earthly King, we believe that people sometimes mistakenly feel the need to replace Jesus, as the over-seer of the marriage, with man.

So what does our marriage ‘look like’? Well, following having our children we decided to both continue working part-time jobs to not only ‘provide’ financially, but to pursue our callings as people, and also parents. Our children get to see each of us as parents with roles within the home and as providers with our work roles – demonstrating that it is important to have dreams and aspirations and to seek to step into what God has gifted each of us in. We believe that our children do not have pre-scripted roles as they grow up, but are free to explore their own God-given gifting regardless of their anatomical make-up. It is not always easy to maintain this balance of life, work and children, but it is something we strive for and something that others find difficult to grasp.

A case in point would be following an interesting conversation about gender roles one New Year, when we found out that some other local Christians had reported that they knew who ‘wears the trousers in that relationship’! It wasn’t meant as praise for us both feeling able to be articulate opinions as part of dialogue. It was derogatory and hurtful. It suggested that because we both had a say about things, because we were both comfortable and confident to look after our children and because we did not fulfil stereotypes of ‘firm husband’ and ‘demure wife’ there was something wrong. It is saddening to us that the utter joy, love and freedom we find in our marriage is not found by others. It is tragic that so many women feel they have to put their own callings on hold for the sake of their husbands. It is sad that so many men miss out of being ‘Dad’ because they dare not shy away from the crippling shackles of over-working in order to be seen to ‘provide’.

So we want to give Jesus the trousers, if that’s not some kind of blasphemy?! He is the one who heads up our marriage and it is to him that we are accountable. We will continue to try and hold each other in love, respect and mutuality whilst trying to find fun, adventure and joy in the journey.

Perspectives on egalitarian relationships: Bekah Legg

Some weeks ago, and after lengthy discussions online about it, I asked my fellow bloggers to write guest posts for me on the subject of egalitarian relationships. The reason? Many of us felt that it's hard to find books or other resources about it. Resources that don't even present an egalitarian relationship as an option, or resources that focus heavily on gender stereotypes and set 'roles'. I asked people to write about their own experiences, to explain what relationships look like for them, as a way of unpacking some of the confusion and attempting to answer the questions that always arise.

"But when push comes to shove, who makes the final decision? What if someone needs to have the final say?"
"But what are you teaching your children about gender roles?"
"So are you trying to say that men and women are the same?"

So each week I'm going to be featuring one of these posts. If you'd like to write one, or have already committed to writing one but haven't yet got round to it, feel free to send it to me, because I hope this will be an ongoing project.

This week's post comes from Bekah Legg. Bekah is editor of Liberti magazine and programme director of Liberti Life, a local schools work project that seeks to empower and equip young people through workshops and mentoring. She is kept on her toes at home by six fabulous children and a husband who occasionally dices with death by singing "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow" when she's feeling overwhelmed.

"Me and my egalitarian marriage." 

It sounds quite grand when you say it like that, but the truth is I fell into it by accident. I have friends who practically had a manifesto set up before they went on the hunt for the man of their life which detailed exactly what was and wasn’t acceptable, detailed how they would or would not change their name, what their wedding vows would look like and they had an outline schedule prepared for sharing childcare when the time came.

I really didn’t think that much. I probably should have – I’d already been married once, to someone who turned out to be not just determined to be my head but to push submission on me in ways I had never imagined. I had had my spirit broken and my heart torn apart by a, once upon a time charming, man who, when I challenged him that he treated me like the home help, pointed out that I was less than that as at least he didn’t have to pay me.

In the aftermath of that, I didn’t formulate the kind of equality I would desire in the future. I just knew that if I were ever to give myself to anyone again – it would be because they made me feel safe. Not in the big man who can fight someone for me way, I’d learned that wasn’t such a great thing. But that I would feel safe to be me with them, that I knew they would never abuse me or manipulate me or control me, that they would listen to and value my opinion not belittle me and tell me what to do.

It’s only since I’ve been married to someone who does all those things that I have gradually appreciated the sheer gift it is to be valued as an equal on every level. I am still delighted to discover that my husband is proud of my brains – that he isn’t intimidated by them, that he’s happy to put me forward for things when he knows I’m better at them than him or that it would be good for me to have a go. I love that he’ll stay home and look after the kids, cook the tea and clean the bathrooms when I’m given an opportunity to go and speak.

When we disagree over how to do something he doesn’t get angry or insist on his way but we sit and chat it through and sometimes he shifts and agrees with me and sometimes I move and agree with him – not because I have to, not because it’s my place to submit, but because he convinced me with his reasoning.

I am slowly coming to appreciate the sheer freedom there is in a relationship like this where I feel able to utterly respect my husband because I know he totally respects me. I think it’s Ephesians 5:21 in action – mutual submission. This passage goes on to unpack verse 21 and people conveniently forget that the whole section on relationships is rooted in submitting to one another. Paul goes on to explain mutual submission in terms women and then men will understand but he starts by saying submit to each other.

The thing that I think is most notable here is that in his next breath, he talks to kids and parents and slaves and masters and here, kids and slaves are told obey. Wives aren’t – they are told to submit just as their husband has been told to mutually submit. Obeying is about being the weaker part in an uneven power relationship; submission is a voluntary surrendering of your will to another. I frequently do that – I get out of bed when I don’t want to and make coffee for my husband, I make him breakfast and iron his shirts, I cook him dinner when I’m tired sometimes and I help him on the computer when he’s having a technophobe moment. But every other day he pulls himself out of bed bleary eyes to make me tea and porridge, he does the laundry and cooks supper.

We’re a team. We take it in turns: we love, we honour, we respect. We fall out sometimes and enjoy making up. It’s marriage, it’s hard work but it’s equal. In every sense of the word.

Created or Constructed? Part One

In my post on Mark Driscoll's response to the 'effemigate' furore, I briefly discussed the statement he used as a standfirst. When Driscoll wrote:

"Gender. Is it a socially constructed reality or a God-given identity?"

he started a lot of discussion about what it means to be male or female. Although he acknowledged that it's a very complex issue, the feelings he outlined about the debate appeared to be insinuating that this is a mutually exclusive dichotomy and that he firmly believes that gender roles are God-given. I don't entirely agree. While I agree that our gender identity is God-given and that the Bible does have plenty to say about men, women and the church, I do not believe that this brings with it specific desirable personality traits, emotions and skills, rather that the majority of those promoted by Driscoll and others who are strong on 'traditional' gender roles are heavily influenced by society and cultural trends. Indeed, perceptions of gender roles and responsibilities within Christianity differ, as can be shown by comparing official statements on three main strands of teaching.

Contrasting perspectives on gender roles:
Patriarchy (typified by Vision Forum) - The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy
Complementarianism (typified by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) - The Danvers Statement
Egalitarianism (typified by Christians for Biblical Equality) - CBE Statement on Men, Women and Biblical Equality

So, to what extent are Christian views on gender roles and gender-appropriate behaviour defined by cultural factors? It's obvious that there is major influence, whether we're talking about the hold the 19th century 'cult of domesticity' or 'cult of true womanhood' still has over society, the hyper-masculine all-American action hero (with added super-Godliness) promoted by Driscoll or the crusading warrior/waiting for Prince Charming stereotypes of books like 'Wild At Heart' and 'Captivating', which tell us:

"Little boys want to know, Do I have what it takes?...Little girls want to know, Am I lovely?"

Some who believe in distinct gender roles and behaviours feel it is important to emphasise these when raising children - for example encouraging girls to enjoy personal grooming and wearing 'feminine' clothes, or encouraging boys to play sports and take 'leadership' roles - so that they will grow up with an awareness of what it 'means' to be male or female. This is echoed by our society in general, which stereotypes children from almost the minute they are born, judging every movement, cry and aspect of behaviour as evidence of being a 'proper little boy' or 'proper little girl'. Despite the case against so-called 'hard-wired' gender differences, explored by Cordelia Fine in her book Delusions of Gender, society dictates that even as babies, girls and boys and to be treated according to socially constructed ideas about what it is to be male or female. Before the recent birth of the Beckhams' daughter, the BBC ran a feature which showcased all the old stereotypes to the extreme.

Describing girls as 'manipulative', 'evil' and 'hell-bent on showing off' while underlining a predilection for all things pink and princess-related. Referring to boys solely in conjunction with mud, football and dinosaurs while discussing their lack of 'hidden motives'. Thankfully we also hear from those who believe such differences are mainly the product of parents' imaginations:

"According to Dr Helen Barrett, developmental psychologist and research fellow at Birkbeck College, University of London, studies suggest even when baby boys and girls are lying in a cot kicking their legs at the same rate, boys are seen as more energetic.

And a newborn boy's cries are seen as more forceful and may be responded to quicker, even when there is actually no difference."

Undoubtedly, Christian thinking on gender is influenced by 'the world' in this respect - and we can see further parallels with views on 'roles' in the family, the home and the church. In US Christian culture, it's more obvious that some aspects of these views are a direct response in opposition to what's seen as the un-Biblical and nefarious influence of feminism, which if you believe some critics is directly responsible for promiscuity, failed marriages, deadbeat dads, emasculated men, manipulative women, domestic abuse and indeed the majority of social problems you can think of. The traditionalist view of gender roles is not only 'Biblical', but if accepted by society in general might herald a return to happier and more righteous times, when 'men were men and women were women' (and presumably, marriages were blissful, homes were happy and everyone knew their place). The anti-equality perspective is obviously present in other countries, but it's the US which seems to have spawned the majority of the backlash.

There's a real resistance to the word 'equality' in a way which makes me uncomfortable. Equality as the way of the devil, if you like, because it 'denies difference' and shockingly, emphasizes similarities. I find it incredibly hard to get worked up about this denial of difference, possibly because I'm one of those feminist egalitarians, but I think it's also because I don't believe equality 'denies difference', rather that it describes worth and purpose, male and female being created 'in his own image'. Equality is not an insult, or a dirty word, as I have seen implied. I wonder, when I read comments to that effect, just how deeply certain gender roles have been ingrained so that despite clear teaching on equality of worth in God's eyes, there is real horror at the suggestion of 'sameness' between men and women. I often wonder if it has much to do with the same views on gender roles which lead people to say "Well I LIKE cooking and babies and shaving my legs so I am HAPPY to be a REAL woman, thank you very much, feminists!'

I think it's very easy to get bogged down in perceived similarities and differences which actually have little to do with relationships, gifting and a call to ministry - and are not hard and fast to begin with, easily dispelled by countless people who do not 'fit the mold'.

As part of this ongoing exploration into gender in the church, I've ordered a copy of Elaine Storkey's Created or Constructed? The Great Gender Debate, which I've been meaning to read for a while. I'll be reading and discussing it here.

Image via Steve Rhodes's Flickr

Does your husband know you're out marching?

Earlier today, just on a whim, I tweeted:

Feminists in a relationship with a man - how often do you get the 'And what does your partner think about all this?' question?

Answers ranged from "All the bloody time" to "Wow! I don't recall ever hearing it." Me, I get it quite a lot. Sometimes someone will ask in a fairly nervous way, as if I'm about to rip their head off (being a terrifying feminist and all, what else would you expect?). Other times they'll be a bit confrontational, a bit challenging. So does your husband mind that you may or may not have a cavalier attitude towards body hair? Oh, as long as you're not one of those ones with short hair and Dr Martens, then that's okay. Who really wears the trousers in your relationship?

Some time ago there was this man who would always sit next to me on the bus in the morning. We worked for the same company and got on at the same stop. I just wanted to read my newspaper. He just wanted to tell me about his exploits at chess club and his nightmare ex-wife. He told me he was just temping and I'm not going to lie, I longed for the end of his contract because he was downright strange and I don't like small talk. One Friday he asked me if I had any plans for the weekend and I told him I was off to Million Women Rise on the Saturday. He asked what that was and then he asked:

"And how does your husband feel about you going to that sort of thing? Is he okay with it?"

"Er, yeah he is."

"Oh."

A few weeks later I spotted him on the bus one Saturday. He was sat several seats ahead of me, animatedly telling the man sitting next to him about his belief that men are the 'heads' of women and that women should be 'in submission' to them. Personally I can't believe I took a bus journey with him every day for several weeks and he never even tried to evangelise to me. Bad form, Creepy Man.

Creepy Man was just one of many. Women ask me about it too. Every time I wonder what I should say - and not just because I have a really hard time not being sarcastic. Yes, my husband really objects to me being anti-violence against women. And protesting rape. And attempting to fight for equality. What do they expect? It's like they think that's the moment I'm going to admit to being a fully-fledged man-hater, keeping him firmly under the thumb until I decide how to do away with him. Or that I'm going to say that actually, yeah, it's a big issue within our marriage and he wants me to stop and go back to being the sort of wife who says nothing and makes him a sandwich and sits with him on the sofa with downcast eyes instead of swanning off to all those demonstrations.

In all seriousness, it's started to grate a bit. Just so you know, I have an incredibly supportive husband who is pro-equality and has no objections to my writing, or my activism, or my opinions. Some bits of it interest him more than others, but he supports me all the same. As he said to me a while back when I was telling him about an article written by some of our somewhat less equality-minded Christian brothers, "Why would you spend all that time trying to 'prove' that gender equality is a bad thing?" So when I answer in the affirmative to these people, it's a bit of a conversation-killer.

I think there's a few things people mean when they ask me this question. Does he feel threatened by my opinions? Does it mean I'm the one 'in charge'? Does it mean I'm domineering and unpleasant and don't care what he thinks? As the man, he has to approve everything I do and think, right? He gets asked the same sort of things when he's on his own with male acquaintances as well. Are my 'strong opinions' overbearing? Is he okay with me being one of those feminists? Is it threatening his masculinity? Okay, he's never actually been asked that, but I'm sure it's implied.

It's sad that people can't see past this scenario where one person's 'in charge' and one person's 'under the thumb'. Where one person has to 'approve' everything the other does. Where believing that both people are of equal worth is somehow an issue. You very rarely get the assumption that the relationship might in fact be an equal partnership. It's sad that people see my desire to see an end to the oppression of women as some sort of threat rather than A GOOD THING. And I wonder how often people are quick to assume that a woman must be 'under the thumb' if she has a male partner who's politically involved?

In the Christian circles I move in I think there can be a major fear of women with power and women with opinions. They're automatically questioned because for many people there's something not quite right about it. A lot of Christians see strong women as a challenge to 'Biblical womanhood' and the 'correct' order of things, where men are in charge and do the talking and the decision-making. They think of Jezebel.

Even among those who don't feel quite as strongly as your average misogynistic fundamentalist err on the side of caution when it comes to women and power. Woman preaching a sermon? Said with doubtful tone: "Of course it's only okay if that's definitely what God has gifted her to do." Woman in leadership? "Of course we need to know whether she has the correct motives or not." Woman making big decisions? "Well, as long as her husband's okay with it."

This tends not to happen with men and church life. Even though countless men have been exposed as abusive leaders or false teachers, there's not this nervousness about them being in charge. People don't automatically look for the downsides or criticize them as much before getting to know them. It's just assumed that it'll be fine, they're Great Men of God. And, you know, I like to think that before men take on preaching or leading responsibilities they discuss it and agree to it with their wives. But very few people automatically clutch at their pearls and say "Well - is his wife okay with it?!" It's kind of assumed that she will be.

I didn't mean to talk too much about this as it applies to a church setting but I do think that many people could have a bit more faith in this way in women who preach or lead and support them for who they are. It's discouraging to hear it when it's the first reaction to a woman being in a position of power. We need to trust more and believe more that women are being used in this way because that's right where they're meant to be and not because there's something wrong with them.

It's discouraging when it's the first reaction to me saying I've been to a march, or a conference, or that I believe in gender equality. You don't need to be so incredulous or put out that men can be okay with that kind of thing too. You don't need to smirk and say 'Your poor husband!' And I don't need to run every opinion I have past him before I air it in public or go everywhere with him. Just think about how ridiculous it sounds: "Is your husband okay with the fact you believe in the equal worth of men and women?" Yeah, I thought so too.

Why the marriage tax break insults families

Over the past week David Cameron has laid out his plans to give a tax break to married couples should the Conservative Party win the upcoming General Election.

You might be forgiven for thinking that the Tories had gone all inclusive on us – indeed, they have promised that the tax break will benefit those in civil partnerships as well as heterosexual married couples.

But the reality is that it seeks to reward people who fit a very narrow definition of what it is to be a family, all in the name of promoting ‘values’ and ‘mending Broken Britain’.

Under Cameron’s plans, one member of a low or middle-income couple would be able to transfer £750 of their personal tax allowance to a partner who does not use theirs (either because they do not work or earn less than £6,600), resulting in a maximum tax break of £150. That’s £2.88 per week, in case you haven’t seen much news over the past few days.

Overall it is estimated that this would benefit four million of the country’s 12.3 million married couples.

For one thing it’s insulting and short-sighted that the Tories see marriage as the answer to society’s problems. The mythical golden age before divorce was more common is often held up as a happier and more stable time by right-wing politicians. What they seem to forget is the fact that many unhappy couples stayed together only because it was expected of them, putting up with horrendous lives and abuse as a result.

We all know that families with married couples aren’t always the happiest and most stable – and that plenty of single people and co-habiting couples do a wonderful job of parenting. It’s not rocket science – and yet the Conservatives have sent out a clear message that only certain families, in their opinion, are ‘doing it right’ and will be rewarded accordingly.

The families which don’t fit the mold are consequently stigmatised – whether that’s widowed or single parents – however hard-working and struggling they may be, co-habiting couples who are bringing up their kids in a loving household or families where both parents work. In fact, many of the couples benefiting from the tax break would actually be childless or older couples – strange considering the Conservatives’ supposed commitment to improving the lives of children and setting a good example for future generations.

For many low-income couples, having one person remain at home isn’t an option and it’s essential for both to work so that bills are paid and food gets put on the table. But as far as the Conservatives are concerned, choosing this option will get you nowhere. It’s being made clear that someone – and in heterosexual couples this usually means the woman – should not work in order to be the sort of family Cameron et al believe will make society a better place.

What’s just as bad is that this £2.88 per week is supposed to act as some sort of incentive – whether it’s for people to get married or for one of the couple to stay at home. I very much doubt that it’s going to have the desired effect. Even though plenty of people these days do wish to get married, they often feel they can’t due to the cost of weddings and buying a house. If they do want to get married, I’m sure it’s got nothing to do with wanting less than £3 a week in tax breaks.

The announcement has been met with derision from journalists, the public and other politicians including Gordon Brown. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has described the tax break as “patronising drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age” and I wholeheartedly agree.

As a married woman the whole thing leaves a very unpleasant taste in the mouth. I work full-time and so does my husband, so we wouldn’t be eligible for the tax break in the first place. But it disgusts me to think that should I have the option not to work, I would be finally considered ‘worthy’ enough to ‘benefit’ from less than £3 a week extra while other families miss out purely because I've got a ring on my finger.

This post originally appeard at BitchBuzz. Image via werty’s Flickr

On Marriage (Part Two)

The expectations on us in the run-up to our marriage were frustrating but I wouldn't say they caused major problems. In the same way, I don't feel that we've found negotiating certain expectations of us within marriage particularly difficult either.

When we talk about equality in marriage I don't necessarily see it in terms of an exact division of labour or an exact division of finances. As I mentioned in Part One both of us were under no illusions about housework - we both live in the house, therefore we both help with its upkeep. The way this has played out over the past couple of years is as follows: if we're both in at a weekend, we do the housework together. We'll take a couple of rooms each. If one of us is away or out, the person who's in does the majority of what needs doing and we'll often try to get bits and pieces done during the week so there's less for that person to do. Our approach to cooking is basically the same. I think what's more important than the exact sharing out of tasks is that housework is not considered 'women's work', with no expectation that her partner should help her out.

Talking about how we negotiate housework may seem faintly ridiculous but it's interesting how people react when they find out that we both do it. Some former work colleagues of Luke's were outraged that he was clearly 'under the thumb' and told him in no uncertain terms that he 'shouldn't have to do all that'. The reaction from a lot of women is that I've 'got him well-trained!' and that some degree of 'nagging' must contribute towards him doing a bit of cleaning or tidying up because men are 'useless' around the house.

Many blogs written by conservative Christians place great emphasis on being an exceptional 'homemaker' and that this is a major justification for married women not working outside the home - the implication being that there's plenty to keep women busy. A lot of these blogs actually seem to place the most emphasis on being fanatical about tidiness and organisation, crossed with idolisation of some sort of very white, middle-class, Martha Stewart-influenced, picket-fence crafts-loving way of life which fails to acknowledge the fact that women may come from cultures where no-one feels that making seasonal table centrepieces in complementing colourways is essential to being a good wife or mother. They may be less affluent (like me) and not be able to afford the luxury of staying at home, or (again, like me) just don't feel like they're a let-down as a wife because they have a 'junk drawer'. Or in my case, several junk drawers, a junk wardrobe, three junk cupboards and boxes and boxes of, yep, junk.

As it happens, I don't really know anyone who embraces that vision of wifeliness but since I've been married I've found that some people tend to ask me 'And do you work?' rather than 'What do you do?'

A couple of weeks ago I was reading an essay on a Christian website about the roles men and women should play within marriage. I didn't know whether I was more amused or depressed to read that (to paraphrase) 'critics of Christianity are wrong when they say that the wife cannot make decisions. It is appropriate, for example, for the wife to have the final say on matters of shopping or home decorating'. The author went on to say that of course, decisions involving money, parenting, church, careers etc should always be down to the husband. Sadly I'm not making this up.

Surely making decisions on such important aspects of life should be a joint endeavour? I don't think it's responsible, for example, for one partner to have total control of finances while the other has no involvement or knowledge of where money is coming from, going to and how much of it there is. We firmly believe that decisions affecting both of us are for both of us to make and this will definitely include decisions regarding children, when (and if) they come along in future.

Speaking of children, that's another subject that people love weighing in on. Plenty of people ask if we plan to have children - that I don't mind so much. It's when people ask when we're going to have them, or ask how long we've been married, in a 'what - haven't you started trying yet?!' kind of way. Really, that's no-one's business but our own. I've realised it's pointless to use the reasoning that we can't afford to have children because someone will always say 'You can never afford children (ha ha ha)!'. Or if they don't say that they'll make a whole host of assumptions about us. That we're clearly just 'selfish' and just want to blow all our money on material possessions rather than babies, for example. Someone I know asked 'Couldn't you just get your mum to look after the baby when you go back to work?'

A really big part of me wishes that parental leave rights were more equal, easily allowing either partner to be a stay-at-home parent, or for the total leave period to be split between them. People tend to assume automatically that the mother will stay at home with young children, despite the fact that fathers want more time with their children and better paternity leave. I'm currently the higher earner of the two of us (just) and that for much of the last year I've actually been the 'breadwinner' as Luke has struggled with redundancy and a series of temporary jobs, a victim of the recession. Our culture and parental leave as it stands doesn't take any of this into account, instead pressuring men to 'provide' everything and women to give up their careers (guilt-tripping tabloid pieces about the evils of 'working mothers' are particularly good at this).

My sudden 'breadwinner' status proved to be a great source of amusement for some acquaintances and even relatives. The days where a husband was considered less of a man if his wife 'had to go out to work' are behind us but that attitude is still around to a certain extent in that many people expect a man to earn much more than his female partner and be able to support the household singlehandedly. At first this really impacted Luke's self-confidence but going through problems with employment and money ended up really changing the way he saw issues like 'being the provider' and childcare, bringing us round to a much more equal perspective. He's always wanted to be a very hands-on, involved father which is great but I know now that he feels much more relieved of the pressures regarding earning and expectations of masculinity.

When discussing the issues surrounding marriage with my Christian friends recently I've tended to find that they agree with me regarding a more equal approach which is definitely refreshing (although this does depend on whether you're talking to complementarian or egalitarian Christians). In the past I've come up against a certain way of thinking that a job, for a woman, is just a stopgap until she gets married and has children, or that it's not right for her to sort out the family's finances, or that she should always submit to her husband's authority - and these attitudes don't really help or encourage anyone at all.

On Marriage (Part One)

This week I remembered that I once said I'd blog about my marriage and what it means to me from a Christian, feminist perspective. This year, Jessica Valenti tied the knot. Several newspapers and websites featured the story; from her engagement to the planning to the day itself, people were fascinated to see how a 'feminist wedding' was going to pan out. Many were eager to congratulate her and wish her all the best, but others felt her decision was a betrayal of her feminist ideals. Would she take her partner's surname? Would she wear a 'traditional' dress? What was she going to do about the fact that same-sex couples are denied the right to marry? In blog posts and newspapers, people debated whether a feminist marriage is even possible.

I married Luke on May 19th, 2007. This shocks people. Sometimes it's because I'm a feminist who's married, but usually because we were both 22 at the time. I've lost count of the number of people who have asked me, in complete shock, why I could possibly want to get married so young. They ask why I wanted to 'settle down' before having 'lived a bit', as if getting married means the end of having a life. Or how, at just 22, I could commit to one person - never to date anyone else again. For some, their 'shock' barely masks their snobbery - nice, middle-class professionals don't marry until they're at least 30. No really. Look out for the slight sneer. This happens a lot. Yes - baking, all things Cath Kidston and imploring each other to 'make do and mend' may be en vogue but going retro by marrying before your late 20s isn't the done thing.

The only place my married status isn't a shock to people is at church. Christians love marrying young if they can. In some churches, it's very much the norm. When we were at university one of my pet peeves was the culture of 'marrying off' which existed in some Christian unions and churches. The pressure to get hitched (or at least be engaged by) the same year as your graduation in some quarters was ridiculous. It was almost as if we'd gone back to the days of being firmly 'on the shelf' at the ripe old age of 23. It used have everyone over the age of 24 sick with worry that there was no-one out there for them and wondering if it meant God wanted them to be single...FOREVER. That Stuff Christian Culture Likes post about hoping the rapture doesn't happen until after your wedding night? It happens. While I was totally against this sort of pressure and still am, I was also very much in a relationship.

Luke and I went on our 'first date' in November 2001. By late 2004, having survived the first year of university intact (just), we were starting to talk about 'the future'. Yes, we were one of those couples who discussed it all first. I knew he was going to propose, he knew I was going to say 'yes'. Luke had decided he was going to do the whole thing 'officially', though. So I was proposed to - in the manky kitchen of his student house in February 2005, in case you're interested. The next day, we told our parents. After discussion with them we agreed that we were going to get married in 2007, giving us time to have finished studying and (hopefully) have been working for a while. My mum in particular was pretty concerned about any effect getting married might have on my working life; she worried that 'settling down' could negatively impact my career choices and independence which of course is true and something I have had to deal with over the past couple of years.

So I'd got a ring on my finger. Off goes the starting pistol in the Feminist Marriage Olympics, right? I could definitely lose points for an engagement ring. In our favour, Luke didn't ask for my dad's 'permission' first. Jokes aside, I think it's so easy to get like this, analysing each choice couples make for its links in patriarchal tradition and while this isn't wrong at all, it can mean focusing on small things at the expense of the bigger picture. Something which invariably came out of online discussions on weddings earlier this year was a rejection of 'traditional' weddings, weddings 'the way they've always been done'. I'm in agreement with this one. There can be so much pressure from family, friends and companies who just want you to buy their stuff to have the expensive dresses, the huge reception and the 'perfect' cake. I can't stand the hype around weddings perpetuated by women's magazines, wedding shows and even the wedding-themed television channels which now exist. I didn't want to spend several months beforehand having skin treatments or fork out a small fortune on personalised favours, all in pursuit of 'being like a princess for the day'. For several years now the beauty industry has been using weddings as an opportunity to make us spend money on yet more things we don't need. Skin peels, anti-cellulite treatments, 'countour wraps', you name it and somewhere, a company will be telling brides-to-be that they need it to feel and look their best on the big day. Not going to lie, after nagging on my mum's part I did make futile efforts to scrub and moisturise away the keratosis pilaris which covers my upper arms through the winter. Did it work? Not really - much like all those anti-cellulite, anti-ageing products.

For us, our wedding day was about being united and committing to one another for the rest of our lives, not putting on some sort of show for the benefit of our families and friends. All too easily these days weddings start to revolve around what the guests would want or how best to please them when it's about the couple and the vows they're making to each other. Our Christian faith meant we wanted a church wedding and the religious aspect of the marriage was, and continues to be important for us as a couple (more on this in Part Two). I wanted the focus of the wedding to be on the service and we spent a lot of time choosing which songs and readings to use, picking ones which were of personal significance to us. A dear friend of Luke's family provided the music, along with two violinists I knew from my time playing in local youth orchestras.

The 'major' issues I'm sure you all want to know about:

- Yes, I changed my surname to Luke's. I wanted to take his name in some way and was all ready to hyphenate, until I actually thought about it and realised how stupid the two names sound when put together. No really, they do. Whenever I tell people what my name would have been, they think it's hilarious. When I got engaged, one of my flatmates told me it sounded like 'slang for an unspeakable sexual practice'. I decided it would be better to just take his name and avoid the sniggers every time I introduced myself. Besides, I'd had my dad's surname up until then so either way I was going to end up with a man's name. I know that if I'd married a man with a less...tricky...surname, I would be using both names.

- I did not promise to 'obey' Luke as part of my vows. This was something I'd planned to talk to the vicar about because I had raised the issue with Luke and he agreed with me that it wasn't right for us. However, when we got the order of service booklet we discovered that the church did not use the 'obey' version of the vows anyway. The Church of England started to offer alternative wording in 2006, releasing a report recognising that 'obey' is a problematic word which could help to reinforce a domination/submission aspect to marriages and could also be used by perpetrators to justify domestic violence. There's some pretty interesting information on the report here.

- I didn't wear a white dress. A couple of people I know were actually slightly miffed at this and couldn't see why I didn't want to. Aside from the virginity-obsessing aspect of it all (I think I feel the same about it as I do about purity rings, purity balls and mentioning a couple's virginity as part of the marriage service), I never actually wear white. I can't imagine myself in a white outfit and wasn't going to change that for my wedding day. I did, however, wear a 'traditional' wedding dress. The colour was champagne. Yes, there is a difference between 'champagne' and 'white'.

It was a wonderful day. I'd tried not to get stressed about it and thankfully didn't until a couple of days before, when I started to wonder if I'd drop Luke's ring, or mess up the vows, or trip over my dress and end up in hospital. To be honest it's all over so quickly that anxiety for months beforehand just isn't worth it. Weddings are easy to deal with when you think about what comes afterwards.

Part Two will deal with married life; how it fits with my faith and feminism and decisions we've made on gender roles.