Kate chose not to obey

[bodie]

*swoon *
Will you excuse me?
I have dishes to do

[Adam]

Make me a sandwich while you're in there.

Also, I insist you cover up your face on that avatar. I can maybe tolerate your eyes showing, but that's it. Otherwise you're inciting the terrible sexual thoughts of other men on here.

[bodie]

I rebel

 

[TheoK]

 

[Adam]

Well now I'm gonna have to stone you to death, bodie

I'm sorry you had to make me do this, but it's for your own good.

[RageBeoulve]

[Semicolon]

Bodie is for rebelling against oppression.

[Adam]

It's not oppression. I just value her and wish to protect her

[TheoK]

Because you are a good Muslim 

[Dexter Morgan]

I hate her because everyone likes her.

[Queen Victoria]

I promised to love, honor and obey.  I just didn't ever intend to obey.  PA however does fetch, roll over and give his paw.

[El]

Of course the obey thing is ridiculous and outdated, but then the whole thing is  - I mean I saw the vows part afterwards on the news and whatshisname, the pope-reject with the hat... C of E guy... canterbury... he went "and who gives this woman to this man?" or something like that

the entire concept of marriage is inherently sexist as it's about passing on posession of a woman and everythign she "owns" , from her father to her husband. hence the "giving her away" crap. If I was a woman and getting married I'd be a bit weirded out by that kinda thing I think

so yeah the obey stuff is out of date, but so is the whole thing really

In times gone past the "giving over" was the Father (quite often old) basically giving the duties of protecting the wife and ay kids they have and providing. He was giving to a suitable groom these responsibilities. I do not call that sexist. I call that honourable and decent. It belonged to a different time.

It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories.  In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away).  That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.

[bodie]

Don't forget the 'dowry' thing.   Women were so 'prized' that often Daddy would pay for someone to take her off his hands.
 

[Jack]

It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories.  In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away).  That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.

It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.

[Al Swearegen]

It doesn't Jack. But the name of the game here is to pretend to act really sexist and then attach this to a barbaric religious practice and throw the word oppression around. It is a hip new game that the cool kids are all playing. For extra point you get to introduce the word sexism.