No love from the NYTimes

A favorite activity of mine on a Sunday afternoon is to kick back after brunch with friends and devour the New York Times, particularly the Style section (yes, yes, I read the "real" news too). In fact, I obsess about the wedding section and how I can get my wedding announced in this paper. I've had friends have their name in the Old Gray Lady, and I think it's the most exciting thing ever. So imagine my great horror when my Sunday delight cranks out trash like this: It's Botox for You, Dear Bridesmaids. This article is the epitome of what I hate in "journalism." The article chats about how women are now throwing Botox parties in place of the more traditional events pre-wedding day. Quote NYT:

For Ms. Knauer, who will be married in December, cosmetic interventions for herself and her entourage are as vital as the centerpieces or food. “If I were 25 or 26 and getting married, a bracelet, necklace or matching earrings would be fine,” she said.

Really? I suspect that Ms. Knauer did not expect to be portrayed as the kind of woman that we readers of the NYT can both pity and laugh at because of a little vanity. She probably just wanted a spa day with friends.

Or this one:

Not for nothing are some maids known as slaves of honor, but this kind of cajoling is a recent development on the wedding front.

Or this:

It was trickier with her future mother-in-law. “To her,” Ms. Berlin said, “I said it as a joke: ‘You should do Botox for the wedding!’ She giggled, and then I said, ‘I’m serious. It’s exactly what you need to freshen up.’ At first she kind of laughed it off, but the more we talked about it and I told her my mom was going to do it, she said ‘O.K.’ ”

I swear its like they sought out the most ridiculous/extreme thing they can find and portray it as how women should act in their aspirational newspaper.  haven't met a Bride yet who's real goal was to make an ass of her sisters, her best friends, or her family. Most of the brides I chat with are trying to select reasonable dresses, are not expecting crazy parties, and are generally just glad to have their nearest and dearest involved in their big day. But, of course, that's not very interesting to the NYT. Instead, they pull off something special in this article. Not only are they able to demonstrate how silly and superficial women are, particularly brides - because we all know brides are crazy - (Could it be our quest to enter into an institution that is heralded in the media but not supported by our public policies? I'm just asking) but they are also manage to serve up a bit of age-ism on the side. Clearly this is talking about brides in their 30's and older, who, were too busy working on the careers that are exalted on the Weddings and Celebrations pages every Sunday afternoon, to have gotten married early enough for this to NOT BE A STORY!

SO NYT, I beg you, give us a break. Quit sucking the joy out of my Sundays by writing sexist drivel the rest of the week. Thank you.