For decades now, Miss Manners has been telling people to stop putting such a ridiculous emphasis on gender in connection with forming wedding parties.
Advertisement
A bride reared by a single mother will typically bypass her and subpoena some gentleman who never had any jurisdiction over her that he could surrender, for the sole reason that she feels she must have a male "give her away." A bridegroom will often be told to produce a certain number of gentlemen as groomsmen, whether or not this corresponds to the number of his real friends, to match the number of bridesmaids.
For goodness sake, Miss Manners has always protested, you're supposed to be gathering people who are important to you, not casting roles in a play.
If the father or stepfather traditionally gives away the bride, it was because traditionally she had been under his protection; widows were expected to perform that ceremony for their daughters. (Never mind that the entire gesture is something of an anachronism now. Miss Manners only objects when the symbolism is creepy, as when a bride has her son give her away, thus symbolically surrendering his claim on her.)
If brides are traditionally attended by bridesmaids and bridegrooms by groomsmen, it is because it used to be assumed that friendships only existed within the same genders -- any mixing of the two being considered too exciting for simple friendship.
The point was always the relationship, not the gender.
But things have changed. Childbirth deaths, which had left more single fathers than mothers, declined, while divorce and births outside of marriage, which leave more single mothers than fathers, soared. The disappearance of chaperonage and parietal rules demonstrated that the young were not as indiscriminately stimulated as had been assumed, and that real friendships (as opposed to the courtship kiss-of-death known as "Let's just be friends") are indeed possible.
Yet even those who now recognize this in making up their wedding parties do so self-consciously, as if they were violating the rules. Miss Manners has been bombarded with silly etiquette questions: What should a gentleman who attended the bride as her friend, or the lady who attended the bridegroom as his friend, be called? How should they dress?
Oh, stop it, is her reply. Having recognized that gender is not the deciding factor, why would anyone then imagine that these people needed to cross-dress or assume laughably inaccurate nomenclature?
Miss Manners admits that at the time she began carrying on like this, it did not occur to her to apply it to the bridal couple themselves.
But it fits. If there are ceremonies featuring two brides or two bridegrooms, they should not be play-acting to appear to be one of each. Their parents and friends should take whatever supportive positions their ties dictate, without aping divisions based on her-side/his-side.
As for financial support -- and Miss Manners knows that is always prominent in bridal minds -- that should always be privately set by the willingness and ability of those concerned to pay. The notion that a bride's family owes her the wedding of her dreams, or that a bridegroom's family may be assessed by those dictating the expenses, is outrageous enough without doing this by assigning a gender division where there is none.
DEAR MISS MANNERS: What do you do when you have been having a perfectly respectable conversation about airport security with your seatmate during a flight, but he begins to volunteer information about the way he was abused as a child out of the blue? How can one express sympathy without seeming to wish to hear more? I felt very uncomfortable listening to these confidences from a complete stranger.
GENTLE READER: Then reply, "I'm very sorry to hear that. But to get back to what you were saying, don't you think there is any way they can speed things up without compromising security?"
You will note that this is minimal sympathy, second only perhaps to "You're kidding! But is that drinks cart ever going to get to us?" Perhaps you will accuse Miss Manners of callousness.
However, if people are going to make small talk of their most personal confessions, they should expect to have these treated as small talk. Any serious show of sympathy would be acceptance of the serious job of confessor and consoler.
: