Someone in a comment many postings ago asked how I felt about younger people calling older people by their given names, without honorifics attached. Giving some thought to the question, my answer is "It depends."
What does it depend on? For one thing, it depends on the familial connection. For me, no grandparent is ever going to be called by a first name without either Babi or Zaydie attached before that name. In one branch of our families even that is too informal for the relationship, and the children there call their grandparents Babi Smith or Zaydie Smith. Now go to the next level of relationship--aunts and uncles. Growing up we called all of our aunts and uncles by their first names with an honorific coming before--Tante Libby and Uncle Shlomo, or Mima Rivka and Fetter Boruch. Even when we were speaking about them rather than to them we always included the honorific. Things got a little less formal the further up the family tree a relationship was. We called our parents' cousins, who were, after all, our cousins as well, by their first names, no honorific used. Their children did the same to my parents. But we also did so because that was THEIR preference and they let us know that.
Now move out of actual family relationships. When I was younger society in general was more formal. We called our parents' friends--and indeed all adults--Mr. X and Mrs. X. For a few who were very close to the family, we attached the honorific of Aunt or Uncle in front of their first names--they had honorary family status. And there were a rare few who themselves insisted that we call them by their first names, no honorific or title needed. Today there are many adults who don't want that level of formality; their preference is to be called by their first name, and they let you know that.
And then there are some of us, me included, who prefer to have an honorific attached to our names. And sometimes we get what we want, and sometimes not. I've found this is much less a problem with those not related to us than with our relatives. There is not a single one of our children's friends who calls us by our first names. Yes, some have shortened the name to Mrs. K rather than the full name, and there's the one who, as a gesture of the degree of friendliness, calls me Momma K. And then there are a few of the nieces and nephews whose parents decided that being called Aunt and Uncle was just too formal and they didn't want it. Unfortunately, they also included us in that dictate, even if it's not our preference. No, I don't like being called by my first name without the honorific attached by nieces and nephews. And no, the relationship with those nieces and nephews is just not as close as with the ones who see us as something special, who see us as Aunt and Uncle.
My personal feeling is that we, each of us, should have the right to decide by what name we will be called in any given situation. And if we want an honorific attached then that's how it should be. Can you really imagine going up to a Rosh Yeshiva and addressing him "Hiya Roshie" or "Hiya Yankie"? Of course that wouldn't happen--it would be highly disrespectful. Well, there are others for whom respect should be shown as well, and using an honorific is one way of according that respect. And not just respect, but love as well.
Feel free to disagree with me, but this is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Showing posts with label Etiquette. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Etiquette. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
On Jewish Standard Time
Okay, G6 is right--somewhere in my background and that of my hubby there has to be a whole passel of Yekis. When it comes to time we are punctlich to the nth degree. Unfortunately, this is an area where we are tested and tortured on a constant basis.
Many of you have been hosts or hostesses with invited guests. The first thing a guest asks is what time they are expected to be there. Why do some of them bother?! It does not matter what number you give them, they are going to be late. They are constantly and continuously late, and offer that as an excuse, always with a smile. The rest of us, or at least those who seem to be able to tell time, are expected to understand that some people are just time challenged, yet another disability we pay tribute to.
A vort a few weeks ago, not a come whenever you want to affair but a sit down, catered dinner with a definite starting time. It was held locally, a maximum of a five-minute drive from anywhere in the neighborhood. So hubby and I arrive as requested and who do we find at our table for 10? One other couple. When did the others finally arrive? Between 7:20 and 8:00. None of these people have little children in the house. None of these people work on Sunday. No one had another simcha that they had to attend first. No one was off the Island and fighting traffic to get back. By 7:30 the caterer began serving the meal. And these latecomers were surprised at that. "Everyone" knows that hours on an invitation are only a suggestion of a general time range. Who comes precisely at the hour requested?!
It really isn't any better when it happens privately at gatherings in a home. How many times have I planned out just precisely how long a turkey needs to roast and then been torpedoed by guests who may first be leaving their home at the time that they are already supposed to be in my home.
I can still remember back to my carpooling days for school for my kids. Inevitably there was always one parent in the carpool who couldn't manage to be ready on time or couldn't pick up on time, and our whole group got the lecture from the principal about getting to school on time when it was really only one person's fault. I remember quitting a carpool when I was in college because two of the other drivers could not, even with a gun to their heads, get us to college on time for classes.
I know it may not be PC, and so be it, but perhaps it's time to get rid of the myth that there is such a thing as "time challenged," and that this is a "condition" that those afflicted with it cannot help. Perhaps if those so "challenged" were actually penalized in some way they would suddenly discover that with some effort on their part, they can make it places when they are supposed to be there. We once attended a performance the tickets to which clearly read "no patrons will be seated after the start of the performance." And the theatre kept to its word. Anyone arriving late had the choice of waiting until the intermission to be seated or they could go home--and no, the tickets were not refunded. The instructions had been clearly stated, and if you were late YOU took the consequences, not the rest of us. Of late I have begun my own personal rebellion against the procrastinators. If I call a meal for 12:00, by 12:30 the latest I begin serving to those who have made it on time. The rest, when they arrive, play catch up as best they can.
Getting places on time is not just the fetish of a few hosts and hostesses. Our world is organized along time principles. Bosses are notoriously finicky about employees showing up when they are supposed to. Schools have begun cracking down on the continuously late. Planes, trains and buses don't sit and wait for those who have purchased tickets but are nowhere to be seen. Overdue library books come with monetary fines, as do late bill payments. If you really do like the late-comers among you, you are doing them no favor by excusing their tardiness as "they can't help it." Instead, make it clear that this is the year of the clock. Nudge, prod and pester until they manage to get the idea that "late" may be a word in the dictionary but it's not an acceptable method of operating in the real world. Sigh, and good luck to you. Probably easier to design a new rocket ship than to get these people where they need to be when they need to be there.
Many of you have been hosts or hostesses with invited guests. The first thing a guest asks is what time they are expected to be there. Why do some of them bother?! It does not matter what number you give them, they are going to be late. They are constantly and continuously late, and offer that as an excuse, always with a smile. The rest of us, or at least those who seem to be able to tell time, are expected to understand that some people are just time challenged, yet another disability we pay tribute to.
A vort a few weeks ago, not a come whenever you want to affair but a sit down, catered dinner with a definite starting time. It was held locally, a maximum of a five-minute drive from anywhere in the neighborhood. So hubby and I arrive as requested and who do we find at our table for 10? One other couple. When did the others finally arrive? Between 7:20 and 8:00. None of these people have little children in the house. None of these people work on Sunday. No one had another simcha that they had to attend first. No one was off the Island and fighting traffic to get back. By 7:30 the caterer began serving the meal. And these latecomers were surprised at that. "Everyone" knows that hours on an invitation are only a suggestion of a general time range. Who comes precisely at the hour requested?!
It really isn't any better when it happens privately at gatherings in a home. How many times have I planned out just precisely how long a turkey needs to roast and then been torpedoed by guests who may first be leaving their home at the time that they are already supposed to be in my home.
I can still remember back to my carpooling days for school for my kids. Inevitably there was always one parent in the carpool who couldn't manage to be ready on time or couldn't pick up on time, and our whole group got the lecture from the principal about getting to school on time when it was really only one person's fault. I remember quitting a carpool when I was in college because two of the other drivers could not, even with a gun to their heads, get us to college on time for classes.
I know it may not be PC, and so be it, but perhaps it's time to get rid of the myth that there is such a thing as "time challenged," and that this is a "condition" that those afflicted with it cannot help. Perhaps if those so "challenged" were actually penalized in some way they would suddenly discover that with some effort on their part, they can make it places when they are supposed to be there. We once attended a performance the tickets to which clearly read "no patrons will be seated after the start of the performance." And the theatre kept to its word. Anyone arriving late had the choice of waiting until the intermission to be seated or they could go home--and no, the tickets were not refunded. The instructions had been clearly stated, and if you were late YOU took the consequences, not the rest of us. Of late I have begun my own personal rebellion against the procrastinators. If I call a meal for 12:00, by 12:30 the latest I begin serving to those who have made it on time. The rest, when they arrive, play catch up as best they can.
Getting places on time is not just the fetish of a few hosts and hostesses. Our world is organized along time principles. Bosses are notoriously finicky about employees showing up when they are supposed to. Schools have begun cracking down on the continuously late. Planes, trains and buses don't sit and wait for those who have purchased tickets but are nowhere to be seen. Overdue library books come with monetary fines, as do late bill payments. If you really do like the late-comers among you, you are doing them no favor by excusing their tardiness as "they can't help it." Instead, make it clear that this is the year of the clock. Nudge, prod and pester until they manage to get the idea that "late" may be a word in the dictionary but it's not an acceptable method of operating in the real world. Sigh, and good luck to you. Probably easier to design a new rocket ship than to get these people where they need to be when they need to be there.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
A Matter of Social Etiquette
In Judaism we have certain laws that apply to all people, at all times, in all circumstances. What the Torah tells us to do is immutable. Thou shalt not commit adultery applied thousands of years ago and still applies today. Then there are dictates established Mi'd'rabonon. Sometimes special circumstances faced Klal that required rules to be put into place in response to those circumstances. Once the circumstances were no longer the case, the rules no longer applied.
Human beings have added another layer of rules, not halachic but societal. Call them the rules of etiquette or social behavior. All organized societies have such rules of societal behavior. Sometimes they derive from established law and sometimes they derive from thin air; they are inventions with no basis in law or only a very tenuous basis in law. But one thing all rules of society have in common is that they are not carved in stone, passed unchanged from generation to generation. The etiquette that ruled the social lives of your grandparents is probably not the etiquette that rules your social lives. There may be bits and pieces of your grandparents' etiquette still seen in today's social rules, but maybe not. Societal rules change according to the circumstances of the people living under them. The only thing that remains constant from generation to generation is that there is going to be some system of societal rules, some system of etiquette.
Let me give you one example. There is a possible change that will be coming about in the way that social correspondence takes place. Right now the etiquette that governs us says that invitations, let's say to a wedding, need to be mailed, snail mailed. That same etiquette says that thank you notes for gifts received need to be handwritten and snail mailed. There are those who are already saying that, given the pervasiveness of the Internet in our lives, social correspondence should be sent via email and the Internet. This is not yet the social norm in the time we are living in, but another 5 years, another 10 years could find that there will be a change to electronic social correspondence. Changing circumstances will dictate a change to social etiquette and societal rules. Yet, there will be a large swathe of time where both rules will be in existence, and where some people will follow the snail mail rule and some will follow the electronic mail rule, and some may follow some amalgam of both rules.
One of the problems that society faces is when social rules are in the process of morphing from one form to another, from one way of looking at things to another. Those living during the change find themselves in a confusing position: are they supposed to follow the old rules or the new rules? This is further compounded when many generations are living at the same time. Older members of society may still be working under rules that applied when they were younger, but which may not apply the same way today, if at all.
Comparing generations is also problematical because each generation may have lived under different circumstances, with different social rules. From a social point of view, it is impossible to compare the pre-WWII generation, living in Europe, with the generations living today in the US. What faced the European Jews in the early to mid-1900s was not what faces Jews today in the US. And those different historical circumstances had and have different social etiquette rules.
Let me give you one example. In the area where my parents were raised in Europe, it was considered appropriate to greet your parents with a kiss on the hand. (Historical note: this kissing of the hands was not just for parents in many parts of society. We see this in the Hungarian language, for one. In English, when you are introduced to someone, one correct social response is to say "I'm pleased to meet you." In Hungarian, the equivalent to "I'm pleased to meet you" translates as "I kiss your hand.") This was considered a social mark of respect. I remember being young and doing this with my parents. But since this was not the social etiquette here in the US it disappeared in my parents' house; my younger siblings were not raised to kiss my parents' hands. Today parents may be greeted with a kiss on the cheek or a hug.
Sometimes we know where etiquette rules come from and other times we have no idea. Decades ago Emily Post published her famous guide to social etiquette. She formalized some of the social rules in existence and added some more. When people were unsure as to what was the correct way to behave socially, they consulted Emily Post. But let's keep in mind that social rules are stratified--many of them begin in the top layers of the social fabric and percolate their way down. And as they move through the social layers, from top to bottom, many of those social rules fall by the wayside.
Yes, even in our egalitarian society, there are social layers. What gets you placed in the top layers used to be money and which family you were born into. Then was added personal/family achievement. And yes, things are not all that different today. I'll bet that every single reader here can name at least one person, and probably more, who would be considered in the "top" layer of our general American society. And I would also bet that every reader here could name someone Jewish whose wealth puts him/her in the "top" layer of Jewish society. (Hint: just think of the names enblazoned on the buildings of our shuls and yeshivas.) And money, lots of money, is probably going to be a consideration for entry into that top layer.
Now to the problem. When an accident of birth determined your social standing, there wasn't much you could do to move from one level of society to another, short of marrying into a higher level or doing something so amazing that the top levels elevated you. When money, and what money can buy, determines much of how the levels are arranged, then those with less money have an impetus to make more money. They reason that as they have more and more money they will also rise socially. They are mostly not wrong. And then there is the group that reasons this way: Person X is not "better" than I am. Person X owns items A, B and C. If I buy items A, B and C then I will be equivalent to Person X. This group reasons that the social rules and practices seen in those in the top levels of society apply or should apply to everyone. (And to be honest, there are those in this "top" level who also see themselves as setting the standards for everyone, at every level.) For this group it is not who you are but what you buy or what you do that makes you the "equal" of society's leaders. Thus we have "Keeping up with the Shwartzes" with a vengeance.
There are large numbers of people in Klal who believe that social occasions, such as weddings and bar mitzvahs, must follow the rules in place at the "top" level of society. Frankly, the reasoning in some cases is "Why do People X deserve to have more than I do?" Beats me, but they do. Here's the thing, though. There is no actual etiquette requirement to follow the lead of those with mega bucks when making a simcha; we are not being forced to spend money we don't have--we are doing this to ourselves all by ourselves. Why are we following the lead of those in a social group characterized by having more money than the rest? Let's be honest and say that jealousy plays all too large a part in some of the over spending that takes place in making social affairs--"Why should Person X be the only one to get everything they want?! I want it too!!"
Given today's financial realities, the only social rule that should apply when making a social affair is one that has actually existed for thousands of years: "Can I afford what I want without going into long term debt for it that I'll probably never be able to pay off?" If the answer is "no," then you need to make your simcha in some other way. If the answer is "yes," then do what you want. In either case, there is no social solecism involved when your simcha differs from someone else's simcha. If your problem is with social stratification based on money or achievement, well that is a wholly different problem.
Human beings have added another layer of rules, not halachic but societal. Call them the rules of etiquette or social behavior. All organized societies have such rules of societal behavior. Sometimes they derive from established law and sometimes they derive from thin air; they are inventions with no basis in law or only a very tenuous basis in law. But one thing all rules of society have in common is that they are not carved in stone, passed unchanged from generation to generation. The etiquette that ruled the social lives of your grandparents is probably not the etiquette that rules your social lives. There may be bits and pieces of your grandparents' etiquette still seen in today's social rules, but maybe not. Societal rules change according to the circumstances of the people living under them. The only thing that remains constant from generation to generation is that there is going to be some system of societal rules, some system of etiquette.
Let me give you one example. There is a possible change that will be coming about in the way that social correspondence takes place. Right now the etiquette that governs us says that invitations, let's say to a wedding, need to be mailed, snail mailed. That same etiquette says that thank you notes for gifts received need to be handwritten and snail mailed. There are those who are already saying that, given the pervasiveness of the Internet in our lives, social correspondence should be sent via email and the Internet. This is not yet the social norm in the time we are living in, but another 5 years, another 10 years could find that there will be a change to electronic social correspondence. Changing circumstances will dictate a change to social etiquette and societal rules. Yet, there will be a large swathe of time where both rules will be in existence, and where some people will follow the snail mail rule and some will follow the electronic mail rule, and some may follow some amalgam of both rules.
One of the problems that society faces is when social rules are in the process of morphing from one form to another, from one way of looking at things to another. Those living during the change find themselves in a confusing position: are they supposed to follow the old rules or the new rules? This is further compounded when many generations are living at the same time. Older members of society may still be working under rules that applied when they were younger, but which may not apply the same way today, if at all.
Comparing generations is also problematical because each generation may have lived under different circumstances, with different social rules. From a social point of view, it is impossible to compare the pre-WWII generation, living in Europe, with the generations living today in the US. What faced the European Jews in the early to mid-1900s was not what faces Jews today in the US. And those different historical circumstances had and have different social etiquette rules.
Let me give you one example. In the area where my parents were raised in Europe, it was considered appropriate to greet your parents with a kiss on the hand. (Historical note: this kissing of the hands was not just for parents in many parts of society. We see this in the Hungarian language, for one. In English, when you are introduced to someone, one correct social response is to say "I'm pleased to meet you." In Hungarian, the equivalent to "I'm pleased to meet you" translates as "I kiss your hand.") This was considered a social mark of respect. I remember being young and doing this with my parents. But since this was not the social etiquette here in the US it disappeared in my parents' house; my younger siblings were not raised to kiss my parents' hands. Today parents may be greeted with a kiss on the cheek or a hug.
Sometimes we know where etiquette rules come from and other times we have no idea. Decades ago Emily Post published her famous guide to social etiquette. She formalized some of the social rules in existence and added some more. When people were unsure as to what was the correct way to behave socially, they consulted Emily Post. But let's keep in mind that social rules are stratified--many of them begin in the top layers of the social fabric and percolate their way down. And as they move through the social layers, from top to bottom, many of those social rules fall by the wayside.
Yes, even in our egalitarian society, there are social layers. What gets you placed in the top layers used to be money and which family you were born into. Then was added personal/family achievement. And yes, things are not all that different today. I'll bet that every single reader here can name at least one person, and probably more, who would be considered in the "top" layer of our general American society. And I would also bet that every reader here could name someone Jewish whose wealth puts him/her in the "top" layer of Jewish society. (Hint: just think of the names enblazoned on the buildings of our shuls and yeshivas.) And money, lots of money, is probably going to be a consideration for entry into that top layer.
Now to the problem. When an accident of birth determined your social standing, there wasn't much you could do to move from one level of society to another, short of marrying into a higher level or doing something so amazing that the top levels elevated you. When money, and what money can buy, determines much of how the levels are arranged, then those with less money have an impetus to make more money. They reason that as they have more and more money they will also rise socially. They are mostly not wrong. And then there is the group that reasons this way: Person X is not "better" than I am. Person X owns items A, B and C. If I buy items A, B and C then I will be equivalent to Person X. This group reasons that the social rules and practices seen in those in the top levels of society apply or should apply to everyone. (And to be honest, there are those in this "top" level who also see themselves as setting the standards for everyone, at every level.) For this group it is not who you are but what you buy or what you do that makes you the "equal" of society's leaders. Thus we have "Keeping up with the Shwartzes" with a vengeance.
There are large numbers of people in Klal who believe that social occasions, such as weddings and bar mitzvahs, must follow the rules in place at the "top" level of society. Frankly, the reasoning in some cases is "Why do People X deserve to have more than I do?" Beats me, but they do. Here's the thing, though. There is no actual etiquette requirement to follow the lead of those with mega bucks when making a simcha; we are not being forced to spend money we don't have--we are doing this to ourselves all by ourselves. Why are we following the lead of those in a social group characterized by having more money than the rest? Let's be honest and say that jealousy plays all too large a part in some of the over spending that takes place in making social affairs--"Why should Person X be the only one to get everything they want?! I want it too!!"
Given today's financial realities, the only social rule that should apply when making a social affair is one that has actually existed for thousands of years: "Can I afford what I want without going into long term debt for it that I'll probably never be able to pay off?" If the answer is "no," then you need to make your simcha in some other way. If the answer is "yes," then do what you want. In either case, there is no social solecism involved when your simcha differs from someone else's simcha. If your problem is with social stratification based on money or achievement, well that is a wholly different problem.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thank you notes, penmanship and Isaac Asimov
A comment on the etiquette of writing thank yous posting--"Computers are not so slowly changing what it means to get mail. Many schools no longer teach penmanship but do teach keyboarding" brought to mind one of my favorite short stories. If you are looking for a good read and one with some "meat" in it as well, try Asimov's short story "The Feeling of Power." It's available at http://downlode.org/Etext/power.html
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Etiquette of Wedding Thank You Notes
The following is a comment made on the "Giving Gifts" posting. Rather than a lengthy answer on that posting, let me answer here. The information in the answer is taken from a number of etiquette style books and from bridal magazines and wedding planning sites.
Just Curious said...
What about the other side- those who receive the gifts at their wedding, and then spend the next four months figuring out how to write personalized thank you notes to everyone who gave them gifts? Is there an etiquette deadline for thank you notes?
When to Send Them
You always should acknowledge and thank someone for a gift - right away! The rule of etiquette for thank you notes... for gifts received before the wedding, you should send out a thank you note within two weeks. For gifts received after the wedding, you have up to one month to send out your thank you notes. However, it has become acceptable today to send wedding thank you notes up to two months after the wedding, especially if you take a long honeymoon or invited several hundred guests!
Printed or Handwritten?
Thank you cards should be handwritten. While this may require extra time, it is more polite to personalize your note with your own handwriting rather than having it printed. Your recipients will appreciate the time you took to write them out.
What to Say
Always mention the gift somewhere in the body of the note. Let the person know you like it!
Mention how you plan to use the gift (or spend the money). For example, "I can't wait to have my first dinner party so we can use the new china..." or "Thank you for your generous gift... we've been saving for a down payment on a new house."
You should also make at least one personal reference in your thank you note, such as... "We were so happy that you were able to come to California for the wedding."
If you are writing the thank you notes, you should reference both you and your choson/husband... "Chaim and I really like the...." "Moshe and I want to thank you for the..."
Things to Include
The date that you are actually writing the note.
For an informal thank-you, use the name as it is written on the gift card given to you. Example, the individual's name is Yaakov, but on the gift's card he wrote "From Kovi", then on your thank you it would be "Dear Kovi..."
On a formal thank you, you would put "Dear Mr. & Mrs. Brown..."
Mention the gift in your thank you "Thank you very much for the lovely candle sticks ..."
Mention what you'll use the gift for "They will grace our Shabbos table and always remind us of you..."
Whoever is writing the thank you is the one to sign the card "Love Malka"
Include both of your names in the card "John and I will think of you every time we make a toast ..."
Closing terms could be , "Sincerely, Malka", "Love, Malka", "Affectionately, Malka".
Who should get them?
Send thank you cards for all gifts, even if the gift is something you don't particularly care for or don't know what to do with. Remember, you are thanking them for their thoughtfulness, not just the gift.
Don't forget to send thank you cards to the people who helped you plan your event. This includes your parents and siblings and certainly any friends who were involved.
A Word About Showers
If someone sends you multiple gifts for different events, regardless of how close in time those events may be, send that person a card for each gift. For instance, a friend may give you a gift for your wedding shower as well as another gift for your wedding a month later. Send a separate card addressing each gift, even if they're both addressed to her. That's right--shower gifts also require handwritten thank you notes.
A Few Words of Advice
Don't let your thank you notes pile up... the task will become overwhelming and you won't want to tackle a mountain of thank you notes! Also, don't think of writing out thank you notes as an awful, arduous task. Think about all the people that cared enough about you to come to your wedding and gave you a gift. Thank them!
Last but not Least
Both the choson and kallah receive wedding gifts jointly. The responsibility for making sure that the thank you cards are written and sent out in a timely fashion therefore belongs to both of you. The choson's job is not to periodically remind his new kallah to send out the notes; he, too, is responsible for writing them.
Just Curious said...
What about the other side- those who receive the gifts at their wedding, and then spend the next four months figuring out how to write personalized thank you notes to everyone who gave them gifts? Is there an etiquette deadline for thank you notes?
When to Send Them
You always should acknowledge and thank someone for a gift - right away! The rule of etiquette for thank you notes... for gifts received before the wedding, you should send out a thank you note within two weeks. For gifts received after the wedding, you have up to one month to send out your thank you notes. However, it has become acceptable today to send wedding thank you notes up to two months after the wedding, especially if you take a long honeymoon or invited several hundred guests!
Printed or Handwritten?
Thank you cards should be handwritten. While this may require extra time, it is more polite to personalize your note with your own handwriting rather than having it printed. Your recipients will appreciate the time you took to write them out.
What to Say
Always mention the gift somewhere in the body of the note. Let the person know you like it!
Mention how you plan to use the gift (or spend the money). For example, "I can't wait to have my first dinner party so we can use the new china..." or "Thank you for your generous gift... we've been saving for a down payment on a new house."
You should also make at least one personal reference in your thank you note, such as... "We were so happy that you were able to come to California for the wedding."
If you are writing the thank you notes, you should reference both you and your choson/husband... "Chaim and I really like the...." "Moshe and I want to thank you for the..."
Things to Include
The date that you are actually writing the note.
For an informal thank-you, use the name as it is written on the gift card given to you. Example, the individual's name is Yaakov, but on the gift's card he wrote "From Kovi", then on your thank you it would be "Dear Kovi..."
On a formal thank you, you would put "Dear Mr. & Mrs. Brown..."
Mention the gift in your thank you "Thank you very much for the lovely candle sticks ..."
Mention what you'll use the gift for "They will grace our Shabbos table and always remind us of you..."
Whoever is writing the thank you is the one to sign the card "Love Malka"
Include both of your names in the card "John and I will think of you every time we make a toast ..."
Closing terms could be , "Sincerely, Malka", "Love, Malka", "Affectionately, Malka".
Who should get them?
Send thank you cards for all gifts, even if the gift is something you don't particularly care for or don't know what to do with. Remember, you are thanking them for their thoughtfulness, not just the gift.
Don't forget to send thank you cards to the people who helped you plan your event. This includes your parents and siblings and certainly any friends who were involved.
A Word About Showers
If someone sends you multiple gifts for different events, regardless of how close in time those events may be, send that person a card for each gift. For instance, a friend may give you a gift for your wedding shower as well as another gift for your wedding a month later. Send a separate card addressing each gift, even if they're both addressed to her. That's right--shower gifts also require handwritten thank you notes.
A Few Words of Advice
Don't let your thank you notes pile up... the task will become overwhelming and you won't want to tackle a mountain of thank you notes! Also, don't think of writing out thank you notes as an awful, arduous task. Think about all the people that cared enough about you to come to your wedding and gave you a gift. Thank them!
Last but not Least
Both the choson and kallah receive wedding gifts jointly. The responsibility for making sure that the thank you cards are written and sent out in a timely fashion therefore belongs to both of you. The choson's job is not to periodically remind his new kallah to send out the notes; he, too, is responsible for writing them.
Gift Giving Made Easy...Not
There are any number of occasions which bring with them "mandatory" gift giving. Yes, as all the etiquette books will tell you, there is no such thing as a mandatory gift. That's the theory. The practice is quite different. When you are invited to a birthday party it is "expected" that you will bring some sort of gift. The same for weddings and bar mitzvahs. So let's just work on the assumption that those who accept invitations to these types of celebrations are going to give a gift.
But what kind of gift? Some people will actually go out, shop and buy an item to give as a gift. Sometimes the celebrant will have given a hint or an outright declaration of what type of gift they would like, should you be inclined to buy them something. Think bridal registries. Other people will reason that the celebrants should have the joy of buying what they want, and so they give a check. Fine, but now to the sticky, tricky part.
How do you decide how much to spend on a gift or how large a check to write out? A lot of people know what the "average" amount or range of money given for particular types of functions is in their community and they give accordingly. When I got married that "average" figure was about $36 per couple if you were just regular invitees. A few people gave less and a few people gave more, but that was the general target figure. Those who are closer friends may give more than this community average, or they may not. Some family members will give the community average; some will give more.
But what kind of gift? Some people will actually go out, shop and buy an item to give as a gift. Sometimes the celebrant will have given a hint or an outright declaration of what type of gift they would like, should you be inclined to buy them something. Think bridal registries. Other people will reason that the celebrants should have the joy of buying what they want, and so they give a check. Fine, but now to the sticky, tricky part.
How do you decide how much to spend on a gift or how large a check to write out? A lot of people know what the "average" amount or range of money given for particular types of functions is in their community and they give accordingly. When I got married that "average" figure was about $36 per couple if you were just regular invitees. A few people gave less and a few people gave more, but that was the general target figure. Those who are closer friends may give more than this community average, or they may not. Some family members will give the community average; some will give more.
The question also arises as to how many people in a family are being invited to the simcha. The above discussion assumed a couple was in attendance. If single children who are very young are invited some gift givers don't factor them in when figuring out the gift amount. If the children are older singles the parents will usually up the amount given.
Now we run into some practices I am not at all fond of; in fact, I really hate them. Some people will arrive at the simcha with their check already written out, placed in an envelope and ready to give to the baal simcha. That's fine. Others wait to write out their check until they are at the simcha. Why? Because a whole lot of people are going to wait and see how much money the baal simcha spent in entertaining them before they decide on the amount. No, this is not a joke. The more extravagant the simcha, the more money has been obviously lavished in providing for the guests, the more some of those guests will give. Their "generosity" has nothing to do with how close they are or aren't with the baal simcha; it's predicated solely on a tit for tat arrangement: spend on me and I'll spend on you. That it is the young couple, at a wedding for instance, that will be getting the money because it is a gift to them, not their parents, is irrelevant.
There are some young married couples who give gifts when invited to weddings; others don't. Some of those who do not give a gift reason that everyone knows they are young and don't have tons of money and besides, why should anyone expect that they should take money from their own wedding money to get someone else started on their wedding money collection? Some of these couples figure that since the wife also contributed to the shower gifts they are "potur" from any further gift giving. A few of these young couples are related to the choson and kallah and figure that whatever their parents gave still covers them as well, married or not.
Among those who do give gifts, they don't give checks but do give presents. And as every kallah I have ever known can attest to, a majority of those gifts are what are called "pass on" presents. Frequently kallahs get doubles of gifts which they cannot return. Or they get gifts too strange to want to keep around. These gifts are passed on to the next kallah, who in turn will pass them on to the next kallah, who will then do the same. A friend's daughter received one of these gifts and her mom and I got a kick out of it. The original wrapping was still intact, if a bit frayed, and the store name embossed on the paper is what set us off. At the time the gift got to this friend's daughter that particular store had been out of business for at least eleven years.
Youngish singles who attend weddings rarely give a gift. The girls are covered by the money contributed to the shower gifts. (Just a note here: ask the girls who are organizing the shower just how many people promise to contribute to the gifts and never follow through, leaving the ones hostessing the shower with a huge bill.) The boys? You would first have to start to explain the idea to them of giving gifts as opposed to getting gifts. Or as one person once quipped, "It's their presence that is desired, not their presents."
I asked one fairly youngish couple how they determine the amount to either be spent on a gift or to be given as cash. Only when I promised complete anonymity did they respond. The husband put it best: "we ask ourself what is the least that we can get away with and that is what we give. If we can buy something for really cheap then that is what we give." The wife quickly qualified that: "it has to look expensive or have a name that people recognize as being expensive." I asked for an example. The wife said: "Last year we gave Lennox picture frames to everyone because I got a really great buy on them in a store going out of business. So we spent about $19 on each frame. But that doesn't matter. If the person getting the gift had to buy those frames they would be spending close to $90. It's not how much we paid for something but how much the thing is worth that matters."
I asked if they had ever given a "pass on" gift. The husband really laughed at that. He answered: "We gave those gifts for about the first 18 months we were married." Then he got a little bit defensive: "They weren't cheap gifts you know."
"What about cash?" I asked. They answered: "We avoid it. There's no way that we could ever get the numbers right so that someone wouldn't be insulted." "Tell her about your cousin," the wife pushed. "My cousin was going to be moving to Israel and my aunt said to the whole family not to buy any presents, just money. We were still in our first year of marriage and we didn't have much money but it was a first cousin so we made out a check for $54 and bought a nice card to put it into.. After the sheva brochos we got the check sent back to us by my aunt. She wrote that if we really could not afford to give more to our dear cousin then clearly we needed the money more than the cousin did and she was returning it to us." The wife was getting angry: "Since when does the receiver of a gift get to decide if it's enough or not?"
There's more than a little truth in the young wife's last line. On the other hand, basing your gift on whether or not you are going to be munching on sushi while sipping champagne or gobbling down kugel while chugging Coke doesn't sit well with me either.
Maybe what we need is a frum Judith Manners or Emily Post to write the definitive guide to frum simcha etiquette, particularly as regards gift giving. We have to be able to do better then we are.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Blogging According to Emily Post
Someone commented to me that they noticed that I don't cover political issues on this blog. They asked me why I don't. "Noch dus feilt mir aus"--I need that on top of everything else?
Years back Emily Post established a rule of etiquette regarding dinner table conversation when company was present. The rule also held when people found themselves in other polite company. There were four topics that she said should not be discussed: religion, money, politics and sex.
I've already violated the first two of her principles, and I'm not looking to make it a home run by including all of them. Having said that, let me also add that the remaining two have become so entwined that to talk about one you are also talking about the other.
I've also noticed this: the "politeness" factor remains fairly constant when discussing religion and money; it burns and crashes when the other two are added in. Sniping on this blog has been minimal and I'd like to keep it that way.
Will I remind people to vote in the upcoming Presidential election? Yes, but that is about civic responsibility. Will I discuss the candidates running for office? Puhleeeeeze, spare me that!
Years back Emily Post established a rule of etiquette regarding dinner table conversation when company was present. The rule also held when people found themselves in other polite company. There were four topics that she said should not be discussed: religion, money, politics and sex.
I've already violated the first two of her principles, and I'm not looking to make it a home run by including all of them. Having said that, let me also add that the remaining two have become so entwined that to talk about one you are also talking about the other.
I've also noticed this: the "politeness" factor remains fairly constant when discussing religion and money; it burns and crashes when the other two are added in. Sniping on this blog has been minimal and I'd like to keep it that way.
Will I remind people to vote in the upcoming Presidential election? Yes, but that is about civic responsibility. Will I discuss the candidates running for office? Puhleeeeeze, spare me that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)