Wedding question - midwestern thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.

Yes, OP, just eat an early dinner before you go to the wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.

How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?

I work from home so at 5 I start to cook. DH leaves work at 5, picks up the kid and does the 20 minute drive, home by 5:30ish and I have dinner ready. On weekends we eat sometime between 5-6 usually. Kid goes to bed at 7-7:30 so we need to eat at this time -- half an hour over dinner, bath, a few minutes of playing and it's time for books and bed.

I'm an attorney so sometimes I work a bit more after the kid is asleep.

[Anonymous]

Oh, I meant for two parents who both work outside the home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.

How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?

My father stopped work at 5, was home at 5:15 and dinner was served at 5:30 every day of my childhood. It is a totally different lifestyle in a small midwestern city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."

The timing of the event is the problem. Where are the parents of the bride and groom?

What does that have to do with anything?

Um, sorry I was opaque. I meant, why didn't the parents of the bride and groom suggest a 4 pm or 8 pm wedding to the happy couple to avoid the meal issue?

Small-town Midwesterner again here. Again, from my perspective, the timing is unfortunate, but not really a big issue or a "problem". I imagine the parents of the couple felt the same way. People in the Midwest are just generally more laidback about these sorts of things. And eating at 5:00 is not really a big deal. My family would probably eat a large mid-afternoon meal in this scenario and then go to the wedding. And then drive-through Subway on the way home. We wouldn't even really snark or comment on it at all. It's just what happens sometimes. People's lives there are about accommodating and seeing their friends, so people don't get so up-in-arms about "inconveniences."

Now, I don't know where in the Midwest OP's wedding is. Maybe in that location this is tacky and horrible to guests. I'm just offering my perspective that in some locations, this is just not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.

How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?

They get to leave early because they are All. Just. So. Nice!

Unlike us dickweeds on the coasts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.

How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?

My father stopped work at 5, was home at 5:15 and dinner was served at 5:30 every day of my childhood. It is a totally different lifestyle in a small midwestern city.

My mom worked from 7:00 to 3:00, and we always ate by 4:30 or 5:00. I grew up in a small midwestern town.

[Anonymous]

Now, I don't know where in the Midwest OP's wedding is. Maybe in that location this is tacky and horrible to guests. I'm just offering my perspective that in some locations, this is just not a big deal.

She TOLD you it was in the Midwest - doesn't that answer this question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.

How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?

My father stopped work at 5, was home at 5:15 and dinner was served at 5:30 every day of my childhood. It is a totally different lifestyle in a small midwestern city.

In small midwestern cities in 2012, there's always a SAHM to make sure dinner's on the table at 5:30? Funny, my cousins who are both female and live in Wisconsin both WOH FT and I can assure you do not have dinner on the table before 7 pm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."

+1

You people sound like such snobs. Not everyone has the money to serve a full dinner at their wedding. And 6:30 on a Saturday isn't all that early. It's not like people are coming straight from work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.

How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?

They get to leave early because they are All. Just. So. Nice!

Unlike us dickweeds on the coasts.

I love the term "dickweed!" Haven't heard it for years.

Anyway, late dinners do tend to be the norm on the east and west coasts, and early dinners are more common in the midwest, especially rural areas.

[Anonymous]

"My family would probably eat a large mid-afternoon meal in this scenario and then go to the wedding. And then drive-through Subway on the way home. We wouldn't even really snark or comment on it at all. It's just what happens sometimes. People's lives there are about accommodating and seeing their friends, so people don't get so up-in-arms about "inconveniences." "

That's why wedding guests spend $25 or $50 on gifts there - they still have to feed themselves afterwards! If I attended a 6:30 wedding that had no meal, I'd last until maybe 8 until I would need to leave to eat dinner somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Now, I don't know where in the Midwest OP's wedding is. Maybe in that location this is tacky and horrible to guests. I'm just offering my perspective that in some locations, this is just not a big deal.

She TOLD you it was in the Midwest - doesn't that answer this question?

Are you kidding? As if the "Midwest" -- which covers the entire center of this country and everything from Chicago to towns of 150 in Oklahoma -- can be generalized. So, no, it doesn't answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."

+1

You people sound like such snobs. Not everyone has the money to serve a full dinner at their wedding. And 6:30 on a Saturday isn't all that early. It's not like people are coming straight from work.

We eat at 6:30 pm 7 days a week. It IS dinner hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"My family would probably eat a large mid-afternoon meal in this scenario and then go to the wedding. And then drive-through Subway on the way home. We wouldn't even really snark or comment on it at all. It's just what happens sometimes. People's lives there are about accommodating and seeing their friends, so people don't get so up-in-arms about "inconveniences." "

That's why wedding guests spend $25 or $50 on gifts there - they still have to feed themselves afterwards! If I attended a 6:30 wedding that had no meal, I'd last until maybe 8 until I would need to leave to eat dinner somewhere.

Okay, and ... what? This makes it less of a wedding? Less worth celebrating? Less worth gifting? Yes, the gifts are smaller there, but it's, again, because people are generally strapped for cash and less materialistic, not because anyone is begrudging the lack of a meal.