Martin, Judith, and Jacobina Martin - Miss Manners' Guide to a Surprisingly Dignified Wedding

[oyceter]

I read this because despite having been to several weddings, I can still never quite figure out what to do/what you're supposed to do. This is even more confusing now that I am part of sister's wedding party and therefore have things to do that extend beyond the day of the wedding.

This book was written with the notion that today's weddings have now become massive, expensive events in which the bride selfishly makes demands of everyone because it's "her day." I have, as I'm sure some of you expected, some issues with this. Given that this is Miss Manners and not a book on gender roles and social commentary, I'm okay with the fact that she doesn't unpack this more, but I'm also disappointed that it simply goes with this cliched view of weddings and brides. This is not to say that selfish brides don't exist, but I think the narrative of the selfish bride handwaves how much USian society pressures women to view their wedding day as The Biggest Day of Their Entire Life, how so much of the traditional female narrative is being male person's noun (brother's sister, father's daughter, son's mother, etc.) and this is still within that frame but at least focuses on the woman, how there is so much pressure for the bride to plan the whole damn thing herself with the groom supposedly not having any input or help, and etc. So yes, selfish brides exist, but on the other hand, condemning them for selfishness while ignoring all these other factors annoys me.

Also, as you have probably noticed, I keep using the terms "bride" and "groom." This is because although the book acknowledges same-sex marriages, it's very much written with heterosexual pairs in mind. Miss Manners is supportive of same-sex marriages, but the way the book is written, it's very..."things don't exist unless readers bring them up." There's a very standard narrative in place, and the book does not break out of it unless prodded to do so. This was an excellent example for me of authors who probably want to be inclusive but are unintentionally exclusive because they don't think outside the norm.

For example, I kept reading advice on how good brides who are not selfish will take their parents into account and such. Which, yes, great if you have a good relationship with your parents. Not so great otherwise. It's also very whitebread American culture, despite Miss Manners' acknowledgement of other cultural traditions.

I was particularly irked by her annoyance at people who solicit funds and money at bridal showers and weddings and etc. One reader made a point that sometimes it is cultural, but the only response was that if the bride's mother was writing to Miss Manners about it, obviously it wasn't cultural enough. And I am all for her aghastness at people's behavior, except in variations of my culture, you give money at weddings. And when you have weddings that include both the older generation and a younger, more Americanized generation, I don't actually think it's rude or whatnot to talk about present giving, because people are confused!

But this may just be me, and after all, this is why I picked up the book in the first place.

Other than that, it is a perfectly nice book, but it is a much more interesting read as a sociological artifact of a particular time and culture. And its presentation of itself as "etiquette" makes it even more jarring to read than historical fiction would be.

Comments

[jadelennox]

I am mostly responding to this as an excuse to use my Miss Manners icon, and it amused the heck out of me that "Judith Martin" sorts directly beneath "Judith Butler" in my icon list.

Anyway, I agree with you about the limitations of that sort of passive inclusiveness, although she is certainly supportive within her framework.

Dear Miss Manners, what do I say when I am introduced to a homosexual "couple"?

Gentle Reader: "How do you do? How do you do?"

But that being said, yes, her focus is absolutely on the heteronormative. She does a reasonable job of outreach to people who want a standard Western wedding but come from families with divorce, remarrying, and extramarital children, but it's still all operates within that framework. She is definitely focused on the tradition of weddings as American and English artifacts.

And while she has definitely solidly attacks people who use a transparent claim of different social mores to excuse inconsiderate behavior, I have noticed that her compilations rarely include letters from people who actually come from traditions with social mores of which she was previously unaware. In other words when people bring up traditions with which she is unfamiliar, she only seems to print the letters which provide strawmen which are valuable for her overall arguments.

When I was in my early 20s, going to a lot of weddings, and reading the ridiculous amount of Miss Manners, I never knew how to juggle the complication of what Miss Manners told me (and what made instinctive sense to me was proper), and what my friends expected; one of Miss Manners' biggest pet peeves is when people use the customs of courtesy as an excuse to be inconsiderate (e.g. making fun of people for using the wrong fork). And isn't it considerate to participate in the wedding in the style your friends desire, even if it follows customs that Miss Manners has logically convinced me are kind of rude?

That being said, I don't know that particular book but I do think in some of her books she critiques the overall structure that leads someone to believe that, perhaps, a wedding is the most important day of a bride's life because it is all downhill after that. I mean within the framework that she uses, which is very Western second wave feminist.

[oyceter]

Yeah, I do think she tries to be inclusive, and she does acknowledge that not all brides are like this... the book ends with a letter from a bride talking about how hard she is trying to wedding plan to make everyone feel invited, but everyone has complaints, and Miss Manners is very gracious about thanking her for the reminder that there are lovely brides out there.

And I like that she is very pro-feeling over rules: the form of who the biological father is matters less than who the bride wants escorting her down the aisle, and she's very nice to most of the same-sex couples who write in. It's just this odd... combination of that philosophy with other ways of thinking. It makes me feel as though she has been raised a certain way and still defaults to that, but is good enough to not cling to it if need be?

It was just so odd reading the book because I'd keep flipping back and forth between everything!

[lady_ganesh]

I think she very much starts with the Old Rules of Etiquette and modifies them as needed, which means she doesn't always get at the underlying assumptions in those Old Rules.

[thistleingrey]

Plus regional variation--two "whitebread" American friends (one of whom uses that term himself) had a basket into which envelopes of money could be placed. Most of the attendees were family, and one celebrant's family members, mostly from Louisiana, gave money. (So did a few friends who hadn't figured out a gift in time, since there was no registry!)

[oyceter]

And I do think she emphasizes that what she protests against most is the couple telling guests what types of presents they would like—she seems to feel it takes the personal out of the gift. But on the other hand, I also get the feeling that she does somehow vaguely disprove of giving money, as she notes that your (more) gracious thank you letter should acknowledge what you got with the money, not the money itself.

[jesse_the_k]

Yeah, no.

The problem is this assumes that a couple is starting out in life, which can happen, but often doesn't. Late 20s through 30s, both (or more!) have created households already. So the money doesn't go for toasters or furniture; it may go for paying down one's student loans, or setting aside a reserve for vet bills, or .....

(Obligatory statement that, as advice columnists go, Miss Manners' approach is up top of a long, lousy, list.)

[lady_ganesh]

Northeast here, and the basket is generally there for cards. No one asks what's in the card. ;-)

[kore]

I am all for her aghastness at people's behavior, except in variations of my culture, you give money at weddings

....her being aghast at that is so weird. Lots of family members gave or sent us money when T and I got married -- checks or cash. It added up to a considerable amount and we were really grateful because we were stony broke - I don't think anyone even asked us about it. Maybe part of it was because we'd already been living together for about a year and had no need for toasters, elaborate pots, &c, and both families knew we aren't that much into Stuff.

[oyceter]

I think her specific dislike is of couples dictating what presents the guests should give, ergo her dislike of wedding registries as well. But then there's this undercurrent that cash is Just Not Classy, because for thank you notes, she tells someone to say thank you for whatever they bought with the money, not for the money itself, and that presents should be thoughtful and bought with the person in mind.

[kore]

her specific dislike is of couples dictating what presents the guests should give, ergo her dislike of wedding registries as well

whaaaaaaaa....Okay that actually does strike me as kind of weird.

[vom_marlowe]

Huh. Giving money at marriages is pretty common in my culture. Usually in white envelopes as part of dancing with the bride, actually, so it's pretty formalized and expected. (No idea where that got started.) But it's different when it's a second marriage or a couple who are already established.

[lady_ganesh]

See, my people give money (well, my immediate family doesn't, but that's family quirks rather than culture) but they never, ever ask for money. (This is changing, a bit, but not hugely.)

[vom_marlowe]

Oh interesting! We give money by default in certain contexts, like marriages and graduations, more life change events? Oh, and new babies. It's pretty rare to give money in other circumstances--that's much more handmade gifts (often food, crafts, or someone quietly showing up to redo your car engine, etc).

[wrdnrd]

Oh wow, i'd managed to completely forget about the bridal dance until you mentioned it. I saw it at weddings i went to when i was little, but i don't think any of the weddings of friends i've attended have had it. Hmm, then again, the weddings i attended when i was little were rural East Coast whereas recently i've only been to urban West Coast weddings.

[vom_marlowe]

I've mostly seen it in the midwest (Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas). When I was in Oklahoma for a wedding, there wasn't one, and I asked about it and nobody knew what I meant. Wonder if it's partly regional? Also, I've never seen a bridal dance for a second-marriage, only a younger starting couple....

[oyceter]

Oh interesting! I have no idea if Chinese culture has different expectations for second marriages or already established couples, though that'd be interesting to know.

Also, I love how things get formalized with envelopes and etc. Cash for New Year (and I am assuming other formal occasions) usually has to be nice new crisp bills from the bank, and they have some sort of special perfume/scent on it. Kind of makes you wonder who thought of that.

[vom_marlowe]

Yes, I love the formalizing too! (Partly because I adore all things paper and stationary, heh.) That's so cool about the bills. My grandmother always got us crisp bills for birthday money, even though it was small. I'd never thought about it, although I noticed it as a kid, because most cash is more worn.

[troisroyaumes]

Hah, I am totally bemused at the "cash is not classy" idea because money at weddings is such a norm for me.

There does seem to be an endless etiquette debate over what's polite in terms of how much to give/how much to expect/how and when to receive the money though, which intersects a lot with class and degree of assimilation...it's fascinating, if vaguely head-explosion-inducing, to listen to my mother and family acquaintances gossip about the changing norms.

[lady_ganesh]

This is, I think, one of the reasons my family practice is to Give Stuff. Because then no one knows how much you spent and it's the thought that counts, right? (Also, my grandparents came from Not Much and were very good at putting things together, crafting, etc.)

[oyceter]

I know, right? I also feel kind of bad because I did not realize you are not actually supposed to bring presents to the wedding even though there is a person there for them! I actually went out of my way to get something from a store and wrap it, heh.

But OMG yes re: how much to give. I always overhear my parents discussing this whenever they are invited to a wedding and weighing all the things like who the person is and how much they socialize and etc etc etc.

[starlady]

I have reaaally vague memories of being told in childhood that giving money at weddings was less appropriate than giving stuff (and we should feel free to read "appropriate" as "classy" or its equivalent, methinks, with emphasis on the "class" part), but by the time I actually started going to weddings of people I knew as a teenager and since the money bias seemed to have totally evaporated. There's always way more cards in the check basket than boxes on the table for stuff.

It's interesting to see Miss Manners and that one column in the New York Times - the practical ethicist or something? - struggle between the traditional purpose of etiquette as a way to exclude people and the new goal of not being so exclusive with it.

Really interesting points about brides and selfishness! I hadn't quite put that all together consciously, but I think you're totally right.

[oyceter]

Hee, I also took exception to the brides and selfishness thing because my sister's friend did a lot of stuff Miss Manners would probably not approve of, but she did it because she enjoys it and likes matching party stuff.

But yeah, I think sometimes Miss Manners' preconceived notions of what is "proper" (read: class appropriate or something) sometimes tangles with the not excluding people, because she tries, and yet sometimes I was just like, "Bzuh?"

[kate_nepveu]

You are entirely right about Miss Manners' cultural context and I thank you for pointing it out.

As someone planning a wedding within that cultural context, I actually found a prior version of this book not at all all-about-me-the-bride!!! and very refreshing in its emphasis on the purpose behind etiquette (and of course her dry humor), so I am disappointed to hear that this version fails that.

[oyceter]

Oh interesting! I do actually think this book probably does better than most wedding books? I don't know, because I skimmed a few websites in the course of doing research and then quickly backed away because it was a bit terrifying. As in, I frequently have problems with Miss Manners, but not to the extent of not finishing the book.

I do like her focus on the fact that a lot of "wedding etiquette" is not really traditional anyway, but there's this weird thing where she seems to assume that all the people doing so are doing so out of selfishness. Whereas almost all the weddings I've been to have that stuff, and I think partially because it's mixed generation hyphenated American people, so I get a bit annoyed with the somewhat pitying tone she has about people who mistake "etiquette" for etiquette in her POV.

[redrose]

Miss Manners on Painfully Proper Weddings?

I didn't really see the cultural context of it, and mostly I liked it because I had something I could brandish at anyone arguing with the bride about the way things "should" be done. (I was the Maid of Honor.)