I don't want my father to walk me down the aisle <<Mod Warning Post #1>>

username123

ted1 wrote: »

It would absolutely break my heart if my daughter didn't want me to walk her down the aisle. Part of me would actually die. Regardless of what she said, I would be forever wondering what could have done to make her dispise the idea of me walking her down the aisle.

Did I upset her? Was I a bad dad? Am I that embarrassing? Is she not proud or appreciative of all I have done for her?

Absolutely ridiculous. Its not all about you, people are entitled to have their wedding day whatever way they like. Very very childish attitude and very manipulatory towards a son or daughters actions and decisions. Cannot believe a father would not be happy for his daughter without just thinking of himself - very selfish tbh.

Honestly cannot believe the people on here saying the OP is wrong and sure just let him do it, it means nothing etc... If it means nothing, then why would he be upset at not doing it? You cant have it both ways. He should respect his daughters decisions about her own wedding day, its not a platform for him to show the world he is a great dad.
People saying the OP is being insensitive, hurtful, uncalled for behaviour - I mean seriously? Can people re read what theyve written? Do they realise that its a little insensitive to tell a bride what she should be doing about her own wedding?
Talking about what other people think? Who cares what other people think? My relationship with anyone, family or not, is unaffected by what the neighbours think - why would that matter?

Reading this thread and seeing how people become completely irrational when it comes to weddings makes me glad yet again that myself and my husband eloped away with zero guests.

Caraville

saa wrote: »

But seriously this is why I am starting to hate weddings and think the last people they are about is the bride and groom but more about what is usually done and others want and expect,

I agree with that to a point, but also it really písses me off that couples insist the day is "all about them". The minute you invite even one person to your wedding, it's no longer all about them. You have guests to consider, and obviously there'll always be something people would do differently or wouldn't have at their wedding, for the most part an effort should be made for people to feel like it's not just about the bride and groom, but about everyone enjoying the day. That's another reason why I think the OP should allow her father to walk her down the aisle- he's not asking anything unreasonable, and he really wants to do it in order to enjoy the day. The day is not just about the OP and her fiance, it's about all the people there too. If she wants it just to be about the two of them, then why invite anyone at all?

The OP is focusing way too much on the old symbolism of the whole thing (which as I said, I genuinely don't think anyone gives a fiddler's about these days). If her dad was looking for something unreasonable then I'd say she should tell him where to go, but honestly it's about 2 minutes out of the whole day, yet would make him feel happy. If you can't do that much for your dad after everything he's done for you (assuming he was a good father), then I don't know what to think.

The Corinthian

I really don't get this discussion. So the OP doesn't like the archaic tradition of a father giving away his daughter at a wedding, but she likes the archaic tradition of marriage - that's what it is at the end of the day, no matter how we'd like to reinvent it as some sort "union of two independent adults". Strikes me as cherry-picking, TBH.

Don't get married - problem solved.

The Corinthian

saa wrote: »

But seriously this is why I am starting to hate weddings and think the last people they are about is the bride and groom but more about what is usually done and others want and expect

Weddings have never been about the bride and groom. They are a public ritual, before the community, announcing and underlining a social and legal union between two people and, previously, their families.

Where did people get the silly notion that weddings were about the bride and groom? If you really want it to be about the bride and groom, they can go to the registry office on their own and do it.

Procrastastudy

The Corinthian wrote: »

I really don't get this discussion. So the OP doesn't like the archaic tradition of a father giving away his daughter at a wedding, but she likes the archaic tradition of marriage - that's what it is at the end of the day, no matter how we'd like to reinvent it as some sort "union of two independent adults". Strikes me as cherry-picking, TBH.

Don't get married - problem solved.

Whether you agree with it or not the Constitution of this country does not recognise a Family based on anything else other than marriage. Everything else aside the OP is compelled by the state to get married - how she does it is another matter.

Sound Bite

I'm home for the weekend and just asked my dad his opinion on this (I'm single but myself and my sisters are in our 20/30s)

He doesn't see it as a transfer of ownership from father to husband, but as a symbol of movement from own family to another. He's very fashioned. He views it as he raised me and got me to this stage health, happy etc and would like my husband to ensure this continues. Personally, I don't see the need for a father walking his daughter down the aisle but it means a lot to him so if I ever get married that will be what happens.

Similarly, he would respect any future husband more if they asked for his permission prior to getting engaged. As he said himself, its not really his permission but more his blessing.


These things clearly mean a lot to him and while they are old fashioned, dated and completely unnecessary, I will do it his way because he would be very hurt if things wer done differently.

That said, its your wedding, your choice but i think you should be conscious of his feelings.

gosuckonalemon

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Whether you agree with it or not the Constitution of this country does not recognise a Family based on anything else other than marriage. Everything else aside the OP is compelled by the state to get married - how she does it is another matter.

No she is not.

Procrastastudy

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

No she is not.

She is if she and her husband want Article 41 and 42 protection for their children.

gosuckonalemon

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

She is if she and her husband want Article 41 and 42 protection for their children.

I'm pretty sure her kids will do just fine if their parents decide not to partake in some organised religious tradition.

analucija

The Corinthian wrote: »

I really don't get this discussion. So the OP doesn't like the archaic tradition of a father giving away his daughter at a wedding, but she likes the archaic tradition of marriage - that's what it is at the end of the day, no matter how we'd like to reinvent it as some sort "union of two independent adults". Strikes me as cherry-picking, TBH.

Don't get married - problem solved.

I would agree if the cohabiting couples would be treated the same by the state. I can make a list of instances why would be easier to be married to my partner.

gosuckonalemon

analucija wrote: »

I would agree if the cohabiting couples would be treated the same by the state. I can make a list of instances why would be easier to be married to my partner.

Life isn't always about taking the easiest option.

analucija

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Life isn't always about taking the easiest option.

No it's not but it can be very expensive. And it is not fair to discriminate against those who don't want to do some old ritual.

The Corinthian

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Whether you agree with it or not the Constitution of this country does not recognise a Family based on anything else other than marriage. Everything else aside the OP is compelled by the state to get married - how she does it is another matter.

Not actually true as a result of the cohabitation bill.

Even if it were, there's nothing stopping her and her other half popping down to the registry office and just signing the papers, without making a big song and dance about it.

analucija wrote: »

I would agree if the cohabiting couples would be treated the same by the state. I can make a list of instances why would be easier to be married to my partner.

Easier perhaps, but questionably so. Especially since the passing of the cohabitation bill, there's very little between being married and not. Some things are easier when married certainly, because they are automatic rather than things that you must apply for separately, but ultimately that's all they are - easier, and not even that much easier.

However if the logic being used, it would naturally be easier to go with the flow and let the father bring his daughter down the isle, as it would avoid a serious about of hassle and bad blood.

The Corinthian

analucija wrote: »

No it's not but it can be very expensive.

What is and for whom?

And it is not fair to discriminate against those that don't want to do some old ritual.

Like marriage?

sasser

Sound Bite wrote: »

I'm home for the weekend and just asked my dad his opinion on this (I'm single but myself and my sisters are in our 20/30s)

He doesn't see it as a transfer of ownership from father to husband, but as a symbol of movement from own family to another. He's very fashioned. He views it as he raised me and got me to this stage health, happy etc and would like my husband to ensure this continues. Personally, I don't see the need for a father walking his daughter down the aisle but it means a lot to him so if I ever get married that will be what happens.

Similarly, he would respect any future husband more if they asked for his permission prior to getting engaged. As he said himself, its not really his permission but more his blessing.


These things clearly mean a lot to him and while they are old fashioned, dated and completely unnecessary, I will do it his way because he would be very hurt if things wer done differently.

That said, its your wedding, your choice but i think you should be conscious of his feelings.

Again I'll ask, where is the mother in all of this? Did she not raise the child too? And why doesn't the bride go and ask the groom's parents permission to marry him (oh sorry it's a blessing, not permission). Old mysoginistic traditions that would be best forgotten. As for grown woman waiting around to be asked to marry, that's a while other thread!

analucija

The Corinthian wrote: »

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Whether you agree with it or not the Constitution of this country does not recognise a Family based on anything else other than marriage. Everything else aside the OP is compelled by the state to get married - how she does it is another matter.

Not actually true as a result of the cohabitation bill.

Even if it were, there's nothing stopping her and her other half popping down to the registry office and just signing the papers, without making a big song and dance about it.

analucija wrote: »

I would agree if the cohabiting couples would be treated the same by the state. I can make a list of instances why would be easier to be married to my partner.

Easier perhaps, but questionably so. Especially since the passing of the cohabitation bill, there's very little between being married and not. Some things are easier when married certainly, because they are automatic rather than things that you must apply for separately, but ultimately that's all they are - easier, and not even that much easier.

However if the logic being used, it would naturally be easier to go with the flow and let the father bring his daughter down the isle, as it would avoid a serious about of hassle and bad blood.

Whatever the reason it's not Op's father getting married. Why are women always supposed to be quiet and always do what they are supposed to and not ruffle any feathers. And if they complain they are silly or unreasonable.

analucija

The Corinthian wrote: »

analucija wrote: »

No it's not but it can be very expensive.

What is and for whom?

Taxes, not just tax credits but also stamp duty etc. Anyway it's not relevant.

P. Breathnach

sasser wrote: »

Again I'll ask, where is the mother in all of this?...

OP told us where her mother stands:

... I tried to talk to my mother about it but she just tried to convince me to 'humour' my father....

Procrastastudy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not actually true as a result of the cohabitation bill.

I disagree but perhaps we should reconvene over at the legal discussions forum rather than risk pulling this OT. My point in this context was there is a compelling reason outside of her control why she may choose to get married.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even if it were, there's nothing stopping her and her other half popping down to the registry office and just signing the papers, without making a big song and dance about it.

Agreed - but she is not having a Church Wedding so she may already be moving in that direction.

Stavro Mueller

It's only when I grew up that I came to realise the sacrifices that most parents make for their children. So while your current engagement and marriage have nothing to do with your father, you're losing sight of the bigger picture. Unless your dad was a bad person, he'll have shelled out a lot of his hard earned money to make your life better when you were growing up, he'll have given you a lot of his time and done without things so that you could have them. I do think that turning around and telling him that he can't bring you up the aisle is going to be a hurtful snub to him after everything he has done for you.

The Corinthian

analucija wrote: »

Whatever the reason it's not Op's father getting married. Why are women always supposed to be quiet and always do what they are supposed to and not ruffle any feathers. And if they complain they are silly or unreasonable.

I'm sorry, but you're the one who brought up the logic that it's 'easier' to get married. If 'easier' is a valid argument to do something, does it not follow that letting the father give her away is also 'easier'?

analucija wrote: »

Taxes, not just tax credits but also stamp duty etc. Anyway it's not relevant.

Of course it's relevant - you're the one who brought it up to explain why it makes sense to follow one archaic principle, while rejecting another one.

All of which cannot ignore the fact that we are talking about the traditional ritual, not the legal status of marriage. Because even if one accepted that this legal status is preferable, you don't have to have an archaic, often religious, ritual to do it.

If she really does want to get married and doesn't want this to be tainted by 'medieval tradition', then by all means she should elope and do it with her other half in a registry office.

Otherwise, she really is cherry picking.

The Corinthian

cymbaline wrote: »

It's only when I grew up that I came to realise the sacrifices that most parents make for their children. So while your current engagement and marriage have nothing to do with your father, you're losing sight of the bigger picture. Unless your dad was a bad person, he'll have shelled out a lot of his hard earned money to make your life better when you were growing up, he'll have given you a lot of his time and done without things so that you could have them. I do think that turning around and telling him that he can't bring you up the aisle is going to be a hurtful snub to him after everything he has done for you.

True. Weddings are social occasions that transcend the bride and groom. For many fathers, being the 'father of the bride' is a big milestone in their lives too.

analucija

The Corinthian wrote: »

analucija wrote: »

Whatever the reason it's not Op's father getting married. Why are women always supposed to be quiet and always do what they are supposed to and not ruffle any feathers. And if they complain they are silly or unreasonable.

I'm sorry, but you're the one who brought up the logic that it's 'easier' to get married. If 'easier' is a valid argument to do something, does it not follow that letting the father give her away is also 'easier'?

analucija wrote: »

Taxes, not just tax credits but also stamp duty etc. Anyway it's not relevant.

Of course it's relevant - you're the one who brought it up to explain why it makes sense to follow one archaic principle, while rejecting another one.

All of which cannot ignore the fact that we are talking about the traditional ritual, not the legal status of marriage. Because even if one accepted that this legal status is preferable, you don't have to have an archaic, often religious, ritual to do it.

If she really does want to get married and doesn't want this to be tainted by 'medieval tradition', then by all means she should elope and do it with her other half in a registry office.

Otherwise, she really is cherry picking.

And if she is? Why not? This is off topic enough. Pm me if you want additional explanation and I'll respond later.

Nyan Cat

I can really see both sides here. On the one hand your dad raised you. He's just giving your hand to another man that will be the main man in your life and he's gonna feel pride. Pride that he raised the woman you became, pride to be a part of your day and pride that you found the one for you.

On the other hand I get how archaic it seems. I understand the question 'so where is the mother in all of this?'
I understand it's your day and it should go how you want.
I loathe the way weddings can be a whole heap of interference from relatives etc.

if it were me - I love my dad and I'd be proud to have him walk with me. That's how I see it. Walking with me to a new life not giving me away like a possession.

Either you tell your dad why things are going to be as they are (no being walked down the aisle) - which is gobna hurt him.
Or you chose another way to do it like having both parents walk with you. Or elope!

I wouldn't say suck it up and do it. I don't like that attitude. I'd rather suggest you find a compromise that everyone can live with

Fenian Army

firstly I'll just say that there is nothing worse than a law student who think they know everything

Secondly, op, there is no way you can break this to your father without devastating him. Giving his daughter away, walking her down the isle is literally one of the proudest moments of a man's life. It's a big deal.

not only that, think of how it will make him look, everyone here is saying "unless he was a terrible dad" people will think he is one if you don't let him.

don't be so selfish, include your dad, many women would love to but can't.

Procrastastudy

Fenian Army wrote: »

firstly I'll just say that there is nothing worse than a law student who think they know everything.

I absolutely agree, if you come across one who claims they do, you should probably show them where they're wrong rather than hurling thinly veiled personal attacks.

Fenian Army wrote: »

Secondly, op, there is no way you can break this to your father without devastating him. Giving his daughter away, walking her down the isle is literally one of the proudest moments of a man's life. It's a big deal.

not only that, think of how it will make him look, everyone here is saying "unless he was a terrible dad" people will think he is one if you don't let him.

don't be so selfish, include your dad, many women would love to but can't.

The OP has stated twice now there is no negotiation on this and very few people have actually offered any advice on her question. Just repeated the same thing over and over again. Their right of course but not very helpful.

Sound Bite

sasser wrote: »

Again I'll ask, where is the mother in all of this? Did she not raise the child too? And why doesn't the bride go and ask the groom's parents permission to marry him (oh sorry it's a blessing, not permission). Old mysoginistic traditions that would be best forgotten. As for grown woman waiting around to be asked to marry, that's a while other thread!

I'm only talking about my own situation. Of course my mother raised me but things like this are of little importance to my mother. She's less of a traditionalist.

I agree with you that its a mysoginistic tradition to some extent and my father understands that I would view it as such but he doesn't.

Its more important to him that he walk me down the isle than it is to me not to have it.

sasser

P. Breathnach wrote: »

OP told us where her mother stands:

I was referring to all mothers regarding weddings, what is the mother's role, who is equally as important as the father, yet doesn't seen to have any role on the wedding day, save for getting a few poxy flowers

P. Breathnach

sasser wrote: »

I was referring to all mothers regarding weddings, what us the mother's role, who is equally as important as the father, yet doesn't seen to have any role on the wedding day, save for getting a few poxy flowers

This discussion is about OP's concerns, and not a general discussion of social mores. The only mother whose stance is relevant is OP's mother.

gosuckonalemon

People are talking about the mother's role or lack there of.

Although the mother may not have much of a role in the ceremony the OP seems to forget the devastating impact her decision will have on her mother.

If she doesn't ask her father to walk her down the aisle, it will undoubtedly devastate him, which will in turn affect the mother.

Why would somebody want to inflict such hurt on the people who raised her?

It's a bit twisted.

If she is trying to be all modern and doesn't want the archaic traditions of a wedding then don't bother with the wedding itself and get married in a registry office.

As has been said already, she is just cherry picking to suit herself.

A truly terrible way to act.

Jack B. Badd

Sound Bite wrote: »

He views it as he raised me and got me to this stage health, happy etc and would like my husband to ensure this continues.

Most people are raised by both parents so why is the mother denied the "joy" of walking their daughter down the aisle? Ditto for the groom's parents - why don't they count enough to warrant walking him down the aisle?

Also, children are raised by their parents but when they become adults they take responsibility for themselves. A woman's husband doesn't take on the job of raising her or take ultimate responsibility for her - that's her own responsibility.

OP, I think you should do what makes you and your OH happy. It's your marriage & wedding after all. If you're father can't bring himself to be happy for you because he doesn't get his way, explain to him that we don't always get what we want in this life - that's a good lesson that most parents are eager to teach their children & imo it works both ways.

sasser

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

People are talking about the mother's role or lack there of.

Although the mother may not have much of a role in the ceremony the OP seems to forget the devastating impact her decision will have on her mother.

If she doesn't ask her father to walk her down the aisle, it will undoubtedly devastate him, which will in turn affect the mother.

Why would somebody want to inflict such hurt on the people who raised her?

It's a bit twisted.

If she is trying to be all modern and doesn't want the archaic traditions of a wedding then don't bother with the wedding itself and get married in a registry office.

As has been said already, she is just cherry picking to suit herself.

A truly terrible way to act.

A tad dramatic don't you think? Snd by the way, getting married in a registry office is a civil wedding, still a wedding even though it's not in a church, and how many peoples get married every week.

OP, your dad raised you and knows you. You have to explain how important this is to you as a couple and your beliefs, how he reacts after that you can't do anything about. You can only hope he wil have respect for you as the adult you are.

gosuckonalemon

What are the actual negative impacts of having the man who raised you walk you down the aisle of a church on your wedding day? Just out of curiosity

username123

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

As has been said already, she is just cherry picking to suit herself.

A truly terrible way to act.

Eh, overreaction much?

A truly terrible way to act?

Where exactly is it written in moral law the precise details of what must be complied with in order to get married so that you are not behaving in a terrible way?

Seriously, she doesnt want to be given away, she is not talking about murdering her father on the altar!

gosuckonalemon

sasser wrote: »

A tad dramatic don't you think? Snd by the way, getting married in a registry office is a civil wedding, still a wedding even though it's not in a church, and how many peoples get married every week.

OP, your dad raised you and knows you. You have to explain how important this is to you as a couple and your beliefs, how he reacts after that you can't do anything about. You can only hope he wil have respect for you as the adult you are.

Yes I'm fully aware that a wedding is a wedding.

gosuckonalemon

username123 wrote: »

Eh, overreaction much?

A truly terrible way to act?

Where exactly is it written in moral law the precise details of what must be complied with in order to get married so that you are not behaving in a terrible way?

Seriously, she doesnt want to be given away, she is not talking about murdering her father on the altar!

It's a small symbolic part of a wedding. It has no impact on her. Yet not doing so will have a negative impact on her parents. And yes, her mother will suffer just as much, if not worse than her father.

As I've said, if she's not into all the bollix attached to a wedding then go to a registry office.

username123

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

It's a small symbolic part of a wedding. It has no impact on her. Yet not doing so will have a negative impact on her parents. And yes, her mother will suffer just as much, if not worse than her father.

As I've said, if she's not into all the b***** attached to a wedding then go to a registry office.

Do you have to keep using bad language? Its adds nothing to the discussion.

But it does have an impact on her. She doesnt want it happening at her wedding. Her wedding - do you get that? Her father had his wedding whatever way he wanted it.

Bit over the top drama to be going on about negative impacts and suffering! If its so small a part, then whats the issue? As I said earlier, you cant have it both ways. Its either a big deal or it isnt.

sasser

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Yes I'm fully aware that a wedding is a wedding.

Ok It was just that you said don't bother with the wedding and get married in a registry office. It's still a wedding if you get married in a registry office, and I've seen many brides get walked down the aisle in registry office weddings, so OP's problem would still be relevant, she wouldn't be avoiding the aisle problem

gosuckonalemon

username123 wrote: »

Do you have to keep using bad language? Its adds nothing to the discussion.

But it does have an impact on her. She doesnt want it happening at her wedding. Her wedding - do you get that? Her father had his wedding whatever way he wanted it.

Bit over the top drama to be going on about negative impacts and suffering! If its so small a part, then whats the issue? As I said earlier, you cant have it both ways. Its either a big deal or it isnt.

I wouldn't care personally, weddings are a waste of time and in particular money. Unfortunately Irish Mammys in this day and age tend to be alot more traditional thinking than their children.

It just seems like a lot of hassle. I'm sure the parents will enjoy having to stress to everyone that the daughter requested no aisle walking by father because of her beliefs, not because he was a bad father etc.

The Corinthian

analucija wrote: »

And if she is? Why not? This is off topic enough.

It's not off topic though. This board was set up to give people advice on personal issues, but that advice is not necessarily the advice they want to hear.

If she is cherry-picking, then this is relevant, because it highlights that maybe her position is unreasonable to begin with - something that she may not even realize until it is pointed out.

This realization may lead her to a compromise position with her father, or it may lead her to just going and getting married in a registry office so that it really is just about her and her husband-to-be.

Otherwise, like it or not, a wedding is not simply about the bride and groom. If it was, there would be no guests, no family present. I've been invited to weddings that I've refused to go to, simply because these were people who didn't bother keeping in contact with you for years and then at the last minute invited a few extra guests to bulk up the after dinner numbers - and I can do without pandering to that level of narcissism.

So either she needs to find a compromise that recognizes that it's not just about the two of them or go ahead and make it truly about the two of them.

Pm me if you want additional explanation and I'll respond later.

I've no interest in doing that.

Big Bag of Chips

I've just seen this now, and haven't read ANY replies, so apologies if I repeat.

My cousin married someone from France. At their wedding the whole bridal party including parents walked down the aisle ahead of the bride.

Her father did still give her away, but you could fashion it in such a way that you walk by yourself, with your mam and dad already gone ahead?

Or have them both walk WITH you, not giving you a way, but walking beside you on your day?

woodchuck

If it means so much to your Dad then what’s the harm? You’ll be walking down the aisle either way, so what difference does it make if he walks with you or not. It won’t add to the length or ‘pomp’ of the ceremony. I’m all for people having the type of wedding they want, but I really don’t see what the issue is here. I highly doubt your Dad (or anyone else) sees it as a ‘transfer of property’ these days.

But if you insist on not having him walk him down the aisle, I’d explain your reasons to him in full.

Kimia

I'm genuinely surprised at the viewpoints here. Honestly OP, have your wedding the way you want it and don't listen to the browbeating of the other posters here who quite frankly are shocking in their selfishness.

Your father will understand. Be sensitive while explaining to him - give him another role perhaps, something that you don't equate with ownership. Perhaps have both your parents write a little something and he can read it out after the meal or something?

I completely understand where you're coming from. Your wedding day should be about you and the choices you and your partner make, not about making other people happy. The other people at your wedding are there to support you in those choices. Best of luck.

username123

The Corinthian wrote: »

If she is cherry-picking, then this is relevant, because it highlights that maybe her position is unreasonable to begin with

How is cherry picking what you want for the ceremony unreasonable?

Whether or not you get married in a church or registry office the officiator sits down with the couple and goes through the basic ceremony - the elements that HAVE to be included to make it legal and/or have to be included as part of a catholic ceremony - and the couple then decide on what other bits they want to include or not. Thats just how you organise a ceremony - all ceremonies are 'cherry picked' in that manner. Its just how its done. I dont see whats unreasonable about it.

Some people want live music, some people want live singing, some people want children to come forward with items, some people want family members to recite prayers or poems. No two ceremonies follow an exact format, different traditions suit different people and to suggest that picking the bits you want is somehow unreasonable is silly.

Stavro Mueller

In this case though, the bit that she's choosing to omit is going to hurt her father's feelings.

The Corinthian

username123 wrote: »

How is cherry picking what you want for the ceremony unreasonable?

It is if by doing so you ignore the wishes of those others who are involved in the wedding.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, weddings (unless you elope) are not simply about the bride and groom - the whole point to them is that they are a social occasion. As such the wishes of those invited to witness and give social acceptance to the new union are actually important. They're particularly important to the parents of those getting married too and are often seen as important milestones in their lives.

And of course weddings differ, but we're not talking about differences in wedding bands here, we're talking about a fairly fundamental difference that has put the OP in direct opposition with her father. And the basis of her objection is one that ultimately does not really stand up to examination.

People tend to get horrifically narcissistic where it comes to weddings. As I recounted earlier, I received an invitation to one about five years ago from someone who I'd drifted away from, largely because they made no effort to keep contact. It was an after-dinner invitation, sent two-weeks before and also sent to two other friends that had been similarly 'dropped'. We were there to bulk up the numbers and it was obvious. In the end, none of us went.

The wedding is a big day for the bride (principally) and groom. But it is also a big day for their families too. And to a much lesser extent, the guests. If you ignore the latter, then by all means do so, but don't be surprised if you face resentment for it, or even people not turning up.

P. Breathnach

Kimia wrote: »

I'm genuinely surprised at the viewpoints here.

So am I.

... Your wedding day should be about you and the choices you and your partner make, not about making other people happy....

That's one of the viewpoints that surprises me.

Life is a bit more complicated than that. It's not good to disregard other people's feelings.

LegacyUser

I think you are totally right to want to reject this sexist tradition, OP. Good on you. I will advise however that there is value in compromising your principles sometimes for the sake of keeping the peace. I personally try not to take my parents and old people in general too seriously; I realise that their attitudes are deeply ingrained, there will always be a generational gap and there is little point in persuading them otherwise.

sambuka41

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Life is a bit more complicated than that. It's not good to disregard other people's feelings.

But you can't live your life for other people either.

if the OP's father was insisting on a religious ceromony for tradition sake no one would be putting pressure on the OP to cave to his demand. That's just because more and more people are not having their wedding in a church; but it's not that common yet to not have your father give you away.

OP your dad may not agree with you on this but he should be willing to respect your wishes, I doubt this will be the last thing in your relationship where you guys will have to agree to disagree, that's what being a grown up is about. Just wait till kids come along, and the disagreements about whats a good bedtime, or snack, school, religion!!!!

AhInFairness

espihal, have you even broached this subject with your father directly or are you just assuming he'll have a freaker about it because of his annoyance at your OH not coming to him before he proposed?

I agree that the OP should do what makes her happy but equally I can see the arguments regarding the cherry-picking. It is hard to accept the OP's viewpoint on this issue while she chooses to ignore other aspects of the marriage ceremony that can be seen as equally archaic. It can be difficult to understand why the OP is willing to accept other traditions (proposal, ring, wedding vows, white dress, etc) but will knowingly hurt her father because she has decided to take a stand against this one tradition.

Personally I don't like the idea of being "given away" but if it isn't a traditional church wedding you can remove the question "who gives this woman to this man?" and instead your father (and mother - what a lovely suggestion!) can just accompany you down to the registrar as a show of support and pride. Connotations change over time and I personally don't think there are very many people who view a father walking his daughter down the aisle as him "giving her" to the groom.

Ultimately it is up to you OP. Perhaps try speaking to your father first.