Did the Rules of Etiquette Provide a Greater Sense of Safety For Women?

vitanola · Feb 17, 2017

LizzieMaine said:
Most of my experience has been in the context of fundraising events, "galas," and other types of activities where you have, basically two types of people -- elderly old-money people smelling of mothballs and social-climbing bourgies who want to be sure they're "seen" mixing with the right crowd. This type of event is extremely common here, and my workplace is a common venue for them. They are among the most distinctly joyless events I've ever had to be around -- nobody laughs, nobody smiles, nobody seems to be enjoying themselves. The phrase "working a room" was coined to describe these horrors, where "etiquette" and "form" are frozen substitutes for any sort of soul. You attend enough of these, and you pray for Harpo Marx to come running into the room, upending the registration table and pouring cheese dip down some dowager's decolletage. I just don't understand how people can take such things so terribly, terribly seriously.

I used to have to go to banquets when I was in radio, and do not have fond memories of having to sit opposite the station owner and pretend that I wasn't secretly dreaming of gutting him out with a serving fork. The food stunk, too.

LizzieMaine said:
There are those who theorize that all "etiquette" is an attempt to enforce the power of the dominant social order -- a way of assigning every individual a "proper place" and keeping every individual in their proper place:

"The ritual order of etiquette, by sternly guarding against slips in bodily and emotional control, ensured the individual's deferential participation in the dominant social order. Instead of allowing any relaxation, bourgeois etiquette drove the tensions back within the individual self, providing ritual support for the psychological defense mechanisms of repression, displacement and denial necessary to cope with the necessities of the urban capitalist order. "

-- John F. Kasson, Rudeness and Civility: Manners in Nineteenth Century Urban America, p.165

I tend to agree with that, myself. History shows us over and over again that power uses all possible mechanisms to perpetuate itself in social, cultural, and political relationships. Ritualized etiquette is one of those mechanisms.

In the larger sense you are probably correct. In the smaller, day-to-day sense, though, the niceties of proper etiquette are supposed to smooth things along and keep anyone from feeling uncomfortable. I remember one author of a book on table manners emphatically insisting that the only inexcusable faux-pas would be calling attention to a guest's error in table usage. Hostesses were warned to set their table so that their guests would be comfortable. An appropriately gracious host will ignore, or in some cases join in in "non standard" usages, for drinking from a finger bowl along with a guest is less to be deplored than making the guest feel in any way uncomfortable. Unfortunately too many strivers have over the years chosen to use etiquette as a weapon against those whom they perceive to be beneath them, or as a shibboleth. Alas! such is the way of the world. If anything can be weaponized, it will be weaponized.

For what it's worth, here are a few pointers, courtesy of The Happiness Boys:

ChiTownScion · Feb 18, 2017

vitanola said:
In the larger sense you are probably correct. In the smaller, day-to-day sense, though, the niceties of proper etiquette are supposed to smooth things along and keep anyone from feeling uncomfortable. I remember one author of a book on table manners emphatically insisting that the only inexcusable faux-pas would be calling attention to a guest's error in table usage. Hostesses were warned to set their table so that their guests would be comfortable. An appropriately gracious host will ignore, or in some cases join in in "non standard" usages, for drinking from a finger bowl along with a guest is less to be deplored than making the guest feel in any way uncomfortable. Unfortunately too many strivers have over the years chosen to use etiquette as a weapon against those whom they perceive to be beneath them, or as a shibboleth. Alas! such is the way of the world. If anything can be weaponized, it will be weaponized.

One of the aspects of Victorian dance protocol that I especially appreciated in my Civil War reenacting days was the dance book that each lady was supposed to carry, and did, at the more formal events. The unwritten rule was that you were not supposed to dance more than twice with the same person- even if they were your spouse or S.O. The idea was that everyone should mingle as much as possible, and even the self- described wallflowers would be accored the opportunity to dance and converse. A tad anachronistic, but I still like the sentiment. I much prefer it to the junior high school clique' mentality that permiates a lot of contemporary social events.

Frunobulax · Feb 18, 2017

LizzieMaine said:
Most of my experience has been in the context of fundraising events, "galas," and other types of activities where you have, basically two types of people -- elderly old-money people smelling of mothballs and social-climbing bourgies who want to be sure they're "seen" mixing with the right crowd. This type of event is extremely common here, and my workplace is a common venue for them. They are among the most distinctly joyless events I've ever had to be around -- nobody laughs, nobody smiles, nobody seems to be enjoying themselves. The phrase "working a room" was coined to describe these horrors, where "etiquette" and "form" are frozen substitutes for any sort of soul. You attend enough of these, and you pray for Harpo Marx to come running into the room, upending the registration table and pouring cheese dip down some dowager's decolletage. I just don't understand how people can take such things so terribly, terribly seriously.

I used to have to go to banquets when I was in radio, and do not have fond memories of having to sit opposite the station owner and pretend that I wasn't secretly dreaming of gutting him out with a serving fork. The food stunk, too.

Wow.

Sent directly from my mind to yours.

Lean'n'mean · Feb 18, 2017

LizzieMaine said:
nobody laughs, nobody smiles, nobody seems to be enjoying themselves. .

Sounds like a visit to my inlaws. Doesn't help either that I have to be on my best behavior as all vulgarity & humor (doubtful or otherwise) is frowned upon.

LizzieMaine · Feb 18, 2017

Lean'n'mean said:
Sounds like a visit to my inlaws. Doesn't help either that I have to be on my best behavior as all vulgarity & humor (doubtful or otherwise) is frowned upon.

People like that make me tired. You're going to have all eternity to be dead, why not get a little fun out of what little time you're going to be alive?

MisterCairo · Feb 18, 2017

Frunobulax said:
Wow.

Exactly.

Sometimes, a soup spoon is set out for use sipping soup.

And not to keep the proles downtrodden...

ChrisB · Feb 18, 2017

Many rules of etiquette are arbitrary, there is nothing inherently rude about holding your fork in your left vs. right hand. They are merely shibboleths to separate "Us" from "Them".

LizzieMaine · Feb 18, 2017

I prefer to sip my soup with a tablespoon. Holds the noodles better, and there's one less spoon to wash when I have to do the dishes. Sometimes I just omit the spoon altogether and just drink the soup out of the bowl and then there's no spoon to wash at all.

If I ever had to host a formal dinner party, I'd set the table with sporks.

Feraud · Feb 19, 2017

LizzieMaine said:
There are those who theorize that all "etiquette" is an attempt to enforce the power of the dominant social order -- a way of assigning every individual a "proper place" and keeping every individual in their proper place:

"The ritual order of etiquette, by sternly guarding against slips in bodily and emotional control, ensured the individual's deferential participation in the dominant social order. Instead of allowing any relaxation, bourgeois etiquette drove the tensions back within the individual self, providing ritual support for the psychological defense mechanisms of repression, displacement and denial necessary to cope with the necessities of the urban capitalist order. "

-- John F. Kasson, Rudeness and Civility: Manners in Nineteenth Century Urban America, p.165

I tend to agree with that, myself. History shows us over and over again that power uses all possible mechanisms to perpetuate itself in social, cultural, and political relationships. Ritualized etiquette is one of those mechanisms.

Indeed. One would be hard pressed to make a halfway decent argument against that idea.

Frunobulax · Feb 19, 2017

Feraud said:
Indeed. One would be hard pressed to make a halfway decent argument against that idea.

Hardly.

Sent directly from my mind to yours.

BlueTrain · Feb 19, 2017

I tend to agree with the statement that etiquette rules seem to have been written to keep people in their place, only it isn't true. The two best known etiquette books were in fact written by women, Amy and Emily. If you sit and read them, they are actually quite practical in presentation. I think they were written for those who were moving up on the social ladder who did not have a mother who already knew the rules, such as they were. It doesn't follow that those on up the latter always followed the rules, of course. They may have known which fork to use but they could be rude, pushy, aggressive and sometimes generally criminal in behavior. That's still true and the simple reason is that once you reach a certain level, they think the rules are for other people. They are above the law. I could name names.

If one is a believer in equality, then all comments about protecting women, the gentler sex, are off the table. Yes, you should open the door for a lady and even a woman, but you should do the same for a man, no matter who he is. You should know the name of the person who cleans the toilets at work as well as the person who owns the company. Don't save your gracious behavior. If you have any at all, you have enough for everyone you meet.

If I were king, I'd ban sporks.

LizzieMaine · Feb 19, 2017

BlueTrain said:
I tend to agree with the statement that etiquette rules seem to have been written to keep people in their place, only it isn't true. The two best known etiquette books were in fact written by women, Amy and Emily.

Emily Post and Amy Vanderbilt were card-carrying members of the white Anglo-Saxon/Nordic bourgeoisie. Their attitudes and views were in no way reflective of the complex society that existed in their time, let alone our time, but only a very narrow and privileged section of it. Setting those attitudes as the standard to which all the rest of society must aspire in order to "achieve" and "succeed" is designed to maintain the privilege and power of that bourgeois establishment, not to question or in any way challenge it.

Emily Post, it must be said, at least had a sense of humor, something sadly lacking in many of her ardent disciples.

ChrisB · Feb 19, 2017

LizzieMaine said:
Emily Post and Amy Vanderbilt were card-carrying members of the white Anglo-Saxon/Nordic bourgeoisie. Their attitudes and views were in no way reflective of the complex society that existed in their time, let alone our time, but only a very narrow and privileged section of it. Setting those attitudes as the standard to which all the rest of society must aspire in order to "achieve" and "succeed" is designed to maintain the privilege and power of that bourgeois establishment, not to question or in any way challenge it.

Emily Post, it must be said, at least had a sense of humor, something sadly lacking in many of her ardent disciples.

And many women were quite willing to accept their second class status. I cant say that the rules of etiquette were intended to keep women in their place, but they would not have existed without women being considered weak and in need of protection.

There is also a distinction between etiquette and what I will call good manners. Etiquette tends to be formal and as I previously noted, arbitrary, while good manners is simply treating people with politeness and respect. If I hold the door open for someone who has their arms full carrying packages, that is just being nice. If I do it for no other reason than that person is a woman, that is condescending.

scotrace · Feb 19, 2017

The idea that manners are designed to keep the unwashed in their placed is something I'd never considered.

In entering any new situation or unfamiliar territory, knowing what is expected just makes things easier for all. Having standards of behavior is an equalizer. It's intended to make people more comfortable and confident in day to day interaction.
And yes, the notion of opening dos for a lady is well retired. Open the door for everyone.

LizzieMaine · Feb 19, 2017

I understand that they were real sticklers for "etiquette" around the court of the Tsar.

As far as the question of who was making these decisions, women in the "golden age of etiquette" were considered little more than chattel property of their fathers or husbands. Putting them on social pedestals benefitted them about as much as displaying a show horse or a fine dog.

Note also that Victorian etiquette was intricately tied in with the marking of racial and social status by the dominant class. A well-bred "gentleman" of the 1890s would no more tip his hat or hold a door for a black or Irish washerwoman on the street than he would an alley cat.

2jakes · Feb 19, 2017

You've come a long way baby!

ChrisB · Feb 19, 2017

Often we accept things the way they are because they have always been that way. It doesn't always stand up to scrutiny. The next generation has the privelege of blaming previous ones for the ills of the world.

LizzieMaine · Feb 19, 2017

Nothing I've said in this thread wasn't being said and written by feminist authors in the 1930s. It's not a new way of looking at the situation by any means.

Consider this. All institutions -- bar none -- that put great emphasis on ritual etiquette are hierarchal in nature. Religion, the military, high academia, the courts, royalty, you name it. They all put heavy stress on ritual etiquette, and this is done so in order to maintain the standing of the hierarchy. Enforced rituals of etiquette are among the most efficient tools possible for enforcing hierarchal thinking and for maintaining a top-to-bottom social order.

BlueTrain · Feb 19, 2017

Sometimes but in some organizations there are only two levels. Did your father's gas station only have a single level? I realize there may have been no ritual or none that you noticed. But I don't agree that rite and ritual necessarily exist to reinforce the standing of the hierarchy, although there may be other things that do. The military is probably the best example and navies (all navies) are the best example of that because the distinction between officers and the other ranks is most marked. The Soviets tried to remove such distinctions, at least in the army, and gave it up as a bad idea. Rank in the military is very important and the signs of it are everywhere. I think military ceremonies, if you call that ritual, exist to bolster morale, a very important element to the armed forces. But don't take this as defending it but merely an attempt to explain it. Some of the most hierarchical institutions have virtually no ritual that those lower down are even aware of. Of course, you said that institutions that place a great deal of importance on ritual are hierarchical, not that hierarchical institutions necessarily place a lot of importance on ritual.

Frunobulax · Feb 19, 2017

Anytime humans organize themselves, a hierarchy will develop. And surrounding that, you will have etiquette, rituals, deference, or whatever "imposed" to reinforce that structure.

Even right here on the Lounge, we have a structure. Bartenders vs. the regular folks; hierarchy that depends on post number (New in Town, I'll Lock up). The former being more formal, the latter being informal.

These structures are seen as confining or oppressive by some, and seen as necessary for civilized behavior by others. All of these systems can go off the rails and be silly or even harmful when carried to extremes. We must recognize the inherent good and bad in the system and try to guard against the abuse of them. The structures also evolve over time.

This we have seen in answering the original question. Certainly the rituals and etiquette surrounding the treatment of women have and are evolving, mostly for the better - sometimes not so much.

The same can be said for the treatment and societal attitudes toward men. While the station of men and women has equalized over time, sometimes it is taken too far. Airlines now have a policy not to seat a young child next to a man, indicating a certain attitude and prejudice toward men that is an unhealthy result for society.

Sent directly from my mind to yours.

Did the Rules of Etiquette Provide a Greater Sense of Safety For Women?

vitanola

I'll Lock Up

ChiTownScion

Call Me a Cab

Frunobulax

Lean'n'mean

I'll Lock Up

LizzieMaine

MisterCairo

I'll Lock Up

ChrisB

A-List Customer

LizzieMaine

Feraud

Frunobulax

BlueTrain

Call Me a Cab

LizzieMaine

ChrisB

A-List Customer

scotrace

Head Bartender

LizzieMaine

2jakes

I'll Lock Up

ChrisB

A-List Customer

LizzieMaine

BlueTrain

Call Me a Cab

Frunobulax

Similar threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest posts

Latest posts

Did the Rules of Etiquette Provide a Greater Sense of Safety For Women?

I'll Lock Up

Call Me a Cab

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

A-List Customer

Call Me a Cab

A-List Customer

Head Bartender

I'll Lock Up

A-List Customer

Call Me a Cab

Similar threads

Log in

Forum statistics