Reply
Sun 17 Jun, 2007 12:02 pm
Today it seems almost sacreligious to say/ask this, but here goes....
What the hell is WRONG with you brides to be with spending tens of thousands of dollars for ONE day???!!!
I know, I know, it's all about remembering this special day and sharing all this joy with family and friends.
Well, that's what we've been led to believe I suppose. The truth is the size of the wedding has nothing to do with the quality of the marriage.
I'm not advocating everyone just elope, or wear jeans and t-shirts down to the court house, but c'mon....Choosing a one day party over $30K that could start the couple off right?
Someone's priorities are screwed up.
Rebecca Mead's 'One Perfect Day'
A look at the modern American wedding
By Jonathan Yardley
WASHINGTON POST
Sunday, June 17, 2007
About a dozen years ago, an old friend of mine was told by his daughter that she was going to get married. This suited him fine, but he balked at pouring untold thousands of dollars down the drain for a full-dress wedding. "I'll tell you what," he said to her. "I'll give you a choice: You can have a wedding, or you can have $30,000 to help you get started on your new life." Without a moment's hesitation, she astonished him ?- and me, too, when he told me the story ?- by replying, "I'll take the wedding."
This, mind you, was no "Bridezilla," defined by Rebecca Mead as "a young woman who, upon becoming engaged, had been transformed from a person of reason and moderation into a self-absorbed monster, obsessed with her plans to stage the perfect wedding, an event of spectacular production values and flawless execution, with herself as the star of the show." No, this was a young woman of reason and moderation, a sensible person who nonetheless had been caught up in an early wave of the phenomenon that ?- all unknown to her father and me ?- was beginning to sweep across America: the rise of the wedding industry, "shaped as much by commerce and marketing as it is by those influences couples might prefer to think of as affecting their nuptial choices, such as social propriety, religious observance, or familial expectation."
Who got the better of my friend's deal I do not know, as it seemed impolite to ask, but he hinted that even his daughter's relatively modest wedding cost more than the $30,000 buyout he'd offered her. Inasmuch as the marriage didn't last much longer than the wedding itself, it certainly seems to have been money down the drain. But it was very much an American wedding of our day, replete with that once-in-a-lifetime bridal dress, bridesmaids fetchingly fitted out, gifts for attendants of both sexes, an elegant luncheon and, of course, champagne ?- and, at the end, a nice fat pack of bills for dear old Dad.
How all of this came to pass ?- how the American wedding escalated into an "out of control" business that pumps an astonishing $161 billion dollars a year into the economy ?- and what forms it takes are the subjects of "One Perfect Day," a revealing and intermittently amusing piece of journalism. Mead is a staff writer for the New Yorker, and her prose is peppered with some of that magazine's oldest pet tics, in particular an excessive use of the reportorial first-person singular. But the book's strengths outweigh its irritating faults: It is a convincing picture of one of those strange parts of the American economy that make a great deal of money for a few people while going largely unnoticed by the rest of us.
Bridezilla is a very real creature, but the great majority of brides, like my friend's daughter, manage to keep things more or less under control, at least if you have a fairly permissive definition of "under control." In truth, to those of us of older generations, especially those with direct or secondhand experience of the Depression, the statistics are staggering. In her chapter about the bridal magazines and the expectations they raise, Mead writes:
If a bride has been told, repeatedly, that it costs nearly $28,000 to have a wedding, then she starts to think that spending nearly $28,000 on a wedding is just one of those things a person has to do, like writing a rent check every month or paying health insurance premiums. (Or she prides herself on being a budget bride and spending a mere $15,000 on the event.) She is less likely to reflect upon the fact that $28,000 would have more than covered a 10 percent down payment on the median purchase price of a house in 2005 and would cover the average cost to a family of a health insurance policy, at 2005 rates, for a decade. The bride who has been persuaded that $28,000 is a reasonable amount of money to spend on her wedding day is less likely to measure that total against the nation's median household income ?- $42,389 in 2004 ?- and reflect upon whether it is, in fact, reasonable for her or for anyone to spend the equivalent of seven and a half months of the average American's salary on one day's celebration.
The somewhat unsettling truth is that, whipped along by the wedding industry, the American wedding has been turned into an ego trip for brides. Doubtless few if any people think of it that way ?- not even the parents, who are stuck with astronomical bills yet are as caught up in the spirit of the big bucks bliss-out as everyone else ?- but that certainly is the impression left by this book. The glossy bridal magazines ?- which these days are as fat as phone books, crammed with advertisements ?- exist to convince the bride that "it is her privilege, her right ?- indeed, her obligation ?- to become preoccupied with herself, her appearance, her tastes, and her ability to showcase them to their best advantage." The companies that seek the bride's business hope not merely for a one-day bonanza but for a lifetime's brand loyalty, which is why the department stores and the home-furnishing chains and all the other merchants of wedding paraphernalia court her so assiduously.
The wedding industry seeks "the furtherance of a wedding culture in which every bride is encouraged to think of herself as a celebrity for a day," one who is endlessly photographed and videotaped ?- to mention in passing a couple of big wedding businesses ?- and who "on her wedding day is a princess": Jennifer Lopez and Princess Di rolled into one irresistible bundle. The bride is (usually) young, in love, impressionable and vulnerable, eager to please and be pleased, hopeful and nervous. All in all, in the words of Colin Cowie, "the best-known wedding professional in the country," the bride "is a marketers' target. She is a slam dunk."
"Wedding professional"? That's a new one to me, but inside the industry there are a handful of celebrity wedding professionals and zillions of wannabes. There is actually an Association of Bridal Consultants, "a national organization for professional wedding planners that claims a membership of about 4,000." These people "help brides and grooms navigate the business of preparing for a wedding, serving much as a general contractor does on a house renovation project." Their numbers are growing, "thanks in part to their endorsement in the pages of bridal magazines." Conde Nast, which publishes several of these magazines, reported in its 2006 American Wedding Study "that 18 percent of its respondents had engaged the services of a professional wedding planner."
Perhaps the services of these people are genuinely useful to busy brides and their families, permitting them to get on with life's real business while the wedding planner takes care of fantasy, though it's difficult not to see them as being paid for work that people are perfectly capable of doing for themselves. But that admittedly is the view of a person who also believes that interior designers, personal trainers and personal shoppers are vermiform appendices. Millions of people now take it for granted that they will pay for "services" that in my youth were strictly do-it-yourself; perhaps the world has gotten better, and I simply haven't noticed.
Certainly it's gotten more expensive and more plugged into make-believe. It will not surprise you that Disney turns out to be an increasingly big player in the wedding industry, because one of its stocks in trade is what Mead nicely calls "traditionalesque ?- a pleasing mélange of apparently old-fashioned, certainly nostalgic, intermittently ethnically authentic practices that may have little relevance to the past or to the future and are really only illustrative of the present in which they emerge." Thus, a Disney person told Mead "that Disney prided itself upon its traditionalism when it came to weddings; but the traditions that were most determinedly upheld at Disney were those established by the company itself," just like everything else in the ersatz universe of Disney.
It all puts me in mind of a song by the gifted Lucinda Williams, from her latest album, "West." The subject matter is diametrically different, to be sure, but the sentiment is the same: "Some think a fancy funeral/ Would be worth every cent/ But for every dime and nickel/ There's money better spent." Ditto, in spades, for fancy weddings.
Very truthful article.
Quote:The truth is the size of the wedding has nothing to do with the quality of the marriage.
Moreover, it is likely to be a subject of argument later on when they are bitching about being short $30 grand.
Chai--
I couldn't agree more. I'm reminded of the '50's, pre-Woman's Lib where the middle class boys went to college and the middle class girls had Beautiful Weddings.
Once again, the barbarians are at the gates.
I agree.
And am very curious what A2K peeps did for their weddings.
Ok, mushies...I'll go first.
1st marriage - Ended up buying a beige/off white monther of the bride suit, since it wasn't a big affair, he wore a suit....went to the judge with the ex, his mother, and 2 of his sisters, and got married. Went to an early supper. If I had to do it over (well, I wouldn't have gotten married to him
) I would have skipped the suit, since the entire day was a let down. Not because of how it was done, but because I ended up being married to this particular person.
2nd marriage - found some minister of I don't even know what religion that was willing to perform the ceremony on a January 1st. Wore a navy and white dress, which I subsequently wore to work quite a few times. He wore a suit. Met my sister, brother in law and their toddler at this church and got married. We had to stop the proceedings at one point to admire a bug my niece had found. Then, went to Denny's and ate breakfast. The entire day was wonderful because I ended up being married to this particular person, and still am.
I guess what irks me is this feeling by young brides that somehow everyone is just on the edge of their seats and cannot wait to go to their weddings, and will remember and talk about it for years to come.
In reality....you get invited to a wedding, you go, spend a few hours eating and dancing for a while, then go home. Within the week, no one's even thinking about it anymore.
And what about the bride and groom? She's stressed because something may go wrong to "ruin" "her" perfect day. Guess what? Something always goes wrong.
It's true I suppose what the article said. You keep hearing these marketing people telling you a wedding is "supposed" to cost $25,000, so you expect it to cost $25,000.
I wish someone would lay 25K on me right about now.
Marriage has been on my mind and you guys are the only ones who are gonna hear about that for a while. Not getting married, of course, but to even be thinking about it without being horrified.
See, your second wedding sounds lovely to me Chai. The first one too, if it weren't for that particular person. Which of course is what makes ALL the difference and meaning to it.
The nicest wedding I ever went to was two friends of mine. They found a beautiful old church in the country (no cost), got a minister, had a few folks out there.
She bought a new dress that was simple and beautiful, and he bought a suit and new boots.
That was about all.
Her big family cooked the feast, everyone ate and drank and had fun, and then they left the next day for a short honeymoon.
They bought a house with the money they 'should' have used for a wedding.
You're right. No one thinks of those big weddings other than for the day, except maybe to comment on what a waste it is or how nuts the bride was!
And they are sooo stressful. I don't get it.
Quote:And what about the bride and groom? She's stressed because something may go wrong to "ruin" "her" perfect day. Guess what? Something always goes wrong.
Old Wedding Ritual (which I followed faithfully for both marriages):
Give yourself one last look-see in the mirror.
Step away from the mirror and turn around.
Take off one shoe--and put it back on--to remind yourself that brides are not perfect, weddings are not perfect and marriages are not perfect.
What does the shoe represent, Noddy?
Stuh--
The Reality of Chaos--and the fact that the most beautiful bride is subject to the Vagaries of Fate.
I didn't have a big wedding either time. I'm with the rest of you. I can't imagine spending that much on one day.
First time: I married after two years of college. I was 19. The guy was 24 in chronological terms, but younger than me in many ways. I'd never had a bad relationship before, so I was sure I could "fix" this one.
At any rate, we invited 50 or so to the ceremony plus reception at my parents' house. There was a gorgeous formal staircase and a stone fireplace that suited the occasion. My sister (an accomplished musician even at that age) played the piano. My parents paid for the flowers, cake and rented glasses, plates, etc. for the reception in their formal dining room. I made my dress of ivory and gold brocade with an ivory satin jacket. The Jerk bought a new golden-brown suit. No attendants. It was 1974. Alternative weddings were "in." Our huge, fluffy orange tomcat ruled the festivities parading around in a cream colored tie with a gold tie tack. The biggest expense my parents incurred was repairing their A/C the day before the wedding. It was July...100+ degrees...so they would have had to do it wedding or no wedding. After the ceremony, we left for California where he had 10 weeks of job training. We went to Disneyland the weekend we arrived and called it a honeymoon.
Five years later, the dress was ceremoniously placed on the top of a large pile of garbage in a dumpster. I was into high drama and symbolic gestures those days.
Second time: It was 1983. I was 28, Hubby was 30. It was a second marriage for both of us, and we had firm ideas on how we wanted to spend our money. We invited my brother, my sister and a couple we knew. The six of us went to a quaint little wedding chapel here in town. Wedding: 30 minutes, $50 including Polaroid photo. The chapel was a classic early '20s bungalow, painted pink and white. I bought a new white linen suit and peach silk jacquard blouse. Hubby bought a new light gray suit. I wore a single gardenia, he wore a white rose. We had a centerpiece made of gardenias and white roses for the wedding dinner, which was held at a great restaurant. A special cake with peach-colored fondant icing and peach-colored champagne were served. We were there for about 2 hours. Dinner: 2 hours, $250. For the honeymoon, we went all out. We went to the Caribbean for two weeks...a one-week cruise along with a week's stay in Barbados. Honeymoon: 14 days, $6,000 and worth every penny.
Noddy24 wrote:Stuh--
The Reality of Chaos--and the fact that the most beautiful bride is subject to the Vagaries of Fate.
Yes..but my question is, how does taking your show off symbolize that
Wow Eva, that sounds absolutley super.
See, really nice but not out of hand.
I'm not sure of all the particulars, but I think I like this idea of what they're calling "destination weddings". If you were planning on a honeymoon anyway, it kills 2 birds with one stone.
That way, you don't feel obligated to invite a lot of people and go through all that expense, but close friends and family might be there if they really wanted to. If I was going to do something like that today, I think I'd budget for plane tickets for maybe 10 plane tickets (outside of parents and the bride and groom and ask my guests if they'd mind just paying for a hotel room for that night in lieu of gifts. Then just dinner at a nice restaurant.
My weddings were the inverse of Eva's, although the chronology was about the same in terms of dates and ages.
First wedding -- June, 1975. I was 19 he was 24 (in years only). There were five of us present, including the Justice of the Peace. Dinner for four at the local Holiday Inn followed by one night at the hotel. I went back to work the following Monday. Divorced 12 years later. Total cost -- not much.
Second wedding -- May, 1989. I was 33 he was 28. We rented a small estate home that has been gifted to a nearby forest preserve and may be reserved for such events. There were 75 guests, a string quartet that played from before the ceremony through the end of the catered dinner, an open bar, a DJ, flowers, cake, and a photographer. Our honeymoon was 7 nights at the Golden Lemon Resort on St. Kitts. Total cost -- about $8000, spent mostly for the honeymoon. MIL paid for the flowers as her wedding gift to us. Mr B and I paid the rest.
Quote:Yes..but my question is, how does taking your show off symbolize that
Stuh--
In this tradition, a symbol doesn't "mean", it is. Read Cinderella if you need footnotes.
So you're saying the shoe represents Cinderella's shoe, and taking it off symbolizes reverting to one's true self, in recognition that the transformation into a beautiful princess for one night is only superficial. Why didn't you just say so?
Why didn't I say so? Because it is screamingly obvious.
I've been thinking about this too, it's the time of year for it I guess...
I've been involved (directly or peripherally) in two major destination weddings, which were very different from each other. The first was entirely financed by the bride's mother -- she had a lot of money but was nouveau riche and wanted to catapult herself into Society. So she arranged this whole wedding at a castle (a real castle, ancient but with renovated rooms) in England, peacocks strutting around, you get the idea. The wedding party was put up in the castle (E.G. was in the wedding party, I was a tagalong). Airfare was paid for. For everyone. Some 200 people, I forget. (Is that right? I think that's right. It was a while ago.)
So, almost all of those guests were the Society types that mom-of-the-bride wanted to impress. Then there was this small contingent of younger people, members of the wedding party and their spouses, kind of clinging together for sanity amidst the spectacle.
The bride wasn't the impetus though, she was just going along with what her mom wanted. She wasn't against it enough to veto the idea, but she would have been fine with something more modest.
The whole thing was amazing. At that scale it wasn't just the wedding, of course. Started with a dinner in London, then chartered buses out to the castle, then activities at the castle and in the countryside, then the actual wedding, then the reception... it was at least 3 days total.
It was actually a really fun experience, though, especially from within the protective "can you buh-LEEVE this???" embrace of the wedding party folks (we all bonded pretty quickly). Plus, I mean, free trip to England to stay in a castle!
E.G. recently got back from the other, another destination wedding, this time in Hawaii. WAY elaborate. This time it emanated from the couple themselves, and so was more personal and nicer that way, but still, the expense! Oy! This time guests weren't flown in -- they had to pay airfare and hotel, about 80 of them I think. Again it was a whole slate of activities, including a whole day of rehearsal (!) for the very elaborate wedding. The bride is a professional dancer and the wedding party had to participate in this big dance, there were speeches from a bunch of people, and everything was in two languages, and two religions, and just whoa!!
The whole thing had to have cost big, big bucks. Not just all of that stuff but like the favors were these custom-made crystal paperweights that had figures of the bride and groom in it -- not, like, a generic bride and groom, but THEM. (Recognizably.)
On the one hand it sounds like it was an amazing experience for everyone involved, and what a way to kick off a marriage, you know? I was trying to figure out if it would bother me if they can afford it and want to do it. (They're both pretty established, early 40's). It's the going into debt part that really, really bothers me.
Our wedding (mine and E.G.'s) was much smaller than most but wasn't tiny. We were poor as heck and cut corners all over the place -- I made my dress out of two kinds of (ivory) silk that were on sale for 90% off, I candied my own pansies for the wedding cake, I made the invitations, etc., etc. A justice of the peace officiated, got married in a park building (a gorgeous one). The guests were important though, there were a bit over 100 of them and that was one of the best parts of the day for me, looking out over all of those loved faces beaming at me, the juxtapositions. Got a great photo of all four of our grandmas (sozlet's 4 great-grandmothers) together, shortly before two of them died. Etc., etc.
It was crazy, especially all the preparation, but it was a lot of fun.
I was 25, E.G. was 27.
heh....going to that wedding in England would've been the biggest trip I've ever made, not even considering the wedding.
If someone's got the bucks to toss around, like that girl's mother, or if they are already established, the the Hawaii couple, that different.
It didn't put either into debt, and the 2nd one seems within reason for 2 people who have good careers and have the money already.
That said, I personally don't have any use for all these gifts that go to guests and the bridal party. Crystal paperweights? That's silly.
I don't know if it's a tradition in all places, but I can remember when I was a little girl and going to relatives weddings, a custom the bride went through.
After the dinner, when the dancing started, the bride had a special satin drawstring purse/pouch she would carry with her while dancing with everyone and visiting tables.
Uncles, Aunts, cousins would all slip envelopes into the bag while dancing with her or while giving her a hug and kiss when she came around to your table. I really don't remember brides being registered anywhere. Again, that's all very nice, but if I'm going to get a gift, I'd prefer cash.
JPB wrote:My weddings were the inverse of Eva's, although the chronology was about the same in terms of dates and ages.
First wedding -- June, 1975. I was 19 he was 24 (in years only). There were five of us present, including the Justice of the Peace. Dinner for four at the local Holiday Inn followed by one night at the hotel. I went back to work the following Monday. Divorced 12 years later. Total cost -- not much.
Second wedding -- May, 1989. I was 33 he was 28. We rented a small estate home that has been gifted to a nearby forest preserve and may be reserved for such events. There were 75 guests, a string quartet that played from before the ceremony through the end of the catered dinner, an open bar, a DJ, flowers, cake, and a photographer. Our honeymoon was 7 nights at the Golden Lemon Resort on St. Kitts. Total cost -- about $8000, spent mostly for the honeymoon. MIL paid for the flowers as her wedding gift to us. Mr B and I paid the rest.
Sounds very familiar, JPB!
When I met you last year in Chicago, I had the definite impression that if we lived in the same town, we would be good friends. Now I know why. Similar life experiences lead to similar viewpoints.
No doubt in my mind, Eva.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace