#1 (“When you receive an invitation to a ball, answer it immediately.”) is really important. I can't tell you how many relationships (friendship, professional, or romantic) I've screwed up simply by not being a prompt responder. In the times, places, and relationships I've made prompt-responding a priority, everything goes better.
Yes, some of them happen to align with behaviour that makes life easier for others, such as answering an invitation early.
But, taken as collection, they are inaccurate in what they leave out: The very idea of women having the same agency as men does not make an appearance. Sure, they can reject your "invitation to dance", but without such an invitation, they are, apparently, relegated to "wallflower"-status, soon to be relegated to "old and ugly".
"Going home with you" also doesn't make her a _____ anymore than it makes you a _____ to go home with her. From experience and observation, "going home with" someone tends to make people _happy_, and occasionally _a couple_.
It's also a textbook example how sexism hurts men as well as women: assuming that a relationship's success depends on her attraction to him as much as his attraction to her, these etiquette fail by using an inefficient search algorithm. He will sort the women according to attractiveness to him and "go home" with the first that is willing to sneak out the back with him. That leaves part of the search space unexplored. Specifically, there could be another woman he is only marginally less attracted to, but that is completely infatuated with him. Unfortunately, she actually believed these rules and failed to get his attention :(
Thanks! I noticed it only started after I added the last paragraph, which contains the word a man shall not use on HN, not even in discussing gender etiquette of Victorian Fucking England.
I down voted because of the "surely youre joking" comment. Its a petty passive aggressive insult to the parent, like the parent post was so obtuse that they must be joking. Ironic to me in an etiquette post.
The art here is separating the baby and the bath water.
If you replace "man" and "woman" in the text with "person with high social capital" and "person with low social capital", the present day relevance reveals itself. If you have high social capital, you have a duty to an every effort to raise those around you who have low social capital, to not draw attention to yourself, and most certainly to be very careful that you're not making anyone feel uncomfortable (infinitely more so if you're the host).
Yes, victorian society automatically assigned high capital to men and low capital to women, but they assigned significant duties to the holders of this capital. It's this ethos of duty going with privilege that resonates a lot (with me, at least).
As for "going home", there are some pretty straight forward reasons for that: reliable birth control, pre or post conception, was not a thing, and the cost of unwanted pregnancy was disproportionally (to the point of being entirely one sided) on the woman (and, by extension, her family). So, a strong social imperative to avoid this situation existed - but, notably, there is as much a duty on part of the man to not even ask, as there is for the woman to reject it. This constraint has almost entirely gone away, but we still have rather analogous discussions around consent (and rather hyperbolically IMO, but touching on the same notes, rape culture).
I agree. These rules are a product of their time, and were probably good advice for those seeking to fit in.
But I felt it's important to point out how they are actually-not-so-subtly producing the tiered society you mention, if only for the fact that this thread is already filling with comments of how uncanny it is that they are still so relevant.
And, yes, that is true in so far as you won't attract much negative attention if you behave as prescribed. But note that the reasons these may have been useful in the past have long since disappeared, so I'm expecting you all to follow that no-gossip rule even if I happen to "go home with" her , or him, or them.
This is the pre-contraception pre-sexual revolution era we're talking about. Maybe people aren't familiar with Pride and Prejudice? Dances of this form are a key part of the social structure that novel revels in.
It's an environment where primogeniture and inheritance are extremely important, where women can have no income independent of a man (and may have their ability to own property independently curtailed as well). Marriage in that context requires virginity. Sleeping around is potentially life-ruining for a woman. (Not quite so much for a man, although still indecorous; more sexism)
Nobody in that context is going to be exploring the search space though any means other than polite conversation. Men might be sleeping around, but only with women of lower social status who can be paid off or can't refuse (or have their refusal taken seriously: "rape culture").
Women could only acquire agency in this context because the risk of pregnancy was mitigated, so the lifetime costs and medical risks (4% maternal fatality rate!) of a child would not fall on them. In that environment, unmarried wombs were treated like barrels of gunpowder: keep away from naked flames.
...and how some of these rules, even if they were established in reaction to possible real-world consequences, can be perpetuated long after better methods have been invented to protect against harm.
Well, it's a contemporary digest of a body of rules "far too numerous to cover in a single article", so there's surely a bit of survivorship bias at play here. Still some nice finds there, some of those that are still valid could deserve more recognition.
I'm not a particular fan of GTD (or time management systems in general). However, that was one thing from David Allen's book that stuck with me. You can waste a huge amount of energy or attention procrastinating about some simple item that's fast and straightforward to just do.
Whenever I try this approach, I end up spending most of the day on meaningless 5 minute tasks and replies to communications. No real work ever gets done.
My most productive days are when all 5min tasks are ignored until the last possible moment when their importance grows so much that they must be done. 90% of them turn out to not need doing at all.
As a result many say I'm among the most prolific people they know, and I am nobody's idea of "who to call in emergency". ymmv
You still need to put the "5 minute tasks" into a priority queue. Of course if you only prioritize by time to completion long running tasks will rarely, if ever, get done. If it takes 5 minutes, but doesn't need to be done for a month, record the actual deadline and put it in a queue. When you need a break from more laborious or longer running tasks, check that queue of short tasks (prioritized by deadline) for things you can do right now to fill out the next few minutes before ducking out for lunch or whatever.
I mean, we don't do this with our OS schedulers? Why would we use a dogmatic "shortest task first" approach for everything else?
> Why would we use a dogmatic "shortest task first" approach for everything else?
Because that's what the GTD mantra says? "If it takes less than 5 minutes, just do it immediately"
I'm pointing out why in my experience that mantra doesn't work. And I've never read the actual book, so it's very likely I'm taking the mantra too literally and that's why it doesn't work.
Having read the book recently (within the past couple years) it also has a portion near the beginning describing GTD as a toolkit more than a system proper (probably me paraphrasing, but not treating it as dogma is part of it). Take what works and mold it for your own practice. It's not dogma, mistaking the text for dogma is how we ended up with Agile consultants.
Even if you do treat that as a mantra, another part of GTD is prioritization. If you aren't getting your real obligations done because of all these 5-minute tasks, then you're not prioritizing properly.
That's a good distillation of the concept. The idea of doing the quick stuff immediately is to prevent a massive backlog later that drains you even more. Even things like checking your email can be done less frequently to prevent unnecessary context switches. Check your email 2-5 times a day instead of leaving it open all the time. When you open it and see a bunch of short tasks, do them or schedule them (with a preference to doing to prevent that accidental backlog), then resume your work. If it's taken you 30 minutes (or some arbitrary, personal limit), switch back to your main tasks and get back to the email again later.
That advice was written when immediate answer meant writing a letter by hand and give it to someone who would ride his horse to the host. These days an immediate answer can be 10 seconds or less, so I'm not sure being really immediate would be a good practice. Fast yes, immediate... not sure.
An answer can be had in 10 seconds or less, but you still need to pull teeth to get people to respond to an invitation. Email, evite, SMS, whatever. You will still get a certain % of people that won't reply until you nag them for the fourth time.
And then you'll still get a % of no-replies that show up at the event unannounced.
This is really something that annoys me in the 21st century; that despite a formal invite (FB Event, email, even olde-worldy paper invite) people feel it's still OK to either hedge their bets right up to the last minute, or simply not show up even if they had previously rsvp'd to the contrary.
I just stopped inviting people to things when they failed to respond or failed to abide by their response without reasonable notice. They still get invited to certain events, but since I tend to be the person charged with organizing all social events for my group I was inviting people to things on a weekly basis. The non-responders and the yes-but-don't-show folks only get invited to monthly and other less frequent events (usually big ones, like someone's 40th birthday). At best, I count their responses as 1/2 responses. Every one that has the habit of not showing after saying yes has a 50/50 shot of getting a seat if they all manage to show up.
They're still friends, if not of mine, of other people who would like to see them there. Sometimes, for bigger events like at someone's home, their inability to RSVP properly is irrelevant (there will already be so many people, a handful of no-shows won't matter, and if they show there'll already be plenty of food or activities). I generally avoid inviting them to the smaller events where the no-shows become really annoying (I hate going to a restaurant, getting a table for 10, and having to give up 5 of the seats an hour later, it's completely unfair to the waitstaff and the business for the lost income potential).
Presumably, because you would've considered inviting them in the first place because you'd like to see them. In my case, it doesn't bother me the same way that it seems to bother you. "Cut them out of your life" seems like an overreaction.
An alternative stance to take could be to not expect people to behave how you want them to and just be happy if people turn up. (You're free to do what you like of course !)
Someone may be on Facebook just to keep a contact list, not to use it. Someone may not have turned up because their mother was in hospital. Maybe they were about to RSVP but then their kid fell over, then it was dinner time etc. Maybe some people just to prefer not to pre-plan everything in advance.
Try planning a wedding, conference, bus trip, or dinner party where an exact head count helps, if it's not completely mandatory.
You could be an ass and say "sorry, no RSVP, no entry", but most people will try to show a modicum of etiquette more than the guests and accommodate the fools somehow.
Or an alternative stance to that stance is to spell out whether an invitation RSVP is needed. If not knowing who the hell is coming or not in advance is immaterial to the event, then just make it an open invitation ("Hey we are hosting blah blah at blah on blah. Hope you can be there. Just show up!").
But if you're being asked for a reply by a certain date and you miss it, you should reasonably expect not to be allowed to the event. And, if you do show up anyways, you might get in and you might end up being accommodated by the hosts/organizers regardless. But that wouldn't make you any less of an ass.
> Someone may not have turned up because their mother was in hospital. Maybe they were about to RSVP but then their kid fell over, then it was dinner time etc.
These are exceptional conditions, not norms. Many people have taken to simply not RSVPing or RSVPing in the positive and not showing up as their norm. It's not an exceptional thing. Someone with a particularly hectic life is consistently unreliable, fine. Someone who's usually reliable but is unreliable a few times, give them the benefit of the doubt. People who aren't leading hectic lives (or are actively hiding that fact, it's usually hard to do so) that are consistently unreliable, they're just rude.
That's not really how it worked. There was a very good mail system in London, to the point where if you wrote a letter to someone in the morning, you could reasonably ask for a reply in the afternoon or evening if they saw the letter in time. You wouldn't dispatch a rider unless there were valuables to deliver, or maybe some kind of top secret message(but really, you would just use a cipher in those cases and send it over the normal post). Mail was the lifeblood of Victorian commerce and society, and was often delivered 3-4 times per day, every day of the week.
So... relationships have dissolved because you weren't a prompt responder?
Nothing else to sustain them? Maybe you were thoughtful in conversation? Maybe you actually asked about their family/parents/career, and gave more than a superficial listen? Maybe you actually remember their birthday? Or you always tune the radio station to whatever music they prefer when riding in the car?
These "relationships" sound pretty fucking flimsy to begin with.
I'm a bit the same. Never committing fully. It doesn't have to be immediate in today's age, but I want to be better at not waiting until the last minute to say I wont come. I know how annoying that is when I'm the one taking initiative to a get-together.
The key is being able to respond promptly and being committed to the answer one has given which aligns with the point you raise on timeliness. There are two discourtesies:
1) Not providing a committed answer until the last minute; and
2) Reneging on a previous commitment, particularly at the last moment.
Responding promptly is important if only to say, "I cannot commit at the moment but I will let you know for definite by [date]", where date is sufficiently in advance of the event in question.
Also: it is your responsibility not to make other people look bad.
I found that interesting. Much of what was recommended was telling the young man to be very careful not to accidentally make anybody feel embarrassed or shamed.
Agreed. It is also easily forgotten (or perhaps never taught) in the modern world.
Somebody with good manners always make you feel special and takes care of your needs ahead of theirs. Somehow or another, a ton of people grew up thinking manners and etiquette were about where the forks go at a formal dinner.
Yes. Even in the dinner setting case, the forks have a place so that you can feel confident in what you're doing no matter whose house you sit down in. But good hosts also know, if they see their guest start drinking the contents of the finger bowl, the host does the same :)
I had heard the expression 'drinking out of the finger bowl' many times as the epitome of uncouth, uncultured behavior. Finally around the age of 30, I found myself for the first time at a dinner where there were actual finger bowls, I could not stop myself and had to pretend to drink out of it.
(But interestingly, I also discovered they're quite useful. The meal featured a bit of a messy seafood course which required eating with your hands, and they allowed a bit of a wash up at the table.)
On the flip side of this, growing up eating whole lobster in Maine most of my childhood, the first time I ordered it at a 5-star, haute cuisine restaurant I was extraordinarily disappointed to find out they had already shelled it (albeit beautifully, perfectly) in the kitchen before serving it to me.
> the forks have a place so that you can feel confident in what you're doing no matter whose house you sit down in
Once I learned (some of) the actual rules around dinner settings, that sort of etiquette made far more sense to me. Using dinner forks isn't hard, even in high class settings: you start from the furthest-out fork and move in. But setting them requires knowing what you're doing so that your guests don't need to know - the goal of politeness being that you ensure no one else is ill at ease.
Reminds me of something I once read on the difference between good manners and good etiquette. With good etiquette, if your guest starts eating the soup with the wrong spoon, you correct their mistake. With good manners, you use the wrong spoon to match.
Reminds me of this tidbit on etiquette from the 1940s, "Junior Prom". "Let's follow these students as they go on a date and see if their manners have anything to do with their fun."
Surely we all understand what you're pointing out, but the idea of looking back at this is to see what we've forgotten and to learn something of value from the past, which surely does have a lot to offer. If we ignore the wisdom of the past because there are so many mistakes included, we throw the baby out with the bath water.
How is it a ton of fun? To me it seems to be one of the most boring things I could ever conceive. I am sure it's fun to people who do it however, and I am trying to understand why. Who knows, maybe once I understand it I will want to do it myself. I don't think this is an unreasonable question.
I'm having a lot of fun grinding mirrors for hours of a time. I am sure most people would not consider that to be fun, but boring menial work, but I am having lots of fun. I won't try to sell this activity to anyone else "because it's fun" as I am sure they just won't get it since they aren't into it already. It requires more careful explanation.
I presume you have a certain mental image of "ballroom dancing" that might not be entirely accurate, or at least is needlessly narrow. Many social partner dances put a heavy emphasis on self-expression, musical intepretation, improvisation, and partner communication. It might not be for everyone but it certainly can't be said to be boring.
At a typical 'Ballroom beginners class', there will be no-one there who can already dance (i.e. if they were already great then they'd be in the next class up, etc). But also most people will have two left feet : Happy klutzes all around, without needing the excuse of alcohol to feel liberated. And there's always something to talk about... People are there just to have some fun, but don't feel the need to go 'CRAZY'. It's a nice atmosphere. Perhaps go for an icecream afterwards :-)
The class may or may not be fun, but the extra skill can be. It's a physically intimate exchange between two people (in partner dances like ballroom emphasizes). If you enjoy music, it gives you another avenue for enjoyment and participation (actively responding to what you hear, as the lead choosing the right direction and movements for you and your partner, as the follow choosing the right flourish to add to a movement). Socializing is generally enjoyable for human beings, even introverts at least for a period of time, and this is one way to socialize. You also learn to let go which can allow you to experience more joy/fun than being overly anxious and rigid.
It's not a rigid thing. There are certain movements that everyone learns to start with, the basic waltz and foxtrot and such. Then you learn to combine different movements but still staying within the confines of the waltz. You learn how to add flair to it. It's like musical improvisation if you've ever played an instrument or sung, but physical, with your whole body. There are rules and constraints (really, conventions and guidelines). The restrictions impose challenges that can be fun to work within and around (a typical waltz is a 3/4 time piece, the dance is often done in a circle around the room, but what twirls and such you add are yours to choose and at the right time). Every dance will be different and unique.
I have to ask, do you actually have fun grinding mirrors for hours? Like, you actually experience joy and glee from the activity proper? Or is it the end product you enjoy or the challenges of finding the right way to achieve the qualities/properties you desire from a mirror with the tools and techniques at hand? Or is it, like running for me, meditative in its repetition, but still novel enough at each turn to not be mind numbing?
Any social partner dance, really. "Ballroom dancing" may evoke mental images of old-fashioned dances in a formal setting, but there's a huge selection of different dances, some very modern and casual. West Coast Swing [1] is my passion. Its roots are in Lindy Hop, the grandfather of swing dances (and itself very fun to dance) but it's modern and smooth and sexy and mostly danced to contemporary popular music.
+1 on WCS. My only regret was not taking dancing lessons early. Guys, one of the easiest things to improve self esteem and to have fun at social occasions like weddings is to learn some basic dance steps. It's not as hard as it seems and the basic classes do assume you can't dance at all.
Big +1 for this. I personally haven't done any ballroom dancing, but I've done a lot of Contra dancing over the years and it has been a lot of fun [1]. Any social dance is great exercise and great for brain health [2]. Contra dancing is much more laid back than ballroom but many of these things in the article still apply to some degree. Contra dancers are usually very friendly and it's not hard to find a partner dances, even if you are new.
> “At a public ball, it is exceptional for a gentleman to offer to escort a lady home: she is pretty sure to refuse, unless ____ but we need not supply that blank!”
I'll bet you're just thinking of the box-step (the super basic step where you basically walk in a box shape).
If I'm not misremembering my lessons--to do some of the turns properly, the woman has to be essentially straddling the man's upper leg. It was a pain to do some of those with partners who weren't comfortable with that kind of contact.
Right, I just mean that the way you phrased it sounded like you were picturing a super vanilla, middle-school-dance-esque box-stepping couple (in 3/4 time).
All's I meant is I can see how waltz was considered risque; as a sheltered guy, I was caught really off-guard when our instructor positioned my partner and I in the way I described.
Still happens today on modern social dance floors (read: not the nightclub). You don't want to be stomping your feet on every step unless it's intentional (such as an inflection on a certain part of a song). Otherwise, you're quiet with the feet.
It's actually a lot of fun to be graceful! Quiet with the feet, loud with the dance.
#8 Don’t Whisper to the Ladies.
“To affect an air of secrecy or mystery when conversing
in a ballroom is a piece of impertinence for which no
lady of delicacy will thank you.”
Nowadays, don't most people find whispering in a loud setting a kind of intimate thing from partner to partner? I personally find it has the effect of making a big event smaller, more about "us."
Fun fact: if it's ridiculously loud somewhere, just cover your ears (and have your conversation partner cover theirs), and you'll be able to speak to each other at a fairly normal volume. Works great for concerts and clubs especially.
I think that was also the case when this advice was written, but with different social norms around that intimacy.
The concern isn't that it's personally unpleasant but an indelicacy - it creates an appearance of indecency in a culture where excessive familiarity could seriously harm a woman's reputation.
In my early 20s, I used to meet girls at a country swing dancing place. I was really nerdy and this gave me a chance to practice interacting with women and I got quite a few dates off of it.
Some of my fellow nerds tried to do the same thing but they made this big mistake: they'd think just because the girl danced with them, they could try for a phone number. It would make the girls really uncomfortable. Other people would see that, and it made it harder to get another girl to dance with.
I took a different strategy: I danced with any girl, made them smile (I was good at dancing with beginners and I recycled the same few jokes over and over), and then move on. Sometimes the girl would show interest and that's when I'd go for a phone number.
And if the girl wasn't interested (vast majority of the time), they'd still tell their friends how fun I am, or other people would see the whole interaction and I'd quickly feel like a rockstar.
That's a good observation. A lot of guys ask how to meet women (well everyone asks how to meet everyone). The key is to engage in social activities where you expand your social circle.
Here's the thing - most activities that expand your social circle are not actually focused on finding a date, because most people are paired up and.or otherwise aren't looking for a date. As a result, you need to engage sincerely in the activity itself, and not try to romanticize (which is the mildest form of what you shouldn't do) every encounter.
Ballroom dancing, tennis leagues (such as mixed doubles), and other activities that mix men and women are good choices. But yes, in most of these cases, the people involved not only won't be looking for a date, and it's extremely important not to treat them as events where people are looking for a date. They aren't, and people involved in them may in fact resent the implication that this is the primary purpose for their participation.
Ironically, that's why they work so well for expanding your social circle. If they were about dating, 90% of the people involved in them wouldn't be involved, and the network effect would collapse.
Also - once people know and like you, of course they don't mind that you are single and would are interested in meeting single people in the same spot. There is a time honored tradition of introducing people to each other under exactly these circumstances.
This touches on what I consider to be a universal truth about human interaction. If you have a hidden agenda / ulterior motive (like getting a phone number in your example), other people will usually sense it as it comes across in body language and demeanour, and not just via speaking. People have a natural negative reaction to shiftiness.
If however you aren't looking to gain anything w/ the interaction other than enjoying the interaction itself, you will get a positive response nearly every time.
Sometimes people might be unresponsive due to a bad mood or general unhappiness, but who cares? You had no agenda, so you have nothing invested. If you let it roll off and move along you literally lose nothing.
> At a public ball, it is exceptional for a gentleman to offer to escort a lady home: she is pretty sure to refuse, unless ____ but we need not supply that blank!
Man, I think it'd be so cool if etiquette was a core class in grade school (perhaps stripped of some 1850s sensibilities).
Most of the upper-class people I know would sooner go to the club and dry-hump a stranger than throw a cocktail/dinner party (much less waltz). I'm all for having fun and using a salad fork to eat dessert, but I'd be interested to see the world with like 25% less depravity.
I see this a lot on Hacker News and I really don't understand why. Who cares if people "go to the club and dry-hump a stranger"? What if I like cocktail parties AND clubs? Where do I fall in your moral binary? Furthermore, what's wrong with your so-called depravity? You do realize that you just said you wanted manners without 1850s sensibilities and then proceeded to invoke those same 1850s sensibilities, right?
In other words, come down off your high horse; let people like what they like.
Woah I was not trying to make a personal attack, so I don't think hating on me from a throwaway is really called for. I know that a lot of people like doing those things because I hang out with them and often do them too.
You really got me wrong. I was trying to open a dialogue on shifting norms, not assume a position of moral superiority.
"I was trying to open a dialogue on shifting norms"
Why can't you just LARP for fun? People do stuff like civil war encampments and renn faires because they're huge fun. A LARP club that gets dressed up and dances to the waltz sounds like an unusual, interesting time.
(Edited to add, I've not been to a SCA event but would I be correct in predicting there might be a waltz at a SCA event?)
> Most of the upper-class people I know would sooner go to the club and dry-hump a stranger than throw a cocktail/dinner party (much less waltz).
Quelle horreur!
> I'm all for having fun and using a salad fork to eat dessert...
Here's where you portray yourself as someone who likes to break the mold just a little bit...
> but I'd be interested to see the world with like 25% less depravity.
...and here's where you suggest that current norms are too much and that people who don't conform to your idea of wholesome, "classy" fun are depraved.
We must have different definitions of moral superiority.
The corollary to that, of course, is - don't be upset when people judge you for your choices silently or vocally or stop interacting with you.
They're just as free to pass judgment as you are to make choices that would alienate you from the others.
I don't think it reflects poorly on either party, but is just an inalienable component of human nature. It's a balance of personal choice/freedom vs societal acceptance. People fall on different parts of the spectrum and it's ok.
Well of course one would have to be rather depraved and unconventional to do so; but I take it that this is huehehue's example of the sort of fun and depravity the having of which he is "all for," while still wishing for a general reduction in the broader depravities of modern living.
For a slightly more modern and irreverent take on social customs I can thoroughly recommend obtaining a copy of J.P. Donleavy's "The Unexpurgated Code: A Complete Manual of Survival & Manners":
And _this_ is the point in my sentence that's questionable ?
The indoctrination is complete, no wonder the etiquette as above seems ancient and lack of modern values don't include it in education as parent wondered.
Have you ever actually had a feminist literally scream in your face? I was trying to only address the part of your post that seemed to be blatantly undermining your own point.
You talk of etiquette, yet you respond with kneejerk, stereotypical insults (that she's a screaming feminist because she's fat and can't get laid, is that how it goes?) towards people you have a disagreement with. You may want to look to your own manners first.
Please don't feed trolls. That makes the thread still worse. Instead, you can flag an egregious comment. To do this, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. (There's a small karma threshold, currently 30, before flag links appear.)
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the guidelines after we've asked you to stop. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291733 and marked it off-topic.
I love these pieces that give an insight into another time. There is a certain old world charm to this. There is a lot of encouragement to to be thoughtful and put others first. This is what gracious means. And that's timeless.
But its also about a context that may not be common anymore. Our standards of behavior are much more laid back. I suspect its very rare for most people now be among strangers in a formal-informal context without friends in tow and in groups this reduces the overall level of formality. The risk of overt graciousness out of context is it might come off as affected.
It's important to remember that these sources are still only advice/self-help books. The authors may have had limited practical experience, for all we know.
Reading historical advice, I find I must continually remind myself that it isn't descriptive. All these things happened with some regularly or they wouldn't have needed the advice!
128 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 198 ms ] threadBut, taken as collection, they are inaccurate in what they leave out: The very idea of women having the same agency as men does not make an appearance. Sure, they can reject your "invitation to dance", but without such an invitation, they are, apparently, relegated to "wallflower"-status, soon to be relegated to "old and ugly".
"Going home with you" also doesn't make her a _____ anymore than it makes you a _____ to go home with her. From experience and observation, "going home with" someone tends to make people _happy_, and occasionally _a couple_.
It's also a textbook example how sexism hurts men as well as women: assuming that a relationship's success depends on her attraction to him as much as his attraction to her, these etiquette fail by using an inefficient search algorithm. He will sort the women according to attractiveness to him and "go home" with the first that is willing to sneak out the back with him. That leaves part of the search space unexplored. Specifically, there could be another woman he is only marginally less attracted to, but that is completely infatuated with him. Unfortunately, she actually believed these rules and failed to get his attention :(
Edit: removed Feynman reference
If you replace "man" and "woman" in the text with "person with high social capital" and "person with low social capital", the present day relevance reveals itself. If you have high social capital, you have a duty to an every effort to raise those around you who have low social capital, to not draw attention to yourself, and most certainly to be very careful that you're not making anyone feel uncomfortable (infinitely more so if you're the host).
Yes, victorian society automatically assigned high capital to men and low capital to women, but they assigned significant duties to the holders of this capital. It's this ethos of duty going with privilege that resonates a lot (with me, at least).
As for "going home", there are some pretty straight forward reasons for that: reliable birth control, pre or post conception, was not a thing, and the cost of unwanted pregnancy was disproportionally (to the point of being entirely one sided) on the woman (and, by extension, her family). So, a strong social imperative to avoid this situation existed - but, notably, there is as much a duty on part of the man to not even ask, as there is for the woman to reject it. This constraint has almost entirely gone away, but we still have rather analogous discussions around consent (and rather hyperbolically IMO, but touching on the same notes, rape culture).
But I felt it's important to point out how they are actually-not-so-subtly producing the tiered society you mention, if only for the fact that this thread is already filling with comments of how uncanny it is that they are still so relevant.
And, yes, that is true in so far as you won't attract much negative attention if you behave as prescribed. But note that the reasons these may have been useful in the past have long since disappeared, so I'm expecting you all to follow that no-gossip rule even if I happen to "go home with" her , or him, or them.
It's an environment where primogeniture and inheritance are extremely important, where women can have no income independent of a man (and may have their ability to own property independently curtailed as well). Marriage in that context requires virginity. Sleeping around is potentially life-ruining for a woman. (Not quite so much for a man, although still indecorous; more sexism)
Nobody in that context is going to be exploring the search space though any means other than polite conversation. Men might be sleeping around, but only with women of lower social status who can be paid off or can't refuse (or have their refusal taken seriously: "rape culture").
Women could only acquire agency in this context because the risk of pregnancy was mitigated, so the lifetime costs and medical risks (4% maternal fatality rate!) of a child would not fall on them. In that environment, unmarried wombs were treated like barrels of gunpowder: keep away from naked flames.
> Surprising how relevant most of that still is.
...and how some of these rules, even if they were established in reaction to possible real-world consequences, can be perpetuated long after better methods have been invented to protect against harm.
This BBC documentary ("The Secret Rules of Modern Living Algorithms") had a bit about this: https://youtu.be/T1os88EvPc4?t=19m11s
It saves you so much time and hassle down the line.
I'm not perfect about it, but it's good advice.
My most productive days are when all 5min tasks are ignored until the last possible moment when their importance grows so much that they must be done. 90% of them turn out to not need doing at all.
As a result many say I'm among the most prolific people they know, and I am nobody's idea of "who to call in emergency". ymmv
I mean, we don't do this with our OS schedulers? Why would we use a dogmatic "shortest task first" approach for everything else?
Because that's what the GTD mantra says? "If it takes less than 5 minutes, just do it immediately"
I'm pointing out why in my experience that mantra doesn't work. And I've never read the actual book, so it's very likely I'm taking the mantra too literally and that's why it doesn't work.
Even if you do treat that as a mantra, another part of GTD is prioritization. If you aren't getting your real obligations done because of all these 5-minute tasks, then you're not prioritizing properly.
http://gettingthingsdone.com/fivesteps/
That's a good distillation of the concept. The idea of doing the quick stuff immediately is to prevent a massive backlog later that drains you even more. Even things like checking your email can be done less frequently to prevent unnecessary context switches. Check your email 2-5 times a day instead of leaving it open all the time. When you open it and see a bunch of short tasks, do them or schedule them (with a preference to doing to prevent that accidental backlog), then resume your work. If it's taken you 30 minutes (or some arbitrary, personal limit), switch back to your main tasks and get back to the email again later.
And then you'll still get a % of no-replies that show up at the event unannounced.
Most people these days simply have no manners.
Someone may be on Facebook just to keep a contact list, not to use it. Someone may not have turned up because their mother was in hospital. Maybe they were about to RSVP but then their kid fell over, then it was dinner time etc. Maybe some people just to prefer not to pre-plan everything in advance.
You could be an ass and say "sorry, no RSVP, no entry", but most people will try to show a modicum of etiquette more than the guests and accommodate the fools somehow.
But if you're being asked for a reply by a certain date and you miss it, you should reasonably expect not to be allowed to the event. And, if you do show up anyways, you might get in and you might end up being accommodated by the hosts/organizers regardless. But that wouldn't make you any less of an ass.
These are exceptional conditions, not norms. Many people have taken to simply not RSVPing or RSVPing in the positive and not showing up as their norm. It's not an exceptional thing. Someone with a particularly hectic life is consistently unreliable, fine. Someone who's usually reliable but is unreliable a few times, give them the benefit of the doubt. People who aren't leading hectic lives (or are actively hiding that fact, it's usually hard to do so) that are consistently unreliable, they're just rude.
I wouldn't put too much thought into this.
Just be empathetic to the sender. If I would send an invite, I'd love a quick response. But would be forgiving if it's delayed.
Nothing else to sustain them? Maybe you were thoughtful in conversation? Maybe you actually asked about their family/parents/career, and gave more than a superficial listen? Maybe you actually remember their birthday? Or you always tune the radio station to whatever music they prefer when riding in the car?
These "relationships" sound pretty fucking flimsy to begin with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
1) Not providing a committed answer until the last minute; and 2) Reneging on a previous commitment, particularly at the last moment.
Responding promptly is important if only to say, "I cannot commit at the moment but I will let you know for definite by [date]", where date is sufficiently in advance of the event in question.
Be respectful.
Don't make assumptions.
An interesting read, nevertheless.
I found that interesting. Much of what was recommended was telling the young man to be very careful not to accidentally make anybody feel embarrassed or shamed.
Respect is a separate matter (as anyone who has experienced someone who doesn't like them in the south can attest)
Somebody with good manners always make you feel special and takes care of your needs ahead of theirs. Somehow or another, a ton of people grew up thinking manners and etiquette were about where the forks go at a formal dinner.
I'm stealing that one.
(But interestingly, I also discovered they're quite useful. The meal featured a bit of a messy seafood course which required eating with your hands, and they allowed a bit of a wash up at the table.)
I was very pleased, the first time I ate at a similar restaurant, to be given all kinds of tools with which to attack the large pile of seafood.
(This was in Copenhagen, but two anecdotes isn't enough to generalize.)
Once I learned (some of) the actual rules around dinner settings, that sort of etiquette made far more sense to me. Using dinner forks isn't hard, even in high class settings: you start from the furthest-out fork and move in. But setting them requires knowing what you're doing so that your guests don't need to know - the goal of politeness being that you ensure no one else is ill at ease.
http://imgur.com/gallery/nPsQa20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7sHCAG69Wg
I'm having a lot of fun grinding mirrors for hours of a time. I am sure most people would not consider that to be fun, but boring menial work, but I am having lots of fun. I won't try to sell this activity to anyone else "because it's fun" as I am sure they just won't get it since they aren't into it already. It requires more careful explanation.
It's not a rigid thing. There are certain movements that everyone learns to start with, the basic waltz and foxtrot and such. Then you learn to combine different movements but still staying within the confines of the waltz. You learn how to add flair to it. It's like musical improvisation if you've ever played an instrument or sung, but physical, with your whole body. There are rules and constraints (really, conventions and guidelines). The restrictions impose challenges that can be fun to work within and around (a typical waltz is a 3/4 time piece, the dance is often done in a circle around the room, but what twirls and such you add are yours to choose and at the right time). Every dance will be different and unique.
I have to ask, do you actually have fun grinding mirrors for hours? Like, you actually experience joy and glee from the activity proper? Or is it the end product you enjoy or the challenges of finding the right way to achieve the qualities/properties you desire from a mirror with the tools and techniques at hand? Or is it, like running for me, meditative in its repetition, but still novel enough at each turn to not be mind numbing?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Swing
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KevQxr-saFw
[2] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/well/walk-stretch-or-d...
On the contrary, you need.
(as mentioned at #11, this is the time when the waltz was still a bit racey and mildly controversial)
The thing Victorian teenage day dreams were made of.
If I'm not misremembering my lessons--to do some of the turns properly, the woman has to be essentially straddling the man's upper leg. It was a pain to do some of those with partners who weren't comfortable with that kind of contact.
All's I meant is I can see how waltz was considered risque; as a sheltered guy, I was caught really off-guard when our instructor positioned my partner and I in the way I described.
It's actually a lot of fun to be graceful! Quiet with the feet, loud with the dance.
"DO YOU WANNA GET A DRINK!?"
The concern isn't that it's personally unpleasant but an indelicacy - it creates an appearance of indecency in a culture where excessive familiarity could seriously harm a woman's reputation.
I really like this advice. You dance and you leave. No phone number exchange, no text messages, no selfies, no follow ups.
Some of my fellow nerds tried to do the same thing but they made this big mistake: they'd think just because the girl danced with them, they could try for a phone number. It would make the girls really uncomfortable. Other people would see that, and it made it harder to get another girl to dance with.
I took a different strategy: I danced with any girl, made them smile (I was good at dancing with beginners and I recycled the same few jokes over and over), and then move on. Sometimes the girl would show interest and that's when I'd go for a phone number.
And if the girl wasn't interested (vast majority of the time), they'd still tell their friends how fun I am, or other people would see the whole interaction and I'd quickly feel like a rockstar.
Here's the thing - most activities that expand your social circle are not actually focused on finding a date, because most people are paired up and.or otherwise aren't looking for a date. As a result, you need to engage sincerely in the activity itself, and not try to romanticize (which is the mildest form of what you shouldn't do) every encounter.
Ballroom dancing, tennis leagues (such as mixed doubles), and other activities that mix men and women are good choices. But yes, in most of these cases, the people involved not only won't be looking for a date, and it's extremely important not to treat them as events where people are looking for a date. They aren't, and people involved in them may in fact resent the implication that this is the primary purpose for their participation.
Ironically, that's why they work so well for expanding your social circle. If they were about dating, 90% of the people involved in them wouldn't be involved, and the network effect would collapse.
Also - once people know and like you, of course they don't mind that you are single and would are interested in meeting single people in the same spot. There is a time honored tradition of introducing people to each other under exactly these circumstances.
If however you aren't looking to gain anything w/ the interaction other than enjoying the interaction itself, you will get a positive response nearly every time.
Sometimes people might be unresponsive due to a bad mood or general unhappiness, but who cares? You had no agenda, so you have nothing invested. If you let it roll off and move along you literally lose nothing.
Hasn't changed.
Yes you can!
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291182 and marked it off-topic.
Most of the upper-class people I know would sooner go to the club and dry-hump a stranger than throw a cocktail/dinner party (much less waltz). I'm all for having fun and using a salad fork to eat dessert, but I'd be interested to see the world with like 25% less depravity.
In other words, come down off your high horse; let people like what they like.
You really got me wrong. I was trying to open a dialogue on shifting norms, not assume a position of moral superiority.
Why can't you just LARP for fun? People do stuff like civil war encampments and renn faires because they're huge fun. A LARP club that gets dressed up and dances to the waltz sounds like an unusual, interesting time.
(Edited to add, I've not been to a SCA event but would I be correct in predicting there might be a waltz at a SCA event?)
Did I now?
> Most of the upper-class people I know would sooner go to the club and dry-hump a stranger than throw a cocktail/dinner party (much less waltz).
Quelle horreur!
> I'm all for having fun and using a salad fork to eat dessert...
Here's where you portray yourself as someone who likes to break the mold just a little bit...
> but I'd be interested to see the world with like 25% less depravity.
...and here's where you suggest that current norms are too much and that people who don't conform to your idea of wholesome, "classy" fun are depraved.
We must have different definitions of moral superiority.
They're just as free to pass judgment as you are to make choices that would alienate you from the others.
I don't think it reflects poorly on either party, but is just an inalienable component of human nature. It's a balance of personal choice/freedom vs societal acceptance. People fall on different parts of the spectrum and it's ok.
Well of course one would have to be rather depraved and unconventional to do so; but I take it that this is huehehue's example of the sort of fun and depravity the having of which he is "all for," while still wishing for a general reduction in the broader depravities of modern living.
One of the most interesting artifacts of the time is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_card
Women had to keep a careful list of the men that they would dance with during that night, each lasting about five minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unexpurgated_Code
The indoctrination is complete, no wonder the etiquette as above seems ancient and lack of modern values don't include it in education as parent wondered.
You talk of etiquette, yet you respond with kneejerk, stereotypical insults (that she's a screaming feminist because she's fat and can't get laid, is that how it goes?) towards people you have a disagreement with. You may want to look to your own manners first.
Someone whose future only holds cats and a happy pill prescription has no reason to hold back.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But its also about a context that may not be common anymore. Our standards of behavior are much more laid back. I suspect its very rare for most people now be among strangers in a formal-informal context without friends in tow and in groups this reduces the overall level of formality. The risk of overt graciousness out of context is it might come off as affected.