Philip Howard's "Modern Manners" column in Sunday Times
Kate
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk). If you read it, I'd be interested in
your thoughts on how he compares to MM. To get the conversation
started, I find him to be breezier and a bit less starchy than MM, for
example he's more likely to quash outrage at minor offenses or even
major ones when family causes them. What do you think?
Kate
Briar Rose
I looked, but couldn't find the column you refer to
under "Entertainment" or "Comment," and couldn't think
where else it would be. When I tried to search for it,
I got articles about politics.
If you could provide a link to his columns directly, or
navigation directsion, I'd like to take a look.
:) Connie-Lynne
--
"The sky is blue because Martians puke sapphires.
I heard John Glen say this on Fresh Air."
-- N. Jill Marsh
Andrew J. Grgurich
"Briar Rose" <cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:c52242$rd8$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
> Kate <kateed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I enjoy Philip Howard's column Modern Manners in the Sunday Times
> >(http://www.timesonline.co.uk). If you read it, I'd be interested in
> >your thoughts on how he compares to MM. To get the conversation
> >started, I find him to be breezier and a bit less starchy than MM, for
> >example he's more likely to quash outrage at minor offenses or even
> >major ones when family causes them. What do you think?
>
> I looked, but couldn't find the column you refer to
> under "Entertainment" or "Comment," and couldn't think
> where else it would be. When I tried to search for it,
> I got articles about politics.
>
> If you could provide a link to his columns directly, or
> navigation directsion, I'd like to take a look.
>
> :) Connie-Lynne
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,641,00.html
He seems like a decent chap, a bit more permissive than Miss Manners though.
AJG
Ericka Kammerer
I only read a few columns, but I find I wonder
just what he *would* get outraged over. Most of what
I read seemed to say, "Well, that's not how I would do
it, but just go with the flow." On the one hand, that's
not bad advice (under the you-can't-change-anyone-but-
yourself theory) and I don't think that MM would disagree
that much. She frequently points out that you don't
get to correct the behavior of other adults and that
you don't get to be rude in responding to rudeness.
Still, he also seems to see etiquette as a much more
fuzzy concept than MM does, and came right out and
said that etiquette is a constantly moving target
and the only "rule" that means anything is the Golden
Rule. I think that's perhaps throwing the baby out
with the bathwater, and I don't think MM would go that
far.
Best wishes,
Ericka
meirman
Grgurich" <agrg...@portup.com> posted:
>
>"Briar Rose" <cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>news:c52242$rd8$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
>> Kate <kateed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I enjoy Philip Howard's column Modern Manners in the Sunday Times
>> >(http://www.timesonline.co.uk). If you read it, I'd be interested in
>> >your thoughts on how he compares to MM. To get the conversation
>> >started, I find him to be breezier and a bit less starchy than MM, for
>> >example he's more likely to quash outrage at minor offenses or even
>> >major ones when family causes them. What do you think?
>>
>> I looked, but couldn't find the column you refer to
>> under "Entertainment" or "Comment," and couldn't think
>> where else it would be. When I tried to search for it,
>> I got articles about politics.
>>
>> If you could provide a link to his columns directly, or
>> navigation directsion, I'd like to take a look.
>>
>> :) Connie-Lynne
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,641,00.html
From the column:
>He said that he would love for us to come, but to come on his kids’ spring break, so they could spend time with their cousin. I told him if I wanted to come out for a visit I could come when I wanted to. My daughter-in-law said that since they had not been considered or included for the “fun” part of the trip we were not welcome
to use them for a hotel or chauffer service. Don’t you think that they are being rude? M. Savage, Ravenna, Ohio
Yes, but the mother started it. "I can come when I want to". Yeah,
it's a free country, but don't expect her son to be her taxi. In
fact, it will take him two hours or more to take off work and pick her
up, especially if the plane lands late. Let her take a taxi. It will
take the taxi driver less time, and will probably cost less than her
son makes in 2 hours.
Also, daughters-(and sons-)in-law should not mix in. If the son still
wants them to come on the mother's terms, the dil should shut up and
cooperate, not just to the mother but to her husband too.
>He seems like a decent chap, a bit more permissive than Miss Manners though.
>
>AJG
Meirman
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>
>Also, daughters-(and sons-)in-law should not mix in. If the son still
>wants them to come on the mother's terms, the dil should shut up and
>cooperate, not just to the mother but to her husband too.
>
Do you think this is the proper reaction in this situation only, or in
most or all marital questions?
Boron
Uncle Mandrake
There are no manners but proper manners and Miss Manners is their
prophetess, sibyl, and guru. All hail Miss Manners! Rah! Rah!
Rah!
I have to agree with the idea of quashing outrage, but certainly
not displeasure or dissatisfaction. But I'm with Miss Manners on
the in-family thing on the grounds that your very best behavior
should be towards those closest to you.
Actually, Miss Manners isn't really starchy. She's always got her
eye on the underlying principles of the thing and she has no
hesitation about updating archaic forms to accomodate social
developments. I remember one priceless item from at least 20
years ago:
Q: I was introduced to a homosexual [sic] couple at a party. What
do you say to them?
A: How do you do? How do you do?
QED etc.
Now to check that URL, having written a reply in the complete
absence of hard data.
--
Uncle Mandrake
Victoria, BC, Canada
[change "atlantic" to "pacific" and
"invalid" to "net" to reply by email]
meirman
<boron_elg...@hotmail.com> posted:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:36:13 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Also, daughters-(and sons-)in-law should not mix in. If the son still
>>wants them to come on the mother's terms, the dil should shut up and
>>cooperate, not just to the mother but to her husband too.
That is she should not tell the mother not to come, and she shouldn't
tell her husband to tell the mother that, or try to talk him into
thinking that. She should not be the source of dissension between him
and his mother. Nor should he be a source of trouble between her and
her parents. Or siblings. Family is irreplaceable, and there is a
special place in hell for those who stir up trouble in the midst of
another's family. This applies to those who stir up trouble in a
marriage too, probably with the exception of minor children who live
with the couple, whether they are both his parents or not. (although
a 15 or 16 year old should be able to keep his mouth shut under most
circumstances.)
>Do you think this is the proper reaction in this situation only, or in
>most or all marital questions?
Not just this one, many. Especially when dealing with the other's
family. If they were such a problem that one truly could not stand
them in hir home at all, that would be a different story (although
didn't we just have a thread where the person chose that time to go
away on hir own vacation? A good solution.)
But in the column in the Times, they were willing to have the mother A
and her grandson B visit. They just wanted it to be a different week.
I think the wife C of her son D resented being used as a hotel. I
think she doesn't appreciate the situation, including thrift. Not
only would the mother A see her son D, the husband, and his child E
before they left on the trip to California and when they got back, but
the mother A doesn't want to stay at a hotel because they are
expensive. She knows the money she has plus the money she can earn
has to last her for the rest of her life, even if something goes
wrong.
The wife C hasn't looked far enough down the road and realized how
careful she will have to be with money some day. Unless C and D are
very well off in which case now or later they should probably be
giving money to A, especially if A has illness or unforeseen expenses.
It's common, maybe typical for parents to live a lower standard of
living than their kids do. Whether these kids will have money enough
to pay for their own retirement, at their current standard of living,
remains to be seen. It should be that the whole family works
together so that everyone saves money. If C and D want to come to A's
town, when it isn't the best possible time for A, they can also save
money by staying at A's house anyhow.
But A shouldn't have given her snotty reply to the dil either.
There's probably some ongoing mutual resentment. And then A wants to
look at this incident, where the dil does come off looking bad. A
probably wants to ignore those cases where A was the one who acted
badly first.
>Boron
Uncle Mandrake
> ...he also seems to see etiquette as a much more
> fuzzy concept than MM does, and came right out and
> said that etiquette is a constantly moving target
> and the only "rule" that means anything is the Golden
> Rule. I think that's perhaps throwing the baby out
> with the bathwater, and I don't think MM would go that
> far.
One thing I like about Miss Manners is that she doesn't pull her
punches. She explicitly says that a lot of good manners is
governed by arbitrary rules (which are far from uniform from
place to place), but goes on to explain that though the rules are
arbitrary, they are the "accepted" forms. She's against
innovation (a la Bridezillas doing weird things at their
ceremonies) on the grounds it just confuses people.
Maybe I haven't put that very well or convincingly. Miss Manners
urges us to do the conventional thing because it is easier on
everybody. We just say "how do you do?" instead of trying to
invent some novel bright talk, for example. Or maybe you could
view the rules as a script to follow. Isn't it harder for an
actor to ad lib convincingly on stage than to follow the script?
Anyway, I like Miss Manners and I like her fearless defense of
conventional manners and rules. Philip Howard (in the bits quoted
-- I still haven't looked at the URL's) impresses me as too
damned touchy-feely-new-age-do-what-seems-natural. Bah humbug.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>In alt.fan.miss-manners on Thu, 08 Apr 2004 07:02:41 -0400 Boron Elgar
><boron_elg...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:36:13 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Also, daughters-(and sons-)in-law should not mix in. If the son still
>>>wants them to come on the mother's terms, the dil should shut up and
>>>cooperate, not just to the mother but to her husband too.
>
>That is she should not tell the mother not to come, and she shouldn't
>tell her husband to tell the mother that, or try to talk him into
>thinking that.
First of all, my speculations are based on a rather sketchy newspaper
article, and I assume a great many of the facts of the case are not
known. Still, upon this information only, I have to agree with Mr.
Howard that the M/MIL and her guests should make other arrangements
and fuggeddaboudit.
The husband appears to be the first person to suggest another date to
his mother, who (again, just from the article), basically tells him
that her visits (and staying at his home) are to be done on her
timetable, with no consideration given to that of her son and his
family.
"I told him if I wanted to come out for a visit I could come when I
wanted to."
I find this insulting and would feel this way no matter how close the
relative. If someone took that attitude with my spouse, I would
probably feel honor-bound to jump to his defense and agree, so in some
ways, the wife in this case is standing by what her husband says and
being loyal to him.
Inviting oneself as a houseguest, that is, not *requesting* permission
to be one at the convenience of the hosts (even if close family,) but
announcing the arrival date and asking someone to take off from work
for an airport pick up, are a bit much to me under these
circumstances. Surely, if there were an illness, or other family
emergency, or even if this were a common and mutual and regular
happening, that would be entirely different. I have close family
(sibs/in laws, etc., on both sides) in several different areas of the
country and would never dream of just announcing an arrival. I would
arrange for a visit convenient for both parties and do so in such a
way as inconvenience my hosts as little as possible.
>She should not be the source of dissension between him
>and his mother. Nor should he be a source of trouble between her and
>her parents. Or siblings. Family is irreplaceable, and there is a
>special place in hell for those who stir up trouble in the midst of
>another's family. This applies to those who stir up trouble in a
>marriage too, probably with the exception of minor children who live
>with the couple, whether they are both his parents or not. (although
>a 15 or 16 year old should be able to keep his mouth shut under most
>circumstances.)
Most family advisors offer these words of wisdom to parents/in laws
and siblings in their treatment of a couple, rather than the other way
around. Once the family goes home, or mama has flown back to Ohio, the
couple are still living with each other 24/7. You know...things like
cleave unto the wife or forsaking all others.... To me, the spousal
unit is "sacred" one here and one that should take precedence.
Please do not interpret this as advocating strife or ongoing torment
and disagreement with one's own family or the in laws. ON the
contrary, that does no one any good, but in this case, I see no reason
for the wife to have remained quiet, especially as she would be
involved in hosting and her husband make it clear he would prefer
another date.
And there are any number of circumstances in which it could be
unseemly NOT to "stir up trouble" in a family, if one recognizes
danger..all extreme circumstances, of course, but they do exist.
>
Indeed ...this couple live together. If guests are to be in the home,
it needs to be at the convenience and agreement of the *couple,* not
just with the convenience of one and disagreement between them and
surely not at the inconvenience of both!
>
snip....
> She knows the money she has plus the money she can earn
>has to last her for the rest of her life, even if something goes
>wrong.
Nothing indicating such is the case is mentioned in the article,
though.
>
>The wife C hasn't looked far enough down the road and realized how
>careful she will have to be with money some day. Unless C and D are
>very well off in which case now or later they should probably be
>giving money to A, especially if A has illness or unforeseen expenses.
Then it would be wise not to arrange for a vacation in which
unforeseen expenses could arise...say, for example, if someone could
not take off of work and make an airport run. I could understand
someone calling and saying that a very cheap fair would be available
on such and such a date and the only way for a visit to be made would
depend on such a fare, as well as the favor of local transport and
housing. Even then, if the fare is available at a time inconvenient to
the hosts, the trip should be reconsidered or abandoned.
>It's common, maybe typical for parents to live a lower standard of
>living than their kids do.
This varies widely, and again, was not a part of the article at all.
Introducing financial hardship into it, changes only that facet of it,
but not eh inconsideration of announcing when one will arrive and when
to be at the airport for luggage duty.
>
>But A shouldn't have given her snotty reply to the dil either.
Quite right, though I believe the snot was directed unequivocally at
the son.
>There's probably some ongoing mutual resentment. And then A wants to
>look at this incident, where the dil does come off looking bad. A
>probably wants to ignore those cases where A was the one who acted
>badly first.
It appears to me as if the couple were as one on this issue and cannot
be faulted for any divisiveness. A parent/in law who stoutly and
determinedly announces an arrival, rather than arranging a visit at a
mutually convenient time, though, is a time bomb.
Boron
Uncle Mandrake
> ...Family is irreplaceable...
Not so. Lots of people become estranged from their family and
make do quite nicely with spouses, SO's, even just good friends
in lieu of family. This is often with a sigh of relief at not
having to put up with family members' screwiness.
Kate
tends towards Etiquette Lite. Sometimes I like his approach - good
intentions and a sense of humor are often more important than the
right form - but sometimes I prefer to have MM drop the gavel on an
issue. I wish I could more easily ignore small things, like table
manner failings in friends, while being bolder about confronting
intentional rudenesses. I suppose I'll look to Philip for the former
and MM for the latter. I confess I read the Etiquette Grrls too, but
this is something of a guilty pleasure since they can be a bit
mean-spirited though funny.
> There are no manners but proper manners and Miss Manners is their
> prophetess, sibyl, and guru. All hail Miss Manners! Rah! Rah!
> Rah!
She has reached Etiquette Nirvana, I agree. The rest of us down here
are repeating our etiquette mistakes for a couple of lifetimes, I
suspect.
Uncle Mandrake
> The husband appears to be the first person to suggest another date to
> his mother, who (again, just from the article), basically tells him
> that her visits (and staying at his home) are to be done on her
> timetable, with no consideration given to that of her son and his
> family.
>
> "I told him if I wanted to come out for a visit I could come when I
> wanted to."
>
> I find this insulting and would feel this way no matter how close the
> relative.
> ...A parent/in law who stoutly and
> determinedly announces an arrival, rather than arranging a visit at a
> mutually convenient time, though, is a time bomb.
Sheesh; here's a catfight going on under my very nose and me not
participating. Gotta stop that right now.
Going back and reading the original letter of complaint (at least
the part quoted here in afm-m) I see it's the intrusive mother
who's whining.
Were I the advice giver I'd tell her "Well, don't complain when
you arrive at the airport and nobody's there to pick you up."
Seems to me that the Happy Couple blessed with this parent
(-in-law) need to say when confronted with this attitude "It's
nice you're coming to town but I'm afraid we won't be able to
pick you up at the airport nor put you up at home. We'd love to
but....
<drumroll>
....IT'S SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE
<cymbal crash>
<and the afm-m collective goes wild: Uncle has done it again!>
Repetitiously yours,
Ericka Kammerer
> Maybe I haven't put that very well or convincingly. Miss Manners
> urges us to do the conventional thing because it is easier on
> everybody.
...but only in situations where that is useful
and appropriate. She tends to draw the boundaries of
where one ought to follow convention fairly closely,
IMO, which I think is very appropriate.
>
> Anyway, I like Miss Manners and I like her fearless defense of
> conventional manners and rules. Philip Howard (in the bits quoted
> -- I still haven't looked at the URL's) impresses me as too
> damned touchy-feely-new-age-do-what-seems-natural. Bah humbug.
I would have to agree. My feeling is that the
whole *point* of having a system of etiquette is for
someone to get off the fence and settle some basic
issues of how to interact so that we don't have to
reinvent the wheel every darned time we interact
with someone. If the only rule that means anything
is the Golden Rule, that just doesn't help *anything*.
I agree that one shouldn't get all up in arms and cause
family feuds over rudeness on someone else's part, but
I'm all for some basic standards just to make life
easier on everyone.
Best wishes,
Ericka
meirman
toto...@atlanticcoast.invalid (Uncle Mandrake) posted:
>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:38:54 -0400, meirman wrote:
>
>> ...Family is irreplaceable...
>
>Not so. Lots of people become estranged from their family and
>make do quite nicely with spouses, SO's, even just good friends
>in lieu of family.
Exactly. They spend their time with friends but they don't have their
family anymore. You alienate a brother or a mother or father, you
can't go find another. That's what I meant.
>This is often with a sigh of relief at not
>having to put up with family members' screwiness.
Some people may indeed be relieved to be without their family, but I
was talking in the context of someone who was getting along fairly
well and another party was stirring up trouble. Once the third party
stirs up enough trouble, the family members on either or both sides
may indeed give a sigh of relief when they separate, but that does
nothing to get the trouble-maker off the hook, or to save hir from his
special place in hell.
meirman
toto...@atlanticcoast.invalid (Uncle Mandrake) posted:
>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:22:03 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> The husband appears to be the first person to suggest another date to
>> his mother, who (again, just from the article), basically tells him
>> that her visits (and staying at his home) are to be done on her
>> timetable, with no consideration given to that of her son and his
>> family.
>>
>> "I told him if I wanted to come out for a visit I could come when I
>> wanted to."
>>
>> I find this insulting and would feel this way no matter how close the
>> relative.
>
>> ...A parent/in law who stoutly and
>> determinedly announces an arrival, rather than arranging a visit at a
>> mutually convenient time, though, is a time bomb.
>
>Sheesh; here's a catfight going on under my very nose and me not
>participating. Gotta stop that right now.
>
>Going back and reading the original letter of complaint (at least
>the part quoted here in afm-m) I see it's the intrusive mother
>who's whining.
>
>Were I the advice giver I'd tell her "Well, don't complain when
>you arrive at the airport and nobody's there to pick you up."
That's as rudely phrased as what the mother said. The mannerly thing
to say is, aiui "I just can't pick you up that day. No. I just can't."
>Seems to me that the Happy Couple blessed with this parent
>(-in-law) need to say when confronted with this attitude "It's
>nice you're coming to town but I'm afraid we won't be able to
>pick you up at the airport nor put you up at home. We'd love to
>but....
If they're going to be like that, why should they lie too? They won't
even be believed. The couple in the column were home that week and
could have put the mother and son up at their home. But they were
busy and offended and they didn't want to. That's the opposite of
"love to".
><drumroll>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ....IT'S SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE
>
><cymbal crash>
>
><and the afm-m collective goes wild: Uncle has done it again!>
>
>Repetitiously yours,
meirman
<boron_elg...@hotmail.com> posted:
I hope I haven't beeten this to death, but I have a hard time replying
without replying to the whole thing. Hope I didn't repeat myself too
much.
>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:38:54 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In alt.fan.miss-manners on Thu, 08 Apr 2004 07:02:41 -0400 Boron Elgar
>><boron_elg...@hotmail.com> posted:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:36:13 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Also, daughters-(and sons-)in-law should not mix in. If the son still
>>>>wants them to come on the mother's terms, the dil should shut up and
>>>>cooperate, not just to the mother but to her husband too.
>>
>>That is she should not tell the mother not to come, and she shouldn't
>>tell her husband to tell the mother that, or try to talk him into
>>thinking that.
>
>First of all, my speculations are based on a rather sketchy newspaper
>article, and I assume a great many of the facts of the case are not
>known. Still, upon this information only, I have to agree with Mr.
>Howard that the M/MIL and her guests should make other arrangements
>and fuggeddaboudit.
I agree with all of this, now that the conversation went the way it
did.
>The husband appears to be the first person to suggest another date to
>his mother, who (again, just from the article), basically tells him
>that her visits (and staying at his home) are to be done on her
>timetable, with no consideration given to that of her son and his
>family.
I agree with all of this except from the last comma on. If she gave
no consideration, she would drop in during the woman's last weeks of
pregnancy. AFAICT the couple is no more busy than any week that their
son is in school. They want the mother and grandson to come when the
two kids have all day to play with each other. But it appears that
since the grandson is off school the week in question, he won't be off
school the week when the couple's son is, except maybe in summer or a
different season.
>"I told him if I wanted to come out for a visit I could come when I
>wanted to."
>
>I find this insulting and would feel this way no matter how close the
>relative.
I agree.
> If someone took that attitude with my spouse, I would
>probably feel honor-bound to jump to his defense and agree, so in some
>ways, the wife in this case is standing by what her husband says and
>being loyal to him.
She may be but it's a terrible mistake. She should stay out of fights
between her husband and his mother. The mother doesn't care if the
wife stands up for her husband when they are both against her. She's
a pimple on her husband's life at times like that, in the mother's
eyes. I doubt it is loyalty so much as the wife herself is offended
separately for almost the same reason the husband is, or the reason we
think the husband is. (The mother and son have a lifetime of history
together, so he could be offended not only by the words but by a trove
of other reasons. Similar occasions that this occasion reminds him
of.
That's another reason why people shouldn't mix in others' fights.
Because what is a moderate fight between strangers like a woman and
her dil, can be a major fight between the mother and her son. Third
parties can't appreciate what they may be dragging others into.
(Although it is starting to sound that way, I think, this is not a
story from my own past.)
>Inviting oneself as a houseguest, that is, not *requesting* permission
>to be one at the convenience of the hosts (even if close family,) but
>announcing the arrival date and asking someone to take off from work
>for an airport pick up, are a bit much to me under these
>circumstances.
I think it is a bit much to ask him to take off**, but all he would
have to do is say, I can't this time. **I actually don't usually
expect people to take me to the airport or pick me up. At my end in
NY I took the subway and bus, straight to Kennedy or LaGuardia, and
here I drive and leave my car unless it is more than 5 or 6 days.
I've only had one airplane trip like that in the last ten years. At
the other end, I had to insist that my brother let me try public
transportation. Two trips ago, he was at work, his wife was busy and
she found a friend of hers to pick me up. I thought it was silly.
That's what the super shuttle is for (although in Baltimore to my
house a taxi is only about 5 dollars more.)
> Surely, if there were an illness, or other family
>emergency, or even if this were a common and mutual and regular
>happening, that would be entirely different. I have close family
>(sibs/in laws, etc., on both sides) in several different areas of the
>country and would never dream of just announcing an arrival. I would
>arrange for a visit convenient for both parties and do so in such a
>way as inconvenience my hosts as little as possible.
But this one was timed around another family and couldn't be changed.
When I was in NY, a friend who was a school teeacher took a European
vacation every year, and she scheduled her trip around her whole
summer, and stopped to see me as part of that. If I couldn't have
been there, and she wanted to spend some time in NY anyhow, I would
have mailed her a key (with a different return address than my own
apartment, in case the letter got lost).
>>She should not be the source of dissension between him
>>and his mother. Nor should he be a source of trouble between her and
>>her parents. Or siblings. Family is irreplaceable, and there is a
>>special place in hell for those who stir up trouble in the midst of
>>another's family. This applies to those who stir up trouble in a
>>marriage too, probably with the exception of minor children who live
>>with the couple, whether they are both his parents or not. (although
>>a 15 or 16 year old should be able to keep his mouth shut under most
>>circumstances.)
>
>Most family advisors offer these words of wisdom to parents/in laws
>and siblings in their treatment of a couple, rather than the other way
>around. Once the family goes home, or mama has flown back to Ohio, the
>couple are still living with each other 24/7. You know...things like
>cleave unto the wife or forsaking all others.
Somewhere I think I said that if the spouse couldn't stand the person
at all, she/he probably didn't have to have her in the house, but the
original objection was just based on scheduling. The mother is only
going to be there for a day or two before leaving with the other
family, and afterwards. The couple can continue to all the cleaving
during the break and after they've gone.
>... To me, the spousal
>unit is "sacred" one here and one that should take precedence.
I think they are both sacred. :)
>Please do not interpret this as advocating strife or ongoing torment
>and disagreement with one's own family or the in laws.
OK, I didn't.
> ON the
>contrary, that does no one any good, but in this case, I see no reason
>for the wife to have remained quiet, especially as she would be
>involved in hosting and her husband make it clear he would prefer
>another date.
No hosting need be done in this situation. Point her to the linen
closet and the washing machine.
>And there are any number of circumstances in which it could be
>unseemly NOT to "stir up trouble" in a family, if one recognizes
I don't give a darn if it is unseemly or not. I care about the harm
that it can cause, including long term harm.
>danger..all extreme circumstances, of course, but they do exist.
>>
>Indeed ...this couple live together. If guests are to be in the home,
>it needs to be at the convenience and agreement of the *couple,* not
>just with the convenience of one and disagreement between them and
>surely not at the inconvenience of both!
I'm sure you are not the only one who feels this way. It just shows
how different people can be. However, I'm sure differences in style
can lead to clashes.
My mother, my stepfather, my brother, my friends Paul and Bob and Joe
and Jeanne and Larry including any wives or kids they may have have
standing invitations at my house.** And I have one at all of theirs.
There's little I could be doing that would interfere with their
visiting, but if I were busy, I might say, Look, I'm not going to be
home until 10 all week and I have to be in bed by 11, but make
yourself at home. If you want to borrow my car, I'll see if I can
get a ride to work. (no public transportation in this case.) I know
other couples, including with children, that also live that way. When
Latinos say, Mi casa es su casa, they mean something like that.
When I was about 24, I met two Mexican boys a little younger than I on
the bus headed from Laredo Texas to Monterrey the next city in Mexico.
They gave me their number and told me to call when I got to Mexico
City. So I did, and I was invited over. And when I got there, the
older one got home first and talked to me first, and he was telling me
how he had been working in Washington DC for a 2 years, and his
brother for 3 months, and a baby had been born since then, and some
other reason, and now he would invite me to stay but they had no room.
And while he was saying this, his father called to him from the other
room and he left, and when he got back he invited me to stay. And I
can guess what he was telling his son. "You've lived too long with
the gringoes and you have forgotten how to be hospitable." And
although I haven't managed to extend hospitality to strangers I meet
on a bus, I think I learned a lot from that family, and from the other
Americans I know who are hospitable.
*** (I really didn't expect an invitation to stay, I had no
expectations.)
**(If more than one bed is required, I need time to clear off the
other bed or the sofa bed.)
>snip....
>> She knows the money she has plus the money she can earn
>>has to last her for the rest of her life, even if something goes
>>wrong.
>
>Nothing indicating such is the case is mentioned in the article,
>though.
I know, but I'll betcha.
>>The wife C hasn't looked far enough down the road and realized how
>>careful she will have to be with money some day. Unless C and D are
>>very well off in which case now or later they should probably be
>>giving money to A, especially if A has illness or unforeseen expenses.
>
>Then it would be wise not to arrange for a vacation in which
>unforeseen expenses could arise...say, for example, if someone could
>not take off of work and make an airport run. I could understand
>someone calling and saying that a very cheap fair would be available
>on such and such a date and the only way for a visit to be made would
>depend on such a fare, as well as the favor of local transport and
>housing. Even then, if the fare is available at a time inconvenient to
>the hosts, the trip should be reconsidered or abandoned.
These people are not the hosts. They are a place for the mother and
grandkid to crash while they are on their way to California with the
other woman and her little son or grandson.
>>It's common, maybe typical for parents to live a lower standard of
>>living than their kids do.
>
>This varies widely, and again, was not a part of the article at all.
>Introducing financial hardship into it, changes only that facet of it,
>but not eh inconsideration of announcing when one will arrive and when
>to be at the airport for luggage duty.
>>
>>But A shouldn't have given her snotty reply to the dil either.
>
>Quite right, though I believe the snot was directed unequivocally at
>the son.
You're right. I must have gotten mixed up.
>
>>There's probably some ongoing mutual resentment. And then A wants to
>>look at this incident, where the dil does come off looking bad. A
>>probably wants to ignore those cases where A was the one who acted
>>badly first.
>
>It appears to me as if the couple were as one on this issue and cannot
>be faulted for any divisiveness.
I'm saying that A likely wants to ignore places where A acted badly
first but not places where C or D did. It bothers me that the
columnist said nothing about her remark, I can come whenever I want.
All D had done before that was say she should come another week, so
that the two kids couold spend more time together. Perfectly
reasonable.
>A parent/in law who stoutly and
>determinedly announces an arrival, rather than arranging a visit at a
>mutually convenient time, though, is a time bomb.
With this couple yes. With me and several of the women I dated, no.
Uncle Mandrake
> In alt.fan.miss-manners on Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:11:55 GMT
> toto...@atlanticcoast.invalid (Uncle Mandrake) posted:
>
> >On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 12:38:54 -0400, meirman wrote:
> >
> >> ...Family is irreplaceable...
> >
> >Not so. Lots of people become estranged from their family and
> >make do quite nicely with spouses, SO's, even just good friends
> >in lieu of family.
>
> Exactly. They spend their time with friends but they don't have their
> family anymore. You alienate a brother or a mother or father, you
> can't go find another. That's what I meant.
I suspect the turning to friends is an effect, not a cause.
And anyway, is that all so bad? At least you can *choose* your
friends, lovers, and spouses. You have no choice in relatives.
The blood relationship is much over valued.