The Commercialisation of Weddings is Threat to Marriage

[johnworf]

In an article from the Guardian former archbishop of Canterbury says young couples are encouraged to spend too much and focus on short term

Rowan Williams: 'Another significant change is the marketisation of the marriage experience, crystalised in the perfect wedding day … after which nothing is ever quite so good again. That's an aspect of the short-term, unimaginative climate we are faced with … this, I believe, poses the greatest threat to long-term successful marriages.'

-----------------

For me, we didn't focus on the day as such. It was low key with just my children and MiL in attendance. An outfit from M&S and a meal afterwards. Came in at well under £300.

If we look back to our grandparents' wedding, they were probably on a shoestring (certainly not costs ££££s) but the focus was on the long term rather than the day.

Do you think Rowan Willams is correct in his statement?

I think he was trying to say that a lot (not all) of people buy into the media version/celeb version of what marriage is about and if as much effort was put into the 'after' as the 'before' then maybe more marriages would survive.

There's no two ways about it, once children and a mortgage come along, there's a real need to pull together as a team and at times all of the things that encompass marriage are set to test it.

The dream day is great if that's what you want but hearts & flowers afterwards are not what sustains a relationship.

I have always said 'the bigger the wedding the shorter the marriage'. It has certainly been true amongst my friends anyway although I admit to not knowing everyone who has ever been married.

I agree witg your last post johnwolf but that is obvious whether you have a massive day or run off and elope. I would say now lots of people have mortgages and have been living together for a good while before marriage.

I got married in the same year as a friend, they had a cheaper wedding than us, they are now divorced

The two things aren't related.

Very defensive Lottiedoubtie. Taken a lot of stick IRL for your massive wedding? :)

A quote from the article: "A number of social developments presented new challenges, he said, citing the 'marginalising of, weakening and making impotent young males" with poor employment prospects.' I wonder why he thinks unemployment doesn't affect women? And what behaviour of young males is being excused by their "impotence"?

See that's why I think marriage should be abolished. The standard in society should be that we protect the vulnerable and not the wealthy's property unless you opt out by getting married.

Marriage is primarily a misogynistic institution which allows men, who often have an unfair advantage to effectively blackmail women into providing sexual and domestic services.

It was in the past offred but not now.

But, without some kind of legal contract... which is mostly what marriage is once you take the hearts and flowers out of it .... how is a vulnerable partner going to have any claim on the property of the wealthy? A wealthy person that doesn't want to get married is hardly likely to sign a contract that confers any rights and they can't simply be assumed. From what I see, partners are actually more likely to end up being blackmailed into staying in a bad relationship because they realise that walking away means they end up with nothing.

thing is though OP for your GPs you mention getting married was in itself HUGE. probably it meant moving out of home for the first time, being able to have sex in a bed for the first time (not naive enough to think they were all virgins) and basically entry into adulthood. there was enough REAL change, drama and significance to not need to emulate hugeness through fripperies.

you'd already had kids, presumably lived out of home and been an independent adult for years, had plenty of sex etc by the time you got married. the ceremony wasn't the point for them because there was so much else that was significant -the ceremony was just the gateway to that 'so much else'.

whereas now nothing is really different on the other side and therefore the 'thing' in itself becomes a big deal.

True Numpty. It's also worth remembering that there was huge shame attached to divorce and women in particular were expected to stay in marriages that were abusive or just dead. There was very little help for those who wanted to leave.

They certainly can be assumed as a matter of public importance. There's no difference in a spouse or a cohabitee being left penniless on the breakdown of the relationship as far as public policy goes. Plenty of contracts are created by behaviour rather than explicit written consent. No need for marriage. People already believe in common law marriage which doesn't exist.

And cohabitees with children are already entitled to claim many things from a higher earning/owning partner without a marriage contract.

The beauty of this age offred is that most people who do get married really want to, as opposed by being forced by society.

I work in the wedding 'industry' (oh shame on me ) and I have been involved in hundreds of weddings.

I agree that some people put themselves under a lot of pressure to meet their own expectations and also the expectations that family / friends have, and this can cause them stress. However I have never yet met a couple who can't see the difference between those pressures and the reality of marriage and commitment.

People post on places like this when the stress and the pressure is getting to them, not usually when they are declaring their deepest level of unwavering commitment, and so it is easy to pick up a very skewed impression of the process of marriage and weddings.

I don't know about everyone elses grandparents but mine didn't move out when they got married. They couldn't afford to. They lived with my great grandmother (grandmother's mother) for two years before that happened. I expect for the man that would be a baptism of fire - leaving his own family for his wife's.

I think people's expectations of marriage don't live up to the reality though. Still social policy forces women out of the workplace or into lower paid, lower status work when couples have a baby. Many men will either not notice themselves stepping on their wives to give themselves a leg up, some notice but don't care and a few deliberately exploit it. I know of very, very few marriages where there is real equality and even fewer where the man is not the gatekeeper of equality for the woman who has been reduced by child rearing.

It doesn't need to be that way, it is entirely the result of socially constructed ideas about work and child rearing.

And yes, things are different to how they were in the past but that does not mean marriage is no longer a deeply sexist institution designed to contract sexual services from women for men in return for support they should be entitled to expect from society as a whole as a basic right - financial support when having a baby and support to re-enter the workplace later on.

Very defensive Lottiedoubtie. Taken a lot of stick IRL for your massive wedding?

Absolutely not! It was years ago now, but many of my friends have had similarly expensive weddings, both before and since.

I say 'massive' because in comparison to the 'we did it all for less than £400 quid because we love each other so much more brigade' it was, but it wasn't ridiculously overdone either (in my opinion obv.)

150 guests, plus another 20 or so, wedding list at John Lewis, church, cars, exclusive use of smart wedding venue, 4 bridesmaids, flowers etc... Total bill about 30k

It genuinely is only on Mumsnet that I come into contact with this attitude.

I realise that to have that wedding means I'm very privileged, and lucky. It doesn't however, mean that I'm shallow and unable to build a loving and lasting marriage with my husband.

And, contrary to popular belief, it is not particularly easy to divorce.

Unless your split is particularly acrimonious and you want to cite adultery or unreasonable behaviour you have to wait for years to divorce.

I agree with him as it happens. But then I hate all sorts of showy extravagance.

Like Lottie I had a big wedding, not overly extravagant by many standards but we were lucky not to need to go into debt and having had money specifically for this without taking away from our normal lives. I don't think the size or cost of a wedding is the issue, if it's within that couples means, if your going to be in serious debt then obviously it's a problem and will put a strain on the marriage before it starts, but every couple is different, I don't think it's as black and white as the more you spend on the wedding the worse your marriage will be!

I think he has a point where some people are concerned - the ones whose main focus is "The Wedding" and how perfect it should be, perhaps the ones who have been creating their "Perfect Wedding" folder since they were small children (usually girls, let's face it). For those people, the actual event can be more important than anything else, including the "rightness" of the groom! And these weddings frequently cost an arm and a leg, which if you have to go into debt for it, is a really bad starting place for a marriage, IMO.

But I don't think that these people are the majority at all.

Its very easy not to be like that offered if you set out what you want from the start. Nobody has to stop work or go part time after children if they dont want to and no one has to be a doormat in this day and age.

Wow offred you come across as rather bitter. Why?

Lottie You say that £30,000 isn't extravagant . We must move in very different circles.

I think people are entitled to spend whatever they want on a wedding, but I don't understand why some people end up incurring so much debt for just one day.