Random Queries, Vol. 8, Issue 12

Dear Etiquetteer: Here's new one on me! A couple we know, but are not that close to, got married this winter in a "destination" wedding - just them and a few family members and close friends flew to an exotic locale and had the wedding. We just got an invitation to a "celebration" of the event, to be held locally. How do we treat this? Like a wedding invitation? Are gifts expected? There's no mention of being registered anywhere on the invite. What is the proper thing to do? The couple has been off and on for several years, living together then splitting up, and back together, so they probably don't need housewares, etc. like a different set of newlyweds might.

I know 'destination weddings" are becoming more common, so perhaps others are in a similar clueless state as I about what those of us who weren't quite special enough to be invited to attend are to do afterwards!

Dear Destination Free:

How refreshing to hear about a wedding-related invitation that doesn't reference gifts! Since you weren't invited to the wedding ceremony itself, since this isn't a shower, and since you by your own admission you aren't that close to the Happy Couple, Etiquetteer wouldn't require you to bring or send a gift. That said, a Lovely Note of Congratulations should be sent to them whether or not you attend the party, and a Lovely Note of Thanks afterward if you do.

Dear Etiquetteer:

When one is referring to one's niece or nephew by marriage, does one say, "My niece/nephew," or "My husband's/wife's niece/nephew?"

Dear Auntie:

In the words of the immortal Claudia Caswell,* "Either one."

*If you don't know who Claudia Caswell is, Etiquetteer can only suggest you head over to the Copacabana School of Dramatic Arts. Perhaps you'll meet in passing.

Etiquetteer will be delighted to accept your questions about manners, morals, and Perfect Propriety at queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

Evening Clothes of a Gentleman, Vol. 8, Issue 10

Dear Etiquetteer: Please advise regarding the proper shoes with a tuxedo. My husband wears one often and wears plain black lace up shoes with it, but isn't it proper to wear a slip-on shoe with a tux? I saw a tuxedoed gentleman wearing a pair of black and white wingtips and heaven help me, husband thought it looked great. Since he wears a tux several times a year, I would be willing to invest in the proper shoes. Also, I assume black socks are appropriate? I just want him to be proper when he is wearing his tux.

Dear Wifely:

Good heavens! Unless your husband is appearing as the late Cab Calloway (may he rest in peace), black and white wingtips are exactly what NOT to wear with black tie. ("Black tie," by the way, is the Perfectly Proper way to say "tux.")

A dear friend of Etiquetteer's, whose late father was a model gentleman of Old New York, taught Etiquetteer that the most Perfectly Proper shoes for a gentleman to wear with black tie were black patent leather laceups. Plain black socks -- Etiquetteer prefers knee-high socks to avoid the Unseemly Exposure of Brawny Shins -- are most correct. You'd never know it, but a gentleman' evening clothes are supposed to keep him from standing out, not call attention to him.

That notion gets stood on its ear when "creative black tie" shows up on an invitation. This invites gentlemen to accessorize within the theme of the occasion. Usually gentlemen will slip into a colored waistcoat and tie, less often a colored shirt or socks. Sometimes a boutonniere so large it's really a corsage is added (certainly not in the best of taste on ordinary occasions), sometimes outrageous jewelry. Some examples Etiquetteer recalls:

• A red and white Hawaiian shirt worn open-necked with a tuxedo.
• Green velvet slip-ons with gold fox heads on them worn with a tuxedo.
• (From a photograph in the New York Times back in 2000): a white dinner jacket, white tux shirt and black tie, worn with a plaid sarong (severely pressed and folded for modesty) and flip flops.
• And at a nautical costume ball, a gentleman in black tie wearing a squid headdress. This doesn't seem so remarkable until one considers the tentacle protruding from his zipper and wrapped round his right thigh.

Indeed, if you looked in Etiquetteer's closet right now, you'd find a red Shantung silk vest whipped up for a ball several years ago with three rosettes: one to substitute for a bow tie, the other two for Etiquetteer's black patent leather laceups. If Etiquetteer had thought about it at the time, red sock might have been appropriate . . . but it might also have been too much of a good thing.

Equality in Workplace Coverage, Vol. 8, Issue 5

Dear Etiquetteer: I am constantly confronted with co-workers who feel like they get a pass on helping with special events, working late, or covering shifts because they have family obligations (kids). Meanwhile, I (the only queer) become the default go-to person. In my mind, their kids, wives, etc., are not my problem and irrelevant. Their lives are no more important than mine. Whether I go home to a house full of kids or a bar full of fun friends or some late night tricks, it is of no concern. 

My question is, how do you tactfully express that? Having a big diva tantrum isn't going to help the situation, but the breeders need to know that my life is just as important as theirs and we all need to either take turns or as a group cover the undesirable hours.

Dear Working Girlfriend:

First, let's cast this question in such a way that it's free of sexual orientation. Gay parents are far from unheard of in the workplace, and so are single straight people. And considering the after-work activities you mention, Etiquetteer is obliged to point out that licentiousness knows no distinctions.

Assuming that these special events and other shifts are scheduled in advance, Etiquetteer recommends that you make yourself unavailable first, before your other colleagues do. No need to say why (and in fact, it would be none of their business), but set an expectation that you are not automatically free to be the default cover. When Entitled Mommy or Entitled Daddy respond, "But I can't that night! I always have to pick up Precious Snowflake at day care" or something, apologize and say you're still not available and that your plans are unbreakable. Refrain from getting on edge with a snappy comeback like "Too bad, I have a [Insert Profane Expletive Here] life, too!" Professional colleagues always have knives. 

Data becomes your best back-up in such situations. When you can point out that, of an office of six people you've been responsible for over 75% of overtime coverage, everyone must recognize that a more equitable solution is needed.

You need to speak with your supervisor about availability, specifically that yours is NOT determined by the fact that you don't have family waiting at home. Ultimately these after-hours assignments are his or her responsibility and if further advance scheduling is needed to assure that coverage is fair, so be it.

Etiquetteer has a new e-mail address for all your questions about Perfect Propriety, queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com. Etiquetteer hopes to hear from you soon!

Random Correspondence Issues, Vol. 7, Issue 22

Dear Etiquetteer:I am putting together my wedding invitation wording and have hit a roadblock. As the bride, my parents are hosting the wedding. My mom, being the closet feminist that she is, does not want me to address them as "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith." I find this rather archaic myself, but what is the alternative while still using honorifics and not offending any one else? These are the options I have come up with: "Mr. And Mrs. Smith," "Mrs. Mary and Mr. John Smith," and "Mr. and Mrs. John and Mary Smith." Which one would be the most proper etiquette? Please help me! 

Dear Bride to Be: 

The honorific "Mrs." is used with Perfect Propriety only with the name of the husband, e.g. "Mrs. Stephen Haines." If your mother does not wish to be referred to as "Mrs. John Smith," then the form your wedding invitation should take is:

 Mr. John Smith and Ms. Mary Smith

request the honour of your presence

at the marriage of their daughter

Miss Perfectly Proper Smith

to Mr. Manley Firmness

Feminists everywhere claimed the honorific "Ms." in the 1970s, and it has only grown in acceptance since then. It's high time, in Etiquetteer's opinion, for your mother to come out of the closet.

 

Dear Etiquetteer:

I have recently gone through an interview, and sent both parties a thank-you note, via email. They mentioned they would be interviewing for the next 2-3 weeks. Since I have sent the thank-you notice, how long should I wait till I contact them again? How should I contact them, phone or email? How often should I attempt to contact them?Dear Interviewed:

Since you have already initiated correspondence with your interviewers via email, Etiquetteer suggests that you continue to correspond with them this way. So as not to appear impatient, you might wait to check in with your interviewer after 3.5 weeks have passed, making a gentle inquiry to see if you can provide additional information.

Etiquetteer wishes you well in your job search, and encourages you, after subsequent job interviews, to send a letter of thanks through the mail on crisp white stationery. It still makes a positive impression, and it also gives you more of an opportunity to proofread.

An Update on Etiquetteer, Vol. 7, Issue 20

Note: This is really more a blog entry than a column, but something must be said after this period of infrequent columns.   What, regular readers may have been asking, has happened to Etiquetteer? And where has Etiquetteer been, that weekly columns have not been posted with much, if any, regularity this year?   Frankly and candidly, Anno Domini 2008 has not been kind to Etiquetteer.  In spring, the Times of Southwest Louisiana cut Etiquetteer's monthly appearance in its pages as part of a much larger editorial reorganization. Etiquetteer does at least have to give the new staff kudos for communicating with Perfect Propriety as well as Perfect Promptness during a transition which could not have been easy for them.   In addition, the New England Blade cut Etiquetteer back from weekly to monthly publication and finally suspended its print operations altogether. For an organization in the communications business, their leaders find it impossible to keep their freelancers aware of changes at the paper. Indeed, Etiquetteer has yet to hear about the print suspension from anyone on the staff there!    Crippling as these blows were, they also sapped away Etiquetteer's weekly routine of filling a deadline. It takes 21 days to form a habit, they say, and only three to break it (or something like that, unless it's smoking).   Then something happened that made me wonder whether or not I have any business telling anyone how to behave. We have all met Mean Old People Who Will Only Be Happy In Death (And Maybe Not Even Then). Unfortunately one such lives near me; and at a neighborhood business meeting I totally lashed out at her in the presence of others, concluding "You are not going to be happy with anything!" Now you may be sure that I was not raised to make scenes in public, and that I was raised to respect my elders. But frankly, that's all this Mean Old Person was giving me to work with: longevity.  And it wasn't enough to keep me from making no better than that Mean Old Person.   So this has been a period of questioning for me, interrupted by a two-week vacation in Paris, France, where saying "Je regrette, je parle jusqu'un petit peu de français" paves the way for more understanding, or at least tolerance, from Parisians.  Negotiating a foreign capital with one handful of phrases and another of words was an interesting experience, and Etiquetteer Himself may have something to say about it at some point.   Whither Etiquetteer now? Having taken an unofficial sabbatical over the last several weeks, I'm going to take an official sabbatical now until the New Year. I may interrupt to post a column on Christmas in an Economic Downturn and Etiquetteer's Year in Review, but I may not. By January I should have sorted out what the next steps are for Etiquetteer.   I remain very grateful to all my readers, family, and friends for their support of and engagement in Etiquetteer's journey. It seems impossible to believe that the New Year will be Etiquetteer's sixth anniversary! My gratitude especially goes out to those I think of as "Team Etiquetteer:" Zane Kuchera, who designed this wonderful new Web site this year; Craig Hughes of Grailtech for technical support; Michael Willhoite for his delightful illustrations; Etiquetteer's Sweet Mother, JoAnn Dimmick, the best proofreader a boy who grew up reading Emily Post could ever have; Ann Rice, the eminence grise behind Etiquetteer; and Jim Lopata, who has opened doors for Etiquetteer in many ways.    So please continue your preparations for a Perfectly Proper Thanksgiving and Beyond! I look forward to hearing from you at query _at_ etiquetteer.com sometime. 

What to Wear to the Polls, Vol. 7, Issue 19

As if this year's political campaign weren't fraught with enough etiquette minefields as it is, now the state of Pennsylvania is involving itself in what voters can and cannot wear at the polls. Read all about it here.   At least this case doesn't involve visible undergarments -- at least not yet -- but it does highlight the junction of Free Speech, Undue Influence, and Perfect Propriety. At issue is whether or not voters may wear clothes, particularly T-shirts, promoting the Candidate of Their Choice.   Why, one might ask, is this so important?  Because polling places, within a legally mandated radius, are intended to be neutral spaces. In other words, nothing within them should be thought to sway a voter toward one candidate over the other. This is why one sees a ring of signs or volunteers around a certain point at a polling place, but not within it. And Etiquetteer has not been shy about chastising overeager campaign volunteers clustering too close!  Etiquetteer believes the need for neutrality in a polling place deserves respect from partisan voters, but not so much that all candidate identification needs to be suppressed.  After careful thought, Etiquetteer is ready to draw the line of Perfect Propriety at the wearing of buttons and ribbons, but not T-shirts or other printed clothing. In other words, accessories are OK, but not clothes. Etiquetteer freely admits that part of this decision comes from a desire to see more citizens show respect for this Important Civic Function by dressing up to vote. Ninety percent of men, and all gentlemen, look better in a suit and tie anyway, and there's no reason American ladies can't appear in something better than blue jeans and hoodies.  Partisan exhibitionists can bring their candidate gear in a backpack to change into after voting if they must.  

Honoring the Deceased, Vol. 7, Issue 16

Etiquetteer has to attend a funeral tomorrow. And Etiquetteer will be wearing a light blue seersucker suit with a very bright-colored bow tie and white bucks.  All with Perfect Propriety. How, readers might ask, is this possible? All the world knows that Etiquetteer only permits plain black at a funeral. And indeed, in the (hopefully) distant year when Etiquetteer is called by Divine Providence to a Just Reward, Etiquetteer will expect everyone to appear at the memorial service in black relieved only by faint touches of white and perhaps violets. (The combination of black and purple symbolizes triumph over Death, which Etiquetteer learned reading the biography of that outrageous, addled Muse of the Modern, the Marchesa Luisa di Casati, Infinite Variety.)

So how on earth can Etiquetteer permit himself to appear Improperly dressed at something as important as a funeral? Because something more important has come into play: the wish of the deceased.Now admittedly there's a risk of showing up in black at a funeral these days anyway; a lady might be mistaken for a bridesmaid.  But in this case the deceased made his wishes very clear in advance that no black was to be worn at the funeral or the after-party. (Please note the substitution of "after-party" for "wake.") And not to honor such a request would show disrespect. Under these particular circumstances, gentlemen who own only dark suits can compromise by wearing very bright ties.

Now don't be mistaken. Etiquetteer always casts a weather eye on monkeying with tradition, although requests that were considered outrageous decades ago now seem to be accommodated easily. When Alice de Janzé, one of the Earl of Erroll's many lovers, finally committed suicide successfully in 1941, she asked her friends to hold a cocktail party at her grave.  Etiquetteer assumes that dear Alice's wish was not fulfilled, but these days others might take it up willingly (pending cemetery regulations).

Burying someone in her favorite nightgown should be taken care of with no concern for the proprieties. Burying someone in his or her favorite automobile, on the other, is taking things a bit too far.

 And speaking of what to wear, the Flint (Michigan) police department is now cracking down on saggy pants. The Lansing State Journal reported last month that Police Chief David Dicks considers this a "national nuisance" and has set forth a series of punishments depending on the degree or flesh and underwear exposed. Read all about it here:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/NEWS01/807090359 

While Etiquetteer certainly can't consider this (now happily outdated) fashion trend "immoral self expression," it's Perfectly Improper and should be stopped. But a better solution might just be to depants them all in front of their parents.

 

Don't Mess With the National Anthem, Vol. 7, Issue 15

Americans have just celebrated Independence Day, which leads Etiquetteer, albeit belatedly, to issue the annual call to include the singing of the National Anthem at the Religious Service of Your Choice closest to the Fourth of July. Because the United States of America remains a country that offers Freedom of Religion, Etiquetteer continues to believe that including the National Anthem (which has been "The Star-Spangled Banner" by Act of Congress since March 3, 1931) is a necessary Gesture of Gratitude for the said. Peacemongers who would banish it because they reject images of war in a House of Worship have no recourse but to sing "America the Beautiful" afterward AND to lobby Congress to change the National Anthem.  And if you don't like that, as Etiquetteer has suggested before, you may close your eyes and think of England.

 With strongly held feelings like that, readers will not be surprised at Etiquetteer's outrage over Colorado singer Rene Marie's liberties with the National Anthem last week. Invited by the mayor of Denver to sing the National Anthem at his annual State of the City address, Ms. Marie substituted the lyrics of "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" instead, generally acknowledged to be the "black" national anthem. If Ms. Marie insists on singing her own version of the National Anthem, she may do so at her own concerts, not when invited by a civic body to open a public forum. Etiquetteer is inclined to agree with Denver major John Hickenlooper, who was quoted in the Los Angeles Times saying "We all respect artistic license and support freedom of expression. But in a tradition-laden civic ceremony . . . making a personal substitution for the national anthem was not an option. We asked for 'The Star-Spangled Banner' and that's what we expected." 

The Los Angeles Times has covered the story here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-anthem4-2008jul04,0,1711041.story 

At least Ms. Marie didn't grab her crotch the way crass and inexplicably popular comedienne Roseanne Barr did in 1990 when invited to sing the National Anthem  at a San Diego baseball game.

 

Summer Clothes, Vol. 7, Issue 13

Dear Etiquetteer:

I recently received a wedding invitation that indicated the attire to be "Black Tie Optional.”  I was planning on wearing a black silk charmeuse dress with champagne satin accents. The dress, however, is not floor length, but mid-calf. Is this acceptable for an evening, "Black Tie Optional" wedding? And further, should my husband wear a tuxedo, or will a dark grey pinstriped suit suffice? Any guidance on being Perfectly Proper would be appreciated!

Dear Charmeuse:

Etiquetteer deplores the designation “black tie optional.” It’s neither fish nor fowl. One should either dress all the way or not. Since it is always a greater sin to be overdressed than underdressed, Etiquetteer must insist that your husband wear a dark suit and NOT a tuxedo.

As for you, Etiquetteer warns that these days if you wear black to a wedding you’re likely to be mistaken for one of the bridesmaids. Nevertheless, a mid-calf or “tea length” dress is Perfectly Proper for such a wedding as you describe.

Dear Etiquetteer:

I have a blue seersucker suit, but am confused as to what shoes to wear with it.  I have a pair of slip-on light brown loafers with tassel.  Will this work, or am I just plain tacky?

Dear Seared:

Etiquetteer rejoiced a couple weeks ago when the time came to bring out his own blue seersucker suit for the summer. Many kind people have commented on it, to which Etiquetteer usually replies that they, too, have the power to wear seersucker.

The most Perfectly Proper shoe to wear with a seersucker suit is a pair of white bucks. But of course that’s only Perfectly Proper between Memorial Day and Labor Day. When wearing your seersucker on more casual occasions, Etiquetteer has no objection to tassel loafers . . . but expects some Nantucket red-wearing readers to object strenuously.

Invitations and Wedding Matters, Vol. 7, Issue 10

Dear Etiquetteer: I’ve been invited to a brunch from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM. What’s an appropriate time to arrive? Dear Invited:When to arrive at any type of party seems to baffle many people, so Etiquetteer thanks you for the opportunity to present a few examples: When you’re invited to a brunch that goes from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM, arrive at 11:00 AM.  When you’re invited to a dinner party for 8:00 PM, arrive at 8:00 PM.  When you’re invited to an evening party and the invitation says 9:00 PM, arrive at 9:00 PM. If you and a friend decide to meet for drinks at 6:00 PM, meet at 6:00 PM. Are you picking up a trend here? Etiquetteer certainly hopes so, because it should be perfectly obvious that you arrive at a party when the party starts. “Fashionable lateness” is a fraud perpetuated by the Lazy and the Perpetually Tardy. Etiquetteer has long said that “For Maximum Fun Potential, arrive punctually.”This also keeps your hosts from fretting that no one will ever get there.Every rule has its exceptions, of course: When you are invited to a church wedding, you may arrive up to half an hour early for the music. Do NOT expect to be seated after the procession has started!  Any time “ish” is added to an invitation, add 15 minutes. If a friend says “Let’s get together about six-ish,” you can show up any time between 6:00 and 6:15. 6:30 is pushing it, and 6:45 is downright rude.  “Open house” invitations mean you can arrive any time during the party and remain Perfectly Proper. Indeed, Etiquetteer just attended a lovely open house that went from 2:00 – 9:00 PM one Saturday. People came and went throughout and the hosts received them happily whenever they appeared. (Etiquetteer cannot assume that you brunch invitation was an “open house” since you don’t use those words.)  Oddly enough, the occasion when promptness is most important is not for a party at someone’s home, but when one is dining with a large party in a restaurant that will only seat complete parties. Dear Etiquetteer:I’m getting married soon, and want to know if it’s OK to include a link to our gift registry on our wedding website. So many people ask it seems like it will be easier. Dear Bride to Be:It depends on how greedy you want to appear. If you don’t mind at all that people will think you are a grasping, selfish young lady who is only inviting people to her wedding because of the gifts she expects to receive, then by all means, post a link.Please forgive Etiquetteer’s Moment of Temper. You are very correct that a large number of guests at any wedding will ask about what a couple might want as a gift. But not everyone does, far from it. Create a registry page, by all means, but don’t provide a link to it from your wedding home page. When your guests ask you or your mother (these questions still frequently come to the bride’s mother), e-mail them the link to the registry. In this way, Perfect Propriety is preserved.And if your mother doesn’t have e-mail (still a possibility) she can go back to the old-fashioned way and tell the querents “Oh, they’re registered at [Insert Name of Retailer Here]. Just ask for the list.” Dear Etiquetteer:What should I wear to a wedding in April?Dear Guest Appearance:Regardless of the time of year, take your cues from the invitation. For an evening wedding, if it says “black tie” or one of its many tiresome variations such as “festive black tie” or “creative black tie,” then a tuxedo for the gentleman and a long gown for the lady is most Perfectly Proper.Assuming that you are invited to a wedding that begins before 5:00 PM, gentlemen would wear dark business suits and ladies could wear day dresses or suits. Etiquetteer immediately thinks of those nubbly wool Chanel suits of the early 1960s. Add a hat, and Etiquetteer will love you forever. If April in your region is cold, this is also the time to get out your fur piece. Etiquetteer remembers Edith Wharton’s amusing description of “all the old ladies of both families” at Newland Archer’s wedding to May Welland. The wedding was in earliest April, and the ladies in question had all dug out their grandmother’s fur pelisses, scarves, tippets, and muffs for the occasion . . . so much so that Newland Archer noticed the smell of camphor over the wedding flowers.

Summer House Guests, Vol. 7, Issue 9

Dear Etiquetteer: Now that spring is here the dread of summer is nearly upon me. Why dread you ask?  It's the awkwardness of addressing the expectations of vacation guests. My family has a wonderful home by the shore that we like to share with friends and extended family, inviting them down for a few days and sometimes more. Since the house is shared by now two going on three generations summer weeks are at a premium. We do make an effort to show our friends a good time and every getaway has been problem-free. However, this seems to spark the dilemma. Once friends have visited with us once there's an expectation that they can join us again and again. Starting this season I'll get the inquiry calls, "So, I need to schedule my time off at work. I was thinking second week of August for our vacation."  The feared "our."  One friend was even so bold last July as to want to leave her cardigan behind so it awaits her for this summer!  I do enjoy spending time with dear friends but would like some of our precious vacation time just to ourselves. It's also nice to mix it up a little too, to spread the joy with other friends so to speak. How does one handle these sticky situations with grace?Dear Hijacked Hostess:Etiquetteer understands and sympathizes with you completely. When guests begin to treat generous hospitality as a right rather than a gift, it’s a sign that the hospitality must be withdrawn. But Etiquetteer also understands how that feeling can be encouraged. The phrase “Oh come anytime, we’d love to have you” has much more of an impact on the recipient that you can imagine. And Etiquetteer has learned from hard-won experience not to use it any more. What is that old phrase, “You can’t appreciate what you have until it’s gone”? This year Etiquetteer thinks you should not invite anyone at all to join you at your family’s summer retreat. It’s time for your summer guests to realize that, as guests, they don’t call the shots or set the dates. You don’t OWE them a vacation house! While you might be tempted to invite just one, or maybe even two, friends to join you, Etiquetteer does not recommend this. Take this one summer for your family to enjoy in splendid, blissful solitude. Next year, if your friends seem appropriate chastened, you might resume your summer invitations.

Mourning Clothes, Vol. 7, Issue 8

Dear Etiquetteer: I am puzzled at funeral fashions these days. Whatever happened to tasteful subdued dignified attire for funerals? I behold now the advent of funeral “flair” with a combination of puzzlement and dread. Dear Mourning: Like you, Etiquetteer is sometimes puzzled by what passes at funerals and memorial services these days. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to understand the original color code of mourning clothes, from deep mourning (all black with no ornamentation) to half mourning (black, white, gray, purple, brown, and sometimes green). These days a lady wearing black is more likely to be mistaken for a bridesmaid than a widow! Appearing all in black now is more likely to initiate the Question of Humorous Intent “Who died?” Humor is seen fleeing the room when the deceased is identified. Etiquetteer’s point is that mourning clothes are supposed to prevent stupid questions, not prompt them.Etiquetteer blames this Sad State of Affairs on Sally Kellerman, whose character in the 1980 sex comedy Serial wore white, with ostentatious spirituality, to a memorial service. (Actually, Etiquetteer really blames Coco Chanel, who famously designed the Little Black Dress after her lover Boy Capel was killed in a plane crash).These days Etiquetteer feels fortunate if everyone attending a funeral shows up neatly dressed without athletic shoes/clothes and without denim. One should be somberly dressed: no skin visible from neck to knees, no ostentatious bling (that’s redundant but Etiquetteer really wanted to make the point), nothing that looks fussy. And it seems necessary now to point out that one's shoes should be CLEAN!What one does see more of these days is mourning buttons or T shirts with the picture of the deceased on them. You may be surprised to find out that Etiquettteer rather likes this custom. It hearkens to the mourning ribbons and badges that used to be handed out when presidents were assassinated. Some beautiful examples from Abraham Lincoln’s funeral observances may be found at the Gilder Lehrman Institute for American History at http://www.gilderlehrman.org/collection/docs_archive/docs_archive_lincoln.html Last week Etiquetteer saw in the press a bolder example of the memorial T-shirt. At the sentencing of convicted murderer Daniel Tavares, the families of his victims, Beverly and Brian Mauck, all wore T-shirts with pictures of the deceased underneath the legend “Among the Angels.” Obviously this was not a funeral, but Etiquetteer was moved by this visible call for justice. To some, however, such attire might not be appropriate in a court of law. What do you think, readers? Please share your opinion at query (at) etiquetteer.com.In case you needed more proof that “low riders” are not Perfectly Proper, seacoastonline.com reported February 21 that a young woman was tossed off a bus because the driver could see her, ahem, rear cleavage – enough of it that he was offended. The young woman in question gave her address as a homeless shelter, and appears to have been in and out of trouble with the law over the last few months. Now if Etiquetteer was going to be flippant (which is easy to do) he would declare that it’s a good thing the look of the early 1960s is coming back and why isn’t Grace Kelly her role model anyway. But it seems clear that this young woman is what is called “acting out,” seeking negative attention. Apparently she is being helped by a mental health center in her area. So without flippancy, Etiquetteer can only turn to the title of that Victorian tearjerker “She Is More to Be Pitied Than Censured,” and hope that she will choose Perfect Propriety for her lot in the future. Have you had enough of that revolting troll checking you out in the locker room? Feel like a prude but just don’t want someone’s, uh, business in your face while you’re dressing? Sick and tired of workout benches glistening with the sweat of another? Etiquetteer is preparing a simple guideline for a future issue on Perfect Propriety at the Gym and is eager to hear from you at query (at) etiquetteer.com.

George Washington's Perfect Propriety, Vol. 7, Issue 6

When most people think of George Washington, the Father of Our Country, they think of the story of him cutting down the cherry tree and then confessing to his father “I cannot tell a lie. I did it with my little hatchet.” Ironically, this story of the First President’s unshakeable honesty has turned out to be a complete fabrication by an author named Mason Lock Weems. More on this story may be found here.

 Certainly it is a cautionary tale to approach all political biographies with a shaker of salt.What most people do not realize is that George Washington Himself wrote an etiquette book at the not-as-tender-as-it-is-now* age of 14. George Washington’s Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation puts forward no fewer than 110 instructions for Perfect Propriety. Etiquetteer doubts that Washington ever intended them to be published – it appears he copied them from another book – and yet what he chose to copy must represent what he felt was most important in the behavior of a gentleman. Several of these instructions no longer apply, for instance 27th: “Tis ill manners to bid one more eminent than yourself be covered as well as not to do it to whom it’s due . . .” or 57th: “In walking up and down in a house, only with one in company if he be greater than yourself, at the first give him give him the right hand and stop not till he does . . .” Issues of precedence like these make Etiquetteer awfully glad that Washington won the war.

Still, Etiquetteer wishes that more citizens than just churchgoing African-American ladies, for instance, would keep alive the tradition of Perfect Proper Hats and How to Wear Them. But many of Washington’s maxims remain fresh and accurate, especially those concerning table manners and what used to be referred to as “deportment,” the way one presents oneself in public. It’s sort of sad when you think that Americans still have to be told not to talk with their mouths full (98th and 107th) or to take only one bite at a time (97th). But Washington put these forward as essential table manners, and much more. At least now we don’t have to worry about anyone cleaning their teeth with the tablecloth (100th). In public 18th now applies to electronic devices as well as anything on paper: “Read no letters, books, or papers in company; but when there is a necessiry for the doing of it, you must ask leave. (Emphases Etiquetteer’s.) And while the grunge look of the 1990s seems at last to be over, too many people could heed 51st: “Wear not your clothes foul, ripped, or dusty . . .” as well as 52nd: “In your apparel be modest and endeavor to accommodate nature,” which Etiquetteer translates as “No one wants to see your underwear.” But Etiquetteer has to Wag an Admonitory Digit at That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much over 24th: “Do not laugh too much or too loud in public.” 

Reviewing all 110 of Washington’s instructions (which Etiquetteer hopes you will do) one sees that he felt it important to make a good impression on others by showing them respect and consideration. One did this through taking pride and care in one’s appearance, paying attention to the feelings of others regardless of rank, and personal modesty. In other words, Washington sought to shape his behavior with self-control. And speaking of shape, Etiquetteer doesn’t like to think of etiquette as a corset so much as a girdle. The first deforms the figure, restricts one’s movement, squeezes the internal organs, and leads to all sorts of debilitating health problems. A girdle, on the other hand, may be tight, but it molds one’s figure into something more pleasing without disguising one’s true self. So let us all use Washington as our guide and “ . . . bedew no man’s face with your spittle by approaching too near him when you speak.” 

*What Etiquetteer means by this is that one had to behave like a grown-up much sooner than one does now. Alas, many Americans now put off behaving like adults until they are old enough to earn graduate degrees.

Reader Response, Vol. 7, Issue 5

Etiquetteer was gratified that several readers leapt to his defense after reading about Etiquetteer's experience wearing a yarmulke at a Jewish funeral while not actually Jewish himself:  From a child of a mixed-faith household:  It is always proper and a sign of respect to wear a kippah (yarmulke) at a Jewish funeral home, or in Temple or at a Rabbi's home even if one isn't Jewish. My dad, who converted when he was 70, always wore a kippah in Temple when we would go for a funeral or a Bat Mitzva or Bar Mitzva or wedding. It is customary to offer one to every gentleman to wear so that they can cover their head out of respect. What was out of line wasn't that you were wearing one (which was very nice of you to do) it was the disrespect of the two drug users in question who were also in attendance. That really was shameful behavior!    From a Jewish lady:  My husband and I were distressed by at the ignorance and stupidity of people who questioned your right to wear a yamulke ( kippa in Hebrew). It is considered correct religious etiquette to cover your head during a Jewish religious event, be it a Sabbath service, wedding,funeral, or Brit Milah (circumsion ceremony). As someone who is not Jewish, you would not be expected nor permitted to wear a prayer shawl, a tallit during a worship service. So please do not let the rude remarks concerning your head covering prevent you from applying the kippa to your head again if you find yourself in a Jewish religious setting.   From a well-known on-line journaller, photographer, and actress who knows Randy Newman:  I respectfully disagree with something in your last column, about non-Jews wearing yarmulkes at Jewish ceremonies.  Just as one removes one's shoes in a mosque no matter what one's religion, and women used to cover their heads in Catholic churches no matter what their religion, if you are in a temple and you are a man, you wear a yarmulke.  Now, I notice that this was not in temple but in a Jewish funeral home, but I would imagine that the rule would still apply, proper respect requires the wearing of the yarmulke.  The laughers were, of course, morons.     After such a brisk and chivalrous response, Etiquetteer did a little checking for "chapter and verse." Happily, a wonderful resource bore out the correct instructions of Etiquetteer's readers: How to Be a Perfect Stranger: A Guide to Etiquette in Other People's Religious Ceremonies, edited by Arthur J. Magida. And indeed, the yarmulke is required of all men attending a Jewish service.

Summer, Vol. 1, Issue 6

Dear Etiquetteer:

Is it inappropriate for a male to simply walk down the street shirtless?  There are universally accepted situations in which this is appropriate (e.g., the beach, basketball, volleyball or any infinite number of other sports, going out running/jogging), but is it appropriate -- even on a hot, humid day -- just to walk through Harvard Square barechested, regardless of physique?

Dear “I’m So Beautiful Everyone Wants to Look at Me:”

Etiquetteer cordially invites you to get over yourself. It is inappropriate for a gentleman to walk down the street shirtless.  Sadly to Etiquetteer, not all men understand that they are supposed to be gentlemen -- especially men who’ve spent all winter at the gym pumping, pumping, pumping, and don’t care about anything but preening and posing before the world. They are wrong. They must be educated that the sight of their torsos on the public streets, whether fit or flabby, pierced or pristine, is inappropriate. Stop it at once, or Etiquetteer, wearing a flawlessly cut seersucker suit to deflect the rays of the sun, will handcuff you to a haberdasher. 

Dear Etiquetteer:

July 4th is almost here, and I am trying to prepare for a situation that came up at our church before, namely playing “The Star-Spangled Banner” during the church service. This song glorifies images of war and violence, which do not have a place in a house of worship. Several of us in the congregation would prefer “America the Beautiful” instead, which celebrates the natural beauty of our country. Nobody’s come to blows over this, but opinions are sharply divided. 

Dear Musical Militant:

Etiquetteer would like to remind you that the United States of America permits freedom of religion, a freedom not enjoyed by millions of people around the world. Etiquetteer considers it a necessary gesture of gratitude for churchgoers to include the national anthem in services near Independence Day, whether that national anthem is “The Star-Spangled Banner,” “America the Beautiful,” or “Old McDonald Had a Farm.” Until such a time as legislation changes the national anthem to another song, you’re stuck with the rockets' red glare and the bombs bursting in air.

That said, Etiquetteer sees nothing wrong with following the national anthem with “America the Beautiful,” which ought to accommodate everyone. And if you don’t wish to sing “The Star-Spangled Banner,” just close your eyes and think of England.

Dear Etiquetteer:

As we rapidly approach the first anniversary of the September 11 tragedy, I must ask how one should deal with one’s neighbors who insist on hanging their American flag out of their window like a musty bed sheet? I don’t want to be too harsh, and have subscribed to the principle that discretion is the better part of valor, up to this point, fearing that they may have lost a loved one or colleague in the attacks. We, as a nation, desperately need a refresher on proper flag etiquette and the proper place for flags, poles, and bunting. We look to the Etiquetteer for guidance.

Dear Flagwaver:

Since we are even more rapidly approaching another date on which Our Flag is displayed prominently, Independence Day, this is an appropriate time to discuss How to Wave Your Flag. First of all, you appear to be mistaking your neighbor’s flag for a matador’s cape. It’s important to see the white and blue as well as the red. Deal with this by displaying your own flag, using one of those handy brackets from the hardware store to affix it to your front door or window. This appears neither more nor less proper than the way you describe your neighbor’s display, as long as you both keep the flag from touching the ground, and take it in at night unless it’s directly lit. Indeed, Etiquetteer has seen several households hang the flag inside their front windows, although it does give a more collegiate appearance.

As you continue to observe the less-than-Martha-quality flag next door, Etiquetteer encourages you to reflect on the nature of freedom.

Food and Restaurants, Vol. 1, Issue 2

Dear Etiquetteer: 

Exactly how do you eat an artichoke? 

Dear Artie: 

The soignée second wife of a high school friend of Etiquetteer’s parents (how’s that for six degrees of separation?) once described the artichoke as the perfect conversation food. Mostly, Etiquetteer suspects, because there’s no way you can rush through it. 

Your basic steamed artichoke, as served by the soignee second wife, is served individually with a small dish of sauce (The New York Times Cookbook recommends hollandaise or mousseline sauce or plain melted butter) and a larger dish for the discarded leaves. Delicately pluck one artichoke leaf at a time, dip it into the sauce, and scrape the meat off the bottom of the leaf with your teeth, closing your lips over your teeth; then discard the leaf daintily into the bowl. When you can look into the heart of the artichoke, you may drink your Margo Channing memorial martini. (By then it should be time for the soup course.) Throughout this joyous ritual, please refrain from showy gestures of the hands. Let your conversation distinguish you! Nobody wants to look at your scraped-up leaves too closely anyway. 

And speaking of wives, Frank Case of the Algonquin Hotel took his fun-loving first wife to a fancy restaurant in Manhattan, where she asked for an artichoke, since she’d never eaten one. They were very expensive then, and it was all he could afford to feed her. “‘I’m glad we had these,’ she said happily, when she had finished scraping away at the bristly delicacy. ‘Now I know one thing I don’t want any of when we get rich.’” Let this be a lesson to you, O Seeker of Artichokes. 

[This charming anecdote from Margaret Case Harriman’s Blessed Are the Debonair, used without permission. Rush off to your local library for a copy at once; it’s a wonderful read.] 

Dear Etiquetteer: 

I was just brunching with a friend at a nice restaurant, and I had to ask: "Can I eat bacon with my fingers"? He said that, yes, it was permitted according to his source and that, in fact, it was also permitted to eat asparagus with ones fingers (and I've also heard that fried chicken is OK). Who knew! 

Dear Handy:

Well, Etiquetteer did, but he credits that to a Southern upbringing. Yankees eat fried chicken with their fingers only at picnics, not at the dinner table. While technically proper to eat asparagus with the fingers, Etiquetteer advises caution. Badly prepared asparagus can appear both limp and stringy, not conducive to being eaten with the fingers. Etiquetteer has been reduced to looking like a complete fool by pulpy asparagus. Proceed at your peril. 

Dear Etiquetteer:

Here's my dilemma. I was recently having dinner at a nice restaurant with three friends. One of my friends had a cell phone and received a call just as we were starting our cocktails. My friend talked on his phone for about a minute and I felt quite annoyed. About half an hour later, while we were enjoying our meals, he received another call and proceeded to talk for almost five minutes. When this call finished I felt extremely annoyed and asked him to switch his phone off so that we could have a peaceful dinner. He did agree to switch the phone off but he seemed annoyed that I had asked him to do this. 

How should I have handled this situation? 

Dear Concerned: 

It doesn’t matter how “nice” the restaurant is, it isn’t the right place for a cell phone. Indeed, Etiquetteer once went to a restaurant where the menu stated “Cell phones will be confiscated and destroyed.” Etiquetteer hopes they had the courage to enforce it when necessary. 

You acted admirably in rebuking your friend in a non-confrontational way, but Etiquetteer would think twice before dining out with him/her again. Clearly he or she prefers to be with other people. 

Dear Etiquetteer: 

I just got back from vacation in Vegas and LA and I have a question about tipping. Who? Obviously waitstaff and cab drivers, but at bigger hotels there are all kinds of other people who do stuff for you and I'm not sure about the policy. I had a bellboy fetch me a FedEx envelope and I tipped him; was it expected? 

How much? I always tip 20% at restaurants, but usually only give a cab driver a dollar or so. Do cabbies get a percentage? I was told that bellhops get a "buck a bag" is this correct? Same for skycaps? 

Your advice on this matter would be most appreciated. 

Dear Tippi: 

Etiquetteer deplores tipping. It ill becomes a free people created equal to rely on this 18th-century system of income. But like another flawed financial system, Social Security, it’s here to stay and there is precious little we can do about it -- especially since so many of these free people created equal can’t wait to get tipped. 

You are correct that bellboys and skycaps are tipped a dollar a bag, but not a dollar per FedEx envelope. A tip of $1.00 is sufficient on those occasions when a hotel staff member has to run an errand to your room. Don’t forget the housemaid who has to clean around your sodden towels and empty beer bottles! She gets $1.00 per day. It’s a nice touch to leave her tip in an envelope, so it isn’t confused with your collection of crumpled singles. And permit Etiquetteer to encourage you to start carrying those Sacajawea golden dollars for speedy tipping -- saves you the hassle of having to fish out your wallet while the man stands there waiting. 

Etiquetteer tips cabbies ten percent, but no less than $1.00. As to restaurants, Etiquetteer tips 15%. Don’t let the waiter tell you 20% to keep up with inflation. The reason a tip is a percentage in the first place is to keep up with inflation. 

Etiquetteer, by the way, is unafraid and unashamed not to tip or to tip below the standard if the service is unacceptable. If the waiter hands you a cold entree and a 20-minute wait for the check, if the cabbie has no clue where you’re going and no control over his temper or his radio, you are within your rights to make your displeasure known through the size of the tip you leave (or don’t). 

Dear Etiquetteer: 

Nashville, Tennessee, has a restaurant with a problem I've never encountered before. This is a popular chain restaurant - rather upscale - where there is a really bad server. On one occasion, this woman subtracted her tip from the change and vanished off the earth. On leaving, the manager cheerily asked if we enjoyed our meal. Not being shy I replied that I was irritated with this action; furthermore, if the woman had been smart, she would have let me put down the tip since I always leave at least 20% and she had taken only 10%. Another time, I was there with a companion for coffee. The tab came to $7. My friend put down a $20 and got $3 change! We had to wait a goodly time for another server to find her. She denied getting the twenty; however, we both stood our ground so when she pulled out her money there was one lone twenty in the stack! When one speaks to management about this, both times the man wanted to call her to the lobby and confront her. We did not desire to make a scene as we felt it was no longer our problem. Now, when asked where to be seated, we say anywhere except Jennifer's table! Another server says that they won't fire her because her husband is the head chef!

This is a very popular neighorhood spot and we are all at a loss as to what to do about the problem. We feel that newcomers to the restaurant should be protected as well but we hate to act so ugly. Any ideas? 

Dear Outraged: 

Goodness! Restaurant nepotism; this could almost be the first Adams Administration . . . 

Etiquetteer enjoins you from blowing a gasket over this unscrupulous waitress. (Etiquetteer doesn’t care for the term “server;” an editor friend of Etiquetteer’s once memorably said “There are two sexes, and you are expected to know the difference.” “Waiter” or “waitress” at least sound less robotic.) 

You are correct to avoid a confrontation, whether it’s overseen by the manager or not. Etiquetteer is unsure of just what you mean by protecting newcomers, short of handing out fliers in front of the restaurant like embittered picketers. This unpleasant issue needn’t consume that much energy. Continue to sit at any table but hers. If you feel the situation is not getting any better, your only option is to protest with your dollars, dine elsewhere, and let the manager know why.