< Back to front page Text size +

Response to "Reluctant Bridesmaid"

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 10, 2012 03:41 PM

Monday’s question was an unusually black-and-white one, from a young woman who no longer wanted to be a bridesmaid in a friend’s wedding. Your advice broke down thus:

Do it: 16 votes

Back out: 9 votes

Either/It depends: 4 votes

I am strongly in the “stay in the wedding” camp, myself. Let’s assume that the LW’s discomfort is merely that, social awkwardness, and not that the wedding activities are putting her under serious financial and moral strain. (She bought the dress already! Who backs out of bridesmaiding after buying the dress?) Sometimes we go ahead and do what we said we were going to do in order because that’s what grownups do, whether we want to or not. And there are often unexpected compensations. The LW might not care much for her fellow bridesmaids, but she hasn’t met the groomsmen yet. There might be prospects.

Most folks who voted for dropping out, or “either/it depends,” did so on the grounds that the bride, too, might prefer it if the LW resigned. AmazonPlanet wrote:

Just maybe your friend is secretly wishing she hadn’t asked you to be a bridesmaid but is living with her decision. Two years ago is a long time from engagement to wedding plans to the final day. You have to choices; talk to her about your feelings and give her enough time to choose another, and no offense, more suitable person to substitute or as you have already have a financial investment, own up to the obligation and say nothing. If you have the talk you need only tell her that you feel the friendship isn’t what it was 2 years ago and that perhaps there is someone she could have asked in your place. This gives the bride-to-be a rare do over. Most important thing to consider is that if you don’t get along with the other bridesmaids, I’m sure it isn’t lost on the wedding party. You would be doing everyone including yourself a favor by bowing out gracefully. Be prepared to lose this person as a friend but it sounds to me like that is where this is all headed and you are fine with the consequences.

And plksmcz described the bride’s-eye view:

I was the bride in a very similar situation and had a bridesmaid drop out of my wedding. I was happy that she had the courage to say that she wasn’t comfortable. I was not upset and replaced her with someone I had become close to after my wedding party had been decided. I am not friends with the original bridesmaid anymore but that isnt because she dropped out of he wedding. It’s just because we went our separate ways.

The final answer, I think, is that it is not about the LW. If this is merely her discomfort, she needs to go through with it. If she is picking up bride vibes, it might be kind to back out.

A final point: No wedding is perfect. It is not going to spoil the bride’s day if the LW backs out, and it will not spoil her day if one of her bridesmaids is less than a lifelong sister-from-another-mother. No wedding has everyone you want there and no one you don’t. Heck, even the weddings that come closest to that goal aren’t perfect, because brides and grooms don’t get to spend quality time with every guest they want to.

DNA haiku contest winner

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 10, 2012 11:23 AM

And the winner of the DNA haiku contest is dpasquantonio, for this beautiful thought:

A spiral staircase
Each step makes you what you are
But not who you are

dpasquantonio, e-mail me and I'll get you set up with tickets to "Photograph 51."

Congratulations to all who entered! Entries ranged from the spiritual --

"Almighty spell check
Copy and paste for children
Hidden file stores soul" (zakafury)

.... to the forensic

"Broken glass from crime
A drop of blood left behind
Genetic mugshot" (leopardlabcoat)

.... to the opinionated

Epigenetics
Is going to tell us more
Than from genes alone (What-if)

... to the deeply personal.

"Gassy, smelly farts
So rich to the nose
Dad, I hate your DNA" (Boomerski)

Have a wonderful weekend, all you beautiful snowflakes.

DNA haiku contest for "Photograph 51" tickets!

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 7, 2012 12:43 PM
The mysteries of why I am me and you are you are, to no small degree, coded in our DNA. The social differences that cause us so much irritation -- the calm versus the fidgeters, the extroverts versus the introverts -- almost certainly have some basis in our genetics. 

Write the best haiku about DNA, and win two tickets to "Photograph 51" at Central Square Theater, opening Thursday and running through March 4. "Photograph 51" tells the story of Rosalind Franklin, a pioneering scientist who worked alongside James Watson and Francis Crick to unravel the mysteries of DNA. Tickets include parking and beverage vouchers at the theater. 

Up to two entries per person, and I'll announce the winner on Friday morning. Good luck!


cstP51.jpeg

Musings of a sports-hating sports fan

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 6, 2012 02:06 PM
I've never followed sports, but for the past 10 years or so, I have definitely considered myself a Patriots/Red Sox fan. Musing on this on Facebook last week, I wrote, "Boston is a city divided against itself in many ways: class, race, town/gown, religion. But we all come together around the sports teams. I like that; it feels like something the town needs."

I grew up in the Kansas City suburbs described in Tom Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas. Chiefs and Royals fandom was rampant, but Kansas City as it was felt insular and homogenous, and considerably satisfied with itself. Great sports moments in Kansas City felt like an intensification of normal life, not a transformation of it.

What about you? Where else have you lived, and how did the sports culture there differ from Boston?

Monday question: Reluctant bridesmaid

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 6, 2012 06:49 AM

How about a good old-fashioned wedding dilemma to start off the week?

About two years ago, a friend got engaged and asked me to be in her wedding. We were college buddies (but by no means very close), and I was excited for her but a bit shocked when she asked me to be a bridesmaid. I said yes, more out of surprise than anything. I'll admit, I wasn't totally sure but I was afraid of hurt feelings. I honestly thought it would peter out and I'd be free of the obligation (stupid me). So, things have progressed along and the wedding is in a few months.

I've already bought the dress and the shoes, but as the date closes in I am increasingly uncomfortable with being involved. I have certainly drifted apart from the bride (we barely speak, and when we do it's in regards to wedding things) and despite my best efforts I am having a hard time getting along with the other bridesmaids. I am certainly the odd one out in this group, for many reasons.

So, I'm wondering if it is possible to excuse myself from the wedding party/wedding itself in a polite way? Or am I stuck with this til the bitter end?

What do you think, dear readers? I'll share my own advice and opinions on Friday.

And come back during the week! I have much news to share -- and theater tickets to give away!

In which Miss Conduct says, "DANG"

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 5, 2012 09:24 AM

Somehow I missed this letter in last week's Globe Magazine section:

I am a curvy girl and have, like Anonymous from Medford (Miss Conduct, January 8), also suffered through being the recipient of "gifts" in the form of gift cards to places I clearly wouldn't use, wrapped in ribbons of snark. One year when I received a gift card with a note that took obvious potshots at my height, weight, and shape, I decided I'd had enough. At the next holiday, I re-wrapped the gift card with a note that said, "You gave me a gift from this place and I enjoyed it so much that I wanted to return the gesture." I deliberately left her note inside the original folder. When she opened it, she took enormous offense at "my" comment and, in a righteous bluster, shared it with the handful of people in attendance. I, of course, expressed great concern that I might have offended her and peered over her shoulder to check the notation. In a great show of flustered embarrassment, I confessed to all that I had mixed up the card I had purchased for her and the one she had purchased for me the previous year. I no longer receive gifts that are poorly cloaked jabs. If anything, she now pays close attention to things I mention that are of interest to me and makes valiant, and often successful, attempts to gift me with things that I do enjoy.

Dang.

Today's column

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 5, 2012 07:46 AM

... is online here:

There is returning rudeness with rudeness, which is bad. And then there is realizing that other people have different standards than you do and adjusting accordingly, which is both logical and kind.

Response to "Facebook & privacy"

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 3, 2012 02:18 PM
You all brought it, I mean Brought It, on Monday's question. Really, anyone who is interested in the ethics and etiquette of social media and OPI (Other People's Images) should check out Monday's thread. Some of the best responses are too long to post here in their entirety. 

The general take is that the mother should stop posting pictures and news of her pregnant daughter on Facebook, because the daughter wants her to, and it is after all her body and her news. However, given that there is no easy engineering fix for this problem, the LW is going to have to confront her mother about it. Teamjackie wrote: 

This is about control, and I have had this problem myself. You should be able to make these choices yourself and have your wishes respected. I wanted to limit the number of photos of my kids on Facebook because I knew my own user settings but not everyone else's. LW should approach her mother in a stern way and express her frustration and set limitations. I would be afraid of her mother's behavior regarding the photos because if she doesn't respect her wishes with the photos, then you know she'll have no problem ditching all of the other rules set for the new baby... Nip this one in the bud and stand your ground! 

This last point is absolutely crucial, and I think it ought to inform the LW's entire approach to her mother's promiscuous Facebooking. Does Mom not quite understand technology? Does she always invade the daughter's privacy? How involved is she going to be in her grandchild's life? ... And so on. 

Only the LW knows the answers to these questions. But the way you'd approach an overbearing, critical mother who lives half a continent away is different from the way you'd approach someone sweet but not that social-media savvy, whom you are hoping will babysit for you a couple of nights a month.

I thought Dandibear had an excellent point: 

Your mother may feel that this really is her information to share, not just yours, because we're talking about her grandbaby. It's still wrong for her to ignore your requests to keep information private, but you may have more luck making those requests if you acknowledge that her proprietary feelings about this pregnancy are valid. Her excitement is a good thing, and is just being channeled badly. Maybe it would help if you promise her that she'll get first dibs on sharing news and photos once you're ready for them to be shared? Only you can make that call. 

... as did colakoala

Good luck, LW. But fight hard for what you want: after all, if anyone gets shocked by your vehemence about this you can always blame it on pregnancy hormones later. :) But seriously, this is a perfect time to redraw the boundary lines between you and your parents. Things change when you reproduce: suddenly, you are the center of the family and they aren't, and this means you have a lot more power. 

Right. I hate to be coldly Machiavellian, but if the LW's mother really is an overbearing boundary-pusher, the LW now has an extraordinarily valuable resource to which she can limit her mother's access. Grandbabies are emotional crack! When you get a kid, you get serious leverage over your parents. Use if it you have to. And I want to give JoGeek the final word, because of the amazing closing line: 

The boundaries problem is clear; your mother isn't respecting your wishes when it comes to your private information and images. You have asked her to stop. The next step is to make sure she understands clearly why you want her to stop, and set clear, enforcable consequences if she does not. Don't threaten to do anything you're not willing to follow through on. A lot of the other posters have offered good suggestions. I would say something along the lines of: "Mom, I've told you before that your sharing personal information and photos of me on Facebook makes me very uncomfortable, and I want you to stop. If you are willing to remove the photos of me and my body parts from your account, and stop sharing things about me without my permission, I will be happy to (allow you to be at the hospital during the birth, send you photos of the newborn, etc.). If not, then I will no longer be sharing personal information and photos of myself or my child." That's a clear line. 

She will protest, think you're being irrational, and maybe even be hurt. People who can't get what they want tend to react that way, even if what they want is unreasonable. But this is about your comfort and boundaries during a time when you're probably feeling extremely vulnerable. Our culture has a mistaken impression that a pregnant woman's body is public property, and you're fighting against that assumption. I think it's a good battle to choose. (Emphasis mine.)

Brilliant, JoGeek. Have a great weekend, everyone!

Irreconcilable differences links

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 2, 2012 02:06 PM
Additional reading (and listening) on the "irreconcilable differences" of politics, football, and Tweet seats, for those who are interested. This article in the Chronicle of Higher Education explores the research of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt.
 
Haidt (pronounced like "height") made his name arguing that intuition, not reason, drives moral judgments. People are more like lawyers building a case for their gut feelings than judges reasoning toward truth ... 
How much of moral thinking is innate? Haidt sees morality as a "social construction" that varies by time and place. We all live in a "web of shared meanings and values" that become our moral matrix, he writes, and these matrices form what Haidt, quoting the science-fiction writer William Gibson, likens to "a consensual hallucination." But all humans graft their moralities on psychological systems that evolved to serve various needs, like caring for families and punishing cheaters. 
Building on ideas from the anthropologist Richard Shweder, Haidt and his colleagues synthesize anthropology, evolutionary theory, and psychology to propose six innate moral foundations: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation ... 
And the six moral foundations are central to how Haidt explains politics. The moral mind, to him, resembles an audio equalizer with a series of slider switches that represent different parts of the moral spectrum. All political movements base appeals on different settings of the foundations-- and the culture wars arise from what they choose to emphasize. Liberals jack up care, followed by fairness and liberty. They rarely value loyalty and authority. Conservatives dial up all six.
I'll be curious to hear what you think of this article, readers. I find Haidt's work thought-provoking, but flawed. (For a huge timesink, check out his online research site, YourMorals.) For one thing, almost any actual behavior that you could think of -- recycling, say, or helping old ladies across the street, or attending worship services -- could potentially be framed as more than one of Haidt's six foundations. You help the old lady because your Scoutmaster told you to and you revere authority, I help the old lady because she needs help and I believe the strong should care for the weak. 

Moving from politics to politicians, Libby Copeland of Slate was on WGBH before me, discussing her article on whether -- or, more to the point, how -- looks matter in politics:

 
And then, in 2005, Princeton psychologist Alexander Todorov and colleagues published an astonishing study suggesting that beauty didn't tell the whole story. Rather, voters appeared primarily drawn to faces that suggested competence -- so much so that the effect could actually be seen in election results. In the lab, subjects glanced for a single second at the faces of congressional candidates. They didn't know anything else about the candidates, and they didn't recognize them. Almost 70 percent of the time, the face that subjects judged as more competent-looking actually won the election. 
What does competence look like? Working with subjects rating photos of hundreds of faces, Todorov and colleagues have developed computer models of how faces can suggest character traits like trustworthiness and likability. The competent face shape is masculine but approachable, with a square jaw, high cheekbones, and large eyes. When people say Romney just looks presidential, this is the image they're summoning.
A 2003 Ig Nobel Psychology Prize-winning paper found that people evaluate politicians' personalities differently than they do the personalities of non-politicians. Just as we judge others by their beauty but politicos by a subset of beautiful features, when people reason about other folks -- answering the basic question, "What kind of guy is Joe?," for example -- they evaluate them on a number of different aspects. Five aspects, particularly: extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. 

When people are asked what kind of guy is Joe, when Joe is a politician, they talk about two dimensions of personality: honesty and, again, competence. The paper, by Gian Vittorio Caprara and Claudio Barbaranelli of the University of Rome, and Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University, won largely on the basis of its disarming title, "Politicians' Uniquely Simple Personalities" (Nature, vol. 385, February 1997, p. 493). 

I wrote articles on Super Bowl etiquette in 2009 (when we didn't have a team in the Bowl) and on election-night party etiquette in 2008. From the latter:

 
That said, some self-management is in order. If you really think you're going to spend the night in the bathroom crying if your guy loses, you're not in shape to go to a party. Watch with family or have a few, equally emotionally invested friends over. 
If you are hosting an election party, plan it the same way you would a Superbowl party. Either you invite exclusively hard-core followers who will watch the game with total concentration, or you invite more moderate fans who think that conversation is acceptable even when the field is in play, or you invite both and have televisions in separate rooms so that the intent & obsessive crowd can get their game on in peace and the more socially minded can mingle without either group annoying each other. (Put the "social" television in the kitchen, since that's where that crowd will end up anyway.)
And finally, a rough video of part of the "Tweet This!" panel on Tweet seats from Monday night.

"Irreconcilable Differences" on WGBH

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 2, 2012 01:52 PM
On Tuesday, Emily Rooney and I discussed politics, food, the Super Bowl, and Tweet seats, in a roundup of "irreconcilable differences." I'll post a roundup of links about the topics later today. Here's the interview. Do not adjust your set -- it's radio, so no visual.*

 
 

*If it helps, I was wearing a denim pencil skirt with a brown and cream tiger-striped cashmere tunic over a black tank, with black tights and brown boots.

Chat today!

Posted by Robin Abrahams February 1, 2012 08:43 AM

Monday question: Facebook & privacy

Posted by Robin Abrahams January 30, 2012 06:31 AM

Here's a juicy one: 


As I approach the birth of my first child within a few weeks, my husband and I have been discussing the issue of privacy and Facebook. Neither of us uses Facebook, but many of our friends and family members do. The topic has come up recently because my mother is a repeat offender when it comes to posting information or pictures about us that we have asked her not to share. For example, she outed my pregnancy twice on Facebook before we were ready to announce it to our friends and extended family - after she was asked specifically and repeatedly not to post anything online. Recently, I discovered (through my sister who has an account in order to police her daughter, and apparently also our mother) some very personal pregnancy pictures of me that she posted, and I am not even sure how she got them (in a bathing suit, bare belly pics that were taken to track my belly growth, etc). As much as I love my baby belly, I don't like the idea of pictures I feel are private and personal floating around the internet that weren't meant for everyone's eyes. So now we are thinking about how we feel and what to do about not having control over what is posted about us and our children. 

I want to ask you and your readers: Do we have rights as individuals and parents as to what is posted about us and our children on the internet? Is there an etiquette rule established yet as to what we can post about others without their permission? Looking forward to the feedback!

What do you think, readers? I'll post my thoughts on Friday. In the meantime, tune in to "The Emily Rooney Show" on WGBH tomorrow -- I'll be on between 12:30 and 1. And on Wednesday, join me here at noon for an online chat. 

Today's column

Posted by Robin Abrahams January 29, 2012 11:40 AM

... is online here. Another "bless you" question! Ever since "Should you say 'bless you' to a sneezing atheist?" appeared on the back of my book, I've been the go-to lady for questions of phlegmy finesse:

You specifically note that he says "God bless you," which makes me wonder whether you feel you'd somehow be trampling on authentic religious expression if you tried to stop the flow of blessings. Don't worry about it. It's only a figure of speech for most folks. If it's more than that for your co-worker, well, if you are in a permanent state of sinus agitation like I am, then perhaps you're keeping him from taking the Lord's name in vain.


Response to "Parents & politics"

Posted by Robin Abrahams January 27, 2012 04:15 PM
Monday's question was a frustrating one, as was the technical glitch that accompanied it. Sorry about that, readers! The LW didn't want to discuss politics with his father, who was becoming increasingly extremist and blowhardy. I think there are three related questions here, which I'm going to cheesily designate as "topic, tone, and technology." 

Let's start with technology first. The LW's parents are out-of-state, which means that most interactions are probably happening by phone. Phone calls between friends can be lovely, but this is because we choose our friends. With people we love but didn't get to hand-pick, it's often much nicer to be together in person, tossing a ball around the backyard or going through old photos or baking cookies, all in companionable silence. You can't be together with someone on the phone without talking, and that can be a problem. 

I wonder if there is any way for the LW to reduce the amount of phone time spent with Mom & Dad, and interact in other ways instead. The more time the LW can spend in non-verbal interaction with your parents, the better. Friendly competition in "Words with Friends"? Swapping audiobooks? Sharing ideas for home-improvement projects on Pinterest? 

As far as "tone" is concerned, I think the LW is entirely within his right to ask his parents (or anyone) not to use abusive or degrading language. Or, for that matter, to stop filibustering endlessly. I'd advise drawing the line in the sand here: "You can talk about politics all you want, although you realize I'm not especially interested. But if you start bullying and ranting, I'm going to hang up." When the hectoring tone starts to creep in, warn, "This is what I mean by bullying and ranting." If Mom or Dad (or anyone) keeps going after that, hang up. 

By focusing on "tone," the LW disarms the problem of "topic," since he's not forbidding anyone to talk about anything. Many of you were a little unclear how much the LW had already asserted himself. I couldn't tell either, and I have to wonder if he hasn't quite made his point of view known out of fear that it would be ignored. What if it turns out his parents love Bill O'Reilly more than they love the LW? I thought Rinue summarized the situation beautifully: 

Etiquette is not magic; "please" does not automatically open closed doors. The letter writer (who I'll call a him this time around since I used "her" last time) regularly has conversations with his father that he finds deeply unpleasant, both because he has no way to participate in them (since he doesn't agree or want to argue) and because he is morally opposed to the values his father supports (which are characterized as intolerant things he CANNOT STOMACH). He has told his father as much. 

If "stop it - you are hurting and scaring me" isn't listened to, it's not because you need to find the special lockbreaking way to say it. This is a relationship in which one person regularly and knowingly hurts the other person, and seems to enjoy doing so. There's not really a good solution that makes everybody happy. The letter writer isn't interested in cutting ties. What's left is other forms of disengagement to minimize the damage.

Tickets to "God of Carnage"

Posted by Robin Abrahams January 26, 2012 09:05 AM

I've still got a pair of tickets to give away to the Sunday 2pm matinee of "God of Carnage" at the Huntington Theater. (This is the live production, not to be confused with the movie.) Meredith Goldstein and I will be leading a talkback after the show, which the Boston Phoenix describes as "primal I Love Lucy mixed into the [Edward] Albee Lite."

I've never seen a show at the Huntington that wasn't gorgeously and ingeniously produced, and I'm looking forward to this one. Join me? First person to ask gets the tix.

Social media and sacred spaces

Posted by Robin Abrahams January 24, 2012 08:24 AM
The knee-jerk reaction against "Tweet seats" has been getting on my nerves. I've seen few logical cases against them and a lot of moaning and vaporing about the decline of civilization. I want to hear people talk about art in terms of experimentation, and playfulness, and intellectual rigor. Not sentimentality and sanctimony. 

I haven't changed my mind on Tweet seats, but this blog post by PeaceBang has made me more sympathetic to the anti-Tweeters. PeaceBang is a huge fan of social media in all kinds of ways, but she writes a heartfelt elegy to in-person, coffee-breathed, inconvenient, slightly dorky Sunday service at an honest-to-God bricks-and-mortar church:

 
But I love the local church so much. I love the local church's traditions, I love its architecture, I love its cast of characters, I love its organs and its parish halls and its altars. I love its presence on the landscape, its seasonal fairs and its parking lots on Sunday mornings. I love its rituals, its candles, its spirit when empty and when filled with people in the act of singing or praying together, or just listening. I love the incarnational, embodied reality of it. I love its kitchens, its coffee hours, its bulletin boards and hymnals. Best of all, I love Sunday mornings when parents bring their little guys up the sidewalk with insane bed head. I love standing in a din of chatting people after the service in a post-service state of zonkedness, and watching the kids zoom around playing a forbidden game of tag. I love the moment when someone brings someone else a cup of coffee. I love the sign-up sheets that signal that we're not doing all our business electronically. 
I am as adept a purveyor of the zippy Tweet as anyone, and certainly talented at writing simultaneously thought-provoking and entertaining blog or Facebook posts. I have participated in meaningful on-line worship services and I am glad they are being developed and offered. I find a great deal of hope, power and holiness in the ways that technology makes us aware of what King called "the inescapable network of mutuality" and what my own faith tradition calls "the interdependent web of existence." But I am very mindful of the limitations of virtual connections and spiritual affiliations that are not grounded in the local church experience.
I've seen the promise of social media in the theater. Maybe theater is so much a part of my life, something I've taken for granted, that all I think about when I think about "Tweet seats" is the novelty, the chance to learn, the potential. Theater, for me, isn't a sacred escape from the real world. But theater doesn't mean for everyone what it does to me. And maybe some of what it means is threatened by Tweet seats. 

Next Monday, Arts in America is sponsoring a panel discussion at 7:30 pm at Central Square Theater (450 Massachusetts Avenue) on Tweet seats, and I'll be one of the panelists. It's a free discussion -- RSVP here.

A class act

Posted by Robin Abrahams January 23, 2012 06:24 PM

Watch how this violinist handles himself when a cell phone disrupts his performance. 

Monday question: Parents & politics

Posted by Robin Abrahams January 23, 2012 06:30 AM

I bet this LW's problems are going to get worse, not better, as the primaries continue:

My out-of-state parents have become more far-right politically in their 60s. And now that they're retired, they spend a lot of time reading about, watching, and talking about politics. Though I consider myself a Republican, I am much more moderate than they are and find it hard to listen to them discuss current events because they're always tainted with their political bias. I find it hard to keep hearing about "those liberals" and other comments that seem so intolerant of those with opposing views. 

Within the last year or so, I've tried telling them I don't want to talk about politics, but, with my dad, it invariably comes up because it's a major interest of his. I find myself saying, "Uh-huh" a lot because I don't want to get involved in an argument and I know that I will never change his mind on anything (I've tried). I know my dad is not trying to upset me--politics is just his hobby, I guess--but I feel uncomfortable listenning to not only topics in which I disagree, but I'm also very uncomfortable with the way they are handled. How can I continue having a good relationship, particularly with my dad, if I can't stomach his O'Reilley-ish rants, even though it's something that he really enjoys discussing?

What's your advice? I'll post mine on Friday. (I can tell you right now I don't have a magic bullet for this one, though. I look forward to hearing your advice, and experiences, in the comments. 

PARENTS & POLITICS, TAKE 2: Meredith Goldstein and I will be leading a talkback for this Sunday's matinee of "God of Carnage" at the Huntington Theater. From the description of the play: 

Two sets of parents meet for the first time to settle their sons' nasty schoolyard tangle. But all attempts at civilized discussion quickly devolve into childlike behavior in this fast, furious, and very, very funny comedy of bad manners.

I have three pair of tickets to give away to the Sunday, January 29 2pm matinee. The first three commenters who ask shall receive! I hope to see you at the show. 


Today's column

Posted by Robin Abrahams January 22, 2012 04:59 AM

... is online here.

Response to: "It's okay"

Posted by Robin Abrahams January 20, 2012 02:04 PM
I loved Monday's question from LWs who, some three years after having neighbors for dinner, are still coping with floods of apologies for not having returned the invitation. Many commenters pointed out that the non-reciprocating neighbors probably didn't want to reciprocate. fastenyourseatbelts suggested: 

My guess is these people are not actually apologizing for not returning the favor, but rather apologizing for the secret reason why they have not returned the favor. Could be they are secret slobs or hoarders or struggling financially or Grandma sleeps on the sofa . . . Who knows? 

 And Jim-in-Littleton suggested it was lack of conversational facility, not hosting capacity:

I'd have to wonder if it isn't guilt at all. Maybe they just can't think of anything else to say? I mean, they spent an evening in your home so when you bump into each other they have to say something but... what? It sounds like maybe this apology is all they have. 

We'll never know, will we? 

Ash offered some good advice no matter what the truth of the situation is: 

A part of me thinks that you are sort of feeling guilty that they are feeling guilty. I would lean toward just accepting that this is going to be their opening line, let them know it doesn't matter as soon as they open their mouths and immediately change the subject. You don't have to feel bad that they feel bad and don't know how to resolve their feelings. Did you know Talmud says you only have to apologize 3 times and if its not accepted, you are off the hook. Otherwise, 2 things come to mind: 

1. Use a somewhat humorous response "Really Joe, Susie, do you know its been 3 years? I think you can stop apologizing now. What do you think of the Pats-Ravens matchup? 

2. Put them on the spot and say you are free next Saturday. Say you remember from past discussions that its hard for them to entertain at home, so maybe you can meet at the local watering hole. That may start another round of apologies OR they may see it as an opportunity to pick up your bar bill and call it a day. 

And I really liked Kestrell's advice/analysis, which takes the question to a higher level of abstraction: 

This is a reminder about how important social reciprocity is to humans. Sometimes we don't even want to accept favors (e.g., a ride home from an event rather than taking mass transit, or borrowing a food item from a neighbor, because we anticipate the cost of having to remember a favor owed and having to pay it off. That is -- the cost isn't just the obligation of paying back, but it is maintaining a database of what is owed to whom. Just easier not to accept favors. 

So: I try to remind myself: just accept a favor and don't worry about paying it off, but to act generously when I can. Because if we worry about the balance sheet, we may cut ourselves off from some social interactions.
About Miss Conduct Robin Abrahams writes the weekly "Miss Conduct" column for The Boston Globe Magazine.
contributor

Who is Miss Conduct?

Robin Abrahams writes the weekly "Miss Conduct" column for The Boston Globe Magazine. Robin, who has a PhD in psychology from Boston University, has worked as a theater publicist, organizational-change communications manager, editor, stand-up comedian, and professor of psychology and English. She lives in Cambridge with her husband, Marc Abrahams, founder of the Ig Nobel Prizes, which are given annually for achievements that first make people laugh and then make them think.

Need Advice?

Curious if you should say "bless you" to a sneezing atheist? Want to know the finer points of making a "plausible-deniability pass"? If you have a question, or even an etiquette tip to share, click here.
archives

browse this blog

by category