It’s great that women’s empowerment groups are flourishing. But the physical world is still built by men
Today I was at the University of East London, where I participated in a lovely event called Visible Women, part of International Women’s Week. Last week I was invited to attend, but was unable to, a similar event at Goldsmiths University, in association with Prospect Magazine. Two weeks ago I was asked to talk to a secondary school about whether Beyonce is a feminist (of course I accepted, pending the right date). I have also very much enjoyed participating at Mumsnet Blogfest, which was about how to be a woman with a voice.
Keep in mind that I am not particularly famous. Usually I am far less impressive-sounding, actually, than the other women I have shared platforms with. They must be inundated. But it’s obvious that there are enough of these innovative events, platforms, and groups to go around.
Is this new? Not exactly: for a good hundred years, there has been a vibrant community of women’s groups in every city in Britain and throughout the US. But there seems to be a great deal of savvy media working around them now. These gals know how to get press, and the press are up for it, so the general buzz about women’s organisations has swelled. It feels like there are many more of them suddenly.
All do good work or intend to.
Still, I can’t help but question the long-term benefits of support networks, empowerment drives and “raising awareness” (is this a bit softer and more general than the iconic consciousness-raising of yore?), taken in isolation from the specifics of gendered dynamics at school, university, home, work, and acquisition of skills and interests. What I mean is not that women’s confidence and support-systems shouldn’t be built and strengthened through community and cooperation and outspokenness. Absolutely they should.
But I can’t shake the sense that other more concrete problems are not attracting the same buzz. General goals are all very well, but what about the severe shortage of women entering computer science departments? What about the lack of women going into maths and physics and engineering? Yes, groups need to be in place to lobby for better maternity and flextime policies so that women can continue their careers in these very fields after children if they want.
But there aren’t enough women going into these fields out of university. And the professions dominated by men happen to be the ones that literally build the world. Literally and conceptually, through engineering and high-flying architecture jobs, men build skyscrapers and bridges, hospitals and airports. Only 13 per cent of American engineers are women, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. And British organisations like WISE (Women into Science, Engineering and Construction) are barely heard of. They don’t throw cool media-friendly panel events, certainly.
Since men dominate the top of most political and corporate ladders, they also decide where these things go and what they should look like and even who should get to use them. More pressingly, perhaps, men rule technology – as engineers and as entrepreneurs. They build our dating sites, our search engines, our social media pages, our servers, our governmental security programs.
My question is: what would the world look and feel like if women played a bigger role in its construction? What would a woman-conceived bridge, or set of bridges or canal system, or women-built skyscraper, or women-made dating algorithm look like?
Maybe the answer doesn’t matter and even asking it is to get dragged into a world of polarisation and stereotype. But I think it’s a question that should be asked and I can’t help but notice how few young, cool, clever feminist entrepreneurs are addressing the very specific dearth of women builders. I’m not talking about work-life balance, the demands of motherhood or the apparently universal problem of female self-confidence. I‘m talking about: where are the female electrical, civil and digital engineers? Why, when we know that women’s cognitive abilities and even their tastes aren’t THIS different, are they absent? Is it just male culture in these industries? If so, what does that mean, exactly? How can it be changed? Isn’t this something that needs to involve men?
I want to know what a world with more women politicians and construction workers and engineers and tech entrepreneurs would look like but I’m worried that, for all the talk of support and empowerment, I’m going to be a long time waiting.
I hate to be the luddite, reliably heaping fear and loathing on new technology. Sadly, while I am broadly very in favour of technological innovation, I am utterly appalled by what it’s doing for singles. Dating and mating platforms have gone from “numbers game” to just “game” – with no shame whatsoever. It’s like we’re all being dragged into the lowest common denominator of masculine playtime values. World of Warcraft isn’t enough – now meeting the opposite sex has to look like gaming. Not gaming in the metaphorical sense that Neil Strauss, gross pick up artist guru, talked about it. But in the sense of actual games, gambling games. The coincidence and ubiquity of Chat Roulette and Tinder have made this abundantly clear.
Chat Roulette, or excuse me, Chatroulette “is a place where you can interact with new people over text-chat, webcam and mic.” It is not bounded by geographical location. Your screen pans through all the people on video and up for a “chat” and if you like the look of them (my guess someone’s impressive collection of Tolstoy in the background isn’t what’s going to stop most people), you stop and “chat”. If “chat” isn’t a word that hasn’t been utterly dirtified by the internet then OkCupid is a Jane Austen novel.
Tinder is hugely popular. Have you see Tinder? Tinder is what moves me to opine on “what technology is doing to us” or rather, what we (read: Sean Rad and Justin Mateen, aged 27, co-founders of Tinder) are doing to technology.
Tinder is modelled on a card game. There’s no going back. You set the geographical location to whatever you want; 2 miles, 89 miles, and press go. The satellite thinks and loads: now you rifle, literally rifle, through a deck of faces. If you swipe left, you’re binning the face, and a red stamp “nope” appears on the face. If you swipe left out of inertia, retrospectively deciding the person’s face you just binned was maybe a bit nice, maybe showed a glimmer of humanity that you were interested in, well too bad – they’re GONE man. Onwards. Next. Next. Next. Next. Next. Click the heart symbol or swipe right and in Valentine’s Hallmark letters it tells you “you’re a match!”. What does “you’re a match” mean? It means that the man you have clicked yes to also clicked yes to you when he saw your face moments before you saw his (the wonders of the algorithm). That means he liked your face – or he didn’t not like it – or vastly and obviously more likely, he lazily inferred that if there was nobody else available he’d shag you (if he could be bothered) if your face is anything to go by. Once you’re “a match!” you can message the person.
And that’s it. It’s completely bonkers because what happens is that clicking “yes” to a face, or rather, not binning a face, is absolutely identical in output or cost or inflowing knowledge to any other movement on the phone requiring one single flick of the thumb. So when you message the person (of eight or so “matches” none messaged me first), they respond a chronically uncharming message because, surprise surprise, you have nothing to talk about at all. You both did not swipe right, you clicked the heart symbol. That’s what you have in common. Nobody cares much about anything on Tinder – least of all other people – why should they? There’s always a deck of faces to go back to. Rifling takes no effort.
Tinder has been hailed as a “more honest” form of digital dating than internet dating because you get rejected and can reject so easily. Nobody cares about the profile anyway, it’s said, and therefore it’s only the picture that counts. But this is a false justification – checking someone out and thinking their face is nice in real life is a much better investment of time. You can see immediately if they’re enormously fat, have a terrible snarl when talking to their mates, or dead eyes. And if they really are attractive, then they really ARE attractive to you. They might have binned you on Tinder but if you charm them, there is room for negotiation. By contrast, Tinder shows you a face, and asks you to stamp it yay or nay while watching TV or masturbating or whatever people do – so static, rigid.
It’s more honest in the nightmare world of misleading pictures and binned faces that it has created, yes.
It’s not more honest in terms of the enigmatic mechanics of co-present attraction.
To end, I’d like to just remind you that Tinder, Blendr, and every single last online dating site bar MySingleFriend is the product of MEN. Male business school graduates, male engineers, male visionaries, male techies. Just saying. If women enjoy the feeling of thumbing a face into oblivion and the only very thin fulfilment possible when a message is exchanged, then great. But part of me wonders if Tinder’s followers are just – out of a combination of exhaustion and dutiful trend consumerism – just giving in to the dehumanising wet dream of a bunch of American boys.
I just finished reading a book that claims to explain “what technology does to meeting and mating” - Dan Slater’s Love In the Time of Algorithms. The short answer is: it turns people (women and men) into the worst masculine stereotypes of “shopping and fucking”-style cruisers, to borrow from Mark Ravenhill’s famous play’s title. Maybe this is because all the major sites were founded by, and obsessively managed, sold and bought by, men. There was one female CEO in the biz that I know of: Mandy Ginsberg, of Match in the US, who has now moved over to Tutors.com.
What’s fascinating and grotesque about Slater’s picture of the multi-millions of “users” or “customers” – webizens all seeking “more connections” with “better people” – is just how tangled up (others might called it wired up, or linked up) people are in their media streams. They are online daters, many of them, but his point is that mostly, they’re just online. A lot. In the America that Slater presents as the place living out the space-time bends in the “time” of algorithms, the following sentence obviously makes sense *on a wide scale*: “Today’s togetherness is often instantaneous, and then constant. You begin dating someone you met online, or off, and in a matter of days you are Facebook friends who also follow each other’s Twitter feed and show up on each other’s Tumblr dash and chat throughout the day via IM and text. By midday you’ve opened ten tabs on your browser, and on five of them the avatar of your paramour is blinking and winking and typing and poking and accepting and liking and smiling and frowning and inviting.” (Slater 2013, p. 178)
Umm, who are these people? This is a genuine question. What do they think about their MO (modus operandus), their tech-mediated perception of experience, others and sex, their inability to concentrate without a phone in their hand? Do they remember a time when reading meant reading, and watching a movie meant doing just that, sans app, and when working involved working without ten tabs and a million banalities of multi-media banter to distract? Tasks or occupations done without the ticklish whisper of the pulsating “network”? Perhaps not – perhaps the “time” of algorithms Slater describes is really the time of teenagers, born too late to have experienced offline being, and with too many tools at their disposal in which to channel all the restless dissatisfaction and questing insecurity of the teenage and 20-something years.
Ok, so this is not just a tech-bashing, remember-the-golden-days-pre-web post. At least, not yet. It’s an exploratory one, which briefly recounts my impressions of this algorithmic life that seems to define so many people’s relationships and quest for love.
Because while reading Slater’s well-researched, relentless slurry of web stats, zeitgeisty tech-phrases, business-of-love models and bland company names, I felt that I had missed some major aspect of my contemporaries’ experience.
I have given quite a lot of attention to digital life – aside from my own too-frequent Facebook, email and gratuitous weather forecast checks – I have written an MPhil thesis on women’s experience of online dating, complete with two “research” accounts of my own. I’ve also downloaded Blendr and in the past, used JDate and Guardian Soulmates for real(ish short periods.
Each brush with an online dating site, whether for real or for research, felt like a brush with a comb vigorously teasing my hair the wrong way. Nails on a chalkboard. Every last thing about it either repelled me or felt impossible. I cannot, cannot, cannot make myself write the kind of profile that gets the sort of guys people like me want to be in touch. I cannot in good faith genuinely describe myself in more than two lines, utterly suffused with the ridiculousness, the paradoxical nature of trying to describe YOURSELF for a dating site. Would you trust a lonely fridge or washing machine or to describe itself? You would not. You would trust it once you’d read about in Which? or Consumer Reports, or seen it. Or heard about its virtues or faults by either first-hand context or through word of mouth. That point aside – I mean, clearly people do find text profiles useful (women for men usually) – I personally could never surmount the embarrassment and clear impossibility of summing myself up in the way you’re supposed to sum yourself up for a dating site. You are not supposed to say the same old things -instead, dazzle with a good joke or anecdote to get people interested. Argh! I can’t do it! So instead I say a few terse lines that try to be friendly but are indeed probably a bit superior – they do not tell funny anecdotes (I don’t want the kinds of people that get in touch with me reading personal anecdotes!) The result has always been pitiful, and I mean pitiful men getting in touch.
Yet everyone else seems to be wading around merrily, riding waves high and low, through the soggy seas of diginetweblove.
So I decided to have another go at a research account (I am not looking to actually meet someone). This time, I went for OkCupid – some cool people I know, or interviewed for my thesis, did OkCupid and had a nice time. A nice time by the numbers, perhaps; nice dates with nice men who enjoyed scrabble and pub quizzes, or indie concerts and good flat whites on Sundays and so on. None seemed memorable, all fading away into the bulbous glob of people-you-meet-online, or is it the profiles-you-meet-online.
Since logging back on on, my phobia and disbelief at how bad online dating sites are (for me!) has soared.
In the first place, the tone of the sites are all reprehensible. Condescending, eg “this is fun! But not that many people like you so maybe you could try harder, engage more with our site, help our profit model along!”. Also seriously bossy and manipulative: even the inbox page of OkCupid tells me, insultingly, that I could “Join A-list” (or is that a command? Perhaps a threat?). It tells me also to “Complete my profile” and to “Answer 25 match questions”. It’s also completely incomprehensible, entrenching my suspicion that all those people riding the digital waves know something I don’t. For instance: below the menu with “Browse matches”, “Messages”, “Visitors” and “Quick Match”, there is a box headed thus: “You might like: Answer the questions to unlock” followed by a picture of a random hairy student, a box that says Answer 50 and a box that says Answer 75.
Ok Cupid tells you if you look good in the picture you post. Fuck off, I say. It tells you all the things you can do to attract better people. I did them: I answered several of their questions, though avoided the numerous deeply sex-obsessed ones that in reality won’t help match anyone (do you really want to date someone for whom taking it up the butt is a must?). Match and Guardian were even worse, in their own ways. My research account on Match led to daily inundations to the email address I’d set up precisely for this purpose, yelling at me about people who’d winked, checked out my profile, “liked” me, or even – hello hello stop the press – got in touch. All messages concluded with pushy exclamation marks. I reliably felt queasy every time I looked at this inbox.
Here’s who has got in touch with me on OkCupid since Thursday.
abdelalalilove: “Hi how ru today?” Abdela’s profile says: “I am going to get my diploma, I have just not decided where I am going to go or waht I are going to study”. And! “I know how to have the best time but I occasionally enjoy staying in!” He is also a devout Muslim. I may not be so appropriate, given “atheist” written firmly in my “beliefs” column.
HolyDiver83: “Hey:) Ur curls nicer than mine x”
MisterVenus: “Hiya, Lovely profile and I must say you look adorable. Get in touch if I appeal to you as well. Cheers, Veer.” Veer, “originally from Dubai” looks contemplatively out from under a baseball cap, eyebrows sculpted, in The Thinker pose. “I seem to have ended up single and having no mates around now which I’m clearly not cool enough for but I won’t worry about that for now”.
Pietro300: “Hey, I’m looking for new friends too”
Goanerboy23: “Before you click off cause I don’t have a pic, it’s because I’m having problems uploading them to this site…[goes on for four lines about technical problems]…I have a pic on kik though, so do you have kik so we can talk there, your stunning btw xx i’m 19 btw xx
[note: two days later, still no pic]
Bravo_two: “Hey there, sorry for being so direct but I would like nothing more than to take you on a nice date, and then if you are up for it, take you home and go down on you”…
All of the people who have messaged me are “0 % matches”.
So much for algorithms.
So much for profiles.
So much for new social horizons.
It’s a good thing I’m not on a quest IRL (in real life) for internet-mediated buddies or partners. A good thing for me. Other people might think otherwise – and I hope they find what they want, I really do. Because it’s a goddamn mess out there.
I’ve had it with the body. It’s bringing down feminism.
There is no doubt that women’s bodies and the experience of female embodiment are a key manifestation of myriad sexist attitudes. Rape, abuse, discrimination, objectification – these are all bound up in the belief that women’s bodies and thus women invite or deserve ownership, dominion, ridicule and usage.
And this – the prevalence of abuse and tangible discrimination – is where the debate and activism needs to stay focussed, where underlying issues – as explored for instance in Susan Faludi’s expose of masculinity in Stiffed – need to be intelligently explored.
As for the rest, the body image, air-brushing, magazine-coverage stuff, it is inevitably hypocritical, boring and small. It’s on a loop and it’s going nowhere.
Reading Jezebel, the Vagenda and various other feminist forums, as well as mainstream “women’s press”, you’d think the biggest problem facing us today was the fact that “real” women appear airbrushed in glossies. The latest furore over Lena Dunham’s appearance in Vogue is a case in point of how far off, how limited, how narcissistic some of the dominant strands of feminist debate have become. Rather than keeping issues that are unfair and out of women’s control – such as abuse and pay inequality and maternity practices – in the forefront, mainstream women’s discourse is utterly in love with pseudo-academic preoccupations with the body, the ingredient du jour in a cocktail that also includes poorly thought out pickings from social science, pop neurology and psychology.
Indeed, feminism in the Anglo-American media been hijacked by a veritable obsession with women’s bodies and their representation. Instead of paving the way for more positive self-image through achievement and a sense of self that has nothing to do with the body, it is, reprehensibly and seemingly without self-awareness, locking us in even more to our physical realities. Biology isn’t destiny? That’s not the sense I get reading reams and reams and reams of outrage about female body imagery. Does the body have to be foremost? Can women not pursue their struggles and dreams sometimes oblivious to the political or sexual status of their bodies?
The fact is, nobody has a coherent body policy. Lena Dunham, who politicises the female body by trumping dominant expectations and appearing naked and fat in Girls, likes the way she looks in the recent Vogue shoot. That way is pretty, in a ladylike black dress and stilettos. She also sports tattoos, beer gut and a double chin. It’s inconsistent. Big whoop. Sometimes I like to dress up and show my cleavage – I also don’t believe in waxing, or uncomfortable footwear, or wearing lots of skin makeup. Also inconsistent.
So what? If we want, we can pick apart every last woman – feminist, glamour model, corporate executive – and read endless politics into her self-representation. There is politics there, but when tethered to a big, blamey protracted whine about how magazine images corrupt young girls into thinking they have to look like a cross between Kate Moss and Kim Kardashian, or how the airbrushing of 27-year old Lena Dunham from very flawed to just a tiny bit less flawed makes grownup women confused about what they should look like, all that “feminism” becomes is a circular argument about – surprise surprise – women’s bodies.
Can’t we move on, forwards, upwards or just somewhere else? Isn’t it more interesting to consider why there aren’t more women in science, why women CARE about magazine images (I really don’t understand that), why women themselves are so complicit in glossy magazine aesthetics (from Anna Wintour to the editor of French Closer, famous for busting Kate Middleton naked sunbathing and now, Francoise Hollande’s affair), the way consumerism and capitalism shape stylised body representations, what goes on in homes such that girls and then women rarely ask questions in university seminars …..
Because I’m bored of the body image question. As an adult woman, I don’t feel that society is working overtime to make me feel fat and useless. As a teenager, I felt that more – but then, feeling fat and useless is an adolescent truism for those of us who weren’t the popular girl or the hot girl or the sexy girl next door. We’re grownups now but the debates about air-brushing and body image seem to be stuck in an earlier developmental stage, both emotionally and intellectually.
There are further problems with this hollow line of debate about women and magazines and imagery. If women’s magazines – usually named as the key culprit – are so toxic, why does every other female graduate desperately want to work for one? If they’re so dangerous, why not slap warnings, like on cigarette packets, on them? Or better yet, why don’t we give our girls something better to read? From George Eliot to Mary Wollstonecraft, girls and young women might find something to be inspired by in which the appearance of our bodies is so by the bye they are all but forgotten. The power of the glossy image might lose some of its power. But maybe the feminist discourse-makers wouldn’t like that, because then they’d have to write about boring things, that had nothing to do with the body, prettiness, makeup, and the question of sex appeal.
Weddings are lovely. Of course they are. A great big party, a goose-bump rousing dash of formality, with the help of God in some cases, to tether contemporary coupling to thousands of years of tradition. Families converge, grannies look on with inscrutable expressions, kids look Hallmark-cute (I write as a former in-demand flower girl of Massachusetts circa 1985), bridesmaids strut their stuff (often secretly annoyed at the expense and bother and of course, the bride’s taste) and tears flow as the bride and groom walk down the aisle.
The wedding I attended on New Year’s Eve included all of these things (perhaps without bridesmaid annoyance; I couldn’t tell), though my tears weren’t flowing as I didn’t know the couple – it was that weird thing when a couple is forced to invite you because you’re going out with their cousin. Very nice of them indeed, poor dears. Especially as I partook of their food and drink all while keeping my anthropological, ever so slightly judgemental eye peeled. I saw plenty of scripts being enacted, plenty of jovial wedding cliches and traditions going ahead full-force, lots of classic apparel, particularly on the women, who were slips of things and wore stilettos, body-glove dresses, their hair in dagger-like swatches framing their faces, and mascara like pitchforks.
But as usual, my buzzy mind settled its sting on matters of gender and the occasion served to remind me of some of the things I’d do differently for my own wedding. No fault of these guys – they were doing what many British couples do. Get married in a church, with a priest, promise not to stray, and to love one another with the help of, and through, God. (I can’t tell if the earthly carnal love of a couple is meant to aid the love of God or the other way round.) In fact, this service was more egalitarian than some I’ve seen – it was “husband and wife”, not “man and wife” and they made it “to love, honour and protect” on both sides. No mention of “obey” or even of responsibilities towards childbirth.
Ok, so here are some things I’d do differently. Joan and Peter [names have been changed]: you were divine. Looked tip top, were generous to have me, and threw a fabulously foodie party on an ambitious date. It coulda been anyone’s wedding that prompted these thoughts.
1. The White Dress. The white freaking dress. It’s still white! Why? The link with virginity persists but the vast majority of British brides are not virgins. A good film on this topic is Therese Shechter’s How To Lose Your Virginity, which explores just how weirdly obsessed with female virginity the world is, particularly and increasingly the American Christian world. People LOVE a bit of virginity on a woman; and since most Brits and urban Americans are fallen, it seems to be “well, let’s be virgins for the day”. But what does virginity mean? It is not about a woman’s choice to not have sex because she hasn’t felt like it. It is about her obeying the cardinal rule: be pure for your husband. Virginity is about being a clean sheet for a man to draw on. Which is why Caterina Migliorini was able to sell hers for $780,000 via online auction to fund school fees, and Rosie Reid, a lesbian, for (a rather paltry) £10,000 to help pay tuition fees back in 2004.
Most brides wear white, evoking purity. But they also wear it extremely figure hugging, or with large swathes of flesh on show (both contradictory and uncomfortable). Though many of my white-dress bridal friends have looked fabulous, many traditional dresses are either puffy marshmallows, evoking a (virginal) princess, or lacy embroidery evoking a Tudor (virginal) maiden, or (and I confess to liking these) smart business-casual cream silk evoking…a career woman who has had as much sex as she’d chaired meetings and led webinars.
My dress would be maroon brocade, and may well feature embroidery of my new favourite icons: Medieval dogs. It would be cleavage-proud, bolstered by a balcony bra (this the specific suggestion of a man I won’t name). Instead of a veil, I’d sport a spray of gravitation-defying red net, with roses and other red flowers shot through it. Like a harlot’s bonnet, perhaps.
The dress would be fairly loose. I am pretty well done with tight, uncomfortable clothes. Medieval dogs, but no medieval corsetry. Rather, it’d all be elasticated, so that bloating, wind, over-eating or over-heating on the day would cause no discomfort. The bride yesterday, who wore a hand-made white robe, not so different from Kate Middleton’s but with even more embroidery, looked hemmed in and baking hot by 10pm and people kept treading on her train.
Bridal shoes seem to fit this format of contradiction: white on one hand, slutty on the other (eg majorly high heeled – and no judgement on prostitution intended!). Mine might be little maroon trainers, or Grecian-styled maroon sandals. In any case: flat, and made out of cloth or soft leather.
2. The speeches. The freaking speeches! The bride is STILL muzzled or silenced or just silent (ok, it’s voluntary, she likes tradition, not all women want to hold forth at their weddings, yah di yah). But really?! It’s silly enough that the woman is “given away” in church by her father or other man. We can put that down to tradition which – if properly contained and thought through – can be accommodated, particularly when combined with incense and a sweet old 16th century church. But this jolly old “way things are” thing of the father of the bride, the groom and the best man laying claim to the talking just makes the “giving away” of the bride real, bringing it out of the church and into the booze-hall. The thing that gets me is that women are said to be less assertive than men, more self-deprecating, less likely to ask for raises, to stand up and say things that might evoke criticism…well, you wonder why! Maybe they should start standing up and talking at their own weddings.
At my wedding I’d hold forth – and how. I’d thank all and sundry and tell the groom he looked beautiful and the best man he looked lovely too. I’d talk about how I first met my husband, some funny incidents along the way, the courtship, and some humorous facts about my husband.
I’d then invite my mother to talk, then my father/brother, close friends of either sex and…if the groom wanted to say a few words, well, that’d be fine too. Not sure about a best man speech though. It’s all slightly done in the tone and tradition of “ahhhhh, old Dave has been domesticated! Who’d a thought. [nudge nudge wink] And now I’m going to talk about how funny it was getting drunk with him all those times, and the time that…and when we….”
3. Taking the husband’s name. Umm. Why? If you stop and think about it, there is no reason at all. It is, plain and simple, a vestige of times and laws when the man owned his wife and she could only take out money, or a credit card, with his permission, let alone divorce him. People say it’s for the children. Yes, it’s easier for a child to have one name- otherwise you’d have an exponential accumulation of hyphens. So why is it the man’s name? There is no reason on earth- no good reason- why the best name shouldn’t win. Perhaps even the best family. The man might hate his parents and prefer his wife’s family’s name to be continued, or honoured. He might have a crap name, and her a brilliant one. She might hate hers but need to keep it for professional reasons – ok, why not give the kids his name then, if it’s better.
That’s that. Long live the wedding. They are great things on many levels. But they could be even better, or at least mine would be, if the woman was recast as more than just the gift exchanged.