Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Timing Is Something
Dearest loyal blog reader(s?), here's a chance to influence our actual wedding!
As I've mentioned before, we're getting married on a Sunday to accommodate some of the Orthodox crew in my family.
We were planning to begin the ceremony at 4 p.m., which would mean the event ends at 10. Now I am wondering if this is too late.
This past weekend, we went to a Sunday afternoon wedding that began at 3:30. The wedding was lovely but the crowd was visibly thinning out by 8 or so. Even we didn't make it the whole night (though I attribute this to the fact that it was our second wedding of the weekend, we'd spent the previous night in a house with crying babies, and we drove three and a half hours to get there).
I'm not worried about a large portion of our guests, who live so far away they will most certainly spend the night. But we also have a fair number of people coming from New York City and environs, who might plan to drive home that night. Which would likely mean ducking out early.
Which leads me to wonder which scenarios we should consider:
* Starting the wedding at 4, which is helpful for anyone spending the night (check in time at the hotel we booked is 3).
* Starting the wedding at 2, which would be annoying for anyone spending the night but more friendly to those who are not. Also, it would mean a weirdly early dinner.
* Starting the wedding at 3, which probably just doesn't make anyone all that happy.
I'm more inclined to make things easy for people who choose to spend the night than for people who don't, but I don't want the wedding to die out two hours before it ends if all the drive-home types decide to leave early.
How much should we worry about accommodating them? Comment or vote on the poll to the right!
As I've mentioned before, we're getting married on a Sunday to accommodate some of the Orthodox crew in my family.
We were planning to begin the ceremony at 4 p.m., which would mean the event ends at 10. Now I am wondering if this is too late.
This past weekend, we went to a Sunday afternoon wedding that began at 3:30. The wedding was lovely but the crowd was visibly thinning out by 8 or so. Even we didn't make it the whole night (though I attribute this to the fact that it was our second wedding of the weekend, we'd spent the previous night in a house with crying babies, and we drove three and a half hours to get there).
I'm not worried about a large portion of our guests, who live so far away they will most certainly spend the night. But we also have a fair number of people coming from New York City and environs, who might plan to drive home that night. Which would likely mean ducking out early.
Which leads me to wonder which scenarios we should consider:
* Starting the wedding at 4, which is helpful for anyone spending the night (check in time at the hotel we booked is 3).
* Starting the wedding at 2, which would be annoying for anyone spending the night but more friendly to those who are not. Also, it would mean a weirdly early dinner.
* Starting the wedding at 3, which probably just doesn't make anyone all that happy.
I'm more inclined to make things easy for people who choose to spend the night than for people who don't, but I don't want the wedding to die out two hours before it ends if all the drive-home types decide to leave early.
How much should we worry about accommodating them? Comment or vote on the poll to the right!
Monday, September 15, 2008
Ms.
No, I'm not revisiting the titles-on-invitations issue. And I'm still no fan of titles. But in the past two weeks, I've heard the term "Ms." maligned repeatedly by (for the most part) people who should know better. My future husband included.
As I understand it, the term Ms. originated as a way to refer to women without referencing whether they are married or not. It is, essentially, the exact female version of Mr. Because for some reason, men never get referred to differently if they're married or single.
My mother went by Ms. until she became Dr. I grew up assuming it was the appropriate, modern way to refer to women. Anything else is unnecessarily antiquated.
And yet, it seems that some people, my otherwise-enlightened future husband among them, see Ms. as an affront, a form of feminism run amok.
Take this Times reader, who complained that the paper referred to Sarah Palin as Ms. and Hillary Clinton as Mrs. Quoth the public editor,
"He decided that The Times called Palin Ms. instead of Mrs. because it is liberal and “is trying to belittle her. She is a Republican, so she can’t possibly be a woman who is married and entitled to the title” of Mrs., he said."
Ms. is belittling? Mrs. is something one must aspire to? Seriously? How on earth is that implied? Unless you assume that being married is the highest honor you can bestow upon a woman via title.
(For the record, the Times' policy is to use the title people prefer. Hillary likes Mrs, apparently, while Palin prefers Ms.)
Rick's feeling is that Ms. is somehow anti-marriage, that if I use "Ms." once I am married, I will somehow be saying I'm ashamed of being married. Bear in mind, this is a guy who didn't care whether I took his name or not. But to him, using "Ms." is akin to insisting that the word "women" be spelled "womyn."
This seems terribly backward to me. A woman changing her name is indeed rooted in a sexist tradition that assumes a woman takes her identity from her husband and sheds her family history to become part of his. But these days, we women have choices about it, and there are practical reasons for changing your name that have nothing to do with historical slights of one sex or the other (reasons like not having three last names between us). Men could also change their names. It's an equal-opportunity concept at this point, that could be applied any number of ways a couple chooses for whatever reasons they want.
Not so with the Miss/Mrs. thing. There is no male equivalent. It is purely about distinguishing a woman by whether she is married or not, and no such equivalent exists for men. To me, that is a purely unfair tradition.
I have no problem with other women deciding they prefer to be a Miss or a Mrs. It's still everyone's choice. But to say that a woman is somehow a militant, annoying, foe-of-marriage because she chooses to, like her husband, not have her marital status implied every time she gets a magazine in the mail or referred to by proper title is just absurd.
[Note to Ms. Charlin: please chime in as you see fit!]
As I understand it, the term Ms. originated as a way to refer to women without referencing whether they are married or not. It is, essentially, the exact female version of Mr. Because for some reason, men never get referred to differently if they're married or single.
My mother went by Ms. until she became Dr. I grew up assuming it was the appropriate, modern way to refer to women. Anything else is unnecessarily antiquated.
And yet, it seems that some people, my otherwise-enlightened future husband among them, see Ms. as an affront, a form of feminism run amok.
Take this Times reader, who complained that the paper referred to Sarah Palin as Ms. and Hillary Clinton as Mrs. Quoth the public editor,
"He decided that The Times called Palin Ms. instead of Mrs. because it is liberal and “is trying to belittle her. She is a Republican, so she can’t possibly be a woman who is married and entitled to the title” of Mrs., he said."
Ms. is belittling? Mrs. is something one must aspire to? Seriously? How on earth is that implied? Unless you assume that being married is the highest honor you can bestow upon a woman via title.
(For the record, the Times' policy is to use the title people prefer. Hillary likes Mrs, apparently, while Palin prefers Ms.)
Rick's feeling is that Ms. is somehow anti-marriage, that if I use "Ms." once I am married, I will somehow be saying I'm ashamed of being married. Bear in mind, this is a guy who didn't care whether I took his name or not. But to him, using "Ms." is akin to insisting that the word "women" be spelled "womyn."
This seems terribly backward to me. A woman changing her name is indeed rooted in a sexist tradition that assumes a woman takes her identity from her husband and sheds her family history to become part of his. But these days, we women have choices about it, and there are practical reasons for changing your name that have nothing to do with historical slights of one sex or the other (reasons like not having three last names between us). Men could also change their names. It's an equal-opportunity concept at this point, that could be applied any number of ways a couple chooses for whatever reasons they want.
Not so with the Miss/Mrs. thing. There is no male equivalent. It is purely about distinguishing a woman by whether she is married or not, and no such equivalent exists for men. To me, that is a purely unfair tradition.
I have no problem with other women deciding they prefer to be a Miss or a Mrs. It's still everyone's choice. But to say that a woman is somehow a militant, annoying, foe-of-marriage because she chooses to, like her husband, not have her marital status implied every time she gets a magazine in the mail or referred to by proper title is just absurd.
[Note to Ms. Charlin: please chime in as you see fit!]
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Untitled
I got two wedding invitations in the mail this week, both with serious Emily Post violations: Our names were listed on the invitations without any honorifics. No "Mr" and "Miss" or "Ms" (though I'm not sure the serious etiquette folks recognize that last one). Just our names.
The horror!
Actually, I think it's great. I don't get the purpose of honorifics on invitations to people you are not trying to impress. Sure, I might refer to the director of a graduate program I'm applying to as "Professor," but do my parents need to be referred to as "Dr" when I send them something in the mail?
Ordinarily I would not actually notice how people address me on an envelope (spelling my name right is enough for me). But since I'm just under a year away from sending out my own invites, I've taken an interest. I think titles are not worth the potential complications they inevitably bring. My beloved is not so sure. I get that wedding invitations are asking people to join you at a formal affair, so it's nice to be all nice and fancy about it, but will people show up in flip-flops just because we didn't refer to them as Mr. and Mrs.? Isn't there something to be said for simplicity?
Think about the potential issues titles, er, invite:
Example 1: Mr. and Mrs. John Post
Unacceptable, in my view, unless the wife is either unnamed, imaginary or in some kind of witness protection situation. Especially if you know the wife and only sort of know the husband...why does he get his name on the envelope?
Example 2: Mr. John and Mrs. Emily Post
Awkward!
Example 3: Mr. John and Dr. Emily Post
Just looks weird
Example 4: Dr. Emily and Mr. John Post
Looks strangely emasculating
Example 5: John and Emily Post (or Emily and John Post)
Is anyone really offended by this? Like, seriously?
Really, would anyone be offended if they get a wedding invitation without a formal title for him/herself and his/her spouse? If so, speak now or forever hold your peace. And be prepared to defend your position.
The horror!
Actually, I think it's great. I don't get the purpose of honorifics on invitations to people you are not trying to impress. Sure, I might refer to the director of a graduate program I'm applying to as "Professor," but do my parents need to be referred to as "Dr" when I send them something in the mail?
Ordinarily I would not actually notice how people address me on an envelope (spelling my name right is enough for me). But since I'm just under a year away from sending out my own invites, I've taken an interest. I think titles are not worth the potential complications they inevitably bring. My beloved is not so sure. I get that wedding invitations are asking people to join you at a formal affair, so it's nice to be all nice and fancy about it, but will people show up in flip-flops just because we didn't refer to them as Mr. and Mrs.? Isn't there something to be said for simplicity?
Think about the potential issues titles, er, invite:
Example 1: Mr. and Mrs. John Post
Unacceptable, in my view, unless the wife is either unnamed, imaginary or in some kind of witness protection situation. Especially if you know the wife and only sort of know the husband...why does he get his name on the envelope?
Example 2: Mr. John and Mrs. Emily Post
Awkward!
Example 3: Mr. John and Dr. Emily Post
Just looks weird
Example 4: Dr. Emily and Mr. John Post
Looks strangely emasculating
Example 5: John and Emily Post (or Emily and John Post)
Is anyone really offended by this? Like, seriously?
Really, would anyone be offended if they get a wedding invitation without a formal title for him/herself and his/her spouse? If so, speak now or forever hold your peace. And be prepared to defend your position.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Hills (Bad Language Alert!)
Some of you may have heard that these are bad times for my industry of choice. Indeed. A week or two ago, I asked a former editor to chat for a couple minutes for some advice. Here's his response:
You don't even need a few minutes. Just read this:
RUN FOR THE FUCKING HILLS.
You're welcome.
And on that note, I'm off to Brazil. Rio and a couple days in the mountains. Our return ticket is for next weekend, but depending on how things go at the nation's oldest newspaper, perhaps we'll stick around a bit longer...
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Dream Decoder
I have been having a strange recurring nightmare about weddings. It's the day before or the morning of my wedding and some piece has been left unplanned - we don't have a cake, or a person to marry us, or some other variation on the thing you shouldn't leave til the last minute. I wake up before it's resolved, but the upshot is having to throw something together at the last minute.
I say this is strange because we are ridiculously ahead of the game in wedding planning. We have a location, catering, cake, photographer and band. My bridesmaids already have their dresses. I got proofs for our invitations and save the dates in the mail last week, and have an appointment with a florist next week. Our wedding is 14 months away.
That's not so much by design or anticipation as a function of my Type A tendencies and a general desire to get as much of this out of the way as possible so we can have a good six to eight months (or more) to not think about the wedding.
Then again, if we were to cancel the wedding and just get hitched at town hall or on a remote beach somewhere private, I'd be thrilled about that too. Prefer it, even. It's just that if we're going to have a wedding, I want it to be as (not going to say perfect) fitting and lovely as possible.
So back to the dream. I'm not sure why the fear suddenly popping into my subconscious is of being unprepared for something we're already overprepared for, and for something I'm not even that invested in, to boot.
Perhaps this is a typical dream, like the naked to class or unprepared for a test (neither of which I ever had)? Or perhaps I should rush out and finish the loose ends? Or chalk it up to a silly dream and move on?
Monday, June 16, 2008
Color Wars
Mystifying wedding concept alert: Wedding colors. What gives?
(If you have any suggestions, do share or [subtle plug] weigh in on the poll on the right side of the page.)
Apparently it's important to have colors for your wedding. Or at least it's something a lot of people seem to do. I'm not really sure why you need a declared scheme if you're not, say, having a Christmas or Denver Broncos-themed wedding. Can't you just make sure everything matches and looks basically pleasing?
If I got, say, blue bridesmaid dresses and pink flowers, would declaring our colors as pink and blue make those colors somehow more ours? Would everyone we know think of us when they see anything ranging from magenta to teal? Would the guests dress accordingly? Is it criminal if the dresses and bouquets don't match the table runners and cocktail napkins?
Or am I missing something?
Onion Vows
Evidently unaware
that the anti-quated
practice has virtually
no benefit in today's
society, William Curtis
and Jessica Scruggs
were married this week.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Royal Inspiration
When Butterflies Attack: It's called fashion, apparently.
Princess Beatrice sports some serious hat at the latest royal wedding. Anyone want to wear this to mine?
The Divorce Industry
One of my favorite eyesores along the urban planners' nightmare that is Route 18 in East Brunswick: The Divorce Center.
It's just down the block from David's Bridal. I'm not really sure what you do at one, aside from the obvious, or whether they sell gum and magazines at the checkout counter to go with your petitions for alimony and parenting classes.
But there's something so...I'm not sure what...appropriate to our culture's current track record on marriage...about these storefront divorce shops. I mean, hell, at a Divorce Center, you can do it by mail! And, for you enterprising types, you can even open a Divorce Center franchise.
I don't think it's quite as lucrative as the marriage industry (a multimillion-dollar Connecticut divorce case notwithstanding), but is it any wonder people are trying to cash in on this end of the business?
The sanctity of commerce, at least, is alive and well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
