Maiden name on baby shower invitation
kim0916
baby shower for her. My Mother thinks some people will not recognize her
married name and thinks I should put her maiden name in parenthesis on the
invitation. I think it looks tacky. Any suggestions as to how to handle
this?
Ericka Kammerer
Anyone who is so distant from your sister as to not know
her married name is almost certainly too distant to be invited to
a baby shower. Showers are for intimates only, as the invitation
is really a gift solicitation since gifts are required of shower
attendees.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Userb3
news:0cd847c2c1c62944...@localhost.talkaboutpeople.com:
> My Mother thinks some people will not recognize her
> married name and thinks I should put her maiden name in parenthesis on
> the invitation. I think it looks tacky. Any suggestions as to how to
> handle this?
>
I thought that that was why the tradition of maried women using Firstname
Maidenname Husbandslastname developed. Of course, I also wonder whether
anyone confused by the married name is really close enough to be invited to
a baby shower.
kay w
kim0916:
Use her correct full name, "Susan Maiden Married", or the shorter
version, "Susan Married". . No parentheses. People who are not close
enough to recognize either name should not have been invited.
By the by, MIss Manners frowns on immediate family members of the
guest of honor hosting showers, as this is one of the very, very few
events to which the bringing of gifts is considered mandatory.
--
"If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes, only sooner."
Tallulah Bankhead
nospam
> anyone confused by the married name is really close enough to be invited
to
> a baby shower.
>
If she goes by her maiden name at work, some of her cow-orkers may not know
her married name.
cinnamoninja
They have a construction for this! Use:
Firstname Lastname ne`e Maidenname.
--
cinnamoninja
kay w
Userb3:
>> Of course, I also wonder whether
>> anyone confused by the married name is really close enough to be invited to
>> a baby shower.
nospam:
>If she goes by her maiden name at work, some of her cow-orkers may not know
>her married name.
Which is exactly the point. A shower is not for the purpose of
casting the widest possible net for gifts; it is for *intimates* of
the mother-to-be, relatives and close personal friends to celebrate
the impending birth. People who are not close enough friends to even
recognize the MTB's *name* shouldn't be seeing an invitation to begin
with.
Userb3
news:IMLVd.98018$Th1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Which indicates to me that they aren't among her nearest and dearest.
nospam
> casting the widest possible net for gifts; it is for *intimates* of
> the mother-to-be, relatives and close personal friends to celebrate
> the impending birth. People who are not close enough friends to even
> recognize the MTB's *name* shouldn't be seeing an invitation to begin
> with.
>
I understand what a shower is for however I have had friends through work
who went by their maiden name that I was very close to. I was barely aware
of their DHs last name and certainly never thought of it in relation to
them. If I got an invitation to a shower for Mary Smith and I knew her as
Mary Jones, I might have to think for a moment before realizing who the
shower was for. My vote is for referring to the expectant mother as Mary
Jones Smith and giving those of us with swiss-cheese memories a break.
Ericka Kammerer
> I understand what a shower is for however I have had friends through work
> who went by their maiden name that I was very close to. I was barely aware
> of their DHs last name and certainly never thought of it in relation to
> them. If I got an invitation to a shower for Mary Smith and I knew her as
> Mary Jones, I might have to think for a moment before realizing who the
> shower was for. My vote is for referring to the expectant mother as Mary
> Jones Smith and giving those of us with swiss-cheese memories a break.
One could only imagine that situations like this would
be fairly rare. For the few invitations affected by this sort
of situation, one could put a note in the invitation explaining
things.
Best wishes,
Ericka
meirman
<scu...@aol.com> posted:
>Previously:
>
>kim0916:
>>Last year my sister was married. She is now pregnant and I am hosting a
>>baby shower for her. My Mother thinks some people will not recognize her
>>married name and thinks I should put her maiden name in parenthesis on the
>>invitation. I think it looks tacky. Any suggestions as to how to handle
>>this?
>
>Use her correct full name, "Susan Maiden Married", or the shorter
>version, "Susan Married". . No parentheses. People who are not close
>enough to recognize either name should not have been invited.
>
>By the by, MIss Manners frowns on immediate family members of the
>guest of honor hosting showers, as this is one of the very, very few
>events to which the bringing of gifts is considered mandatory.
Does Emily Post or Amy Vanderbilt disagree? I'm afraid that's the
more tacky part.
Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
kay w
Me(kay):
>> Which is exactly the point. A shower is not for the purpose of
>> casting the widest possible net for gifts; it is for *intimates* of
>> the mother-to-be, relatives and close personal friends to celebrate
>> the impending birth. People who are not close enough friends to even
>> recognize the MTB's *name* shouldn't be seeing an invitation to begin
>> with.
nospam:
>I understand what a shower is for however I have had friends through work
>who went by their maiden name that I was very close to. I was barely aware
>of their DHs last name and certainly never thought of it in relation to
>them. If I got an invitation to a shower for Mary Smith and I knew her as
>Mary Jones, I might have to think for a moment before realizing who the
>shower was for. My vote is for referring to the expectant mother as Mary
>Jones Smith and giving those of us with swiss-cheese memories a break.
Sorry...if you don't know a woman well enough to know her name, you
should not expect to be invited to a shower, which is for *intimate*
friends and family members, not friends from work.
kay w
Ericka:
> One could only imagine that situations like this would
>be fairly rare. For the few invitations affected by this sort
>of situation, one could put a note in the invitation explaining
>things.
Well, I don't agree...no one should be invited to a baby shower who
doesn't know the MTB well enough to know her name.
kay w
>nospam:
>>I understand what a shower is for however I have had friends through work
>>who went by their maiden name that I was very close to. I was barely aware
>>of their DHs last name and certainly never thought of it in relation to
>>them. If I got an invitation to a shower for Mary Smith and I knew her as
>>Mary Jones, I might have to think for a moment before realizing who the
>>shower was for. My vote is for referring to the expectant mother as Mary
>>Jones Smith and giving those of us with swiss-cheese memories a break.
>
>
>Sorry...if you don't know a woman well enough to know her name, you
>should not expect to be invited to a shower, which is for *intimate*
>friends and family members, not friends from work.
I want to add, that doesn't mean friends from work should not be
invited to a shower, as people can certainly develop very close
friendships starting with a professional relationship. However, if
they're *only* work friends, and don't even know the MTB well enough
to know her name, they're not intimate friends, and should not be
burdened with a shower invitation. Anyone who needs to be told who
the honoree is does *not* qualify as an intimate friend.
Userb3
news:e1PVd.320257$w62.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> I understand what a shower is for however I have had friends through
> work who went by their maiden name that I was very close to. I was
> barely aware of their DHs last name and certainly never thought of it
> in relation to them.
With all due respect, I can't imagine being "very close" to someone and not
knowing their spouse's last name, particularly if they're pregnant or have
recently had a child.
meirman
<use...@yahoo.com> posted:
>"nospam" <nos...@atall.xatt.net> wrote in
>news:e1PVd.320257$w62.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> I understand what a shower is for however I have had friends through
>> work who went by their maiden name that I was very close to. I was
>> barely aware of their DHs last name and certainly never thought of it
>> in relation to them.
>
>With all due respect, I can't imagine being "very close" to someone and not
>knowing their spouse's last name,
I can. Most people refer to their spouse by his or her first name.
Wouldn't it be unusual if someone said in conversation, "Steve
Crawford", instead of just "Steve"?
And many people are in the habit of not giving last names, or not
giving names at all, when they tell stories, so that if they happen to
say something negative about someone, the listener won't know who is
being described. This habit easily carries over to discussions of
anyone.
> particularly if they're pregnant or have
>recently had a child.
WRT "particularly", if I didn't know my friend's married name, finding
out she was pregnant would not cause me to find out what it was. I
might ask what her husband's name was, and if she said "Steve", I
would say, "Tell Steve, Mazel Tov". She might say "Steve Lastname",
but regardelss, I could easily forget Steve's first name and last name
within 5 minutes. Even when I want to remember something, I can
sometimes see myself forgetting it piece by piece.
I understand that there someone with a career and a reputation in her
career has a good reason not to change the name she goes by at work.
But otherwise, frankly, I think it is a mistake for a woman not to
take her husband's last name, because it makes it seem like they are
not married, just living together.** (Even for those who know they
are married, it makes it look like from the beginning, she wasn't sure
the marriage will last.) If they then have a child while they are not
married, it does NOT make the child a bastard with the rules I use,
but it's still a bad thing. It reflects very badly on the father and
the mother. So that is the time, if not done earlier, to make clear
that the couple is married, and I think including her full name on the
invitation would be one good way to do that.
(Going back a long way, there have been loads of prominent women who
used their maiden name and married name. My mind is going blank --
usuallly I can think of 5 or 10 more than I have here, but I think
these are all examples: Cornelia Otis Skinner, Gladys Noone Spellman,
Catherine Ward Howe, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Aimee Semple McPherson,
Shirley Temple Black, Nancy Todd Lincoln (I'm not sure if she called
herself that, or if the history books call her that to be specific.),
etc.)
**I knew a couple like this -- primarily friends with the woman -- and
I couldn't figure out how to tactfully ask them or their other friends
if they were married. I wasn't invited to a baby shower, but I was to
the kid's first and second birthday parties. I don't remember when I
found out that they were married but they were. I found out years
after I met her, and then I told her that I hadn't known earlier.
Briar Rose
> But otherwise, frankly, I think it is a mistake for a woman not to
> take her husband's last name, because it makes it seem like they are
> not married, just living together.
And what harsh words do you have for men who refuse to take
their wives' names for a similar reason?
> (Even for those who know they
> are married, it makes it look like from the beginning, she wasn't sure
> the marriage will last.)
I suppose that men who do not take their wives' surnames
are similarly unsure about the duration of their marriages!
And how do you feel about women who keep their married
surnames after they divorce? Are they still harboring some
kind of desire that they'll get back together?
You make a lot of assumptions based solely on people's
last names. I bet you're one of the folks who would have
assumed that my brother was my husband, when we lived together.
:) Connie-Lynne
--
"If _I_ was re-writing the constitution, I'd make a rule that
there could be no dumbass laws... 'I'm sorry, but your
proposed referendum is butt-stupid.'"
---Adam Villani
Ericka Kammerer
> Previously:
>
> Ericka:
>
>> One could only imagine that situations like this would
>>be fairly rare. For the few invitations affected by this sort
>>of situation, one could put a note in the invitation explaining
>>things.
>
>
>
> Well, I don't agree...no one should be invited to a baby shower who
> doesn't know the MTB well enough to know her name.
I would think it quite rare, but within the realm of
possibility that there would be someone close enough who,
for one reason or another, might not be particularly familiar
with her married name. I actually did have a friend whose
legal name I only found out about after knowing her for years
because she was inconsistent about what name she used where
and despite knowing her socially for quite some time, I had
never been in a situation where she used the other name.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
> **I knew a couple like this -- primarily friends with the woman -- and
> I couldn't figure out how to tactfully ask them or their other friends
> if they were married. I wasn't invited to a baby shower, but I was to
> the kid's first and second birthday parties. I don't remember when I
> found out that they were married but they were. I found out years
> after I met her, and then I told her that I hadn't known earlier.
And this is a problem.....why?
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
> In alt.fan.miss-manners on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:21:05 -0600 kay w
> <scu...@aol.com> posted:
>>By the by, MIss Manners frowns on immediate family members of the
>>guest of honor hosting showers, as this is one of the very, very few
>>events to which the bringing of gifts is considered mandatory.
>
>
> Does Emily Post or Amy Vanderbilt disagree? I'm afraid that's the
> more tacky part.
What's the more tacky part? Gifts being required at
showers and close relatives not hosting have been etiquette
rules for a very long time. I think there's an exception for
situations where the bride or mother-to-be has no friends or
familiy in the area and the groom or father-to-be's family
wants to throw a shower.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Userb3
news:3f1h21d079c8pujsi...@4ax.com:
> In alt.fan.miss-manners on 4 Mar 2005 13:29:49 GMT Userb3
> <use...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
>>"nospam" <nos...@atall.xatt.net> wrote in
>>news:e1PVd.320257$w62.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>>> I understand what a shower is for however I have had friends through
>>> work who went by their maiden name that I was very close to. I was
>>> barely aware of their DHs last name and certainly never thought of
>>> it in relation to them.
>>
>>With all due respect, I can't imagine being "very close" to someone
>>and not knowing their spouse's last name,
>
> I can. Most people refer to their spouse by his or her first name.
> Wouldn't it be unusual if someone said in conversation, "Steve
> Crawford", instead of just "Steve"?
We're talking people you know "very well". By definition, if I don't know
your last name, your spouse's last name, and something about each of your
families, I don't know you "very well". Certainly if I know you well
enough to be included in intimate gatherings that revolve around your
marriage and impending or recent motherhood, I was likely at your
wedding, know your in-laws, and have discussed the issue of what name you
use.
> And many people are in the habit of not giving last names, or not
> giving names at all, when they tell stories, so that if they happen to
> say something negative about someone, the listener won't know who is
> being described. This habit easily carries over to discussions of
> anyone.
This is how you talk about your spouse to your close friends?
Userb3
@naig.caltech.edu:
> I bet you're one of the folks who would have
> assumed that my brother was my husband, when we lived together.
In the absence of any other indicator, why wouldn't I?
ZedBanty
>
>Previously:
>
>kim0916:
>>Last year my sister was married. She is now pregnant and I am hosting a
>>baby shower for her. My Mother thinks some people will not recognize her
>>married name and thinks I should put her maiden name in parenthesis on the
>>invitation. I think it looks tacky. Any suggestions as to how to handle
>>this?
>
>Use her correct full name, "Susan Maiden Married", or the shorter
>version, "Susan Married". . No parentheses. People who are not close
>enough to recognize either name should not have been invited.
If I married (often glad I didn't!), I would have lost my middle name? Or would
I acquire a total of four names? Or what?
ZedBanty
Renee
My work threw me a shower when I was pregnant with my first child. I
wasn't intimate with most of them. They weren't forced to go, but I
think a lot of the women wanted an excuse to buy tiny baby clothes.
My aunts-in-law also threw me a shower, and I didn't know anyone there
except the in-laws. It was more a shower for my mother-in-law, though.
Renee
Ericka Kammerer
> In article <u3ve21hkb8u8s4g09...@4ax.com>, kay w says...
>>Use her correct full name, "Susan Maiden Married", or the shorter
>>version, "Susan Married". . No parentheses. People who are not close
>>enough to recognize either name should not have been invited.
>
>
> If I married (often glad I didn't!), I would have lost my middle name? Or would
> I acquire a total of four names? Or what?
You would have had whatever names you wanted to have. You
would only have kept your maiden name as your middle name if you
chose that convention. There is no requirement that one do so,
and plenty of women keep their middle name even if they elect
to change their last name. So, First Maiden Married is *not*
the only correct form by a long shot.
Best wishes,
Ericka
N Jill Marsh
<mei...@invalid.com>wrote:
>**I knew a couple like this -- primarily friends with the woman -- and
>I couldn't figure out how to tactfully ask them or their other friends
>if they were married. I wasn't invited to a baby shower, but I was to
>the kid's first and second birthday parties. I don't remember when I
>found out that they were married but they were. I found out years
>after I met her, and then I told her that I hadn't known earlier.
It must have been a very great relief to you when you finally
confirmed their status.
--
nj"respectability, committment & legitimacy"m
"She wrestled with her better self and finally succeeded
in bringing it to the surface by the scruff of its neck."
ZedBanty
But people can send out shower invitations for "Mrs. Banty Whatshewas
Whatsheissinceshemarried"?? That's what was advised. With no veto power for
Mrs. Firstname Maiden Married.
ZedBanty
Ericka Kammerer
> In article <D5GdnUnusMm...@comcast.com>, Ericka Kammerer says...
>
>> You would have had whatever names you wanted to have. You
>>would only have kept your maiden name as your middle name if you
>>chose that convention. There is no requirement that one do so,
>>and plenty of women keep their middle name even if they elect
>>to change their last name. So, First Maiden Married is *not*
>>the only correct form by a long shot.
>>
> But people can send out shower invitations for "Mrs. Banty Whatshewas
> Whatsheissinceshemarried"?? That's what was advised. With no veto power for
> Mrs. Firstname Maiden Married.
Oh, of course not. If that's not her name, it shouldn't
be used. The construction used to notify someone about a person's
maiden name is <Title and Name> née Maiden.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Briar Rose
> cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) wrote in news:d0a6cc$h7j$1...@naig.caltech.edu:
>> I bet you're one of the folks who would have
>> assumed that my brother was my husband, when we lived together.
> In the absence of any other indicator, why wouldn't I?
First of all, what business of yours (or meirman's)
is it whether or not I am married to a man I live with?
If I were planning on dating you, I would give you
those "other indicators" that make it clear I was
available. I can't imagine any other reason for
you to know or care whether I were married.
:) Connie-"cleverly not mentioning open marriages"-Lynne
Userb3
> Userb3 <use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) wrote in
>> news:d0a6cc$h7j$1...@naig.caltech.edu:
>>> I bet you're one of the folks who would have
>>> assumed that my brother was my husband, when we lived together.
>> In the absence of any other indicator, why wouldn't I?
>
> First of all, what business of yours (or meirman's)
> is it whether or not I am married to a man I live with?
If I'm inviting you to social functions or interacting with you socially,
your marital status could be an important consideration. Certainly, if
you live with your brother, I might make different accomodations for you
than if you lived with a SO or husband.
> If I were planning on dating you, I would give you
> those "other indicators" that make it clear I was
> available.
Like what?
> I can't imagine any other reason for
> you to know or care whether I were married.
Maybe I want to address a piece of mail to you and the man you share a
house with. Maybe I'm lining up guests for a dinner party and I don't
know whether I should pair you up with the charming new single man who
just moved into town. Maybe I want to avoid offending you or your SO if I
ask you out. Maybe I'm trying to figure out whether or not I should ask
both of you to the reception/party we're having next week. Maybe I'm on
the social committee at schul, and I'm trying to put together a group of
young married/single Jews for an adult Purim party.
>:) Connie-"cleverly not mentioning open marriages"-Lynne
So much for that.
kay w
ZedBanty:
>> If I married (often glad I didn't!), I would have lost my middle name? Or would
>> I acquire a total of four names? Or what?
Ericka:
> You would have had whatever names you wanted to have. You
>would only have kept your maiden name as your middle name if you
>chose that convention. There is no requirement that one do so,
>and plenty of women keep their middle name even if they elect
>to change their last name. So, First Maiden Married is *not*
>the only correct form by a long shot.
It would have been a correct form providing the most information to
the invitees, without going into invitations honoring "Susan Middle
Maiden Married, the blonde woman sitting closest to the water cooler
who brought the cookies that one time, " which is why I suggested it.
ZedBanty
So I thought. So Ms. Kay W's advice to the OP is incorrect. Or at the least
correct only if "Susan Maiden Married" happens to have chosen that name.
ZedBanty
Uncle Mandrake
<kim...@nospam.wowway.com> wrote:
> Last year my sister was married. She is now pregnant and I am hosting a
> baby shower for her. My Mother thinks some people will not recognize her
> married name and thinks I should put her maiden name in parenthesis on the
> invitation. I think it looks tacky. Any suggestions as to how to handle
> this?
Society has a mechanism for this: "nee". I'll stick my neck out,
wattles and all, and assert that since the mechanism exists and is
widely if not universally understood it is mannerly to use it. Thus:
"My sister Melissa Etheridge, nee Smooters, is expecting her first
child in April. I'm throwing a baby shower for her on March 16 at
<wherever> and hope you will be able to come..."
Nothing tacky about that.
Your mom's point is especially pertinent if you are also married and
no longer use your maiden name Smooters.
--
Uncle Mandrake
Victoria, BC, Canada
kay w
Ericka:
>> Oh, of course not. If that's not her name, it shouldn't
>>be used. The construction used to notify someone about a person's
>>maiden name is <Title and Name> née Maiden.
ZedBanty:
>So I thought. So Ms. Kay W's advice to the OP is incorrect. Or at the least
>correct only if "Susan Maiden Married" happens to have chosen that name.
One assumes that by the time invitations are being sent for a baby
shower, the bride has decided on a name to use for herself, and that
this name needs no further announcement among her family and intimate
friends, the only people invited to a shower.
"<Title and Name> née Maiden" is incorrect if the MIB has chosen to
continue to use only her maiden name. And, if that's the only name
she's known by personally and professionally, there's no point in even
having a discussion about name confusion, since her name has not
changed. The question concerned a woman about whom there might be
name confusion.
If her name *has* changed, her *intimate friends and close family*
will surely be aware of the change by the time the question of baby
shower invitations appears, and "Susan Maiden Married" will be more
than sufficient identification.
Again, if the invitee does not recognize the honoree's name, that
invitee should not have been invited.
kay w (no Ms)
Renee
p...@earthlink.net.invalid wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2005 15:40:14 -0800, "Renee" <rjef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >My work threw me a shower when I was pregnant with my first child. I
> >wasn't intimate with most of them. They weren't forced to go, but I
> >think a lot of the women wanted an excuse to buy tiny baby clothes.
>
smoothly, or
> as smoothly as possible :). When the mother-to-be opens a present she
may
> say, " Oh you shouldn't have". She doesn't mean it. Guests at a
shower are
> expected to bring gifts. When the giver says, " Oh I wanted an excuse
to
> buy tiny baby clothes", that's most likely a social lie as well.
>
> Pat
I don't know, they seemed pretty happy. :)
Renee
Ericka Kammerer
> Previously, and snipped:
>
> Ericka:
>
>>> Oh, of course not. If that's not her name, it shouldn't
>>>be used. The construction used to notify someone about a person's
>>>maiden name is <Title and Name> née Maiden.
>
>
> ZedBanty:
>
>>So I thought. So Ms. Kay W's advice to the OP is incorrect. Or at the least
>>correct only if "Susan Maiden Married" happens to have chosen that name.
>
>
> One assumes that by the time invitations are being sent for a baby
> shower, the bride has decided on a name to use for herself, and that
> this name needs no further announcement among her family and intimate
> friends, the only people invited to a shower.
>
> "<Title and Name> née Maiden" is incorrect if the MIB has chosen to
> continue to use only her maiden name.
Actually, it's not. I could be Ms. Ericka Kammerer née
Kammerer, which (accurately) informs the reader that my maiden
name is my current name, despite my marriage. The "née" basically
means "born"--I was born (and remain) Kammerer. As you point out,
this obviously isn't the case with the MTB in question because
there'd be no potential for confusion if she'd never changed her
name. In cases where the point is to make it clear what a woman's
birth name was, "née" works just fine regarless of how much (or
little) of the name has (or hasn't) changed.
> If her name *has* changed, her *intimate friends and close family*
> will surely be aware of the change by the time the question of baby
> shower invitations appears, and "Susan Maiden Married" will be more
> than sufficient identification.
But it is not appropriate usage if, in fact, she has not
taken her maiden name as her middle name. Not everyone does
that, nor is anyone required to do that. If there is some reason
to share her maiden name (and I agree that in this situation, there
shouldn't be) and if there is some reason to print it on the
invitation (there isn't--in the very rare cases where an
explanation might be in order, a little note would suffice),
and she has not taken her maiden name as her middle name,
the construction used to reference the maiden name is "née."
Best wishes,
Ericka
Briar Rose
>cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) wrote in news:d0b3vc$rts$1...@naig.caltech.edu:
>>> cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) wrote in
>>> news:d0a6cc$h7j$1...@naig.caltech.edu:
>>>> I bet you're one of the folks who would have
>>>> assumed that my brother was my husband, when we lived together.
>>> In the absence of any other indicator, why wouldn't I?
>> First of all, what business of yours (or meirman's)
>> is it whether or not I am married to a man I live with?
> If I'm inviting you to social functions or interacting with you socially,
> your marital status could be an important consideration. Certainly, if
> you live with your brother, I might make different accomodations for you
> than if you lived with a SO or husband.
Would you make different accomodations for me if my SO lived
with me or did not live with me? Why?
>> If I were planning on dating you, I would give you
>> those "other indicators" that make it clear I was
>> available.
> Like what?
The wedding ring is the dead giveaway. Except in previously
mentioned exceptional cases, of course, where the surname
change isn't a good indicator, either.
>> I can't imagine any other reason for
>> you to know or care whether I were married.
> Maybe I want to address a piece of mail to you and the man you share a
> house with.
Why?
> Maybe I'm lining up guests for a dinner party and I don't
> know whether I should pair you up with the charming new single man who
> just moved into town.
You're inviting me to dinner at your house and you don't know
me well enough to know whether or not I'm single? Not to mention
well enough to know whether or not I'm _available_? After all,
"single" doesn't always mean "I want to be paired up."
You shouldn't be matchmaking people based solely on whether they share
a last name with a co-habitant. My goodness, I had two friends, last
name Smith, not related, who were dating. I didn't assume they were
married; I knew from other things I knew about them that they weren't.
> Maybe I want to avoid offending you or your SO if I
> ask you out.
How do you avoid causing this offense (assuming for the moment that it
is offensive) when people are dating, but not living with, their SOs?
How on earth do you find out they live with someone of the same last
name without knowing whether they have an SO? This is fairly
far-fetched.
> Maybe I'm trying to figure out whether or not I should ask both of
> you to the reception/party we're having next week. Maybe I'm on the
> social committee at schul, and I'm trying to put together a group of
> young married/single Jews for an adult Purim party.
How do you solve thess dilemmas when people are dating persons with
the same last name? Or when people *aren't* living with their SOs?
Solve the "married-with-different-surnames" problem the same way.
:) Connie-"likes her private life"-Lynne
Uncle Mandrake
wrote:
> Anyone who is so distant from your sister as to not know
> her married name is almost certainly too distant to be invited to
> a baby shower. Showers are for intimates only, as the invitation
> is really a gift solicitation since gifts are required of shower
> attendees.
Seems to me that a shower, being a fairly informal kind of party, gets
more, and less intimate, friends invited than would a wedding, which
is a serious and much more formal affair.
Don't forget that those who feel they're not close to the mom-to-be
can always turn down the invitation. It's not quite like an invitation
to the White House for dinner.
Puester
>
> Seems to me that a shower, being a fairly informal kind of party, gets
> more, and less intimate, friends invited than would a wedding, which
> is a serious and much more formal affair.
>
> Don't forget that those who feel they're not close to the mom-to-be
> can always turn down the invitation. It's not quite like an invitation
> to the White House for dinner.
>
>
I think if the current administration invited me, I'd have no problem
turning down an invitation to a White House dinner....
gloria p
Ericka Kammerer
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:02:02 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Anyone who is so distant from your sister as to not know
>>her married name is almost certainly too distant to be invited to
>>a baby shower. Showers are for intimates only, as the invitation
>>is really a gift solicitation since gifts are required of shower
>>attendees.
>
>
> Seems to me that a shower, being a fairly informal kind of party,
Showers can be formal or informal.
> gets
> more, and less intimate, friends invited than would a wedding, which
> is a serious and much more formal affair.
It is considered very poor etiquette to invite anyone
to a shower who will not be invited to the wedding. That
says that someone is good enough to buy you a gift but not
good enough to actually attend the main event. There isn't
an exact parallel with a baby shower (obviously, you don't
have to invite all shower attendees to the delivery ;-)
but the standard for how close someone should be to attend
the show is the same.
> Don't forget that those who feel they're not close to the mom-to-be
> can always turn down the invitation. It's not quite like an invitation
> to the White House for dinner.
True, but even *sending* the invitation presupposes that
the recipient would be potentially interested in giving a gift
in a way that *NO* other invitation does.
Best wishes,
Ericka
ZedBanty
>
>Previously, and snipped:
>
>Ericka:
>>> Oh, of course not. If that's not her name, it shouldn't
>>>be used. The construction used to notify someone about a person's
>>>maiden name is <Title and Name> née Maiden.
>
>ZedBanty:
>>So I thought. So Ms. Kay W's advice to the OP is incorrect. Or at the least
>>correct only if "Susan Maiden Married" happens to have chosen that name.
>
>One assumes that by the time invitations are being sent for a baby
>shower, the bride has decided on a name to use for herself, and that
>this name needs no further announcement among her family and intimate
>friends, the only people invited to a shower.
The objection raised in this thread is that, if "Susan Married" or "Susan
Susan'srealmiddle Married" IS what the mother to be (not 'bride') has decided
for herself, some persons will somehow be close enough to be an intimate, but
still not recognize ".... Married".
>
> "<Title and Name> née Maiden" is incorrect if the MIB has chosen to
>continue to use only her maiden name. And, if that's the only name
>she's known by personally and professionally, there's no point in even
>having a discussion about name confusion, since her name has not
>changed. The question concerned a woman about whom there might be
>name confusion.
Sure.
>
>If her name *has* changed, her *intimate friends and close family*
>will surely be aware of the change by the time the question of baby
>shower invitations appears, and "Susan Maiden Married" will be more
>than sufficient identification.
And in the rare case that they aren't, what exactly is wrong with "Susan Middle
Married nee Maiden", if her name is NOT "Susan Maiden Married"?
ZedBanty
kay w
ZedBanty:
>The objection raised in this thread is that, if "Susan Married" or "Susan
>Susan'srealmiddle Married" IS what the mother to be (not 'bride') has decided
>for herself, some persons will somehow be close enough to be an intimate, but
>still not recognize ".... Married".
I still say that a person who does not know one's name can in no way
be considered an *intimate.*
Userb3
<post snipped>
Tell the truth - you're just looking for things to disagree about aren't
you? If you genuinely don't believe that there are occasional
legitimate social reasons to know whether a given person is married or not,
then we move in radically different social circles.
meirman
cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) posted:
>meirman <mei...@erols.com> wrote:
>> But otherwise, frankly, I think it is a mistake for a woman not to
>> take her husband's last name, because it makes it seem like they are
>> not married, just living together.
>
>And what harsh words do you have for men who refuse to take
>their wives' names for a similar reason?
Traditional.
>> (Even for those who know they
>> are married, it makes it look like from the beginning, she wasn't sure
>> the marriage will last.)
>
>I suppose that men who do not take their wives' surnames
>are similarly unsure about the duration of their marriages!
>And how do you feel about women who keep their married
>surnames after they divorce? Are they still harboring some
>kind of desire that they'll get back together?
No. That's a common practice. I guess it is mostly so they'll have
the same surname as their children. And I recall a discussion in this
ng or some other in which someone said that women without children
were quite a bit more likely to go back to their maiden names. No one
disagreed, afaicr.
>You make a lot of assumptions based solely on people's
>last names.
We all make tentative conclusions about all sorts of things based on
all sorts of clues. Most of the time that we rely on reliable clues,
we're right, so we keep doing it. Examples on request.
In this case, what I said was, "it makes it SEEM LIKE they are not
married, just living together" [emphasis added]. Based on the
percentage of couples living together who have the same last name and
are married, and the percentage who have different last names and
aren't married, that's a reasonable tentative assumption.
It would even be a reasonable conclusion, but I have refrained in such
situations from reaching a conclusion. For example, I didn't say I
believed conclusively that they weren't married. In fact, in the
example I gave, I said "I couldn't figure out how to tactfully ask
them or their other friends if they were married". That means I had
not concluded whether they were or not.
> I bet you're one of the folks who would have
>assumed that my brother was my husband, when we lived together.
1) We were discussing baby showers, and if your brother were, God
forbid, the father of your child, I would have assumed that he was
your husband and not your brother.
2) And, agreeing with what I infer from User's reply, more grown women
live with their husband than live with their brother.
>:) Connie-Lynne
Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
meirman
cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) posted:
>Userb3 <use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) wrote in news:d0a6cc$h7j$1...@naig.caltech.edu:
>>> I bet you're one of the folks who would have
>>> assumed that my brother was my husband, when we lived together.
>> In the absence of any other indicator, why wouldn't I?
>
>First of all, what business of yours (or meirman's)
>is it whether or not I am married to a man I live with?
It doesn't have to be our business. People reach such tentative and
even absolute conclusions all the time without even trying.
>If I were planning on dating you, I would give you
You would make such plans without any indication from "you" that he's
interested? Aren't you assuming that the "you" will go along with
those plans?
>those "other indicators" that make it clear I was
>available. I can't imagine any other reason for
>you to know or care whether I were married.
I really don't care, afaik, if you are married.
I didn't tell you that I cared or that anyone else in particular
cared. What I said is that keeping separate names makes it seem like
a couple is not married.
But like I say, people commonly make deductions from what they see.
It happens automatically. I'd be quite surprised if you didn't do it
too.
We're not as good as it as Sherlock Holmes, or Columbo, or Goren (Law
and Order) or Perry Mason***, but we still do it.
***Several of whom, and others, were known from drawing correct
conclusions, even in situations where no crime was involved.
People have also drawn conclusions about me, from clues, even though
they had no need to. And they were often correct. I've noticed this
on more than one occasion, but the only time that comes to mind now
was in the 9th grade. My Latin teacher noticed that I had shoe polish
on the inside of some of my pants cuffs, and iirc, he correctly
deduced that I was avoiding bumping my toes into furniture, and I was
scuffing my pants in the process. He probably also saw me moving my
feet in that way. He may have also deduced that I had ingrown
bit-toenails, that were sore. I wasn't annoyed that he noticed this,
or that he drew a conclusion.
There was a guy on tv a couple days ago who automatically noticed
anagrams of whatever word he was looking at. He didn't even have to
try.
Other than people who are very lethargic, we all notice some things,
and draw tentative conclusions from them.
>:) Connie-"cleverly not mentioning open marriages"-Lynne
meirman
Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> posted:
>meirman wrote:
>
>> **I knew a couple like this -- primarily friends with the woman -- and
>> I couldn't figure out how to tactfully ask them or their other friends
>> if they were married. I wasn't invited to a baby shower, but I was to
>> the kid's first and second birthday parties. I don't remember when I
>> found out that they were married but they were. I found out years
>> after I met her, and then I told her that I hadn't known earlier.
>
> And this is a problem.....why?
It was not a problem for her or her husband, at all, that I wasn't
sure if they were married or not.
It was only a problem for me, because in this case, she had made many
comments in support of traditional morality, and if she were living
with and having a child with someone who wasn't her husband, that
would mean, I think, that her views on traditional morality were more
complicated than it had seemed. And I would pay more attention to the
details of what she said, to make sure I understood what she meant.
Alternatively, I might have concluded she was a phoney and then I
would have ignored some of what she said.
But they were married all along, and there was no apparent
inconistency with other things she said.
>
>Best wishes,
>Ericka
meirman
<use...@yahoo.com> posted:
>meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in
>news:3f1h21d079c8pujsi...@4ax.com:
>
>> In alt.fan.miss-manners on 4 Mar 2005 13:29:49 GMT Userb3
>> <use...@yahoo.com> posted:
>>
>>>"nospam" <nos...@atall.xatt.net> wrote in
>>>news:e1PVd.320257$w62.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>>
>>>> I understand what a shower is for however I have had friends through
>>>> work who went by their maiden name that I was very close to. I was
>>>> barely aware of their DHs last name and certainly never thought of
>>>> it in relation to them.
>>>
>>>With all due respect, I can't imagine being "very close" to someone
>>>and not knowing their spouse's last name,
>>
>> I can. Most people refer to their spouse by his or her first name.
>> Wouldn't it be unusual if someone said in conversation, "Steve
>> Crawford", instead of just "Steve"?
>
>We're talking people you know "very well". By definition, if I don't know
==============
>your last name, your spouse's last name, and something about each of your
>families, I don't know you "very well".
But that's your definition, not mine.
If there are 50,000 things one can know about another, in many cases,
one's last name isn't even in the top 10,000.
>Certainly if I know you well
>enough to be included in intimate gatherings that revolve around your
>marriage and impending or recent motherhood, I was likely at your
>wedding, know your in-laws, and have discussed the issue of what name you
>use.
My mother was married 8 years before she got pregnant. Seven years is
plenty of time to get to know someone very well. Even one year is.
Actually, I didn't object before, but people are just assuming that
knowing someone very well is a sine qua non of being invited to a
shower.
Being close to someone is another basis for an invitation, and there
are a lot of ways people can become close. (They can share danger
together, or share tragedy, or share problems. They can console each
other, or one can console the other, even if they didn't know each
other at the time of the danger, tragedy, problem. Etc.)
In the movies of old, if one person was a woman and the other a man,
and they shared danger or tragedy together, they routinely got married
at the end of the movie. I don't think that alone, including
everything that goes with it, is generally enough to decide to marry,
but it is enough to include someone on a suggested guest list given to
the hostess of one's baby shower.
Knowing that she wants to be at one of your baby showers, and knowing
that you want her there, is another basis for an invitation. Maybe it
is the underlying basis of all worthwhile invitations.
>> And many people are in the habit of not giving last names, or not
>> giving names at all, when they tell stories, so that if they happen to
>> say something negative about someone, the listener won't know who is
>> being described. This habit easily carries over to discussions of
>> anyone.
>
>This is how you talk about your spouse to your close friends?
I'm not married, but when I talk about my brother or mother or anyone
else among my family or friends, and there is anything in what I say
that might seem derogatory, or might cause someone harm, even if it
isn't derogatory, I don't use their names and I don't give enough
clues for someone to figure out who I am talking about. Sometimes I'm
not sure when I start if I will include anything derogatory, and then
to be safe, I still don't use their names etc.
Often the stories themselves are valuable and the person who was
involved in it is not essential. That was the case last night. I was
at a party, and on two occasions made reference to my ex-girlfriend (I
think she and I are quite close.) but I didn't mention either her
first or last name.
I would almost certainly treat a wife the same way. OTOH, if it were
a story about my honeymoon, people could guess it was my wife who was
with me. So if there were anything that would embarrass her, I would
just leave it out, or I would leave out that the story occurred on my
honeymoon.
meirman
Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> posted:
>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:31:57 -0500, meirman
><mei...@invalid.com>wrote:
>
>
>>**I knew a couple like this -- primarily friends with the woman -- and
>>I couldn't figure out how to tactfully ask them or their other friends
>>if they were married. I wasn't invited to a baby shower, but I was to
>>the kid's first and second birthday parties. I don't remember when I
>>found out that they were married but they were. I found out years
>>after I met her, and then I told her that I hadn't known earlier.
>
>It must have been a very great relief to you when you finally
>confirmed their status.
I was pleased. I liked her, and him too, and didn't like the thought
of their having a baby without being married.
"Very great relief" is probably too strong, partly because I always
thought there was about a 50% chance that they were married.
meirman
Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> posted:
>meirman wrote:
>
>> In alt.fan.miss-manners on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:21:05 -0600 kay w
>> <scu...@aol.com> posted:
>
>>>By the by, MIss Manners frowns on immediate family members of the
>>>guest of honor hosting showers, as this is one of the very, very few
>>>events to which the bringing of gifts is considered mandatory.
>>
>>
>> Does Emily Post or Amy Vanderbilt disagree? I'm afraid that's the
>> more tacky part.
>
> What's the more tacky part? Gifts being required at
>showers and close relatives not hosting have been etiquette
>rules for a very long time.
Sorry. I meant the latter.
>I think there's an exception for
>situations where the bride or mother-to-be has no friends or
>familiy in the area and the groom or father-to-be's family
>wants to throw a shower.
Maybe. I don't recall. I've read books by all three of those listed
above and I don't recall what any of them said. Actually, on matters
of etiquette, I take my mother's words as strongly as any one or two
of the famous "etiquetticians" :) . But I don't know what she would
have said either.
>Best wishes,
>Ericka
meirman
<ZedBant...@newsguy.com> posted:
I had always assumed that such things were discussed with the
mother-to-be. Just like I think it's normal for her to review the
guest list, and for the hostesses to seek suggestions from the
mother-to-be, if there is any doubt about who should be invited.
When parents send out wedding invitations, don't they discuss the
wording with the couple being married?
>ZedBanty
meirman
Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> posted:
>ZedBanty wrote:
I didn't comment on this the first time someone brought it up, but
here goes.
I've seen that in obituaries and, iirc, encyclopedias, and maybe even
wedding announcements in the newspaper, but isn't it a bit formal for
a shower invitaion? Not that formality is bad, per se, but if I got
that invitation, I'd think I had to dress 1 or 2 mini-levels better
for the shower.
>Best wishes,
>Ericka
meirman
<ZedBant...@newsguy.com> posted:
>In article <u3ve21hkb8u8s4g09...@4ax.com>, kay w says...
>>
>>Previously:
>>
>>kim0916:
>>>Last year my sister was married. She is now pregnant and I am hosting a
>>>baby shower for her. My Mother thinks some people will not recognize her
>>>married name and thinks I should put her maiden name in parenthesis on the
>>>invitation. I think it looks tacky. Any suggestions as to how to handle
>>>this?
>>
>>Use her correct full name, "Susan Maiden Married", or the shorter
>>version, "Susan Married". . No parentheses. People who are not close
>>enough to recognize either name should not have been invited.
>
>If I married (often glad I didn't!), I would have lost my middle name?
I don't think so. My mother's first two husbands died, each after 10
years of marriage.
When she married the first time, she stopped using her middle name,
and used her parents' last name for a middle name. The second time,
she may have dropped that name, so she could keep using my brother's
surname as her middle name. But when my father adopted my brother,
she may have gone back to her maiden name as a middle name, and my
brother used his father's name as a middle name, and my father's name
as a surname.
When my mother married the third time, she dropped her middle name and
put my father's name in the middle and her new husband's as a surname.
She wanted to have in her name the surname of my brother and me. Also,
also my father left her investments, which she continued for a long
time to hold in the name she had when he was alive (not including her
new husband's name at all.).
BUT, before she died, she told me two things that she wanted on her
tombstone. One was BOTH her date of birth and her date of death, and
the other was all of her surnames. So of course that's what I did.
It requires two lines. I think I might have done it anyhow, although
it wasn't until I was actually designing the stone that I realized,
"Heck, there are lots of women who have been married more than once.
Many of them were married much longer to the first husband than to the
last, or he's the only father of tbeir children, or they loved him
more. And yet, other than my mother's, I don't think I've ever seen a
tombstone that had more than one married name on it."
Maybe I have and thought the middle name was a maiden name, but
certainly not as often as there are women who have been married twice.
I'll have to pay attention next time I'm in a cemetery.
> Or would
>I acquire a total of four names? Or what?
>
>ZedBanty
meirman
p...@earthlink.net.invalid posted:
>On 4 Mar 2005 15:40:14 -0800, "Renee" <rjef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>My work threw me a shower when I was pregnant with my first child. I
>>wasn't intimate with most of them. They weren't forced to go, but I
>>think a lot of the women wanted an excuse to buy tiny baby clothes.
>
>Etiquette is a system of social lies to keep society running smoothly, or
>as smoothly as possible :). When the mother-to-be opens a present she may
>say, " Oh you shouldn't have". She doesn't mean it. Guests at a shower are
>expected to bring gifts. When the giver says, " Oh I wanted an excuse to
>buy tiny baby clothes", that's most likely a social lie as well.
A third possibility: Just like most of the army of our country
observes the Geneva Accords in part so that when our men are taken
prisoner, their captors will also observe the Geneva Accords, some
women may willingly buy presents for co-workers they are not that
close too in part so that when they are having a baby, they'll get
lots of presents too.
A fourth: It's the way they think things are supposed to be. Just
like people in the city are obliged to shovel a path through their
sidewalks, and they decide if they have to do it, they're going to
enjoy it. And once they decide that, they really do enjoy most** of
it, including the hard work and the fresh cold air.
**depending on how long the sidewalk is ;)
>
>Pat
meirman
<mei...@invalid.com> posted:
> She might say "Steve Lastname",
>but regardelss, I could easily forget Steve's first name and last name
>within 5 minutes. Even when I want to remember something, I can
>sometimes see myself forgetting it piece by piece.
I didn't finish my thought here.... After I've forgotten her
husband's first name, and separately forgotten his last name, I might
well forget that she ever told me a last name that wasn't hers. And
when I saw the shower invitation with *his* last name on it, it might
not ring a bell at all. Based on the surname, I might have no idea
who was having the baby.
But there are at least 2 other possible clues, the first name and, in
the case of a co-worker that one still sees at work, who seems to be
pregnant. There usually aren't more than two people with the same
first name in one office, and iiuc, baby showers are held late in the
pregancy when most women are obviously pregnant.
####
kay w
meirman:
>Actually, I didn't object before, but people are just assuming that
>knowing someone very well is a sine qua non of being invited to a
>shower.
An assumption? A shower, with its essentially "required" gift
giving, is for *intimates* (closest friends and family members) of the
MTB.
If you've got Miss Manners (or Baldwin/Post/Vanderbilt) saying
otherwise, I'd appreciate the reference, as I've always considered
this an ironclad rule.
It's not usually held by a family member, since that makes it look
like the family is angling for charity, and for the same reason one
isn't given for second and subsequent children....the mother has
already been outfitted for Motherhood by the first shower. By her
nearest and dearest.
There's no reason not to have a tea, or some other little party, for a
more casual acquaintance or work friend, since with a tea, attendees
can choose whether or not to bring a gift (and be perfectly correct
either way) and since the MTB wouldn't open gifts during the tea, no
one will be embarrassed at having not given (or at having given too
much) and a good time can be had by all.
However, a baby shower, at which gift giving is mandatory and the
opening of the gifts is part of the entertainment, can really only be
imposed on the MTB's very closest family and friends. Her intimates.
Ericka Kammerer
> In alt.fan.miss-manners on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:50:29 -0500 Ericka
> Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> posted:
>> Oh, of course not. If that's not her name, it shouldn't
>>be used. The construction used to notify someone about a person's
>>maiden name is <Title and Name> née Maiden.
>
> I didn't comment on this the first time someone brought it up, but
> here goes.
>
> I've seen that in obituaries and, iirc, encyclopedias, and maybe even
> wedding announcements in the newspaper, but isn't it a bit formal for
> a shower invitaion? Not that formality is bad, per se, but if I got
> that invitation, I'd think I had to dress 1 or 2 mini-levels better
> for the shower.
"Née" is not a *formal* construction, but it is a somewhat...
hmmm...stilted one. It wouldn't normally be used in a shower invitation
because it's not common to *need* to include that sort of information
for a shower, given that proper attendees are *highly* likely to know
the guest of honor's current name. As I said elsewhere, in the rare
instance where a close friend wouldn't know one's name, a little note
inside the invitation would suffice. But if one insisted on using
some sort of construction in the invitation, and the guest of honor
doesn't use her maiden name as her middle name, it's the next most
common/well understood/succint/etc. way of conveying the information.
Best wishes,
Ericka
N Jill Marsh
<mei...@invalid.com>wrote:
>In alt.fan.miss-manners on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:14:50 -0500 N Jill
>Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> posted:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:31:57 -0500, meirman
>><mei...@invalid.com>wrote:
>>
>>>**I knew a couple like this -- primarily friends with the woman -- and
>>>I couldn't figure out how to tactfully ask them or their other friends
>>>if they were married. I wasn't invited to a baby shower, but I was to
>>>the kid's first and second birthday parties. I don't remember when I
>>>found out that they were married but they were. I found out years
>>>after I met her, and then I told her that I hadn't known earlier.
>>
>>It must have been a very great relief to you when you finally
>>confirmed their status.
>
>I was pleased. I liked her, and him too, and didn't like the thought
>of their having a baby without being married.
Why? Did they live somewhere where this would make some kind of
significant difference to their lives? I mean with respect to legal
issues & such, socially it is absolutely no one else's business how
they had decided to conduct themselves.
>"Very great relief" is probably too strong, partly because I always
>thought there was about a 50% chance that they were married.
Why didn't you just ask, if this was such an important point?
--
nj"quel horreur"m
"It can do that because compassion is bottomless."
meirman
Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> posted:
>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 14:09:42 -0500, meirman
><mei...@invalid.com>wrote:
>
>>In alt.fan.miss-manners on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:14:50 -0500 N Jill
>>Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> posted:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:31:57 -0500, meirman
>>><mei...@invalid.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>**I knew a couple like this -- primarily friends with the woman -- and
>>>>I couldn't figure out how to tactfully ask them or their other friends
>>>>if they were married. I wasn't invited to a baby shower, but I was to
>>>>the kid's first and second birthday parties. I don't remember when I
>>>>found out that they were married but they were. I found out years
>>>>after I met her, and then I told her that I hadn't known earlier.
>>>
>>>It must have been a very great relief to you when you finally
>>>confirmed their status.
>>
>>I was pleased. I liked her, and him too, and didn't like the thought
>>of their having a baby without being married.
>
>Why? Did they live somewhere where this would make some kind of
>significant difference to their lives?
Yes, they lived in the USA and on the planet Earth. AFAIK, in both
places, unless a woman is married, there is not a substantial legal
relationship between the man she is sleeping with and his child unless
and until a court has ruled on paternity.**
If he dies intestate, for example, the fact that the mother put down
his name as the father on the child's birth certificate, if she did,
is not enough to entitle the child to inherit his father's money,
money the child will likely need if he is still a baby or doesn't have
a successful career of his own.
**And it's even possible if the mother doesn't promptly pursue
estabilishing paternity, that all evidence of it will be gone
eventually, even if the father would not have denied it.
They may each be unusual, but there are a lot of possible scenarios
where the child is separated from his father and the father dies
without anyone in the father's life knowing that he has a child.
There may be no witnesses to be found that show the mother lived with
the father, and the mother may die and all things which contain DNA
which could if tested connect the child to the father may be gone (not
reallly lost if no one was trying to keep them.) In fact this could
be true if either, both, or neither of the parents have died.
Of course if the parents were married and the father is separated from
his child, it's possible the money he leaves behind will still never
reach his child, but it's a lot easier to make the connection
But it's not necessary to show any legal reason why it matters in
order to justify my original statement above, as I think I show below.
> I mean with respect to legal
>issues & such, socially it is absolutely no one else's business how
>they had decided to conduct themselves.
I think we're probably using what I said in two different ways. I
said I didn't like the thought of her having a baby without being
married. I said I was pleased that they were married. Those are
facts. I *was* pleased. Saying it's not my business how they conduct
themselves doesn't change the fact that I was pleased or that I didn't
like the opposite thought.
And it was she who told me she had had a child, and she who told me
who the father was and what his full name was, and what her full name
was. So afaict, she made all that stuff my business when she told me
those things. To then say that I can't be pleased or unhappy about
what she told me strikes me as expecting more from a person than he is
able to deliver. If I'm pleased, your telling me I shouldn't have a
reaction to how they conduct themselves is not likely to cause my
feeling of "pleased" to go away.
Don't forget that my original statement was about how it would seem to
others. Now maybe some parents don't care how things seem to others,
but many do, and many of them would be pleased to know what impression
their actions make on others. Especially when it relates to their
child. Many/most people will put aside dedication to their own
abstract principles when it comes to the effect on their children. I
would certainly put my child's welfare ahead of such considerations.
And although, as I said, by the rules I go by, the child of unmarried
parents is not a bastard, other people think that such a child is.
Other people may refuse to let their own children play with him or to
admit him to the private school they work for. They might call him a
bastard in front of their own child who may repeat it to the first
child's face, maybe in front of other children. Standing on the
notion that the family relationship is no one else's business while
one's child is being shamed in front of his classmates sounds more
like something one hasn't considered that something one would actually
do.
And it's humiliating to many children that their parents were not
married, especially when they know, or see on tv, children whose
parents are married. Movies starring iirc Cher aside, children don't
really get onboard with defying social norms like some prospective
parents do. Why should they? They didn't live the lives their
parents lived and they can't appreciate what would make their parents
do such things. Of course one can try to explain it to them, and
eventually they may understand, but a) that's not the same thing as
feeling it**, and b) I doubt that will undo most of the prior feelings
of humiliation, or even some of the later ones.
**I understand pretty much why angry people murder and steal and do
other bad*** things, but that doesn't make me ok with it. If a kid
eventually understands pretty much why his parents aren't and were
never married when most or all of his friends had married parents,
that understanding is will come late and won't undo much. No one has
asked my advice, but it would be if the couple is still together, it's
never too late to get married.
***Is not getting married to someone one wants to sleep with or have a
baby with a bad thing? If others think so and their thinking so about
my child's parents will cause them to relate negatively to my child,
it's a bad thing, whether they are properly minding their own business
or not. If I leave my money on the counter at Home Depot and someone
takes it, it's a bad thing, even if the person shouldn't have taken it
in the first place. We live in a society, and in a society, the
actions of others have a major effect on whether some of what we do is
good or bad. (I doon't know if it can make bad things good, but it
can surely make neutral and even some good things bad.)
Not planning ahead, including for things not likely to happen, strikes
me as a big mistake, especially when it comes to one's child. I see
on those tv court shows lots of parents who say, "My child is the most
important thing to me, and I would never hurt him" in the same half
hour where they are telling various things they did that did or
probably did hurt him.
I've given just some of the ways a child could get hurt because his
parents weren't married or because it appeared that they weren't.
>>"Very great relief" is probably too strong, partly because I always
>>thought there was about a 50% chance that they were married.
>
>Why didn't you just ask, if this was such an important point?
A) I don't know how important you think it was to me. Something
doesn't have to have any particular level of importance for me to be
pleased when I learn of it. I'm pleased when I hear good news about
people who live half-way around the word, and whom I don't even know
and never will know.
B) As I said before, I could not think of a tactful way to ask.
C) Even if I could have thought of a tactful way to ask, I didn't ask.
How does this have any effect on the rest of this thread? Or are you
just curious, which would be fine?
Userb3
news:eukm215ocvgrcpic5...@4ax.com:
>>We're talking people you know "very well". By definition, if I don't
>>know
> ==============
>>your last name, your spouse's last name, and something about each of
>>your families, I don't know you "very well".
>
> But that's your definition, not mine.
It is, however, a common and reasonable definition.
N Jill Marsh
<mei...@invalid.com>wrote:
>In alt.fan.miss-manners on Sun, 06 Mar 2005 16:58:28 -0500 N Jill
>Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> posted:
>
>>meirman:
>>>I was pleased. I liked her, and him too, and didn't like the thought
>>>of their having a baby without being married.
>>
>>Why? Did they live somewhere where this would make some kind of
>>significant difference to their lives?
>
>Yes, they lived in the USA and on the planet Earth. AFAIK, in both
>places, unless a woman is married, there is not a substantial legal
>relationship between the man she is sleeping with and his child unless
>and until a court has ruled on paternity.**
You don't know very far, at least with respect to the planet Earth, it
is a very big place, and the legal issues vary widely.
When a baby is born in Ontario, the mother registers the birth. On
that application, along with various other pieces of information, the
father's name is listed; that is all that is required to establish
paternity here if there is not a legal challenge. The marital status
or living arrangements mean nothing when it comes to identifying the
child's parents. As far as I know this is essentially the case in the
rest of the country and I would suspect in many more places than you
obviously think.
There is little legal distinction made between children born within
marriages and those born under other circumstances with respect to
laws concerning custody, support, inheritance & etc. For example, my
will, which is in pretty standard fill in the blanks sort of legal
language for this province, specifies which children are to inherit
and specifically excludes any other children without mentioning
marriages or anything else (unless it's used as an exclusion/inclusion
criterion), because your biological/adoptive child is an heir, your
marital status at their time of birth doesn't change that
significantly.
With respect to non-married couples who split, issues of custody,
visitation or support proceed pretty much the same as if it was a
marriage. There are some issues between the couple that are different
(particularly with respect to splitting of property), but the kids are
treated the same.
There are provinces in this country where a large proportion of babies
born are to couples that are not formally married. For example, about
30 percent of Quebec couples are not formally married, the national
average is approximately 16 percent. Nearly half of these
relationships include children, either from a previous or a current
relationship, and in Quebec, children are born to married and
unmarried couples in about equal numbers. These statistics are taken
from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (mid-1990s
figures) and a Statistics Canada Survey on social trends with the
numbers from 2001.
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/feature貞/survey_socialtrends.html)
To bring in the original thread topic somewhat, in Quebec, women don't
take their husbands surnames when they marry; at the most they
hyphenate, so it's very difficult to class children according to their
parents' marital status, or to class couples on theirs. It would be a
very confusing place for you to live.
{snip many lines of examples of social ostracism and such that might
have been a concern some decades ago}
>And although, as I said, by the rules I go by, the child of unmarried
>parents is not a bastard, other people think that such a child is.
That term as it relates to birth is essentially meaningless in this
day and age. It should be tolerated no more than racial slurs, its
use and any discriminatory behaviours associated with that attitude
should in no way influence how decent people choose to live their
lives.
>**I understand pretty much why angry people murder and steal and do
>other bad*** things, but that doesn't make me ok with it.
>***Is not getting married to someone one wants to sleep with or have a
>baby with a bad thing?
No. Being sexually irresponsible or not being committed to a child
are bad things. The fact that you would ask this answers any other
question I could pose.
--
nj"good neighbour"m
"Watch for the tell-tale signs of corruption."
Briar Rose
> cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) wrote in news:d0dak5$g5l$1...@naig.caltech.edu:
> <post snipped>
> Tell the truth - you're just looking for things to disagree about aren't
> you?
No.
> If you genuinely don't believe that there are occasional legitimate
> social reasons to know whether a given person is married or not,
> then we move in radically different social circles.
No, that's not what I believe and it's not what I tried to
communicate in my posts. I was trying to show that it was
rare that such an occasion would arise with _no_ surrounding
information other than their surname and the surname of a man
they lived with.
For example, a wedding ring. A reference in conversation to
"my husband" or "my wife." These are often the sorts of things
that come up, socially, *before* one learns the gender of all
the people another person lives with, not to mention those
people's surnames.
I was simply trying to illustrate that Meirman's statement that
a woman who does not change her surname appears to be readying
herself for the end of the relationship is a figment of a
fairly tawdry and cynical mind, whereas Miss Manners generally
instructs people to either assume the best or keep their noses
out of other folks' business.
Now, if you find that you generally learn people's housemates;
last names prior to learning whether those housemates are their
spouses, I will agree that we move in rather different circles.
In my circle, spouses or SOs are generally introduced as such;
frequently without any surnames at all.
Of course, also in our circle, we all understand that various
folks have all kinds of varying surname arrangements, and we
simply ask what the surnames are (if necessary) and forgive people
who occasionally mistakenly assume, for example, that the man
living with me but sharing my name is my husband, and god knows
what they speculate about the man living with me who doesn't
share my name.
:) Connie-"not planning to divorce my brother"-Lynne
Uncle Mandrake
> I still say that a person who does not know one's name can in no way
> be considered an *intimate.*
You forget the time-honored institution of the one-night stand.
Somewhere Miss Manners gave a hilarious response to a gay gentleman
who wrote in wondering if and how to acknowledge in broad daylight
another gentleman with whom he'd enjoyed an anonymous... ah... ah...
ah... "connection", that's it *connection*... in the dark, too.
MM replied explaining that one-night stands and similar forms of
social interaction are, by definition, inadequate grounds for
presuming any further interaction. IOW, a nod of the head, if that, is
sufficient.
kay w
Me(kay):
>> I still say that a person who does not know one's name can in no way
>> be considered an *intimate.*
Mandrake:
>You forget the time-honored institution of the one-night stand.
>
>Somewhere Miss Manners gave a hilarious response to a gay gentleman
>who wrote in wondering if and how to acknowledge in broad daylight
>another gentleman with whom he'd enjoyed an anonymous... ah... ah...
>ah... "connection", that's it *connection*... in the dark, too.
>
>MM replied explaining that one-night stands and similar forms of
>social interaction are, by definition, inadequate grounds for
>presuming any further interaction. IOW, a nod of the head, if that, is
>sufficient.
Sex does not constitute a formal introduction, and "intimate" has
nothing to do with sex.
Renee
p...@earthlink.net.invalid wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 14:19:15 -0500, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
wrote:
>
> >In alt.fan.miss-manners on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:39:40 GMT
> >p...@earthlink.net.invalid posted:
> >
> >>On 4 Mar 2005 15:40:14 -0800, "Renee" <rjef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>My work threw me a shower when I was pregnant with my first child.
I
> >>>wasn't intimate with most of them. They weren't forced to go, but
I
> >>>think a lot of the women wanted an excuse to buy tiny baby
clothes.
> >>
> >>Etiquette is a system of social lies to keep society running
smoothly, or
> >>as smoothly as possible :). When the mother-to-be opens a present
she may
> >>say, " Oh you shouldn't have". She doesn't mean it. Guests at a
shower are
> >>expected to bring gifts. When the giver says, " Oh I wanted an
excuse to
> >>buy tiny baby clothes", that's most likely a social lie as well.
> >
> >A third possibility: Just like most of the army of our country
> >observes the Geneva Accords in part so that when our men are taken
> >prisoner, their captors will also observe the Geneva Accords, some
> >women may willingly buy presents for co-workers they are not that
> >close too in part so that when they are having a baby, they'll get
> >lots of presents too.
>
can't
> have children, will be invited to a baby shower. Do you think it's
even
> fair to invite those who are trying to have children but are unable
to do
> so, I know for a fact it can be very painful to them, but of course
they
> don't want to show it. How about those who have stated positively
they
> won't have children because there are enough starving children in the
world
> already? I know a few of these also. Check the chid free groups! Then
> there's the shower for the mother-to-be who already has five kids.
That's
> the one even I have declined. Of course they all may refuse and
offend the
> hostess. OYOH, don't invite them and THEY may be offended.
>
> Invitations to a baby shower can be a minefield. I just refused to
have
> one, but some people did bring gifts when they were invited to see
the
> baby.
>
> >A fourth: It's the way they think things are supposed to be. Just
> >like people in the city are obliged to shovel a path through their
> >sidewalks, and they decide if they have to do it, they're going to
> >enjoy it. And once they decide that, they really do enjoy most** of
> >it, including the hard work and the fresh cold air.
> >
> >**depending on how long the sidewalk is ;)
>
>
they may
> decide they might as well enjoy it. However saying they wanted an
excuse to
> do so, strikes me as a social lie.
>
> Pat
I don't think anybody was forced to come. I assumed that every woman
in the account was invited (I wasn't involved in the list - it was a
surprise shower), but only some of them came. I didn't ask them if they
felt forced to some.
Renee
Briar Rose
> In alt.fan.miss-manners on Sat, 5 Mar 2005 02:02:20 +0000 (UTC) cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) posted:
>>Userb3 <use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) wrote in news:d0a6cc$h7j$1...@naig.caltech.edu:
>>>> I bet you're one of the folks who would have
>>>> assumed that my brother was my husband, when we lived together.
>>> In the absence of any other indicator, why wouldn't I?
>> First of all, what business of yours (or meirman's)
>> is it whether or not I am married to a man I live with?
> It doesn't have to be our business. People reach such tentative and
> even absolute conclusions all the time without even trying.
Although, in general, it's considered unmannerly to act on
such conclusions, and I believe Miss Manners generally suggests
assuming the best -- "they're probably married but kept different
surnames, as is more and more the practice these days" -- than
to conclude that something inappropriate is going on.
>> If I were planning on dating you, I would give you
> You would make such plans without any indication from "you" that he's
> interested? Aren't you assuming that the "you" will go along with
> those plans?
You're picking semantic nits, but s/planning on/interested in.
And I would generally attempt to get to know someone before
giving such indications, including learning things like "are
they currently seeing someone," regardless of whether they
live with that person.
> I didn't tell you that I cared or that anyone else in particular
> cared. What I said is that keeping separate names makes it seem like
> a couple is not married.
You may have, but you also said that keeping separate names
makes it seem like a woman is not planning to stay in a marriage.
As a woman who kept her own name after marriage, I found such
a judgement naive at best and have been attempting to educate
you as to the many ways such a judgement is incorrect, so that
(among other things) you can avoid accidentally giving offense
to someone by basing your behavior on such a notion.
:) Connie-Lynne
Mary Shafer
wrote:
> In this case, what I said was, "it makes it SEEM LIKE they are not
> married, just living together" [emphasis added]. Based on the
> percentage of couples living together who have the same last name and
> are married, and the percentage who have different last names and
> aren't married, that's a reasonable tentative assumption.
Perhaps in your circles it is, but not in mine. A substantial
percentage of the women engineers I know, as many as a third, have
kept their maiden names, mostly because changing names means
disrupting one's professional history.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
meirman
<mil...@qnet.com> posted:
>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:14:21 -0500, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In this case, what I said was, "it makes it SEEM LIKE they are not
>> married, just living together" [emphasis added]. Based on the
>> percentage of couples living together who have the same last name and
>> are married, and the percentage who have different last names and
>> aren't married, that's a reasonable tentative assumption.
>
>Perhaps in your circles it is, but not in mine. A substantial
>percentage of the women engineers I know, as many as a third, have
Frankly, you're supporting my point. 'As many as a third' is less
than half.
>kept their maiden names, mostly because changing names means
>disrupting one's professional history.
Sure. I understand that. I eaven mentioned it earlier**. That's more
of a concern with professions than with the jobs that most people
have, including men and women. If one considers people, women, in all
occupations together, the percentage will be lower than in the
professions, I'm sure.
**In my first post on this, I said "I understand that there someone
with a career and a reputation in her career has a good reason not to
change the name she goes by at work." I wasn't suggesting that women
do otherwise. I was suggesting that onlookers could get the wrong
impression, and one of the ways to correct that incorrect impression
was to list her as first maiden married-name on the shower
invitations.
>Mary
meirman
cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) posted:
>meirman <mei...@erols.com> wrote:
>> In alt.fan.miss-manners on Sat, 5 Mar 2005 02:02:20 +0000 (UTC) cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) posted:
>>>Userb3 <use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose) wrote in news:d0a6cc$h7j$1...@naig.caltech.edu:
>>>>> I bet you're one of the folks who would have
>>>>> assumed that my brother was my husband, when we lived together.
>>>> In the absence of any other indicator, why wouldn't I?
>>> First of all, what business of yours (or meirman's)
>>> is it whether or not I am married to a man I live with?
>> It doesn't have to be our business. People reach such tentative and
>> even absolute conclusions all the time without even trying.
>
>Although, in general, it's considered unmannerly to act on
>such conclusions, and I believe Miss Manners generally suggests
>assuming the best -- "they're probably married but kept different
>surnames, as is more and more the practice these days" -- than
>to conclude that something inappropriate is going on.
You seem to be expecting a perfect world, where every one will assume
the best. In practice, not everyone will assume that, and that's why
I was warning people that if they use different last names from each
other, it will seem, at least to some, as if they are not married.
There wouldn't need to be an etiquette column or etiquette newsgroup
if everyone did the right thing all the time.
>
>>> If I were planning on dating you, I would give you
>> You would make such plans without any indication from "you" that he's
>> interested? Aren't you assuming that the "you" will go along with
>> those plans?
>
>You're picking semantic nits, but s/planning on/interested in.
I believe it was you who criticized me for making a lot of
assumptions, and I was pointing out that you seemed to be making one
too. If I was making assumptions, mine could have been washed away by
minor changes in wording also.
>And I would generally attempt to get to know someone before
>giving such indications, including learning things like "are
>they currently seeing someone," regardless of whether they
>live with that person.
>
>> I didn't tell you that I cared or that anyone else in particular
>> cared. What I said is that keeping separate names makes it seem like
>> a couple is not married.
>
>You may have, but you also said that keeping separate names
>makes it seem like a woman is not planning to stay in a marriage.
No. WADR I didn't say that. What I said was "it makes it look like
from the beginning, she wasn't sure the marriage will last". That
doesn't mean that she is planning to end it. She could be afraid that
her husband will, or that external circumstances will.
>As a woman who kept her own name after marriage, I found such
>a judgement naive at best and have been attempting to educate
It doesn't have to be true 100% of the time for it to seem like
something is the case. With lots of onlookers, some will likely reach
the correct conclusion, some won't be sure, and some will reach the
wrong conclusions. I was hoping to help people make sure as many
onlookers as possible reached the right conclusion.
I think you're being naive if you feel that everyone will be aware of
your situation and apply it to every couple they know. People get the
wrong impression, mistaken impressions, of many types of situations,
all the time, and it's useful to have someone review things from an
outsider's pov, to protect people from being misunderstood.
It's similar to one of the reasons there are editors for books. The
writer knows what he means -- he doesn't see anything ambiguous
because he already knows what he meant -- but it's very easy to write
a sentence which will be misunderstood by a reader. (I think many of
mine have been misunderstood in this very thread. I don't have an
editor, but I'm happy to repeat what I've said in different words, and
to elaborate.)
>you as to the many ways such a judgement is incorrect, so that
>(among other things) you can avoid accidentally giving offense
>to someone by basing your behavior on such a notion.
In this example, I've said more than once that I didn't know, and
didn't reach a conclusion until she told me they were married. That's
my usual M.O.
OTOH, I've been attempting to educate you as to the many ways
onlookers will make either tentative, or in some cases, conclusive
judgments that are incorrect, and how some people can be injured or
lose opportunities even when they haven't done what they are suspected
of doing, because onlookers reached incorrect conclusions.
.
Right now the web download accelerator that my ISP provides says that
the reason it's not working well is that the software company they use
for this software didn't do a good job. The software company says
it's the ISP's fault. I don't know who is more at fault, but my goal
now is to convince the software company that even if the ISP isn't
doing things right, the software company can allow for that so that
their software will still work right.
Indeed 95% of a computer program (esp. one that has user interface)
may be validating data to avoid accepting inaccurate data. The
software companies don't say that if the users had good judgment, if
the users realized the possibility of good data, they wouldn't
introduce bad data. Instead, the companies accept reality that people
make mistakes, and they plan for those user mistakes, and that's what
I was suggesting wrt the original couple. People will make incorrect
assumptions and draw false conclusions, and some of those people will
act on those conclusions, and if the subjects of those conclusions
want that not to happen, there are usually ways to protect themselves.
Your outlook seems to be that if you can explain the situation to me,
(a situation I already understood btw), the problem will be solved.
I'm talking about a different problem and I'm saying there are 100's
of millions of people out there, and one cannot reach them all. It's
more efficacious to protect oneself.
>:) Connie-Lynne
meirman
Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> posted:
>meirman wrote:
>> In alt.fan.miss-manners on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:50:29 -0500 Ericka
>> Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> posted:
>
>>> Oh, of course not. If that's not her name, it shouldn't
>>>be used. The construction used to notify someone about a person's
>>>maiden name is <Title and Name> née Maiden.
>>
>> I didn't comment on this the first time someone brought it up, but
>> here goes.
>>
>> I've seen that in obituaries and, iirc, encyclopedias, and maybe even
>> wedding announcements in the newspaper, but isn't it a bit formal for
>> a shower invitaion? Not that formality is bad, per se, but if I got
>> that invitation, I'd think I had to dress 1 or 2 mini-levels better
>> for the shower.
>
> "Née" is not a *formal* construction, but it is a somewhat...
>hmmm...stilted one.
I'll buy that. After you say it is not formal, I would have even
settled for "unusual".
> It wouldn't normally be used in a shower invitation
>because it's not common to *need* to include that sort of information
>for a shower, given that proper attendees are *highly* likely to know
>the guest of honor's current name. As I said elsewhere, in the rare
>instance where a close friend wouldn't know one's name, a little note
>inside the invitation would suffice. But if one insisted on using
>some sort of construction in the invitation, and the guest of honor
>doesn't use her maiden name as her middle name, it's the next most
>common/well understood/succint/etc. way of conveying the information.
OK.
meirman
<scu...@aol.com> posted:
>Previously, and snipped:
>
>meirman:
>>Actually, I didn't object before, but people are just assuming that
>>knowing someone very well is a sine qua non of being invited to a
>>shower.
>
>An assumption? A shower, with its essentially "required" gift
>giving, is for *intimates* (closest friends and family members) of the
>MTB.
>If you've got Miss Manners (or Baldwin/Post/Vanderbilt) saying
>otherwise, I'd appreciate the reference, as I've always considered
>this an ironclad rule.
Do they really say one must "know the other person well", or do they
use language that is being interpreted that way?
Does the language they use exclude my other two suggested categories
of people to invite? Do you, how do you, exclude my other two
categores of people to invite?
They were:
1)
>Being close to someone is another basis for an invitation, and there
>are a lot of ways people can become close. (They can share danger
>together, or share tragedy, or share problems. They can console each
>other, or one can console the other, even if they didn't know each
>other at the time of the danger, tragedy, problem. Etc.)
>....
2)
>Knowing that she wants to be at one of your baby showers, and knowing
>that you want her there, is another basis for an invitation. Maybe it
>is the underlying basis of all worthwhile invitations.
You don't think these people should be invited?
>It's not usually held by a family member, since that makes it look
>like the family is angling for charity, and for the same reason one
>isn't given for second and subsequent children....the mother has
I agree.
>already been outfitted for Motherhood by the first shower. By her
>nearest and dearest.
"Nearest and dearest" is not the same thing as knowing someone well.
I wouldn't quibble about it normally, but the proposition has switched
from "nearest and dearest" being invited and from that to "those who
know the MTB very well" being invited, and from that to "if one
doesn't know the MTB's last name, she doesn't know the MTB very well,
and shouldn't be invited.
There has no longer been any discussion of whether that means one is
not near and dear.
>There's no reason not to have a tea, or some other little party, for a
>more casual acquaintance or work friend, since with a tea, attendees
You're equating not knowing someone very well with being a casual
acquaintance. They are not the same. One can have an uncasual
relationship, a deep relationship, with someone one doesn't know very
well. Especially if one considers merely not knowing a last name to
mean one doesn't know her well. There are thousands of other things
to know about someone, and only knowing a dozen of them is enough to
have a more than casual relationship. And there are dozens of things
like that that have nothing to do with knowing what her last name is.
>can choose whether or not to bring a gift (and be perfectly correct
>either way) and since the MTB wouldn't open gifts during the tea, no
>one will be embarrassed at having not given (or at having given too
>much) and a good time can be had by all.
I don't disagree that the requirement of bringing a gift changes who
should be invited. That is not the issue between us. But my two
categories above, 1) being close to someone, and 2) knowing that she
wants to be at your shower, are people who want to give a gift as much
as those whom one knows very well.
It's unlikely, but if perchance there is someone in either of these
categories who doesn't know she is obliged to bring a gift, and for
this reason doesn't bring one, well that would make her situation no
different from someone you did know very well who didn't know she
should bring a gift and didn't bring one.
>However, a baby shower, at which gift giving is mandatory and the
>opening of the gifts is part of the entertainment, can really only be
>imposed on the MTB's very closest family and friends.
Why are you including closest familly and friends when I said "Being
close to someone is another basis for an invitation," and you snipped
that? It is *another* basis, a different basis, from knowing someone
very well.
In fact, in this paragraph, I think you've totally dropped references
to "knowing someone very well" and gone over to one of my categories,
being close to someone.
> Her intimates.
You are assuming that one can't have as an intimate someone who
doesn't know your last name. I say otherwise.
meirman
p...@earthlink.net.invalid posted:
>On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 14:19:15 -0500, meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.fan.miss-manners on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:39:40 GMT
>>p...@earthlink.net.invalid posted:
>>
>>>On 4 Mar 2005 15:40:14 -0800, "Renee" <rjef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My work threw me a shower when I was pregnant with my first child. I
>>>>wasn't intimate with most of them. They weren't forced to go, but I
>>>>think a lot of the women wanted an excuse to buy tiny baby clothes.
>>>
>>>Etiquette is a system of social lies to keep society running smoothly, or
>>>as smoothly as possible :). When the mother-to-be opens a present she may
>>>say, " Oh you shouldn't have". She doesn't mean it. Guests at a shower are
>>>expected to bring gifts. When the giver says, " Oh I wanted an excuse to
>>>buy tiny baby clothes", that's most likely a social lie as well.
>>
>>A third possibility: Just like most of the army of our country
>>observes the Geneva Accords in part so that when our men are taken
>>prisoner, their captors will also observe the Geneva Accords, some
>>women may willingly buy presents for co-workers they are not that
>>close too in part so that when they are having a baby, they'll get
>>lots of presents too.
>
>I suppose that's true, but a number who have decided they never want/ can't
>have children, will be invited to a baby shower. Do you think it's even
>fair to invite those who are trying to have children but are unable to do
>so, I know for a fact it can be very painful to them, but of course they
>don't want to show it.
This would be a very difficult situation. And not inviting them would
be a problem of a different sort. You! No, you're not part of the
club, of women who have children. Not only can't you have children,
but you're not even invited when others do.
You're right. It's a minefield.
In addition, it would either a) unlikely but included for
completeness: lead to lying, because the hostess would say, "She
couldn't come" or b) if people knew she wasn't invited because it
pains her because she can't have children, well, I suspect she doesn't
want the whole world to know she can't have children..
(BTW, my SIL spent a year getting fertility treatment at her
gynocologist. After no baby, she went to a fertility specialist and
was pregnant iiuc within 2 or 3 months, maybe only one or two months
from when she started taking the drug. This was 13 years ago and they
used Pergonal. My niece is smart and lovely and everything a parent
could want.
>How about those who have stated positively they
>won't have children because there are enough starving children in the world
>already? I know a few of these also. Check the chid free groups! Then
>there's the shower for the mother-to-be who already has five kids. That's
>the one even I have declined. Of course they all may refuse and offend the
>hostess. OYOH, don't invite them and THEY may be offended.
Hey, I myself am getting a little tired of sending or delivering** bar
and bas mitzvah presents, and then wedding presents, not for my
brother's children, but for my cousins'. But otoh, I would be
offfended if they didn't invite me. :) Soon it will be my cousins'
grandkids having these occasions, plus their initial birthdays.
**Actually the trip takes much more effort than just sending a gift.
For some reason, when I get invited to anything by people I know, I
feel obliged to go. And I almost always enjoy myself, but when it is
out of town, it takes a lot of time and effort.
>Invitations to a baby shower can be a minefield. I just refused to have
>one, but some people did bring gifts when they were invited to see the
>baby.
>
>>A fourth: It's the way they think things are supposed to be. Just
>>like people in the city are obliged to shovel a path through their
>>sidewalks, and they decide if they have to do it, they're going to
>>enjoy it. And once they decide that, they really do enjoy most** of
>>it, including the hard work and the fresh cold air.
>>
>>**depending on how long the sidewalk is ;)
>
>
>I would agree. Having been forced to go out and buy baby clothes, they may
>decide they might as well enjoy it. However saying they wanted an excuse to
>do so, strikes me as a social lie.
Well they make a lot of jokes about women who love to shop, and I
think there definitely are some who love to shop. My ex-girlfriend is
not that way, but she says she has a couple friends who are. These
women in this thread might well have been giving a social lie, but
some women who have the time and money might say something like this
truthfully.
Laura
>decide they might as well enjoy it. However saying they wanted an
excuse to
>do so, strikes me as a social lie.
Completely depends on the person. Neither my roommate nor I have kids
-- but we both enjoy baby clothes shopping and each have closet full of
baby shower gifts. Those cute things we saw and couldn't pass up, even
though we had no one in particular to give to. We both know that
between our circle of friends and work related baby showers we will
eventually HAVE the opportunity to present our find and enjoy doing so.
One of my closest friends was someone that I knew casually in high
school, but was close friends with a mutual friend. I was invited to
her bridal shower, even though we weren't that close at the time, went,
had a great time and it was the start of a beautiful friendship.
I genuinely enjoy sharing in the happiness and excitement of a bridal
and baby shower and don't look at invites as a burden... I am feeling a
bit weird about my own upcoming bridal showers -- usually I'm involved
in the planning and it seems so strange to be sidelined!
Laura
Ericka Kammerer
> OTOH, I've been attempting to educate you as to the many ways
> onlookers will make either tentative, or in some cases, conclusive
> judgments that are incorrect, and how some people can be injured or
> lose opportunities even when they haven't done what they are suspected
> of doing, because onlookers reached incorrect conclusions.
However, in making such an announcement, it presupposes
that one perhaps ought to *do* something about this (i.e., women
should take their husbands' names), because Bad Things May
Happen otherwise. After all, you don't go around attempting
to educate others on the hazards of wearing loose fitting
clothing (someone might think you're pregnant!) or having a
glass of wine with dinner (someone might think you're an
alcoholic!) or declining an invitation (someone might
think you're an anti-social boor!). One doesn't educate
the person who exercises options well within the boundaries
of accepted practice. One educated the person who draws
inaccurate and unwarranted assumptions based on the
exercise of those options ;-)
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
> In alt.fan.miss-manners on Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:52:17 -0600 kay w
> <scu...@aol.com> posted:
>
>
>>Previously, and snipped:
>>
>>meirman:
>>
>>>Actually, I didn't object before, but people are just assuming that
>>>knowing someone very well is a sine qua non of being invited to a
>>>shower.
>>
>>An assumption? A shower, with its essentially "required" gift
>>giving, is for *intimates* (closest friends and family members) of the
>>MTB.
>>If you've got Miss Manners (or Baldwin/Post/Vanderbilt) saying
>>otherwise, I'd appreciate the reference, as I've always considered
>>this an ironclad rule.
>
>
> Do they really say one must "know the other person well", or do they
> use language that is being interpreted that way?
Miss Manners says:
"It is unconscionable not to announce the birth of a baby to someone who
has shown enough interest to attend a baby shower. Miss Manners can only
assume that the mothers subscribe to the vulgar notion that written
announcements are notices of presents due, and are skipping sending any
to those who already gave. But unless the guest list was padded, it
should have comprised the MOTHER'S CLOSE FRIENDS — and those should have
been on the father's list of people to telephone or email within a day
of the birth."
I think she goes into more detail in her wedding book, but my copy
took a hike so I can't check it.
> Does the language they use exclude my other two suggested categories
> of people to invite? Do you, how do you, exclude my other two
> categores of people to invite?
>
> They were:
> 1)
>
>>Being close to someone is another basis for an invitation, and there
>>are a lot of ways people can become close. (They can share danger
>>together, or share tragedy, or share problems. They can console each
>>other, or one can console the other, even if they didn't know each
>>other at the time of the danger, tragedy, problem. Etc.)
>>....
>
> 2)
>
>>Knowing that she wants to be at one of your baby showers, and knowing
>>that you want her there, is another basis for an invitation. Maybe it
>>is the underlying basis of all worthwhile invitations.
>
>
> You don't think these people should be invited?
I think that when you get right down to it, a shower invitation
is a gift solicitation. It should not be sent to anyone who might
not be thrilled to receive such. If you have a bunch of people who
are iffy in that regard, don't have a shower. Have a tea/luncheon/
dinner/bruch/whatever and you can invite anyone you want and have
it hosted by anyone you want.
It's not worth it to play semantics here. I do believe
it to be within the realm of theoretical possibility that someone
could have a close friend who doesn't know one's name. However,
it doesn't pass the laugh test to suggest that such a thing would
be common among people appropriately invited to a shower.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Briar Rose
> I completely disagree with that statement.
It's not entirely clear which of the statements you're disagreeing
with. On usenet, it's generally a good idea to include just enough
of the message you're replying to to provide context.
> I'm also sending invitations for my wedding to people that I don't know
> personally, but are known to my fiance's family. We are struggling a
> bit with Aunt Mary's daughter because all of the siblings are invited
> (and she'll be mortally offended if she isn't included) but we aren't
> sure if she's actually married her live in boyfriend or not and what
> name they are using.
We had a similar problem when I married -- we didn't know my cousin's
daughter's boyfriend's name. I called my aunt and asked her. If she
hadn't known, I would have called my cousin and asked the same question.
It turned out to be a good thing we called -- they had recently broken
up (after being together for quite some time)!
kay w
Laura:
>I completely disagree with that statement.
What statement? You don't quote anything.
Laura:
>....., but I've known her for years and
>would consider us close and would definitely be invited to a baby
>shower if she has another child (she was married and had her child
>before I knew her --
Baby showers are for first time mothers.
Laura:
>I'm also sending invitations for my wedding to people that I don't know
>personally, but are known to my fiance's family.
A wedding (attendance at which *does not* require gifts) is not a
MTB's baby shower (attendance at which *does* require a gift).
kay w
meirman:
> What I said was "it makes it look like
>from the beginning, she wasn't sure the marriage will last". That
>doesn't mean that she is planning to end it. She could be afraid that
>her husband will, or that external circumstances will.
And men that don't take their wives' last names are afraid their wives
will leave them, or circumstances will end their marriages?
I suspect you made a thoughtless, prejudiced remark and would rather
try to justify it than apologize and move on.
C-L:
>>As a woman who kept her own name after marriage, I found such
>>a judgement naive at best and have been attempting to educate
Meriman:
>It doesn't have to be true 100% of the time for it to seem like
>something is the case. With lots of onlookers, some will likely reach
>the correct conclusion, some won't be sure, and some will reach the
>wrong conclusions. I was hoping to help people make sure as many
>onlookers as possible reached the right conclusion.
You haven't offered anything except your own prejudice as evidence
that anyone, anywhere, *ever* thinks such a silly thing, even 1% of
the time, much less that it's ever, ever true.
kay w
meirman:
>>>Actually, I didn't object before, but people are just assuming that
>>>knowing someone very well is a sine qua non of being invited to a
>>>shower.
Me(kay):
>>An assumption? A shower, with its essentially "required" gift
>>giving, is for *intimates* (closest friends and family members) of the
>>MTB.
>>If you've got Miss Manners (or Baldwin/Post/Vanderbilt) saying
>>otherwise, I'd appreciate the reference, as I've always considered
>>this an ironclad rule.
Meriman:
>Do they really say one must "know the other person well", or do they
>use language that is being interpreted that way?
Do I take that as a *No*, you have no competent source justifying
inviting casual acquaintances to baby showers?
>Does the language they use exclude my other two suggested categories
>of people to invite? Do you, how do you, exclude my other two
>categores of people to invite?
How do I exclude "people with whom the mother to be shared great
danger but aren't really close"? Do you really think that's a large
enough population group that it deserves its own mention in etiquette
advice? Are you kidding?
A baby shower is for the first time mother, given by an intimate
non-relative and attended by her very best friends and closest family
members. There is nothing to prevent less-close friends from giving
gifts if they feel led to do so, but the only people who can be
essentially *held-up* for the mandatory gifts that come with shower
attendance are the MTB's very nearest and dearest.
Anything else looks grubby and grabby.
meirman
Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> posted:
>meirman wrote:
>
>
>> OTOH, I've been attempting to educate you as to the many ways
For those just joining to the thread, I only used such patronizing
wording because the previous poster had used it towards me in the
previous post.
This is idealistic but I wouldn't count on it working.
I'm reminded of a parent whose child has learned to drive, and who
sends his kid off saying, "Don't drive too fast and drive carefully,
and since we've educated the other drivers to do the same, you don't
have to wear your seatbelt." Also idealistic, but I think it is
obvious here that one can't count on the best behaviour of others.
Hmmm. In case you want to say that not wearing a seatbelt is not
"within the boundaries of accepted practice", please remember that
there used to be no seatbelts and they were created in part because
one cannot count on the other party to drive carefully.
People are very often injured, and not just physically, by other
people who are either not educated to their standards or who ignored
their education. (or in some cases by those who kept their education
in mind, but found that other feelings overpowered it.)
In most cases people are willing, in addition to educating others, to
take precautions to avoid being injured.
I'm just pointing out one more place where this might be prudent, and
it seems like a couple people here think I have said something wrong.
I don't understand why.
>Best wishes,
>Ericka
meirman
<scu...@aol.com> posted:
>Previously, and mostly snipped:
>
>meirman:
>> What I said was "it makes it look like
>>from the beginning, she wasn't sure the marriage will last". That
>>doesn't mean that she is planning to end it. She could be afraid that
>>her husband will, or that external circumstances will.
>
>And men that don't take their wives' last names are afraid their wives
>will leave them, or circumstances will end their marriages?
It would seem that way to some people if it was common for men to take
their wives last name, but since it's not common, I doubt anyone
thinks that.
>I suspect you made a thoughtless, prejudiced remark and would rather
>try to justify it than apologize and move on.
No.
>C-L:
>>>As a woman who kept her own name after marriage, I found such
>>>a judgement naive at best and have been attempting to educate
>
>Meriman:
>>It doesn't have to be true 100% of the time for it to seem like
>>something is the case. With lots of onlookers, some will likely reach
>>the correct conclusion, some won't be sure, and some will reach the
>>wrong conclusions. I was hoping to help people make sure as many
>>onlookers as possible reached the right conclusion.
>
>You haven't offered anything except your own prejudice as evidence
It's not a prejudice. It's an observation of a very small sample. I
can't remember for sure, but perhaps as few as one case**. Unless I'm
unique, there are others who react the same way. By the time I was 8,
I had decided that on any given point, I and most people are far from
unique.
"Prejudice" is a loaded word, with very derogatory connotations, so
it's important that when it's used, it actually applies. Here's an
appropriate definition from AHD4:
"An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without
knowledge or examination of the facts." But I did examine the facts.
I spoke about how it might seeem to an onlooker, and before I said
anything, I examined how it seemed to me. So I didn't form my opinion
beforehand, or without knowledge or examination of the facts. QED
**I recall only one case of someone's, my, thinking that a couple
might not be married because they have different last names, but that
could be because I have forgotten other cases, cases that didn't
involve friends. My acquaintences and authors I read might have
thought the same on many occasions but they don't tell me or write
down everything they think.
But as to the basis of my thinking they may not be married, that is
not based on just one case. It's based on probabilities involving 10's
of millions of people. Among engineers in Ontario, the number of
married people using different surnames are outnumbered 2 to 1 or more
by those who use the same surname, by the strongest statistic offered
by anyone here. Spread out over the whole population of Canada, that
would be millions or tens of millions more married couples who use the
same surname than use different ones. Counting the USA and other
countries, I'm sure there are 10's or 100's of millions more couples
like that.
>that anyone, anywhere, *ever* thinks such a silly thing, even 1% of
>the time, much less that it's ever, ever true.
I don't have my own polling organization, so in the absence of that,
what would you to expect me to offer?
I think I discussed this once with one friend, female, who agreed with
me. That's all I can offer. If you don't believe me, fine, you don't
have to. I've never claimed to be able to *prove* this, just as most
statements made by most people almost all the time are not able to be
proven by them. This is not an academic conference where people come
prepared with studies to support statements made in formal papers and
presentations. It's not a court or a legislative session. Those I
think are about the only places you'll find most sides fairly well
armed with stuff like this. This is a newsgroup, where people say
things and others can believe them, or believe them with some doubt,
or disbelieve them, or not.
Best wishes,
Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
meirman
Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> posted:
>meirman wrote:
There is a pretty pleasant answer to your next post, but it's not
finished yet, and I have to make a phone call. I think we are
reaching a good resolution.
>Best wishes,
>Ericka
Yes, indeed,
kay w
Me(kay):
>>You haven't offered anything except your own prejudice as evidence
Meriman:
>It's not a prejudice. It's an observation of a very small sample. I
>can't remember for sure, but perhaps as few as one case**. Unless I'm
>unique, there are others who react the same way. By the time I was 8,
>I had decided that on any given point, I and most people are far from
>unique.
Lots of people make faulty judgments every day; the fact that there is
more than one of them doesn't change the faulty nature of the
judgment.
Meriman:
>"Prejudice" is a loaded word, with very derogatory connotations, so
>it's important that when it's used, it actually applies. Here's an
>appropriate definition from AHD4:
> "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without
>knowledge or examination of the facts." But I did examine the facts.
>I spoke about how it might seeem to an onlooker, and before I said
>anything, I examined how it seemed to me. So I didn't form my opinion
>beforehand, or without knowledge or examination of the facts. QED
No, you did *not* examine the facts; you just thought about how
negative you think something looks to *you*. Well, you and your
friend.
Meirman:
>I think I discussed this once with one friend, female, who agreed with
>me. That's all I can offer. If you don't believe me, fine, you don't
>have to. I've never claimed to be able to *prove* this, just as most
>statements made by most people almost all the time are not able to be
>proven by them.
I know a person who'll agree that Blacks are shiftless and Jews are
cheap, but can't prove it, either.
I don't think you realize how very offensive your comments are,
concerning your impressions of women who marry and retain their last
names and the conclusions you seem to the able to draw from that.
I chose the word "prejudice" carefully, because that's what you're
displaying. And that's all. Prejudice.
N Jill Marsh
<mei...@invalid.com>wrote:
>But as to the basis of my thinking they may not be married, that is
>not based on just one case. It's based on probabilities involving 10's
>of millions of people. Among engineers in Ontario, the number of
>married people using different surnames are outnumbered 2 to 1 or more
>by those who use the same surname, by the strongest statistic offered
>by anyone here.
That wasn't a statistic, it was an anecdote, she in no way attempted
to say otherwise. I am the only person in this thread who offered
anything other than an opinion, and the statistics I offered were from
established and respected agencies with no particular agenda to
promote. Nor did it concern engineers in Ontario, although I must say
that I am extremely honoured to be mistaken for Mary.
>Spread out over the whole population of Canada, that
>would be millions or tens of millions more married couples who use the
>same surname than use different ones.
Tens of millions of married couples in Canada? I think I'm beginning
to see the problem here.
>I don't have my own polling organization, so in the absence of that,
>what would you to expect me to offer?
Some reasonable support for your opinion.
>This is a newsgroup, where people say
>things and others can believe them, or believe them with some doubt,
>or disbelieve them, or not.
And above all create discussion. Hopefully a discussion where people
can state an opinion and have something more concrete to back it up
than a sample size of one. It could consist of a well reasoned and
defensible argument, research statistics or other pieces of evidence.
--
nj"blessing hearts right and left"m
"Now as then, it's simple truth, the sweetest tongue has sharpest
tooth."
Ericka Kammerer
> I'm just pointing out one more place where this might be prudent, and
> it seems like a couple people here think I have said something wrong.
> I don't understand why.
Because those of us who are actually *in* that situation,
and thus have some practical experience of it, can assure you that:
1) it is *quite* common (and, by the way, has been done for centuries--
it's not some newfangled invention)
2) very few people have any problem with it
3) even fewer people are rude enough to make any sort of issue over
it
4) when someone *does* have an issue with it, it says far more
about that person than it does about one's choice of name
And really, do you think that women who haven't chosen to change
their names are so naieve as to not have thought about this before
doing so? That is quite patronizing in and of itself. Furthermore,
what is the "injury" here? I've never seen anything more happen
than that a rude and unkind person reveals his or her true colors.
That's not *my* problem. That's someone else's problem. I've
been married without changing my name for almost twelve years
now, with three kids. I can't even count the number of times
that it's been made clear to someone that my last name differs
from my husbands'. The only negative reaction I've *ever* gotten
was from my MIL, and she has since apologized and admitted that
she was wrong and it was rude--especially since two of her other
children in marriages where the woman did change her name have
split up, where our marriage is quite fine, thank you very much.
I get *far* more positive comments (including from people in
previous generations) than I do negative ones--frequently
including comments from older women saying they wish they'd
kept their names. So no, I don't think I'm putting myself or
my children in any jeopardy whatsoever, and years of experience
have borne that out.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Laura
>> I completely disagree with that statement.
>It's not entirely clear which of the statements you're disagreeing
>with. On usenet, it's generally a good idea to include just enough
>of the message you're replying to to provide context.
Sorry -- using google groups to read and I'd assumed it was inserting
the text to which I was replying above my reply since that's how it
appears on my screen. Apparently I have to cut and paste and add the
leading > myself! Sorry for the confusion.
I can't find my original post (seems to have disappeared off of google
groups, at least from my view), but I believe that I was completely
disagreeing with a statement that you can't be close to someone without
knowing their last name, and then cited an example.
>> I'm also sending invitations for my wedding to people that I don't
know
>> personally, but are known to my fiance's family. We are struggling a
>> bit with Aunt Mary's daughter because all of the siblings are
invited
>> (and she'll be mortally offended if she isn't included) but we
aren't
>> sure if she's actually married her live in boyfriend or not and what
>> name they are using.
>We had a similar problem when I married -- we didn't know my cousin's
>daughter's boyfriend's name. I called my aunt and asked her. If she
>hadn't known, I would have called my cousin and asked the same
question.
>It turned out to be a good thing we called -- they had recently broken
>up (after being together for quite some time)!
There is the struggle -- I don't have the phone numbers of my fiance's
extended family, and they are dragging their feet on answering my
questions and making the call. Part of it is that they are busy (lots
of things going on before the wedding), part of it is that they are
procrastinating on it, and part of it is that they haven't gotten
return phone calls from the people that they have called. It's a huge
frustration for me -- but I can't MAKE people call them back. In the
specific case I referenced, said cousin's parents are both traveling
x-ray techs 2 months into a 3 month assignment far out of state, and no
one seems to have their current phone number and the daughter's has
changed since the number everyone has, so getting the correct
information is a study in frustration, yet I need to get the
invitations mailed before the parents will be back. I have his grandma
working on it now -- hopefully that will yield faster results.
Laura
>Laura:
>>I completely disagree with that statement.
>What statement? You don't quote anything.
Sorry hadn't realized that google groups didn't include the text above
my reply as it appears on my screen. Have to manually cut and paste and
add the > to quoted texts.
I was refering to the statement that you can't be close to someone
without knowing their last name and cited an example.
>Laura:
>>....., but I've known her for years and
>>would consider us close and would definitely be invited to a baby
>>shower if she has another child (she was married and had her child
>>before I knew her --
>Baby showers are for first time mothers.
I've been to MANY baby showers for second time mothers (probably as
many, if not more, for first time moms) -- it's common within my social
circle, especially if there has been an extended period of time before
first child and second child and the first child's layette had been
donated or passed along to other moms. In our work environment, as in
many of my circle of friends, a voluntary work shower is hosted for all
expectant moms, regardless of what number pregnancy it is... usually
the week before they start maternity leave. Whether they are *supposed*
to be for first time mothers only or not, they are given for additional
kids in practice. I have a friend who was given a surprise shower for
her 4th child -- she'd never had a baby shower for any of her previous
kids, and her friends decided that she should have one. The 4th was an
unexpected blessing and her other 3 were all older (and with her first
husband, who passed away a few years before she married her second
husband). I happily agreed to attend and joyfully came bearing presents
for the new baby -- who is as special as the first. The mom-to-be was
delighted and moved to tears to see how loved she was. Would I expect a
baby shower for my second child? No. (Actually wouldn't "expect" one at
all, even for the first -- but knowing my friends...). Am I pleased to
be invited and to attend when someone else has a shower for a second?
Absolutely.
>Laura:
>>I'm also sending invitations for my wedding to people that I don't
know
>>personally, but are known to my fiance's family.
>A wedding (attendance at which *does not* require gifts) is not a
>MTB's baby shower (attendance at which *does* require a gift).
My point was about not knowing names of people who are invited to
events. Theoretically, a bridal shower also requires a gift. I happen
to know that my fiance's family is planning on throwing me a surprise
shower from his side of the family (I'm to act surprised -- but the
person who tipped me off didn't think a surprise to a bride a few weeks
before the wedding is a good idea, and I'm grateful to her, because I
almost scheduled other things that day that I would have had to cancel
since I expected to be going to his grandmother's for a dress fitting,
that would only take about a hour) -- I also know that there will be
people invited (some of his cousins and family friends) that I
personally haven't yet met. I expect those people won't have a clue who
I am by my last name... but when told I'm Wayne's fiancee it will all
make sense.
I also know that should we be blessed with a child, and his family
decides to throw another shower, there will be people invited to that
who, for one reason or another, might not be able to attend this bridal
shower or wedding, but would be invited to that (perhaps someone new
who has married into the family). His family is very big on inviting
ALL the cousins to everything, but usually only various cousins (often
different for each occasion) are able to attend. Highly insulting to
all involved if anyone is left off the list. Whether you agree with
them or not, that is how it works in his family. My point is that there
are cases where people are invited to events where they may not closely
know the guest of honor, but ARE close to someone involved (in my case
my fiance). Closeness is relative. A cousin that you spend entire
summer's with growing up, but only see every couple of years can still
be considered close depending on the relationship.
The same is true for friends. I have a close friend that I only see
every few years (she lives about 1000 miles from me) and we are both
busy so only catch up a couple times a year, but when we do catch up it
is as if no time as passed and we are immediately back in sync. That's
a great friendship in my opinion. When her husband finishes medical
school she hopes to return to the area, in the meantime, even when she
can't attend everything, she'd be very hurt to be excluded -- but by
some definitions we should no longer be considered close. Closeness is
individual and can't be stereotyped.
kay w
Laura:
>Am I pleased to
>be invited and to attend when someone else has a shower for a second?
>Absolutely.
And that's very nice. However, according to Miss Manners, upon whose
guidance this newsgroup is based, a mother is showered for her first
child. Period.
After that, friends may have teas or other little parties for an
expectant mother, at which the bringing of gifts is optional for
attendees. However, because of the "stick-em-up" nature of a shower
invitation, each mother gets one, and only one, attended by her
closest friends and relatives.
Laura:
>Whether you agree with
>them or not, that is how it works in his family.
It's not mine to agree or disagree, and his family may certainly do as
they choose. However, in a newsgroup titled "alt.fan.miss-manners,"
you'd have to expect that Miss Manner's guidance will be discussed.
Laura:
>That's
>a great friendship in my opinion. When her husband finishes medical
>school she hopes to return to the area, in the meantime, even when she
>can't attend everything, she'd be very hurt to be excluded -- but by
>some definitions we should no longer be considered close. Closeness is
>individual and can't be stereotyped.
And I'm sure it's a lovely friendship, and bless you both. However,
you probably know her name, and she knows yours, and I stand by my
original statement that a person whose name is unknown is not a close
enough friend to be burdened with the absolute demand of a gift that
a shower invitation entails.
ZedBanty
says...
Common practice .ne. correct practice.
...or even *workable* practice.
There are a lot of workplace silent sufferers, furtive abstainers, and squelched
objectors for every person who actually enjoy these quasi-mandatory showers for
various assundry people, whom we may admire or despise, because they're pregnant
and some manager or employer has thrown us together in some building somewhere.
ZedBanty
Laura
>guidance this newsgroup is based, a mother is showered for her first
>child. Period.
>After that, friends may have teas or other little parties for an
>expectant mother, at which the bringing of gifts is optional for
>attendees. However, because of the "stick-em-up" nature of a shower
>invitation, each mother gets one, and only one, attended by her
>closest friends and relatives.
The mother-to-be often doesn't know about the shower for a
more-than-one child, the mother can't exactly walk out.
I gave an example of RELATIVES who are invited to the shower where
names are not known.
People can decline the invitation to the shower if they feel they
aren't close enough to the showeree to attend.
>However, you probably know her name, and she knows yours, and I stand
by my
>original statement that a person whose name is unknown is not a close
>enough friend to be burdened with the absolute demand of a gift that
>a shower invitation entails.
Actually no, I knew her for more than 15 years before I found out her
name, because she used her mom's maiden name after her dad left, but
hadn't had it legally changed. It DID create confusion when I was asked
information for a background check about Jane Smith when I didn't
recognize who Smith was -- and this was an incredibly close friendship.
kay w
Laura:
>> People can decline the invitation to the shower if they feel they
>> aren't close enough to the showeree to attend.
Userb3:
>"Hmmm, I got invited to Sally from Accounting's baby shower. We're not
>really all that close, but I DO see her every day at work, and she's always
>there when all the girls go out for Thursday happy hour. I don't think I've
>ever seen her husband, and wouldn't know her family if they moved next
>door, so I don't want to go sit around with her nearest and dearest and
>have to buy a baby gift. On the other hand, if I ignore the invitation,
>she'll find out (and so will Jane from Human Resources, who organized the
>thing), and it'll look like I don't like her. Oh hell, I guess I'll just
>pony up and buy something and go. Sheesh."
Exactly so.
And there is the problem with workplace invitations to workplace
acquaintances for such things...the invitees are no longer independent
actors, free to accept or refuse, without professional consequence,
invitations to events that should have been personal
(not-work-related) to begin with.
Userb3
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> People can decline the invitation to the shower if they feel they
> aren't close enough to the showeree to attend.
"Hmmm, I got invited to Sally from Accounting's baby shower. We're not
really all that close, but I DO see her every day at work, and she's always
there when all the girls go out for Thursday happy hour. I don't think I've
ever seen her husband, and wouldn't know her family if they moved next
door, so I don't want to go sit around with her nearest and dearest and
have to buy a baby gift. On the other hand, if I ignore the invitation,
she'll find out (and so will Jane from Human Resources, who organized the
thing), and it'll look like I don't like her. Oh hell, I guess I'll just
pony up and buy something and go. Sheesh."
kay w
Me(kay):
>>And that's very nice. However, according to Miss Manners, upon whose
>>guidance this newsgroup is based, a mother is showered for her first
>>child. Period.
>>After that, friends may have teas or other little parties for an
>>expectant mother, at which the bringing of gifts is optional for
>>attendees. However, because of the "stick-em-up" nature of a shower
>>invitation, each mother gets one, and only one, attended by her
>>closest friends and relatives.
Laura:
>The mother-to-be often doesn't know about the shower for a
>more-than-one child, the mother can't exactly walk out.
>
>I gave an example of RELATIVES who are invited to the shower where
>names are not known.
>
>People can decline the invitation to the shower if they feel they
>aren't close enough to the showeree to attend.
Not every RELATIVE is close enough to be invited to a baby shower,
even when written in all caps. People not close enough to attend
should never have been put in the position of having to decline.
And sure, the MTB sometimes gets a surprise "shower" and can't walk
out, even if the hostesses (in error, but with the best of intentions)
invite people she never even heard of, but see, this newsgroup isn't
about justifying the things people actually do, it's about Miss
Manners' take on what is appropriate and in line with the her
vision/version of the rules of etiquette.
Briar Rose
> I wrote:
>> We had a similar problem when I married -- we didn't know my cousin's
>> daughter's boyfriend's name. I called my aunt and asked her. If she
>> hadn't known, I would have called my cousin and asked the same
>> question.
>> It turned out to be a good thing we called -- they had recently broken
>> up (after being together for quite some time)!
> There is the struggle -- I don't have the phone numbers of my fiance's
> extended family, and they are dragging their feet on answering my
> questions and making the call.
Sounds stressful! Good luck.
meirman
current project is done. That's why I'm reading at 3 in the morning.
This is an easy one:
In alt.fan.miss-manners on 9 Mar 2005 07:02:57 -0800 "Laura"
<ivy...@gmail.com> posted:
>>Previously, and snipped:
>
>>Laura:
>
>>>I completely disagree with that statement.
>
>>What statement? You don't quote anything.
>
>Sorry hadn't realized that google groups didn't include the text above
>my reply as it appears on my screen. Have to manually cut and paste and
>add the > to quoted texts.
I don't read current Usenet through google, but check if you can't set
your preferences to do what you thought it was doing. Individual
preferences for webpages are becoming increasingly common.
...
>The same is true for friends. I have a close friend that I only see
>every few years (she lives about 1000 miles from me) and we are both
>busy so only catch up a couple times a year, but when we do catch up it
>is as if no time as passed and we are immediately back in sync. That's
>a great friendship in my opinion.
Good example. I have a friend that I spent time with almost every day
for the first 10 years of my life. Then we moved and I didn't see him
until we were 18. I was amazed at the time that we agreed on every
topic that came up, and it was like no time had passed to interfere.
Eventually our views diverged a little bit. When I moved to the east
coast, I saw him more often. Now, not very often at all. But he is
still one of the few people I would give a kidney to, etc. I think he
would do the same. (Easy to say since I have two good kidneys and he
probably does too, and we probably don't match anyhow.)
> When her husband finishes medical
>school she hopes to return to the area, in the meantime, even when she
>can't attend everything, she'd be very hurt to be excluded -- but by
>some definitions we should no longer be considered close. Closeness is
>individual and can't be stereotyped.
meirman
Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> posted:
>meirman wrote:
>
>> In alt.fan.miss-manners on Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:52:17 -0600 kay w
>> <scu...@aol.com> posted:
>>
>>
>>>Previously, and snipped:
>>>
>>>meirman:
>>>
>>>>Actually, I didn't object before, but people are just assuming that
>>>>knowing someone very well is a sine qua non of being invited to a
>>>>shower.
>>>
>>>An assumption? A shower, with its essentially "required" gift
>>>giving, is for *intimates* (closest friends and family members) of the
>>>MTB.
>>>If you've got Miss Manners (or Baldwin/Post/Vanderbilt) saying
>>>otherwise, I'd appreciate the reference, as I've always considered
>>>this an ironclad rule.
>>
>>
>> Do they really say one must "know the other person well", or do they
>> use language that is being interpreted that way?
>
> Miss Manners says:
>
>"It is unconscionable not to announce the birth of a baby to someone who
>has shown enough interest to attend a baby shower. Miss Manners can only
>assume that the mothers subscribe to the vulgar notion that written
>announcements are notices of presents due, and are skipping sending any
>to those who already gave. But unless the guest list was padded, it
>should have comprised the MOTHER'S CLOSE FRIENDS — and those should have
So she *doesn't* say "know the other person well". She says "close
friends", which is not the same as knowing the person well. There are
things** that bring people close to each other than knowing them well
(and certainly other than knowing their married name when they
normally use their maiden name.)
**More ideas: Donating an organ that saves someone's life; donating
bone marrow even, and saving someone else's life in other ways. I
would feel close to someone who saved my life or whose life I saved.
>been on the father's list of people to telephone or email within a day
>of the birth."
>
>I think she goes into more detail in her wedding book, but my copy
>took a hike so I can't check it.
>
>> Does the language they use exclude my other two suggested categories
>> of people to invite? Do you, how do you, exclude my other two
>> categores of people to invite?
>>
>> They were:
>> 1)
>>
>>>Being close to someone is another basis for an invitation, and there
>>>are a lot of ways people can become close. (They can share danger
>>>together, or share tragedy, or share problems. They can console each
>>>other, or one can console the other, even if they didn't know each
>>>other at the time of the danger, tragedy, problem. Etc.)
>>>....
>>
>> 2)
>>
>>>Knowing that she wants to be at one of your baby showers, and knowing
>>>that you want her there, is another basis for an invitation. Maybe it
>>>is the underlying basis of all worthwhile invitations.
>>
>>
>> You don't think these people should be invited?
>
> I think that when you get right down to it, a shower invitation
>is a gift solicitation. It should not be sent to anyone who might
>not be thrilled to receive such.
I agree. And maybe I wasn't clear, but I'm not saying that everyone
in my two categories should receive and invitation any more than I
thought you were saying that anyone who knew her very well should
receive an invitation.
> If you have a bunch of people who
>are iffy in that regard, don't have a shower. Have a tea/luncheon/
>dinner/bruch/whatever and you can invite anyone you want and have
>it hosted by anyone you want.
> It's not worth it to play semantics here. I do believe
>it to be within the realm of theoretical possibility that someone
>could have a close friend who doesn't know one's name. However,
>it doesn't pass the laugh test to suggest that such a thing would
>be common among people appropriately invited to a shower.
I didn't say it was common, and I have no idea how common it is. But
someone, probably not you (I don't keep track of these things) made it
an absolute no-no and that's when I got involved.
>Best wishes,
>Ericka
meirman
<scu...@aol.com> posted:
>Previously, and snipped:
>
>Me(kay):
>>>And that's very nice. However, according to Miss Manners, upon whose
>>>guidance this newsgroup is based, a mother is showered for her first
>>>child. Period.
>
>>>After that, friends may have teas or other little parties for an
>>>expectant mother, at which the bringing of gifts is optional for
>>>attendees. However, because of the "stick-em-up" nature of a shower
>>>invitation, each mother gets one, and only one, attended by her
>>>closest friends and relatives.
>
>Laura:
>>The mother-to-be often doesn't know about the shower for a
>>more-than-one child, the mother can't exactly walk out.
>>
>>I gave an example of RELATIVES who are invited to the shower where
>>names are not known.
>>
>>People can decline the invitation to the shower if they feel they
>>aren't close enough to the showeree to attend.
>
>
>Not every RELATIVE is close enough to be invited to a baby shower,
Laura never said that "every Relative"(caps or not) is close enough.
It was one or two people on the other side of this argument that said
that NO person who doesn't know the honoree's last name is close
enough to be invited. Laura only needs to show one example that
contradicts that to make her point, and mine.
She's not speaking in absolutes. Someone else was.
And she's not urging people to ignore Miss Manners's advice. She's
only giving the circumstances surrounding the example she gave. If
she gave an example with no circumstances, no details, it would be
hard to appreciate it.
>even when written in all caps. People not close enough to attend
>should never have been put in the position of having to decline.
Yes, I agree and we should avoid that if at all possible. But Laura's
purpose in posting was to give an example of someone who *was* close
enough to attend. She didn't generalize to *all* relatives or *all*
anything. I'm not at all saying you intended to create one, but "all*
relatives is a straw man, an issue raised that can be easily shot
down, but it's not something Laura raised.
>And sure, the MTB sometimes gets a surprise "shower" and can't walk
>out, even if the hostesses (in error, but with the best of intentions)
>invite people she never even heard of, but see, this newsgroup isn't
>about justifying the things people actually do, it's about Miss
Again, Laura was not trying to justify such showers. She was only
saying they exist, and are common in her circles, so her example was
not some incredible fluke that would never happen again.
>Manners' take on what is appropriate and in line with the her
>vision/version of the rules of etiquette.
It's not about disagreeing or agreeing with Miss Manners. It's about
an example of someone who didn't know the MTB's last name, but who was
without a doubt close enough to the MTB to be invited to the shower.
meirman
You and Kay raise several issues, and I'm sorry, but I just don't have
time tonight to reply to them. (It's already 4 A.M. ;( ) I replied
to some of the shorter posts whose answers were easier. Maybe by
Sunday I'll have time to give an adquate reply.
In alt.fan.miss-manners on Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:50:51 -0500 N Jill
Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> posted: