7.3 The Bride’s Day and Fairy-Tale Discourses as System Justification
7.3.4 The Father of the Bride giving her away
involved in the wedding planning. The groom assumes a less masculine role by being more involved in the wedding planning; however, he identifies the benefits of wanting a more egalitarian relationship (Schrock & Schwalbe, 2009; Sniezek, 2005). The groom shows consideration for the bride while he explains his active participation, which positions him as a caring, loving and thoughtful partner, since wedding planning work is considered to be women’s work (Sniezek, 2005). The bride expresses her appreciation for this when she says “that was really good” (line 288) and “it was really, really nice”
(line 289). Despite the groom’s positive tone about engaging in an egalitarian wedding planning process, it is still noted throughout the interview that the bride completed more of the wedding planning, even though this was not a great deal more. The variance between the groom’s talk and his actions is minimised through the groom’s mention of fairness, his active participation in the wedding planning and his expression of consideration towards the bride. This apparent ‘inconsistency’ between the groom’s talk and his actions suggests that an entrenched system - which prescribes that women do all the wedding work - is strongly skewed, that even when men are involved (compared to not being involved) the distribution of labour during the wedding planning is seen as fair (Rudman & Heppen, 2003).
father giving the bride away to the groom. The couple in interview 7 view this as a very important and special moment of the wedding ceremony.
Extract 16, Interview 7, Lines 614-626
614 Interviewer: OK, um, did you get walked down the aisle?
615 Bride: Yes, my dad walked me down the aisle 616 Interviewer: Why did you do that?
617 Bride: Um, because I’ve got a very, very strong bond with my dad and then 618 I’m the only girl, I know everybody else’s dad’s do it as well. I think it’s a 619 dad’s privilege of walking his daughter down the aisle to pass his
620 authority over to the husband
621 Groom: Yes, I think there’s a beautiful, what do you call it, symbolic gesture of 622 the dad saying “listen, she was under my wing up to now, I trust you 623 enough to give my daughter up to you now” so that’s the one thing at 624 every wedding that I actually enjoy, is watching firstly the bride walking 625 down with her dad and then the husband to be…
626 Bride: …taking over
When asked why the bride was walked down the aisle by her father the bride first mentions that she has a strong bond with her father and that she is the only daughter.
She admits that other fathers do this as well and then motivates that it is a father’s privilege to do this and then pass the authority he holds over his daughter to her soon- to-be husband. The bride positions herself submissively when she explains the authority that the father and then the groom hold over her. She indicates her acceptance of authority being held over her, although it subjects her to a submissive and therefore disadvantaged position (Jost, 1997). Despite this sexist description the bride expresses a warm and positive view of the act being a “dad’s privilege” (line 619).
The groom describes the act of the bride being walked down the aisle by her father and then being given to the groom as “beautiful” (line 621) and something that he enjoys watching at weddings. The groom refers to the bride being under her father’s wing and then his wing, suggesting that she requires protection by a man. He positions himself as the bride’s protector and thereby expresses paternalistic chivalry towards her, which allows both the bride and the groom to be viewed favourably (Jost & Kay, 2005).
According to Jost and Kay (2005, p. 498) “in cases of gender-based stereotyping, attitudes toward the disadvantaged group of women are very often favorable in content and yet prejudicial in their consequences”. Such benevolent sexism comes to the fore when the groom uses language that describes the bride being under her father’s wing and then being given to the groom. The groom’s attitude toward the bride is warm and overall favourable; however, the implication of the bride being under a man’s protection is restrictive to her and therefore promotes gender inequality (Viki et al., 2003). The bride’s acceptance and support of her submissive position, as well as the authority of the father and the groom, provides evidence of system justification (Jost et al., 2004).
In contrast to the extract above, the couple in the following extract identifies how the act of the bride being given from one man to another is a rather sexist act. This appears to be a novel realisation during the interview for both the bride and the groom.
Extract 17, Interview 4, Lines 340-351
340 Bride: The father usually gives the bride away to the husband, ‘cause now 341 you change of surname it’s kind of like, how can you say it
342 Groom: Don’t you think it’s kind of sexist giving ownership away, like selling a
343 vehicle, isn’t it
344 Interviewer: Ok, tell me about that?
345 Bride: You can see it that way, ja, I guess
346 Groom: I’m saying another way of looking at that is like selling a vehicle, like
347 this was mine, now
348 Bride: [laughs] it belongs to you
349 Groom: Ja, I don’t know, that must come from some old school cultural thing 350 when the man was, the father was boss of the house and everything he 351 owned in the house, now he’s giving away his daughter
During interview 4 the concept of the bride’s father walking her down the aisle to give her to the groom is discussed. The bride connects this act with that of the bride changing her surname to the groom’s surname. Interestingly, the groom names this and identifies sexist intentions of ownership within these acts and compares them to the transaction of selling a vehicle. By being likened to the vehicle the bride is being objectified, which suggests that the act of one man giving the bride to another is in effect objectifying the bride. It is perhaps unusual that the groom would identify and mention this sexist act, since it is he who would theoretically benefit from the ownership of the bride. Contrasted to this the bride seems hesitant about the groom’s interpretation when she says “you can see it that way, ja, I guess” (line 345) and laughs about this idea in line 348. The groom then makes a connection between the act of giving the bride away and an historical and cultural notion that allowed the father to be the “boss of the house” (line 350). The connection serves to dampen the effect of a noticeably sexist act, because it is justified as having originated in an historical and cultural belief, which is possibly no longer valid. Despite the suggested invalidity of the historical meaning of the act, the act of the bride being given from father to groom is still common (Ingraham, 1999).
The passing on of the bride from father to groom represents a tradition, a system- justifying ritual, which keeps gender roles in place and has thus been resistant to change (Humble et al., 2008). From the extracts above the sexist nature of this act is noticeable.
The bride is treated like an object over which men have authority (see extract 16).
Despite the open display of this sexist act and the bride’s disadvantaged position, the act prevails. This provides strong support for “a system-justifying motive, whereby
people seek to maintain or enhance the legitimacy and stability of existing forms of social arrangements” (Jost & Hunyady, 2002, p. 113; emphasis in original). As the theory suggests, disadvantaged groups, such as women, are perhaps more likely to support an unequal ideology, because they have the greatest need to alleviate the ideological dissonance and their unconscious psychological distress (Jost et al., 2003).
Consequently, extract 16 suggests strong support for system justification motives.