Business Dinner Etiquette Part I, Vol. 8, Issue 14

When you're dining out with colleagues, clients, or volunteers for business, it's the business that's more important, not the dinner. A successful business dinner in North America -- or at least a business dinner which is pleasanter and more focused -- can depend on how distracted you or others are by your food or other stimuli. Herewith, Etiquetteer's Eight Tips for Business Dinners:

1. First and foremost, your electronic devices have not been invited. Tweets, beeps, and dings from your iPhone, Blackberry, etc., will distract you and your colleague from the purpose of your dinner. Unless you're expecting information pertinent to your discussion, turn them off and keep them in your purse or pocket.

2. That said, at a business dinner it's sometimes necessary to have papers on the table or to take notes on a PDA. Try to do so as unobtrusively as possible.

3. Don't order difficult or messy food. The  more you have to pay attention to what's on your plate and how to get it into your mouth without making a mess, the less attention you have to pay to your colleague. French onion soup, stringy pasta, chicken or fish with lots of bones, etc. have been known to defeat experts. Etiquetteer was once defeated by a cherry tomato in a salad! Too round and glossy for a fork tine to penetrate, Etiquetteer chased it all over the salad plate, only to be rewarded with a shot of tomato guts on his white shirt. A Pyrrhic victory, to be sure.

3a. A quick pasta tutorial: spaghetti, linguine, angel hair, and vermicelli are stringy and troublesome. Gnocchi, tortellini, ziti, farfalle, and orzo pastas are more diner-friendly.

4. Don't be difficult about your food. Oddly enough, the central purpose of a business dinner isn't dinner; it's business! If you have more than two questions for the waiter, or need to be extra-precise with instructions, again, you're distracting from your real reason for meeting with your colleague. Keep your order simple. Allergies in many restaurants can be accommodated by telling your waiter "Please, no [Insert Foodstuff To Which You Are Allergic Here], I have a fatal allergy."

5. Don't take a long time to decide. For goodness sake, it's just food! If you end up not liking your dinner, you can always snack on something later at home, or call room service. Thinking people will even arrive at the restaurant knowing what they want to order, having checked the menu online in advance. Etiquetteer highly recommends this procedure.

6. Don't bury your face in your plate. Sometimes even simple food drags us completely into our dinner plates. Don't forget to look up and remain engaged with your colleague with eye contact. During one business meeting in which Etiquetteer was mentally drifting away, a colleague quickly called him back to attention by using his name in a sentence. Trust Etiquetteer, this is effective!

7. All the usual table manners apply: don't talk with your mouth full, no elbows on the table, don't gesture with your silverware, don't put used silverware on the tablecloth, etc.

8. Many people have been taught that it's rude to talk about the food. These days it's polite to ask a dining companion in a restaurant how they like their dinner, but it needn't become your central topic of conversation.

More on this subject again soon!

Please send all your etiquette questions to Etiquetteer at queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

Debating a Fanatic, Vol. 7, Issue 16

This morning Etiquetteer was drifting casually through his archives and found this query from last year's election cycle that somehow didn't make it into print. So here it is now: Dear Etiquetteer:

We're in an election year, and I'm hearing a lot of rhetoric about the Founding Fathers "original" intentions of founding the United States as a Christian nation. Of course they never had ANY such intention and explicitly excluded all references to Christianity in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The two people to whom I've spoken about this got very belligerent and almost yelled at me about what God wants for this country.  So my question is, how on earth can I debate with someone who is so stubborn about their views?  

Dear Debating:

The kind of person it sounds like you've encountered is what Etiquetteer would define as a fanatic. You raise a number of very important issues, but the first and most important thing Etiquetteer can tell you is this: when you go up against a fanatic, you are fated to lose. Fanatics do not listen to reason. Period. So no matter how well-reasoned your argument, they will undoubtedly find a way around it, or a way to use it to reinforce their own views. So choose your battles wisely, and don't expect to change anyone's minds.

Fanatics come in all stripes and embrace all creeds, colors, and dogmas. From conservative Christians who will only be satisfied when America is a Christian theocracy to proponents of cold fusion to boycotters of grapes, every cause has its fanatics. Really, Etiquetteer suggests that you shun these people. Don't engage them in conversation at all. Leave the room. Frequently they melt down under their own frenzy. On the other hand, some might suggest, that's how Adolf Hitler came to power.

If you're really intent on engaging in thoughtful, reasoned discussion, however, Etiquetteer has a few tips. First, and most important, keep calm. Etiquetteer's dear mother has always said "When  you lose your temper, you lose your point." And Etiquetteer has seen, time and again, how very true that is. (The corollary Old Saying to this is "Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself," but that's not something Etiquetteer's dear mother ever said.)

Next, stick to the facts. In the specific example you cite, you can always say "It's interesting you should mention that since the Founding Fathers deliberately excluded reference to Christianity and all other belief systems in the Declaration of Independence. When did you read it last? And what do you think of that?" 

Last, but far from least, consider the situation with a sense of humor. Fanatics can be hilarious when they get going! Read some of H.L. Mencken's essays when he refers to the "booboisie" to get in the mood. And keeping your own sense of humor will keep YOU from turning into a fanatic, too.

Etiquetteer will be more than delighted to receive your questions about all sorts manners (and the people who make or break them) at queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

A Cell Phone Haiku, Vol. 8, Issue 13

While searching for a Perfectly Proper chocolate croissant, Etiquetteer happened upon Canto 6 Bakery. In in this little gem of a bakery, Etiquetteer spied this tiny reminder that cashiers enjoy courtesy as much as their customers do:

Etiquetteer couldn't have said it better himself.

Should you happen to have some sort of question about manners of any sort, especially now that we can start wearing white linen again, please send an e-mail to queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

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.

Wedding Invitations, Vol. 8, Issue 9

Dear Etiquetteer: My daughter plans to send formal invitations to her wedding and reception. My husband and I have received calls from people who cannot attend. (The save-the-date cards were sent out several weeks ago.) I think her plan is horrendous and simply looks like a ploy for more gifts. She assures me that all of her friends say it's "nice" and "people will be grateful to have them as lovely remembrances." She says people will like to see their names in calligraphy on the envelopes!

I say, "Balderdash." Can you back me up on this? My husband and I are hosting her rather wedding and reception, but she's got the stamped, sealed, invitations in her hot little hands.

Dear Mother of the Bride:

Deep in Etiquetteer's Perfectly Proper heart, Etiquetteer knows you are right. Why people would be "grateful to have a lovely remembrance" of a function they cannot attend mystifies Etiquetteer. And Etiquetteer can assure you that any pleasure at seeing one's name in elegant calligraphy is quickly shadowed by the suspicion that a wedding gift is expected. 

Two paths remain open. A veneer, however thin, of Perfect Propriety can be maintained by including hand-written notes on these invitations to the effect that "Should your plans change, I would so much like to see you at the wedding." This puts the focus squarely on the presence of the guest in person, and not the guest's presents.

A compromise between you and your daughter may also be drawn. She knows her own friends as well as you know yours, and seems to think that her friends would want to see her wedding invitation. You and Etiquetteer agree entirely that your own friends would interpret it differently. Tell your daughter to go ahead and send out wedding invitations to her own friends who can't attend, but not yours. If your daughter later finds out that her friends all think she's a greedy bridezilla, that's her funeral.

In general, Etiquetteer is not a fan of sending out invitations to those who can't make a party. Many years ago Etiquetteer used throw a large party annually that included an involved, very funny invitation. After a few years Etiquetteer got weary of hearing "Sorry I can't come, but please keep me on the list. I love getting the invitation!" You can see how this might become tiresome. Etiquetteer lives to entertain his guests, but in person, not through the mails.

Unwanted In-Laws and Current Events, Vol. 8, Issue 8

Dear Etiquetteer: We live near my husband's brother, who is constantly inviting or letting my mother- and father-in-law invite themselves.  We (my husband, two kids, and I) are always faced with the "threat" of their every other month visits.  These visits usually last at least five days.  The events involved are excruciating to me.

What should I or my husband tell my brother-in-law and his parents to make them understand this is totally inappropriate?

We have invited them one time in seven years.  All the other visits, which have been every other month for the last seven years, have been them inviting themselves and no one saying anything.  Or my brother and sister-in-law inviting them for some reason.

Bear in mind that I have a special needs son who is 11 and my daughter is very active; she is six.  I home school my son as of about two weeks ago.  We live in the country and my husband could be losing his job.   Things are not perfect right now but it doesn't help to have people in your face that you would rather not see at all - ever!

Dear Daughter-in-Law:

You are correct to note that someone has to say something about this situation to solve it. Nearly everyone thinks that etiquette has a way to make problems disappear without them having to say or do anything. Unfortunately, since humans are involved, that's not possible. And Etiquetteer knows, to his sorrow, that the longer one seethes silently, the worse a problem becomes.

First of all, and this is true in any marriage, if it's his family, he does the talking, not you, and vice versa. On the other hand, you may find out that your husband isn't as opposed to these frequent visits as you are. Etiquetteer can't assume that he shares your revulsion for his family, although he may. Etiquetteer predicts a frank conversation between the two of you. Whatever the result, it's his family, and he has to deal with them. 

Etiquetteer hopes that your brother-in-law is not actually inviting people for multi-day visits into your own home! Only you and your husband have that privilege. 

All you have the power to change is your own participation and, in consultation with your husband, the participation of your children in these visits. If members of your husband's family want to get together outside your house, that's not your business. But Etiquetteer sees no reason for you to join them more than once over the course of five days. 

Now, how are you going to change the expectations of your in-laws, who are used to seeing you and your children a great deal after seven years? Etiquetteer recommends that you start not being available. Oscar Wilde created "Bunburying" in The Importance of Being Earnest, the subterfuge of leaving town to visit a fictional sick friend (in this case named Bunbury.) Etiquetteer doesn't think you need to go to those lengths, but you can create special activities with one or both of your children, or your own friends, that keeps you from joining your in-laws. Send your husband alone with the excuse that you'd already made other plans, or he can bring the kids and say you "need some time alone being worn out taking care of the children." If he doesn't want to go either, he can tell his brother that all of you have other plans, every night of the week, if necessary. 

You have probably already figured out that your in-laws are with you for life, until death or divorce severs your relationship with them. Rather than rely on those two courses (the first immoral and illegal if you arrange it, the second painful for your children), Etiquetteer very much hopes that you can stake out your own territory in your family life.

Etiquetteer has seen a lot in the news over the last week worthy of notice and comment:

Etiquetteer has seen a lot in the news over the last week worthy of notice and comment:

Etiquetteer applauds the Bill Duncan Opportunity School of Lakeland, Florida, for suspending Jonathan Locked, Jr. for deliberately disruptive flatulence. Unfortunately Young Master Locked's father is appealing the suspension, apparently believing that the punishment went too far. Etiquetteer cannot agree, and regrets that Mr. Locked isn't using this suspension to teach his son to respect the authority of teachers and school principals, respect for education and his classmates, and of course Perfect Propriety. Etiquetteer can only hope that the Locked family eats fewer beans after this unfortunate, um, outburst.

In Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin, a pastor and a congregant got in trouble with the law for shooting an arrow in church during a service. Reading the article Etiquetteer certainly got the impression that the pastor is more devoted to using props to illustrate the Word than the Word itself. This sort of sensationalism, plus the way the pastor evicted an objecting congregant, violates every sense of Perfect Propriety to Etiquetteer.

Also in church news, Etiquetteer was very interested to read about the innovations of Rev. Anne Gardner's iSermon Sundays at Phillips Academy. Certainly technology and References to Popular Culture will follow us everywhere, and Etiquetteer really has no objection. What raised Etiquetteer's hackles was the fact that Academy students were eating breakfast in the pews during church! Forgive Etiquetteer for sounding just a bit old-fashioned, but eating in church is NOT approaching worship of the Deity of One's Choice with Perfectly Proper undivided attention. Stop it at once!

Etiquetteer could not but agree with the Daily Telegraph's list of ten first date faux pas. 

Finally, Etiquetteer was both touched and amused to read the obituary of Stella Trafford last week. "The Grande Dame of Boston Parks," who was unafraid to wield a hoe or take on City Hall, received from her stepdaughter what Etiquetteer thinks is the ideal epitaph for a Working Lady to the Manner Born: "She died with her pearls on."

Etiquetteer has a new address for all your etiquette questions, queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

Belching, Vol. 8, Issue 7

Dear Etiquetteer: My sister, who is a beautiful, intelligent, and accomplished young woman, burps. She burps loudly, often, and without covering her mouth. She doesn't say, "excuse me," after the fact. She doesn't excuse herself to the restroom (or another private place) beforehand. In response, my family and I have said things starting at, "Your doctor could probably get something to help with your digestion," to, "That is rude. Please don't burp at the table."

Her response to the former is that she doesn't have any health problem that causes the burps, and to the latter, "I do what I want!"

Again, she is a young woman who has enough background to appreciate just how rude her actions are. She is highly educated and reasonably cultured. We don't understand where her dismissive attitude regarding eructation. Privately, it is uncomfortable. Around company and in public, it is mortifying. How can we address the seriousness of our concern and inappropriateness of her dismissive response?

Dear Digesting in Silence:

Your sister seems to have taken as her role model Princess Fiona in Shrek, which is most unfortunate. Etiquetteer has said often that "No one cares what you want or how you feel," and this certainly applies to your sister! Her willful eructation will surely obscure the beauty, intelligence, and accomplishments you mention, while also making her the darling of eleven-year-old boys everywhere. (But Etiquetteer must question how Reasonably Cultured a woman can be if she behaves this way. Certainly no woman willfully belching like that could be called a lady.)

Etiquetteer fears nothing will curb her evil behavior until she loses a job or a lover over it. Etiquetteer can just imagine her ripping out a large BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAPP while interviewing for a job she wants, and then being shown the door. 

Etiquetteer has also heard much of the rivalry of sisters, both in life and in film. Possibly you are not the best person to give your sister direction. That said, there isn't any reason for you to accept her deliberately rude behavior. If you're in public with others and she belches in your presence, just leave the area as unostentatiously as you can. If she continues to burp at your own table, stop inviting her. Yes, even for functions at which all the family is present. Or, and here you will see Etiquetteer's Dark Side, set a place for her in the kitchen while everyone else dines in the dining room. Undoubtedly she'll take exception to this, and you can gently explain that the dining room is only for those who know how to behave like grown-ups at the table. 

Etiquetteer has a new address for all your questions about manners, queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com. 

The Clothes of a Gentleman, Vol. 8, Issue 6

Dear Etiquetteer: I enjoy wearing white tie to the opera, despite the snide comments from the sartorially challenged. My problem is finding the appropriate tie. I was taught that since white tie is highly formal, the tie should be restrained and have very little flare. My old tie is nearly worn out, and the only white bows available are practically the size and shape of Luna moths. Am I overly restrictive in what I think look appropriate for white tie (and on me for that matter) or is this another failure of the American clothing industry? There is no rush for this question; the opera company has gone on hiatus due to "the current economic situation."

And, by the way, what is appropriate (non-funeral) attire for those mourning the loss of a close friend? Is there such a thing?

Dear Tied:

Etiquetteer thinks you have not been searching broadly on-line for a new white tie. If you visit Beau Ties Ltd. and order your choice of bow ties in "Very Slim Line," your need for an absence of flair will be met with Perfect Propriety.

Etiquetteer also enjoys white tie. But in an age where only ambassadors, conductors, magicians, and community theatre choruses wear it, Etiquetteer must regretfully advise caution. If you are the only gentleman in the audience so attired, you may not be making the impression you wish. Parvenus, more than ever, are to be shunned. And you would appear even more so wearing white tie in the balconies. White tie belongs without question in the orchestra or the boxes, but not above them. "Dress Circle," alas, is a distinction in name only.

Emily Post, may she rest in peace, used to refer to a "brilliant opera night" when the ruling matrons decided among themselves that extra jewelry would be worn, usually if someone was giving a ball that night. This reminds Etiquetteer, of course, of Regina Beaufort in The Age of Innocence, Edith Wharton's greatest novel, departing at some point before the end of the third act, thereby signalling the start of her ball after the performance.

As for mourning clothes outside a funeral, the custom has all but disappeared. The original purpose of mourning clothes was to deflect unwelcome attention, but Etiquetteer has to wonder if your purpose is really to show respect for the dead. Gentlemen used to wear a black armband over their right coatsleeve during mourning, which would now be considered ostentatious. Just wearing black won't do, since it's still considered so hip and edgy by so many. (Ladies could also be mistaken for bridesmaids, to Etiquetteer's continued chagrin.) And most people today are too oblivious to color distinctions even to recognize half-mourning, which is the absence of blue, red, yellow, and green.

The only thing Etiquetteer can recommend that would be universally recognized as a gesture of mourning is the memorial button, often seen with a picture of the deceased, handed out at so many funerals. To wear such a button on your lapel ought to let even the most thick-headed lout know that you're mourning someone who died recently. And by recently, Etiquetteer means "within the last month." For good or ill, usually the former, it's no longer customary to wear mourning after the funeral. 

Dear Etiquetteer:

What is your opinion about wearing a bow tie with a sweater?

Dear Sweating:

Would it surprise you to learn that Etiquetteer doesn't really have an opinion? Etiquetteer can't really find anything wrong with wearing a bow tie with a sweater, nor a requirement that one must. So by all means, tie one on! As a guideline, not a rule, Etiquetteer would suggest pairing bow ties with crew neck sweaters and neckties with V-neck sweaters.

Etiquetteer has a new address for all your manners queries, queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

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!

Entertaining at Home, Vol. 8, Issue 4

Dear Etiquetteer: My partner and I love to cook and entertain. We also love to be cooked for and entertained, yet it seems we've attracted friends who like to enjoy our hospitality more than extend theirs. I haven't exactly kept count, but we know couples who've been our guests much more than we've been theirs. I enjoy their company, but I'm feeling resistant to inviting them over to our house yet again since I don't wish to continue a non-reciprocal pattern. I know their house is neat enough and their cooking is good enough, so I don't know what's holding them back from inviting us. Their alternative to eating at our house always seems to be eating out. But we prefer a home-cooked meal-- and we don't always want it to be ours! I know it's probably rude to say, "couldn't you invite us over to your house for a change?" but I don't know what to do.

Dear Harriet Craig:

Your letter reminds Etiquetteer of the redoubtable Marie Dressler as faded stage star Carlotta Vance in Dinner at Eight. Reminiscing about her long string of past lovers and their gifts, she complained "I could only take what they had."

Here, you can only take what hospitality your friends offer, even though it isn't quite what you'd prefer. It might not be Perfectly Proper to speculate on why they would rather dine out with you than in their own homes. The most neutral assumption is personal preference. It might also be that what you think of as a joy they find a chore; they could be preserving their own hostly equilibrium by staying out of the kitchen themselves. All that said, they aren't out of line inviting you out to dinner, as long as they're picking up the whole bill at least some of the time.

When the imbalance of hospitality becomes inseparable from the idea of welcoming these friends into your home again, then your invitations need to cease. Those feelings will only poison your heart against them; Etiquetteer has seen it happen before. You could also suggest activities that don't involve food, like going to the movies or other cultural attractions.  But like you, Etiquetteer values a home-based social life. When worse comes to worst, make new friends who share your values of home entertaining.

It cannot have failed to have come to your attention that the economy is, um, not as robust as it used to be. New, reduced circumstances are affecting hundreds of thousands of people who may be retreating from social life because they can't afford their old standard. Etiquetteer would argue that a social life is even more necessary now; we must band together in adversity! But heading off to Mocambo, Romanoff's, Chasen's, the Stork, 21, or the Cocoanut Grove four nights a week for dining and dancing won't do, nor will laying out filet mignon, Scotch, and all the delicacies for a dinner party at home.

Never has there been a better time for Etiquetteer to trot out that familiar quotation from the real estate industry, "If you can't hide it, paint it red and call it a feature." In this case, make Poverty your theme with a Poverty Pasta night. Assign ingredients one per guest: pasta, sauce, garlic bread, red wine, cheese, etc. (The presence of non-essential items like green salad and dessert automatically upgrades the evening to Gentility Pasta.) Nobody should have to spend more than $10, and everyone ends up with a delicious pasta dinner, convivial company, and no tipping. Etiquetteer recommends the traditional red-and-white checked tablecloth surmounted by candles in straw-covered Chianti bottles, décor once standard in Italian restaurants and now only seen in black-and-white movies. Opera fans can put on a recording of La Boheme to complete an atmosphere of genial poverty. 

All Etiquetteer can add to that is a hearty "Bon appétit!"

Etiquetteer has a beautiful new address for all your queries about manners, morals, and Perfect Propriety in the 21st century, queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com. Etiquetteer eagerly hopes to hear from you soon!

Friending on Facebook, Vol. 8, Issue 3

Dear Etiquetteer: I got onto Facebook recently and was really surprised when someone I used to go to school with friended me. This person was a real jerk to me and I still get angry about how I was treated. Is there some way out of this situation? 

Dear Friended:

Facebook and other social networking sites get used carelessly through some of their "convenient" services. Etiquetteer has received many friend requests from a Sworn Enemy who habitually finds friends by downloading all his e-mail contacts into these sites. No matter how clear Etiquetteer makes it that this is unwelcome, it's easily explained as a technical glitch (and Etiquetteer's fraying benefit of the doubt).

It's also possible that this person doesn't remember your shared history the way you do. Regardless, all you have to do is click "Ignore" and that should put an end to it.

Etiquetteer has a new address!

Please send your etiquette problems of all descriptions to queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

Wedding Invitations and Clothes, Vol. 8, Issue 2

Etiquetteer would really rather talk about weddings today instead of the fact that Michelle Obama didn't wear a hat to the inauguration or how thankful Etiquetteer is that Jill Biden didn't display the leather merry widow she obviously had made to match her dominatrix boots, so here we go:  

Dear Etiquetteer:

I am putting together my wedding invitation wording and have hit a road block. 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
• Mr. and Mrs. John and Mary Smith

Which one would be the most proper etiquette? Please help me!

Dear Untitled:

Permit Etiquetteer to invite your mother out of the closet. Closet feminism is nothing but passive aggression that manifests itself in petty ways like this. It's cowardly, and it's annoying.

Getting her to be upfront about her feminism will also allow you to name your parents on your wedding invitation as "Mr. John Smith and Ms. Mary Smith." Under the circumstances, Etiquetteer can't think of a more Perfectly Proper way to include honorifics and keep from adding "Mrs." What a pity she doesn't have a graduate or medical degree that would allow you to list her as "Dr."!

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.

Holiday Fallout, Vol. 8, Issue 1

Dear Etiquetteer: About a month before the holidays I moved into a roommate situation with a social friend. We have known each other for years and it is a great living situation. I have enjoyed getting to know him better. I was raised Catholic, but now view myself as a more spiritual person, and my roommate is Jewish and about as devout as I am to his roots.

I was unsure how I might have approached him on the subject of a small Christmas tree somewhere in the apartment. Unfortunately my room is too small to put up a tree there.

How do you suggest that I approach my roommate on the mixing of our respective religious backgrounds when the holidays come again next winter?

Dear Respectful Roommate:

Etiquetteer must commend your sensitivity in considering the effect your choices might have upon your roommate. Battles royal have been waged over the most minuscule things, even how the toilet paper is placed on the roll. (Etiquetteer never ceases to be amazed at the fierceness of those defending either having the paper fall in the front or the back. The most Perfectly Proper solution to this dilemma is to have two rolls of toilet paper in the bathroom. Why no one else has thought of this mystifies Etiquetteer.)

While roommates share many things, they don't always share holidays. But the simplest solutions are best. Ask your roommate how he would feel about having a Christmas tree, even a small one, to broach the idea. If he likes it, obviously go ahead with a tree. If you detect resistance, confine yourself to decorating your own room. It's amazing what one can do with garlands, lights, and ribbon without even having a tree!

Etiquetteer wishes you and your roommate well as your shared living arrangements evolve in cordiality, courtesy, and Perfect Propriety.

Dear Etiquetteer:

As a frequent reader of your column I am well aware that you generally deal with matters appropriate for company. That said, I hope you can asisst me with an issue of a more delicate nature, "nature" being the operative word.

My loving husband -- especially after consuming foods such as raw onions, Indian food, and Brussels sprouts but, it seems, just about any food -- has a tendency to, let us say, "toot." Sometimes these gaseous emissions are accompanies by an audible announcement, sometimes by just a tell-tale odor.

I've asked him to please give a simple "pardon me" to apologize to whatever companions may be nearby and forced to participate in a not Perfectly Proper environment. As we cozy on the couch after dinner, for example, I do appreciate a polite acknowledgement when it's not the creaking of our old house that's disturbing the romantic moment.

There are times, however, when he chooses to ignore the whole situation, telling me this is the more polite thing to do For example, at his weekly poker game, following a silent attack his fellow players are well aware of an offense while my husband sheepishly seeks to avoid a tell of his cards as well as the ownership of this atmospheric intrusion. These gentlemen have been polite enough not to fall prey to childish behavior. They do not interrogate one another followed by claims of "He who denied it supplied it" and like nonsense. It does seem ill-advised to call more attention to the situation but to say nothing seems like a case of ignoring a foul elephant in the room. If one were to cause some other offense, from arriving late to tipping a chair to a coughing gag, I'd expect a simple apology for disturbing the peace. Is this any different?

Can you please advise?

Dear Aware:

Etiquetteer has written on this olfactory subject before, and must commend your husband for knowing that Acknowledgement of Flatulence is never Perfectly Proper. It remains one of etiquette's pecularities not to acknowledge this Bodily Function while offering an "excuse me" for coughs, sneezes, and even yawns. (It differs completely from your other examples, late arrival and chair-tipping, which are not Bodily Functions.) But flatulence, never!

Indeed, Etiquetteer wishes everyone would stop asking those "What's that?!" type of question when they encounter palpable flatulence. Etiquetteer still shudders with embarrassment over an occasion several years ago. Having been the cause of a sulfurous aroma, Etiquetteer's shame was compounded when the insistent bewilderment of an idiot acquaintance could only be stopped by having to say "I farted. Would you please shut up now?!"

Etiquetteer does have to Wag an Admonitory Digit at your husband for not altering his diet. Since he knows that raw onions, Brussels sprouts, and Indian food affect him adversely, he should stop eating them! And really, if all food puts him in a State of Perpetual Indigestion, he ought to see his doctor.

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.

Electronic Thanksgiving Invitations, Vol. 7, Issue 21

Dear Etiquetteer: My husband and I decided  to throw a potluck Thanksgiving Day Open House to best accommodate our expanded family, including mothers-in-law, babies, cousins, and their busy schedules. We thought it would be much more fun and convenient for people to come and stay as long as they want rather than having one fixed formal mealtime -- and we all know how long those last during holidays! 

We posted an invitation on [Insert Name of Electronic Invitation Service Here] that included the line "Family and friends welcome." To my surprise, a distant cousin responded that he and his wife would not be able to attend because they were going to Thanksgiving at her family's house. I don't know either of them terribly well, but invited them as a courtesy and because we hope to get to know them better. However, even though he responded that they could not attend, he added six other people to our guest list (this was before I thought to disable that function!), none of whom I know -- I think one or two may be his children. 

I would have had no problem if he and his wife had attended and brought their adult children and spouses with them. But to send them along to a party (only 20 or so people were invited in total) that they would not attend seemed inappropriate. And it seemed a large number of guests to invite without checking with us first. 

I wound up deleting them from the guest list and "hiding" the replies. I am not in regular contact with the cousin, so I don't expect any complications. But what would be the appropriate response in the future? And am I correct in assuming that he crossed a courtesy line? 

Dear Perplexed Potluck: To answer your last question first, Etiquetteer gets the impression the courtesy line was so blurry here that it was difficult for your cousin to know just what he was crossing.  With statements like "Open House" and "Family and friends welcome," you led him to believe that all were welcome.  

Plus your use of [Insert Name of Electronic Invitation Service Here] makes it FAR too easy to add as many additional guests as one wishes without contacting the host or hostess. This is one of several reasons Etiquetteer dislikes such services. [Secretly, Etiquetteer's Evil Fraternal Twin, Madame Manners (the Etiquette Dominatrix) wants to invite hundreds of strangers to someone's wedding on [Insert Name of Electronic Invitation Service Here.] It would serve them right.] When Etiquetteer issues invitations electronically, they are sent e-mail to e-mail without an electronic intermediary. For those who insist on using an Electronic Invitation Service, Etiquetteer highly recommends suppressing the guest list (to respect the privacy of guests) and disabling any function that permits the guests too much control over YOUR party (such as the ability to invite their own guests). 

Etiquetteer does agree with you that, if a party guest is going to invite more guests to a party, he should accompany them to the party. But without realizing it, you created two opportunities for your cousin to invite his entire family to your home: first, by not disabling the "Invite additional guests" feature on your electronic invitation; and second, by saying "Family and friends welcome." It's also an open house, which you said you were giving because "it would be much more fun and convenient for people to come and stay as long as they want . . . " Even if your cousin and his wife WERE coming to the party, perhaps it might have been "more fun and convenient" for his six guests to come or go at times different from theirs. You'll infer from all this that Etiquetteer really prefers a set mealtime for holiday gatherings, whether formal or informal.

Etiquetteer remembers with great pleasure the many Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, and Easter Sunday meals of childhood. At the homes of different family members in the 1960s and 1970s, Etiquetteer could expect long lines of card tables in every room set with snowy linen just like the dining room, the good china and silver, and a buffet in the kitchen groaning with turkey and all the trimmings. Having everyone together to break bread at the same time remains special. And of course early arrivals with fully laden plates would always use the Bible verse "When two or three are gathered in My name" to begin eating before everyone was seated. Ah, those halcyon days . . . 

Etiquetteer also calls to your attention a little but significant contradiction. You begin by saying you "invited them as a courtesy and because we hope to get to know them better," but later that you are "not in regular contact with the cousin, so I don't expect this will cause any complications." You can't get to know them better without starting some sort of regular contact.  Etiquetteer encourages you to consider another open house, for New Year's Day, and to make a special point of inviting this cousin and all his family to join you. You might end up starting the New Year by making new friends within your own family. 

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.  

Weighty Questions, Vol. 7, Issue 18

Dear Etiquetteer:I have lost a ****load (literally) of weight. I have 5 large black garbage bags full of too-big clothes, and I have a friend I know can wear them and really needs them. Would it be crass of me to offer them to her - "Here are my fat clothes, I thought you could wear them", or should I discreetly donate them to a charity? They are all top brands and clean.   Dear Svelter: No reference to avoirdupois need come into your offer to your friend. Say something like "I'm getting rid of a lot of things and wanted to offer you first pick before I take them too [Insert Charity of Your Choice Here]." In subsequent conversations don't even make a reference to her current, and your former, size. It can be the . . . forgive me the pun . . . "the elephant in the room."

Another Broke Bridesmaid, Vol. 7 Issue 17

Dear Etiquetteer: I have a bit of a dilemma! I am a bridesmaid in a coworker's wedding. This makes me infinitely happy as I adore her. Her maid of honor, not so much. I understand and appreciate her stress in aiding the bride, but I am starting to get frustrated. I have spent over $1,000 on this wedding buying a dress and two round-trip plane tickets to attend the bridal shower and wedding. Despite this great expense I am being asked for even more money for "expenses" that I do not understand. These requests range from $50 to $200. I am planning on opting out of the combined bridesmaid's gift and instead am buying a gift with my other coworkers that better fits my budget.

Is it appropriate to politely refuse to fork over any more money? I am a poor college student with little disposable income. I'm starting to think I'll have to sacrifice buying books to keep up! Help! 

Dear Broke Bridesmaid: 

Etiquetteer has heard of Bridezilla - he has even met her a few times - but never Maidzilla. Etiquetteer declares that you, and other Beleaguered Bridesmaids, need not contribute to "expenses" in which you have had no selection or decision. And really, Etiquetteer would have excused you from attending the bridal shower in person due to the distance and expense involved. Someday American women will realize that the fantasy of having a Great Big Wedding need not be based on the outmoded stereotype of a clique of 19-year-old high school graduates who all live in the same neighborhood and can band together easily for wedding activities.

When Maidzilla solicits or invoices you again, you must tell her - with Perfect Propriety and Complete Calm - that you're unable to contribute any more money to the wedding effort since funding your education is now in jeopardy, which you KNOW is not what the bride wants for you. Maidzilla may toss a little tantrum at you; while it may be tempting to respond in kind, use all your control to Remain Calm. Taking the high road will only make her look even more petty and grasping.