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.

[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!)

[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]

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!

[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.

[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.

[sara]

Really?

Because I was raised that you NEVER ask someone for a gift of money, unless it's, like, that or your kids go hungry. (Yes, this is how I once spent a summer in South Carolina with no air conditioning -- because I didn't have the money, and asking for it would have been worse, by the standards of my family of origin, than going through a summer in South Carolina with no air conditioning. I know this is nutty but these are the things enculturation does to people!)

I had a wedding registry, but we certainly did not tell anyone about it unless they asked. I have been fairly horrified to get registry notifications in wedding invitations, and had I gone to a wedding like the one thistleingrey mentions above, where there were a basket for checks and the people getting married were white Americans? I would have been appalled. For that matter, I tend to think that bringing gifts to the wedding or reception shouldn't be done, because it's inconvenient for the bride and groom -- before the wedding, gifts should go to her home, and after, gifts should go to their joint home (though nowadays those are usually the same place).

We certainly got money as a wedding gift, and I wrote nice notes about it and so forth, but it's not that giving money is unacceptable among my people, it's that asking for it unless it's an emergency is totally not okay.

I do know, though, that Other People Do Things Other Ways, and when I go to a wedding in a cultural context not my own, I ask someone appropriate what one ought to do, and conform with their preferences and traditions inasmuch as I am able. When it's my cousins, though? I totally judge. ;>

[kore]

I think every getting-married couple I have ever known has had a registry, yeah. In the States at least it dates back to the twenties. I like the idea -- you can get something you know the couple wants, and IIRC once it's bought it gets taken off the list, so nobody winds up buying the same thing. But I'm not from the South.

[sara]

Well, I'm not Southern, either (if you go back far enough, I'm either midwestern or, God forbid, a Yankee). It's not that having a registry is wrong, it's that telling people that you have one, unless asked to do so, is like asking for money when you don't need it -- which is wrong, at least the way I was raised.

[oyceter]

Oh that's interesting!

I also feel a lot of the wedding things I have seen (every wedding I've been to was Chinese American) are an interesting mix, because the weddings are pretty Western, but in that way you get when you look at what everyone else is doing and then go for it with whatever adjustments you like to make?

Ergo the idea that having the registry link out there and whatnot is perfectly normal, because it's not like any of our parents told us that it Was Not Done.

I think that's partially why reading the book feels so very "window into another world" to me; it's very reminiscent of reading about Babysitters' Club while growing up in Taiwan.

[kore]

Okay!

[sara]

Oh, I will freely admit that I was brought up with a wacky set of white upper-middle-class American cultural rituals and mores, which...I will be the first one to admit their degree of weirdness and, frankly, their utter exoticism to most U.S. citizens today. Heck, most of it's not really even something I do in my own life, except it sometimes comes in handy at work.

But my parents were certainly invited to various Chinese-American weddings when they were in L.A., because they had a lot of Chinese-American colleagues, and yeah, there you always bring a nice little envelope of cash, because that's the Done Thing. I myself tend to think that basically weddings are regressive activities and your goal as a guest is to conform with whatever the Done Thing is. *G* As a host, mind you, I expect I will be nearly as terrifying as my mother was (if not more so, after all these years of working weddings and funerals and running events on the job....)

And hah, I thought Babysitter's Club books were exciting and exotic because they all went to public school and lived near each other! Which wasn't true of me and my friends at all, growing up....

[sara]

I know it's weird and logic-defying! *hangs head* But when other white people tell me we ain't got no cultcha...I think of things like this.

[kore]

To be honest it's not that I think it is so logic-defying, but your choice of words like "appalling" and "horrifying" is making me uncomfortable, so it is probably just best for me to bow out here.

[vom_marlowe]

This is making me uncomfortable, actually. Appalled, horrified, seem mighty judgy. In another comment you say that you were raised upper-middle class.

I wonder if you've thought of how this is coming across to people who truly were raised with nothing (ie, lower class).

[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.

[sara]

...yes, I have considered that. Which is why it's fairly well-loaded with conditional statements and caveats.

And I will freely admit (indeed, have been freely admitting) that it's judgey.

[vom_marlowe]

"Which is why it's fairly well-loaded with conditional statements and caveats." I don't read it that way. That's my feedback to you as someone who comes from a lower-class background. What you may be intending (caveats, etc) may not be coming across as well as you'd like. Take that for what it's worth.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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.)