Here Comes the Bride: Women, Weddings, and the Marriage Mystique

by Jaclyn Geller

In Here Comes the Bride, Jaclyn Geller exposes the social forces that shape how people feel about weddings, calling into question some of the deepest-held beliefs about this tradition. Divided into three sections, the book begins with how-to-get-your-man manuals and ends with the newlywed year. First there’s “Courtship and the Marriage Quest.” Geller looks at the absurd nature of proposals, the inane practice of engagement and gift-giving, and the bizarre rules governing the wedding dress. In part two, “The Big Day,” she deals with the specifics of the wedding itself. There are place cards and table settings, rigid photo ops, vows, toasts, garter belts, and daddy dances. What do these highly scripted procedures say about this most treasured ritual? Finally, the author explores some of marriage’s deeper implications in “Living in the Plural”: the strangely isolating honeymoon and the establishment of marital identity that begins with a simple thank-you note.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Marriage, Gender, History, Gender Studies, Womens Studies

428 pages, Paperback

First published May 30, 2001

Reviews

[Beth Windle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before I read this book, marriage as an institution had always seemed wrong to me, somehow. This book put that feeling into sociological terms. It is thanks for the most part to this incredible work of non-fiction that I think the way I do now about weddings, marriage, husbands and wives, and families. Gellar does the thankless work of debunking a much-loved social institution and she does so smartly, intelligently, and entertainingly. This will be a difficult book for many people, and I imagine many people will reject it immediately. In my mind, the fact that so many will react violently to it is proof of the power of what it says.

[Lobstergirl · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jaclyn Geller's view is that no matter how modern or individualistic a wedding ceremony, its accoutrements, or the couple, it is impossible to escape the patriarchal origins of all wedding rituals or of marriage itself. Modern brides and grooms are merely fooling themselves if they think they are departing from these historical strictures. Her book is a manifesto, and she often lapses into rhetorical overkill: "In the wealthier communities such as ours [Scarsdale, NY] [the young wife] resembled a glamorous, anesthetized doll." Her hope is to "dissuade many would-be wives from draping themselves in white and walking down the aisle." She insists, "We must stop repeating the absurd mantra, "it's okay to be single," and adopt the more aggressive stance that, "it's not okay to be married." Women should "become willing to relinquish the privileged role of bride and assume the more dignified role of friend."

The book operates on the premise that women are desperate for marriage, while men are afraid of commitment. Her sources for this are largely popular women's magazines, with their "expert" romance and relationship advice and celebrity testimonials, and romantic comedies. Well, of course. The capitalistic enterprises that depend on brides', grooms', and parents' money to rake in profits are going to relentlessly espouse a worldview that pressures people to marry, to spend lots of money on weddings, showers, honeymoons, and associated merchandise, and to instill a fear of empty, bleak, spinsterish futures for women who remain single. From the evidence I've seen, though, her premise that women want marriage much more than men is unconvincing. Most men I know want, or have, or wanted and obtained, a secure domestic living arrangement, to include a wife and almost always children. This isn't to say that the marriages of these same men all last, or that the men and women in them never cheat. But the notion that men have to be dragged kicking and screaming into marriage seems fairly inaccurate. Even when relationships fail, marriage is something men aspire to just as much as women.

Certainly her position is extreme, but that's all right. It's okay to question the enterprise of marriage. I think it's useful to acknowledge that some of the desire to be married stems from the fact that we live "in a conjugally organized society that panders to couples" and that in such an environment, "being in a couple is the easiest way to live." I appreciated that Geller has written a fluid, reasonably interesting, easily readable book. Where it dropped from a 3-star to a 2-star read for me was all the typos. Legions of typos. Ridiculous typos, many that would have been caught by a simple spellcheck. At some point, this many typos becomes a distraction, preventing a reader from fully absorbing the text because she's waiting for the next typo to pop up. There were missing periods and quotation marks. Apostrophes in the wrong place. Inexcusable pronoun abuse (from an English professor!). In the hopes that Geller will read this review and be ashamed, some of her misspellings:

marraige
pligrimmage
self-congratualtory
de riguer for de rigueur
bevvy for bevy
psuedo for pseudo
principal for principle
desert for dessert
caeser for caesar
Amelia Earheart for Amelia Earhart
Latitia Baldridge for Letitia Baldrige
Kelsey Grammar for Kelsey Grammer
Sally Bedel Smith for Sally Bedell Smith

[HeavyReader · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is awesome!

The author breaks down the institution of marriage and shows it for the oppressive institution it is. She does so by taking to task the wedding industry, critiquing every thing from buying the dress to getting the reception catered.

I don't even know how to say how fantastic and important this book is. Please read it.

[Kate Ditzler · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is hard to read. One, it's hard to accept the thesis that Marriage is inherently inequitable when our society puts so much of the worth of women on their marital status. Two, the structure of the book is not in the traditional academic "Thesis, Evidence, Conclusion" model, but rather keeps meandering back to its point so the reader is forced to keep everything together.

The essential argument of the book is that marriage is an inequitable institution -- not just for women, but for the whole of society. First, because all heterosexual romances have a teleology: Marriage. And if a relationship cannot end in marriage, then it is not a relationship worth having. This is an attitude which is often transfered to "homosocial" (i.e. relationships with people similar to you, esp. gender) relationships also -- Ally McBeal lamented her lack of a relationship while she was talking to her best friend with whom she had a very close emotional relationship with.

One thing that I have taken from this book is that I will no longer call my friends single. Quote: "To say that one is 'single' is to define oneself through absence, to concede that one is lacking, to conjure up images of a lone fragmentary existence. This has been the stigma attached to unmarried women throughout western history" (64). I think this is true, and also entirely unfair to women. So, friends, you are no longer single. You are.

I think she's also right that the proposal scene dramatizes masculinity, and that women tend to be somehow "redeemed" by a proposal. The man proves he can provide, by the gift of an expensive ring, and the woman's family rejoices as they are soon to be no longer responsible for her economic well being. And then the whole etiquette behind getting a blessing/permission from the parents or even just making sure they know that the engagement has happened first -- smacks of the financial transactions that marriage once was in the Western world, with dowries and bride prices.

She has a really interesting section where the author talks about how she would meet people she only vaguely knew from college who would stick out their left hands and pronounce their engagement. At first, she would feign delight. And then she would begin to ask why. The majority of answers were "Commitment" or "Wanting to have children" though one woman was completely honest and said that she wanted sex, and she wanted it regularly, and she didn't want to have to go to the bar or club to find it (and thus the State would recognize her sexual relationships).

Weddings, she writes, "transforms that which began privately into a public spectacle -- a binge of self-congratulations that actually cheapens the sentiment between two people. It is worth remembering that this popular ritual is not the only way that a man and a woman can convey their feelings to each other, expressing hope for a long-term friendship, although it has conventionally been so" (124).

The author has major issues with the way that family is constructed in modern, suburban America. The home is seen as a fortress, which protects the man from the demands of his job and the big bad world. The wife expects him home after work, expects him to spend time with her at the expense of all of his other friends, and to abide by a moral code of her choosing. Marriage is very isolating for men, as they are expected to have no other friends besides their wives. Marriage puts one heterosexual relationship on a pedestal above all others -- and requires you to subordinate your relationship with your family, your family of choice, and everyone else.

[Lynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

My main issue with this book is that it's preaching to the choir. I think 99% of the people reading this book are people who have already eschewed the institution of marriage. I think the book would have been strengthened considerably by including responses by intelligent women who have chosen to get married despite knowing the information in this book. That is the population I am most curious about, not the I have dreamed of my wedding since I was 7 years old population. Geller hardly recognizes the existence of these women, but they constitute a huge proportion of women getting married.

While I thought the content of the book was interesting, I thought the writing was terrible. It reads like an undergraduate thesis where the author threw in every piece of research she could find. For example, there are numerous lengthy, scene by scene movie descriptions. Also, Geller engages in hokie gimmicks like starting a wedding registry for 1 day or trying on a wedding dress in an effort to feel what it's like to get swept up in the wedding hysteria. I don't believe that constitutes valid ethnography, which is why the author seemed to be suggesting!

[Wanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is hilarious and well written. Geller has done a lot of research to expose the inequality and injustices against women in which marriage has its origins, and makes the argument that it discourages other types of social bonds. It will make you think twice if you ever thought of getting married.

[Nut Meg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although incredibly flawed, I think this is still worth reading. There are few serious critiques of marriage as an institution and the hoopla that accompanies the wedding itself, making this valuable if only for the dearth of literature on the subject. Although Geller isn't especially persuasive as she argues that society abandon marriage en mass, she does make several valid points worthy of consideration. For example, she suggests that all people deserve the protections marriage offers and that providing those privileges only to committed amorous couples amounts to discrimination against those who for whatever reason do not pursue such relationships. Additionally, she notes that the celebration and gifts conferred on engaged couples/newlyweds rewards monogamous romantic relationships, effectively punishing those who do not or cannot do the same. Although I think she comes to the wrong conclusion by suggesting the solution to these problems is the elimination of marriage, her criticisms are still valid.

That being said, there is a lot of dead wood in this volume. I suspect that Geller may have been required to reach a particular page count given the amount of text dedicated to detailing celebrity wedding ceremonies in excruciating detail, not to mention the extended descriptions of various types of wedding invitations and puff pieces celebrating celebrity marriages. She has a tendency to take an idea and beat it to death several times over, leaving the reader both bored and annoyed. She probably could have made her argument more effectively in half as many pages, so if you're as determined as I was to read through to the end, I recommend skimming as soon as the descriptions start getting repetitive. It would have been far better if she had beefed up her discussion of the consumerism inherent in many wedding traditions, or criticism of the wedding industry itself, both of which are given less attention than they deserve. Also, having been published in 2001, much of the text is quite dated. Many of the pop culture references, such as detailed discussion of the "Ally McBeal" show and the film "American Beauty," have long since ceased to be relevant. However, there is a certain entertainment value in reading extensive descriptions of celebrity marriages that the modern reader knows ended in divorce court. Additionally, having been written long before the marriage equality movement had gained any steam, all of her discussions of marriage describe it in terms of heterosexual couples. Although she does acknowledge same-sex relationships, she does so primarily to note that they were being denied the privileges open to heterosexuals at the time. However, rather than suggesting this be remedied by extending marriage to same-sex couples as well, she instead argues that the institution be done away with entirely.

While Geller fails to make a persuasive argument for the end of marriage as a whole, it's still refreshing to hear a critique of an institution that has become increasingly and perhaps undeservedly sacrosanct in recent years. That being said, I think only the already skeptical will be even remotely receptive to her ideas.

[Caitlin · Rating 1 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading the historical and patriarchal ties to certain wedding traditions. But I disagree with Geller's strong 2nd wave feminist notion that getting married/having a wedding only perpetuates the strength of the patriarchy. She would point out how one aspect of the wedding is wrong and then attack the opposite. There seemed to be no alternatives presented other than not marrying at all.

[Margot · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you're looking for a scathing indictment of the institution of marriage in the U.S., look no further!

I made it to page 299, but then I started reading another wedding cultural history book and just sort of abandoned this one. One day I looked at it on the shelf and thought, "Hmmm, I guess I'm done with that one." Although I agree with many of the points that Geller makes about our cult of worship surrounding coupledom and marriage, and her arguments are well-researched and referenced, I found myself exhausted by her style. The method of her argument was repetitive and eventually felt circular. I was also put off by the global generalizations she makes to "our society" when she is specifically referring to American or British history--I prefer a clearly defined scope. :)

Includes plentiful examples of the myriad ways women have been dominated, oppressed and made invisible by the institution of marriage in the Western world. Brings a whole new meaning to the idea of "wedlock." And I can't believe that I didn't know the term coverture until I read this book--thanks for the education Geller. There are many many read-out-loud sections that astonished me, I won't lie!

Here are some passages I marked:
"In his 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England, the jurist William Blackstone codified preexisting regulations with the definition of coverture: 'By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law, that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband, under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything.'" (24-25)

"In eighteenth-century England a husband who killed his wife was tried for murder (punishable by hanging), while a wife who killed her husband was tried for 'petite treason,' a crime punishable by drawing and burning alive." (25)

"In conversation some have observed that I judge the institution of marriage and thereby indict the woman whose personal taste or private inclination leads her to marry. This is true. Although it is not cost free, easy, or safe, although it is not smooth and conciliatory as is the 'to each her own' doctrine, judgment is the right and the obligation of every thinking person. I deviate from popular rhetoric in my belief that not all choices are 'valid' merely because sane individuals make them. I believe that marriage is destructive, because it perpetuates negative hierarchical divisions such as the celebration of wives and the accompanying denigration of spinsters, the artificial distinction between good (sexually monogamous) and bad (sexually experimental) girls, the exaltation of conjugal love over platonic friendship, and the privileging of institutionalized togetherness over solitude. Wedlock is tainted by the historical residue of female subordination; an overwhelming, oppressive social history that many modern brides and grooms are simply not aware of. I think that each woman who pursues marital commitment and dons a diamond engagement ring and then a white lace dress, believing that she is operating from a personal, spontaneous, or romantic impulse, should reflect more closely on her own behavior." (70-71)

"When we as woman summon the courage to step out of romantic patriarchy's cave and view wedlock in the illuminating light of historical fact, we can begin to perceive the difference between experience and social prescription. We can cast off oppressive definitions and view ourselves as neither wives nor old maids, neither married nor 'single.' And we can discover our own potential in new ways as we emerge from our gender's adolescence." (129)

"There is something admirable about the older generation's desire to help the younger generation get a start in life. These generous impulses are more expansive than the consumerist vision of domestic bliss offered by a store like Bloomingdale's. But reserving this kind of substantive support for couples is deeply problematic. All women--all people--deserve it, or no one does.
The idea of offering ritualized celebration and support to all adults, regardless of their sexual preference or romantic status, seems impossible, contrived, absurd. But this is only because the notion of wedlock as an unassailable truth is so deeply embedded in our consciousness. It is important to remember that marriage, like institutionalized male dominance itself, is not natural, timeless, or ahistorical, but that it is codified in a specific time (6000-600 B.C.E.) in the near east." (162)

[Lesley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this one a while ago and found it fairly interesting in terms of the history of marriage presented, etc, but the author's overwhelming attitude of "don't get married" is off-putting.

Rather than just critiquing the traditional meaning and philosophies behind marriage, as well as the overblown, way-expensive, extreme-wedding weddings of today, Geller rants that there's no good reason for marriage. Ever.

I read an interview with Ms. Geller that appeared before the book was published and she seems to take an extreme position on a lot of things. And I quote: " Ms. is like a fashion magazine now," added Ms. Geller. "It's got pictures of rock stars and glamour girls!" I'm not sure what issue of Ms. Magazine she was referring to, but I certainly don't remember seeing that one.

Conclusion: Worthwhile for anyone interested in the topic, but wear your bitter-blinders as you read.

[Sasha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Geller started this book out well using cultural references and history to show the significance of getting married for a woman. Basically, it is an anti-marriage book with no real solution proposed. Not once does Geller ever mention that she, herself, was given the option to ever be married nor does she discuss the fact that anyone wanted to be married to her. It often comes off as bitter (especially when she is discussing Princess Diana whom she obviously does not feel fondly about). I remember when one of the males I had dated told me that if we broke up he would be losing his "new best friend". (Unfortunately, the feeling was not mutual. lol) What is wrong with being married to one's best friend? What is wrong with starting a life and family with someone? In the end, the book comes off as angry and she does take some huge leaps in her assumptions and interpretations of data.

[Allison · Rating 2 out of 5]

On second though, it might NOT have been the best idea to read a book two months before my wedding, the central thesis of which is "marriage is destructive, because it perpetuates negative hierarchical divisions such as the celebration of wives and the accompanying denigration of spinsters, the artificial distinction between good (sexually monogamous) and bad (sexually experimental) girls, the exaltation of conjugal love over platonic friendship, and the privileging of institutionalized togetherness over solitude" (Geller 70).

[J · Rating 2 out of 5]

was not a bad read but i got sick of hearing the same rant end every chapter so i stopped reading. the author pretending to be a bride was amusing but other than that , the books wasn't overly impressive.

[Lisa · Rating 2 out of 5]

A curious mix of excellent insights and utter boneheadedness. Provides a much-needed critique of the wedding-industrial complex and the culture that supports it, but makes the grave error of mistaking bridal-magazine propaganda for accurate portrayals of actual brides.