When is it polite to use the word "stingy"?
leno...@yahoo.com
wasn't as productive as I'd hoped.)
That is, it seems to me that all too often, those who describe a
person or organization as "stingy" are just being pushy and grabby.
After all, it's not "rude" for parents to give only the basics of
food, clothing, shelter and school supplies to their kids, especially
since they might be simply trying to encourage their kids to work for
what they want, so what real right do kids have even to THINK of their
parents as stingy?
Now, if we're talking about struggling homeless people and what
they're not getting in terms of government help, that's different.
Otherwise, I'm not sure it's really an acceptable word.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.miss-manners/browse_thread/thread/2f8ebdb500fc2f8b#
(semi-productive thread that followed this question)
Follow-up question:
OK, so I guess my question now is, what are the general rules about
when is it fair/polite to use a pejorative to describe someone's
controlled spending habits?
Lenona.
Vic Smith
>
>OK, so I guess my question now is, what are the general rules about
>when is it fair/polite to use a pejorative to describe someone's
>controlled spending habits?
>
Sort of depends of whether or not they believe in voluntary
simplicity.
But aside from that, I have a general rule.
If parents pay their kids a quarter to skip dinner, then charge them a
quarter for breakfast, that's frugal.
If they charge that same quarter for breakfast, but are only willing
to spend 15 cents on the skip dinner part, that's downright stingy.
Might even call it "profiteering."
That may seem overly critical on my part, but you have to draw a line
somewhere.
YMMV.
--Vic
Rod Speed
> (I posted the following at the alt.fan.miss-manners
> newsgroup, but it wasn't as productive as I'd hoped.)
> That is, it seems to me that all too often, those who describe a
> person or organization as "stingy" are just being pushy and grabby.
Neither of those are anything like stingy.
> After all, it's not "rude" for parents to give only the basics
> of food, clothing, shelter and school supplies to their kids,
Thats not what rude is about either. It might well be unacceptable or undesirable tho.
> especially since they might be simply trying to encourage their kids to work for what they want,
Obviously the reason they are doing that is what matters.
> so what real right do kids have even to THINK of their parents as stingy?
When they parents are stingy, they have every right.
> Now, if we're talking about struggling homeless people and what
> they're not getting in terms of government help, that's different.
> Otherwise, I'm not sure it's really an acceptable word.
Depends on how you feel about pejoratives and how you feel about calling a spade a spade.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.miss-manners/browse_thread/thread/2f8ebdb500fc2f8b#
> (semi-productive thread that followed this question)
> Follow-up question:
> OK, so I guess my question now is, what are the general rules about when is
> it fair/polite to use a pejorative to describe someone's controlled spending habits?
Its never polite to use any pejoritive.
It is fair if its accurate.
leno...@yahoo.com
> lenona...@yahoo.com wrote
>
> > (I posted the following at the alt.fan.miss-manners
> > newsgroup, but it wasn't as productive as I'd hoped.)
> > That is, it seems to me that all too often, those who describe a
> > person or organization as "stingy" are just being pushy and grabby.
>
> Neither of those are anything like stingy.
I think you're confusing the accuser with the accusee.
Lenona.
Bill
saying positive things or neutral things would be the polite thing to do.
So far as what I would call stingy would be when someone have extra money
they don't need for anything. I mean a LOT of money, and then they don't pay
their fair share of something or don't pay what is expected of them. Like a
tip for example. Say they have millions of dollars and tip 5% instead of the
customary 10 to 15%. Or try to cheat an employee out of his pay.
<leno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Clisby
> (I posted the following at the alt.fan.miss-manners newsgroup, but it
> wasn't as productive as I'd hoped.)
>
>
> That is, it seems to me that all too often, those who describe a
> person or organization as "stingy" are just being pushy and grabby.
>
> After all, it's not "rude" for parents to give only the basics of
> food, clothing, shelter and school supplies to their kids, especially
> since they might be simply trying to encourage their kids to work for
> what they want, so what real right do kids have even to THINK of their
> parents as stingy?
This has nothing to do with rudeness or politeness. Parents might or
might not provide adequately for their children, but that's not a matter
of etiquette. And children, like everyone else, have the unlimited
right to THINK anything they like.
>
> Now, if we're talking about struggling homeless people and what
> they're not getting in terms of government help, that's different.
>
> Otherwise, I'm not sure it's really an acceptable word.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.miss-manners/browse_thread/thread/2f8ebdb500fc2f8b#
> (semi-productive thread that followed this question)
>
> Follow-up question:
>
> OK, so I guess my question now is, what are the general rules about
> when is it fair/polite to use a pejorative to describe someone's
> controlled spending habits?
>
Fair and polite don't necessarily go hand in hand. If it's true, it's
fair to say it. It might be horribly rude. I don't see why "stingy"
is different from any other pejorative - unless you're using it jokingly
to refer to yourself or someone near and dear who will also think it's
funny - don't.
>
> Lenona.
Ron Peterson
> OK, so I guess my question now is, what are the general rules about
> when is it fair/polite to use a pejorative to describe someone's
> controlled spending habits?
It's not OK when you are asking for a handout for your pet cause.
On the other hand, when a child needs to buy a meal away from home,
the child should get enough to make a choice as to what to buy.
--
Ron
leno...@yahoo.com
> I don't see why "stingy"
> is different from any other pejorative -
It's not, IMO. However, in the Miss Manners thread, as you can see
when you open it, someone said that "stingy" is not, in fact,
necessarily a pejorative! I don't agree, but I decided to rephrase the
question in hope of getting a real answer.
Here's part of what I said in the thread:
Granted, it WOULD be unloving for parents to spend money regularly on
luxuries for themselves but not their children, just as your
significant other would eventually get rightfully annoyed after
noticing more than once that you spend money generously on your
friends but not on dating excursions. (Assuming, of course, that that
person spends generously on you.)
And being rich does not mean one is obligated to, say, buy luxuries.
"Since I am known as a rich person, I feel I have to tip at least $5
each time I check my coat. On top of that, I would have to wear a very
expensive coat, and it would have to be insured. Added up, without a
topcoat, I save $20,000 a year."
Aristotle Onassis.
(end of excerpts)
I'm also thinking of the Newbery-winning 1967 book, "From the Mixed-Up
Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler." In that, 12-year-old runaway
Claudia is angry at her parents for not giving her a big enough
allowance for her to run away in luxury for more than a few hours.
(Her allowance, according to the online Inflation Calculator, is under
$3 per week - in Greenwich, CT.) Still not reasonable of her to think
that.
Lenona.
Clisby
Reasonable or not, it has nothing to do with etiquette, so long as young
Claudia keeps her thoughts to herself.
> Lenona.
>
>
Rod Speed
> I wouldn't say calling someone "stingy" would ever be "polite"! In my book, saying positive things or neutral things
> would be the polite thing to do.
> So far as what I would call stingy would be when someone have extra
> money they don't need for anything. I mean a LOT of money, and then
> they don't pay their fair share of something or don't pay what is
> expected of them. Like a tip for example. Say they have millions of
> dollars and tip 5% instead of the customary 10 to 15%. Or try to
> cheat an employee out of his pay.
Or even just being very stingy about what their kids get when they can afford to be less stingy.
Corse refusing to give the kids everything they demand, particularly when
its just the latest brand etc when they have what they need already isnt stingy.
Rod Speed
Wasnt worded very well, but those doing that accusing doesnt have much at all to do
with being pushy, particularly if the characterisation of the stingy person is accurate.
The problem with grabby isnt as bad, but again if the characterisation of the stingy
person is accurate they arent actually being grabby, just saying what they think.
Still not very well said, but I dunno how to say it better.
Rod Speed
>> I don't see why "stingy" is different from any other pejorative -
> It's not, IMO. However, in the Miss Manners thread, as you can
> see when you open it, someone said that "stingy" is not, in fact,
> necessarily a pejorative! I don't agree, but I decided to rephrase
> the question in hope of getting a real answer.
There is a sense in which calling a spade a spade isnt very polite.
Trouble is that if the individual is stingy, there isnt really any non pejoritive
way of saying that except something not as strong like saying someone
is very careful with their money. Particularly if they are inappropriately
careful with their money, like some people who are rolling in it can be,
there's really only one way to describe them if you want to be accurate.
Corse its different when someone is very careful with their money
because they have less money than they require to operate like most
do. Thats not really stingy, just more limited in what they can do.
Stingy really only applys when you can behave normally but choose not to.
> Here's part of what I said in the thread:
> Granted, it WOULD be unloving for parents to spend money
> regularly on luxuries for themselves but not their children, just
> as your significant other would eventually get rightfully annoyed
> after noticing more than once that you spend money generously
> on your friends but not on dating excursions. (Assuming,
> of course, that that person spends generously on you.)
Stingyness doesnt really require any reciprosity. Or more strictly whether
someone is stingy or not doesnt depend on what others do to them.
> And being rich does not mean one is obligated to, say, buy luxuries.
Correct, but thats a different issue to stingyness.
> "Since I am known as a rich person, I feel I have to tip at least
> $5 each time I check my coat. On top of that, I would have to
> wear a very expensive coat, and it would have to be insured.
> Added up, without a topcoat, I save $20,000 a year."
> Aristotle Onassis.
Thats pretty much the rationalisation of a stingy person, as he was notoriously.
Corse Jacky was a notorious spendthrift/brainless bimbo too.
> (end of excerpts)
> I'm also thinking of the Newbery-winning 1967 book, "From the Mixed-Up
> Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler." In that, 12-year-old runaway
> Claudia is angry at her parents for not giving her a big enough
> allowance for her to run away in luxury for more than a few hours.
> (Her allowance, according to the online Inflation Calculator, is under
> $3 per week - in Greenwich, CT.) Still not reasonable of her to think that.
Sure, but thats a rather separate issue to whether her parents really were stingy.
And you cant decide whether the allowance is stingy or not without considering the parents financial circumstances.
Clearly much of what Onassis did was stingy, because he could do anything he liked and chose to be stingy.
So did that arsehole Rockefeller who chose ot install payphones for the guests to use etc.
leno...@yahoo.com
> lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I'm also thinking of the Newbery-winning 1967 book, "From the Mixed-Up
> > Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler." In that, 12-year-old runaway
> > Claudia is angry at her parents for not giving her a big enough
> > allowance for her to run away in luxury for more than a few hours.
> > (Her allowance, according to the online Inflation Calculator, is under
> > $3 per week - in Greenwich, CT.) Still not reasonable of her to think
> > that.
>
> Reasonable or not, it has nothing to do with etiquette, so long as young
> Claudia keeps her thoughts to herself.
Except that she clearly didn't keep her harsh thoughts to herself, so
to speak. That is, she was callous enough to run away from home
without warning, take her brother along, and throw her parents into a
panic - and even act surprised when she hears, second-hand, of their
reaction, since she'd sent them a letter after running away, saying
that they were leaving home and not to call the FBI.
Lenona.
leno...@yahoo.com
What I should have said was, in individual cases that I hear of, often
the demander is only using the word in order to guilt-trip someone who
doesn't really owe the demander anything in the first place.
I was also thinking of a Miss Manners column which I can't find right
now - it's probably buried in here:
http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=8318975
In it, a young man was asking for his grandmother's engagement ring to
give to his fiancee - while the grandmother was still alive, IIRC.
(The letter was written by the mother, I think.) I can't remember the
details or exactly what the question was, but MM suggested that the
man learn to be a lot more cautious in his requests - and be gracious
enough in the event of a refusal. (MM said at one point "or is he just
being grabby?" He may or may not have implied, with no evidence, that
Grandma was being stingy - I can't remember.)
leno...@yahoo.com
>
> Correct, but thats a different issue to stingyness.
>
> > "Since I am known as a rich person, I feel I have to tip at least
> > $5 each time I check my coat. On top of that, I would have to
> > wear a very expensive coat, and it would have to be insured.
> > Added up, without a topcoat, I save $20,000 a year."
> > Aristotle Onassis.
>
> Thats pretty much the rationalisation of a stingy person, as he was notoriously.
Maybe he was in general, but again, refusing to buy luxuries does not
justify calling a rich person stingy. In the above example, I would
certainly call all of the above luxuries.
Many philanthropists get rich mainly frugality towards themselves, not
just towards their friends and family. That way, at least, they can
spend money on the truly needy. One financial planner said of her
wealthiest clients: "You couldn't pick most of them out of a crowd."
> > I'm also thinking of the Newbery-winning 1967 book, "From the Mixed-Up
> > Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler." In that, 12-year-old runaway
> > Claudia is angry at her parents for not giving her a big enough
> > allowance for her to run away in luxury for more than a few hours.
> > (Her allowance, according to the online Inflation Calculator, is under
> > $3 per week - in Greenwich, CT.) Still not reasonable of her to think that.
>
> Sure, but thats a rather separate issue to whether her parents really were stingy.
>
> And you cant decide whether the allowance is stingy or not without considering the parents financial circumstances.
Exactly. The parents chose to have four children rather than one or
two, and they chose to have a twice-a-week cleaning lady instead of a
full-time housekeeper like all the other families whose kids go to
Claudia's school. (Granted, Claudia was quite right to resent the fact
that, because she was the only girl in the family, she was the only
kid out of the four expected to do the leftover housework. Had the
parents not hired the cleaning lady and made ALL the kids do
housework, maybe they could have increased the kids' allowances. As
things were, Claudia was convinced her 50-cent 1967 allowance was the
smallest in the class and that it was clearly unfair that she had to
skip four hot fudge sundaes over four weeks just to save for train
fare in her plans to run away. But again, that last one is just a
selfish child's sense of logic. She certainly wouldn't have understood
why her parents would want to have two of her siblings in the first
place, since she never liked them.)
Lenona.
Clisby
So she wouldn't have run away from home if she'd had a larger allowance?
From your earlier description, I got the (possibly mistaken)
impression that she was determined to run away anyway. The allowance
was relevant only to how comfortable she would be as a runaway.
Clisby
> Lenona.
leno...@yahoo.com
> So she wouldn't have run away from home if she'd had a larger allowance?
> From your earlier description, I got the (possibly mistaken)
> impression that she was determined to run away anyway. The allowance
> was relevant only to how comfortable she would be as a runaway.
>
> Clisby
Well, one might argue that she simply ran away out of general boredom,
feeling un-special (especially as the oldest child and only girl, with
unfair chore division), and all sorts of little peeves, such as having
to wear shoes most of the time instead of sneakers and being expected
to walk her 6-year-old brother home as her occasional responsibility,
which, as far as she was concerned, was only helping to make him
impossibly spoiled, unlike her. ("She couldn't remember being anyone's
responsibility in first grade. Her mother had simply picked her up at
the bus stop every day.")
But she did very much resent her low allowance, though I doubt a
higher one would have made much difference, given her and her
brother's callous treatment of their parents, who become "nearly
frantic." Obviously, lack of conscience is Claudia's main problem -
not financial greed, per se.
Lenona.