Annie's Mailbox® by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

* * * * PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT * * * *

LW3 refers to the second letter on 24 March 2013.

LW2: "I certainly cannot go if he asks me to stay home with him." What is he, three years old? If he "asks" you to stay home, it's because he's sulking about not being invited, which you should ignore. Go to the wedding and enjoy yourself. Then contact Al Anon when you get home. Kowtowing to a bad-tempered drunk is no way to live.

LW3: Wouldn't it be nice if the Annies knew what they're talking about? Unless you want a dinner party with 18 desserts and no entrees, someone has to organize the menu, and that someone is the host. Who cares when this occurs, as long as the guests have time to make the food? Are there really that many people out there looking for excuses to be offended?

LW3: Baldrz, I think you can make your point without being so rude. Your post is pretty reasonable except for the first sentence.
The Annies are correct that it is inappropriate to tell people that they should bring a dish and what it should be - after the guest has already accepted the invitation. On the other hand, that's not what the original letter said, it said only a covered dish was requested, and it was requested at the same as the invite. Sounds like a pot luck, which the Annies correctly say is fine, so their answer is a bit confusing, at worst.

Re: Baldrz

You seem not to understand what it means to be a "host". When you host a party, you provide everything, the food, the drinks, the ambience and the entertainment. As a true host, your objective is to invite family and friends and provide them with good food and drink and good times.

If you want to host a pot luck party, well nothing wrong with that, but learn to know the difference and stop being so rude.

LW1, I agree with the Annies, it seems rather unlikely that your brother's divorce is the *only* reason for such an extreme change of personality. Unless she was over-involved with your brother's family, then something else is almost certainly involved. If you can get her to a doctor or a counselor, please try to do so.

LW2, I'm sorry you've been put in this position, but it's up to the couple to decide who to invite. It is too bad someone couldn't be designated as a wrangler, and I'm not sure how this situation will *help* your husband's anger management problems at *future* family events -- I can imagine his being blackballed from his granddaughter's wedding will cause a certain amount of resentment that will be expressed at other times.

However, you need to be honest with your husband, and perhaps use this to point out that he should be doing more to handle his anger management and/or alcohol problems. (Perhaps if he was actively involved with a therapist or in a treatment program, they might reconsider inviting him?) At the very least, if his behavior has been so erratic that this is the result, it should be seen as a "wake-up call" that he needs to do more to show his family he is taking these issues seriously.

LW3: Annies, if the invitations make it clear that it's a potluck party, then it's not taking advantage of the guests. The original LW said "I received an invitation to a birthday party and was asked to bring a covered dish." Nothing demanding, rude, or "taking advantage of" there. Your original answer was off the mark, and you're just being stubborn now.

@Carly O, read the original letter -- the complaining LW received an invitation that *asked* them to bring a covered dish -- meaning that it was apparently part of the original invitation or the request happened shortly thereafter. Not that anyone accepted and was blindsided after the fact.

A "host" of a party can provide the space and ambience for the event but not all of the food, and they are still the host. I've done it *countless* times and all my friends and family had a fantastic time, and keep coming back for more. Your definition of what a host *must* do seems rigid and certainly outdated, and that's why people pushed back on the original letter.

The only issue that may be rude about asking a guest to bring a contribution of food is if it's unclear in the original invitation, and the nature of the party only becomes clear after someone accepts to attend under a false assumption.

Otherwise, Baldrz is right -- in a potluck, it's usually helpful to organize who will bring what so the menu is balanced.

LW1 - I agree that there are probably some underlying issues going on with the mother that were triggered by the divorce. It may be difficult though to get her to a doctor or a counselor to find out what they are. The LW could try to do that without mentioning the divorce as an issue, but focusing on the mother's general health.
.
LW2 - The husband has made his own bed, and he's the one who must lie in it and suffer the consequences. The family members are correct in being careful about inviting him to functions that he may ruin by his actions. I can't see any reason why the LW can't attend without him, and explain to him that his past behavior is the reason he's not invited. That may be a wake-up call to him.
.
LW3 - Mike H is correct on this one. The Annies are simply being stubborn in their original position. It's not rude if the request to bring a dish is included in the original invitation. That makes it clear that it's a pot luck event and the invitees aren't forced into anything. They can accept or deline as they choose.

LW2: I'm trying to figure out why her SIL has the say over who may attend the wedding. I always thought that was up to the bride and groom. If grandma doesn't go because her husband isn't invited, and the bride asks...tell her the truth.

@gerhardt, good point -- I admit I am assuming that the SIL is simply the designated spokesperson for the bride and groom, because they probably didn't want to confront the issue directly themselves. But if the bride and groom DO want the grandfather there, and the SIL is trying to insert himself in the process to prevent that, then that becomes a different problem.

Oh, and before I forget: special sunday brunch with extra donuts! Remember today's special brunch discussion topic: Men. They're to blame for EVERYTHING.

(save a cinnamon sugar donut for me!)

The Annies are correct: Potluck dinners are the event - informal get-togethers planned in advance by host AND guests. An invitation issued by the would-be host to any other event (dinner-birthday-anniversary-reception-etc.,) should NOT come with the expectation/request that the guests will provide the party.

I was apparently horribly rude all through university and a year or two after, as I hosted lots of parties, and the general understanding is that everyone brought a dish! Yet people continued to show up and have a good time...

LW1: The divorce may have triggered some clinical depression or other issue. Or it could be that Mom is extremely old fashioned or is of a culture where divorce is a huge scandal, and not the sad but relatively common event it has become for most of us. I read a similar letter from Miss Manners years ago, from the Mom's perspective, where she *realized* she over-reacted grossly to her two sons' divorces, but didn't really know what to say or do to mend things.

LW2: It's too bad, considering he did behave at the last event. I guess some family members still worry about him being a liability. The only reason you should stay home with him is if you're trying to make a statement that the disinvite was wrong. If you want to go, go.

I think Mike is on to something with LW1. His comment "Unless she was over involved in their marriage" struck a chord with me. I've had two friends end up divorced because there were too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak.
Re: Potluck dinners. Asking everyone to bring a dish is no big deal. It's even acceptable to specify a dessert or side dish (so you don't have 7 pies and one bowl of potato salad, for example). However, it's when hosts get too picky or demanding that you have a problem. My husband's cousin used to regularly host parties and assign dishes to guests, and charge them for the entrée (she even included an order form, so you could select sirloin or filet). When we were young and naïve, we accepted the first invitation, then realized we could easily just go to a restaurant and our food would be cooked properly and we could leave without saying goodbye to 25 people.
Re: the angry drunk. Ok, he was well behaved at the last wedding, how many events did he ruin prior to that?

LW1--I can't seem to fathom why your mother seems so emotionally vested in your brother's marriage. I'm only guessing but I would wager that your mother and your former sister-in-law existed in an uneasy truce of sorts and now that she and your brother have divorced, your mother takes it as a license to say or do anything negative with regards to your former sister-in-law. The old saying is 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.' I might argue that fury is exceeded in mothers-in-law whose son's hearts have been broken by a woman. Hopefully you've been wise enough to stay out of this mess. If you're still close enough to your mother that she listens to you, have a heart to heart during which you explain how unhealthy and misplaced her bitterness is and how harmful it is to your nieces and nephews; both innocent victims, to hear her deride their mother. Tell her that you hope for the sake of the family that she seeks counseling to work through her feelings.

LW2-- People who use their nuptials to issue demands like the one your presumptuous son-in-law has issued have the misconception that others are so inclined to participate in their "big day" that they would do practically anything, including apparently choosing between their spouse or partner or their child. While your husband sounds like a real treat who could use therapy to work through his anger and alcohol issues, the fact is that he's still your husband whom you love and therefore your loyalty should be to him. Inform your future son-in-law that you hope the wedding is as lovely as you'll imagine, then do everyone, including yourself, a huge favor and stay home. Trust me honey, everyone whose there will be posting pics, videos, tweets and the like in real-time. You won't miss a thing except the pretentious posturing and drama.

LW3--Some people are attention whores and like to use etiquette as a means of control. I agree with you that bringing a dish to share is a great idea and if someone wants to indicate that on an invitation do it. If someone else happens to object and refuses to come, be grateful you found out what a boor they were prior to them spoiling all the fun at your party.

Re: Mike H

Mike, I enjoy reading this column and occasionally comment, but I am not so devoted as to go back and search for and read the original letters, even with Ms. Pasko's help. I did not say that a host "must" provide everything, and I also stated that there is nothing wrong with a potluck dinner.

If you think it is rigid and outdated to throw a party where your guests can just relax and enjoy themselves, well, I think that is kind of sad. It is very nice to know that when the guests I invite, invite me back, all I owe them is to show up and have a good time.

I will repeat that I do not think there is anything wrong with a potluck type of thing, but I will never agree with you that it is outdated to want to entertain your guests, and I enjoy planning menus and allowing my guests to just relax and have a good time.

Oops, error correction!

I missed the part of LW2 where it was the grandchild getting married but my advice remains the same. In fact, the LW won't be missed hardly at all. Win-win for everyone.

WOW! LW2: SO your husband has "anger management "problems...code word, mean drunk. You are the classic enabler. By not attending your beloved grand--daughter's wedding you are letting HIS problem control your life. Please! Go to a couple of al-anon meetings, then tell your husband that you are sorry he has been excluded because of his behavior but, that you are going to the wedding. His actions are his consequences, not yours. Only by freeing yourself from his "anger-management" and drinking problems can you cause him to think about changing his behavior...otherwise...you are just the classic enabler.

Re: shar simonelli
I wasn't aware that certain types of celebrations were excluded simply by their very nature from being a pot luck event. When did this rule come into being?

Re LW#1----
It's possible that the LW's mother has developed a mental or physical condition that coincides with the time of her son's divorce, and that should perhaps be checked out and at least eliminated (although how on earth the Annies think this woman is going to agree to let the LW go with her to the doctor and point out the 'problem'-----"Oh doctor, my mom has become negative, argumentative, bitchy, and generally a pain to be around."----is beyond me.
.
But it's more likely that either she never liked her DIL and is now free to say so, or that she enjoyed things the way they were in her life, the divorce spoiled things, and she wants somebody to blame and be mad at.
.
I don't know how the LW can fix it without alienating her (?) mother, but the one thing that should be done, and would have to come from the divorced son, is that this mom should NOT be around her grandkids if she can't keep from badmouthing their mom in front of them. Perhaps her son hates his ex-wife too and doesn't care, or encourages it, but the kids should not be subject to this. I hope someone steps in and lets her know that the price she will pay for acting the way she's acting around the kids is that she'll be kept from them.
.
Other than that, there's nothing to do except to tell her you don't want to listen to her negativity and griping, and walk away each time she starts it, if that's what it takes.

LW2: I'm trying to figure out why her SIL has the say over who may attend the wedding.
*************
Traditionally, it's not the wedding couple who host their event but the bride's parents. They foot the bill, they have final say over everything, including guest list. Most want to please their little girl, of course, but when there's a clash ("Mom, who ARE the Simons? I don't want strangers at my wedding!" "Don't be ridiculous, dear, that's my dear friend in Accounting and since we gave each of HER daughters a toaster at their weddings, she's one of my guests.") the person who's paying has final say.

That's part of the reason more couples are opting to foot more of the bill themselves (or at least the portions they want final say over). My guess is, though, that this couple is not, and that SIL has seen enough instances of bad behavior by LW's husband to feel justified in barring him from this event. And possibly that he's been asked to do so by his wife or daughter.

Re LW#2------
Your husband, by your own words, has "anger management problems worsened by alcohol". No matter how tactfully you choose to phrase it, he is someone who can't control his temper, and it is worse when he drinks, which he does.
.
Your choice has been to stay with him (enable him, actually) and put up with it. Other family members apparently have not made that same choice, and don't want to subject themselves to even the chance that he will get drunk, blow up, and ruin something that is important to them. They don't HAVE to use only his behavior at the last family wedding as a yardstick------they are most likely judging him by how they've seen him behave many other times, and don't want to take that chance.
.
And it's likely that your SIL has not just taken it upon himself to uninvite your husband, but more likely he has accepted the job of relaying the unpleasant news to you.
.
So you now get to make a choice--------go to the wedding without him and face his hurt or anger, or stay home with him and share in the consequences of his past behavior-------i.e., you will be left out of family events, even though they would welcome you if you came without him. Tough choice here, but you've already chosen to stay with him and put up with what he does, while the rest of them are not willing to do so. Where do you most want to be-------with your husband or the rest of your family (without your husband)?
Because it appears you can't have both.

Re LW#3-------
Ah, the ever-present pot-luck question yet again.
.
Rehash this thing for 20 years, there will still be no definitive answer. Some people like being invited to pot-lucks, or throwing them, some don't. Best thing to do is, if you want to go, go. If you don't, decline. Eventually whoever is inviting will get the message that you will accept if it's not pot-luck and decline if it is, and will act accordingly. Or, they will continue to be dense and keep inviting you, in which case you keep declining.
.
For myself, I prefer having, and being invited to, a pot-luck as opposed to either attending dinners where I have to do nothing but show up, but in return have to occasionally return the favor by preparing the entire dinner for everyone. Rather do a tiny bit of work each time than no work most of the time but then ALL of the work one time.
Just my own preference, others are the total opposite.
.
The one thing I DO want is to know at the time of the invitation that it's pot-luck, so if I want to decline I don't have to come up with a lame excuse later when they finally tell me. And the other thing (also just a personal quirk of mine) is that they not get TOO specific when telling me what to bring. I'm fine with "Could you bring some type of casserole or main dish", so we don't end up with seven cakes and nothing else---------I'm NOT fine with "Please bring turkey tetrazini but don't put mushrooms in it" or "Please bring a homemade lemon merangue pie". Again, just my own quirk.
.
On a related subject------I know it's not deemed necessary when inviting someone to specify who else is going to be there, but JUST FOR MYSELF, I appreciate something like "We're inviting John and Mary, Bill and Sue, and Larry and Carol for dinner Tuesday night, and would like to have you join us." That way, if I hate spending the evening in the presence of John, or Carol, so much that it would be torture for me, I can come up with a believable excuse right then. Not proper etiquette to have to tell your guests that, I know, it just is nice for me to know it.

Jennylee (#21) beat me to it. It is significant that LW2 seems more angry at her SIL than at her husband, despite the fact that she acknowledges that the anger problem and the alcohol problem are ongoing. It's also significant that she would never consider going against her husband. She's in a birdcage and doesn't even realize it. Sad.

Gerhardt et al - the people who host the wedding, i.e. the people who are paying for the wedding, have the ultimate say over the guest list. However, it's quite possible that the grandkid has seen enough of grandpa's mean drunk behavior that she is on board with this decision & her dad got the job of delivering it. I think it's odd that the LW finds not going to a wedding to be "heartbreaking" and an "impossible situation" whereas she seems fine with living with an alcoholic with anger management issues. Talk about displacement. She can say yes or no to the invitation that was offered to her. She should not try to negotiate getting her hubby added. Suggest she get some professional help dealing with the elephant in the room, her mean drunk of a husband.

@Carly O, I didn't say it was outdated to throw that kind of party; I said it was outdated to suggest that the ONLY type of party one could "host" is that kind of party. You said: "As a true host, your objective is to invite family and friends and provide them with good food and drink and good times." I believe THAT is overstating things, as I have hosted many a successful potluck event, as have countless others here. I'm known far and wide as an excellent host, whether you think I would fit that definition or not.

I'm guessing, based on your follow-up, that you didn't originally mean to come off so rigidly, in which case, that makes sense. I think hosting potluck events for a wide variety of occasions is absolutely acceptable -- as always, though, making sure the nature of the event is clear when people are invited, then there is nothing rude or "unhostlike" about it.

LW2: I still don't get that it makes sense that the bride's parents have the "final say" in a wedding guest list. I'd thought it'd be up to the couple who decides who comes and who doesn't.

Other than that, it seems like you're in a no-win situation. I DO think it should be up to the bride and groom to tell their grandfather directly that he's not wanted at the wedding, not a designated go-between.

The only thing I can figure that would get the LW's husband on the "do not invite" list, given his anger management problems that are compounded by alcohol, is that he said something really nasty the last time he and the son-in-law were together or he got physically violent. Otherwise, whether this was a progressive-series of incidents such as what kai archie refers to – a series of behaviors and there was some "last straw" event along the way – I can't say.

Carla (#23)

While indeed what you say is true about "It's also significant that she would never consider going against her husband" ... she probably has learned to pick and choose her battles with her husband.

"I still don't get that it makes sense that the bride's parents have the "final say" in a wedding guest list. I'd thought it'd be up to the couple who decides who comes and who doesn't."

Maybe SIL is taking the bullet for the bride and saying it's HIS idea. Or they all decided that Drunk Dad couldn't be trusted and he is the spokesperson

LW2: I still don't get that it makes sense that the bride's parents have the "final say" in a wedding guest list. I'd thought it'd be up to the couple who decides who comes and who doesn't.
************
Bobaloo, have you never heard the saying, "he who pays the piper calls the tune"?

Traditionally, a bride's parents were the hosts of the wedding (check the traditional invitation wording: "Mr. and Mrs. Bride Parents request the honor of your presence at the wedding of [their daughter] to Mr. Groom 2 Be.") Its why the groom's mother was expected to check with -- and defer to -- the bride's mother on everything from style of dress to the number of guests allotted.

That evolved because women had no economic independence; they passed from their father's home to their husband's. And because most young grooms had not had time to accumulate the kind of wealth necessary to throw a shindig -- this was a chance for the bride's father to demonstrate his own wealth. (And sometimes they used this as an excuse not to send a daughter for higher education -- my best friend began adulthood with a lot of student loans that her brothers escaped...because her parents said they'd pay for her wedding... but not college, since she'd "just get married and waste it anyway" but her brothers "would need it to support their families.")

Now, over the years, as women have gone to college, begun careers and delayed marriage, more young couples are choosing to forgo the parental checkbook, which allows them to have a wedding exactly as they wish -- vegan, in a meadow, underwater, in Aruba, on horseback. That means that as hosts, they dictate their own guest list and everything else.

But...many, many families are still using the traditional model to pay for something that costs, on average, $27,000, according to the last statistic I read.

Re: Kitty
Etiquette is not a ‘style' that goes in and out with the times. When the occasion requires formal invitation it is crass to expect guests to pay for any part of that event and this is true for refreshments as well. The host is always free to accept or decline offers from inquiring guests (“what can I do/bring?”). The host also graciously accepts the unsolicited plate or casserole or bottle that appears at the door with guest in tow. The exception is the traditional ‘pot luck' supper – catered by all, by mutual agreement - in advance. Any informal get-together (the backyard BBQ, movie night at your house) can evolve into pot-luck as host and guests plan together. That's key to successful entertaining – and retaining your ‘guest' list.

LW1 -
But it may have been that, for some reason, your mother was living totally vicariously though her son, as if his life was her own. Even then, her reaction seems to be way over the top - not only, "what's it to her", I mean, REALly, but it's a divorce, not a serial killing. This is so extreme that I do think there is some brain crosswiring invoved here... the polite way to say she flew the coop. What the Annies said.

However, the children should NOT be exposed to this constant vitriol - the divorce will have been hard enough on them without adding this. I would inform granny that she has to learn to put a clamp on it or find her time with the grandkids severely limited if I were these parents - BOTH of them, although I do agree that it might go down better if it comes from the son.

Perhaps the threat of lost time with the grandkids can be used as leverage to get her to agree to a medical assessment.

LW2 -
"I certainly cannot go if he asks me to stay home with him. "
And why not, pray tell? What's he gonna do, chain you to the kitchen range? If your husband has such a drinking problem, methinks the first thing he should be learning is that there are consequences to his behaviour - namely, he'll not be welcome at social gatherings. Otherwise, nothing will ever change.

And if he has such anger management problems, making you so cowed that you automatically assume that you can "certainly not go" without him, then YOU should be learning is that this is unacceptable. You're not asking for advice for yourself, but I think you need professional help badly. And Al-Anon. Otherwise nothing will ever change.

And frankly, if your son-in-law has informed you that you are welcome but not him, methinks he didn't handle the last time as well as you state, and that you're minimising quite a bit. Also, perhaps something happened that you know nothing about.

P.S.: Annies? "If he is gracious, he will insist that you go without him"?
How can you possibly expect someone with a bad booze and anger management problem to be gracious? She sounds terrified of him and completely under his thumb.

LW3 -
It is technically correct that a potluck event has to be specified along with the invitation, so that the guests know exactly what they are being invited to and what is expected of them. However, there are countless groups (friends, family, coworkers) who have stopped making such specifications clear every time, simply because this is the way they function all the time, so why state the obvious? Some recent addition to the group may feel slighted if the info is not shared on time to be correct according to "etiquette" but this, in increasing cases, may have become part of adapting to being recently included in a given group. In other words, things to learn that are part of the culture of the new family, circle of friends place or work, etc.

Etiquette is basically the crystallisation of good manners into a code, and good manners are supposed to be put in place for the convenience of the majority, something that tells people how to behave so to be accepted and not be embarassed unwittingly commiting a faux-pas. Not only will they differ from one region of the globe to another, but they are bound to change with changing lifestyles, habits and needs. Mileage does vary, both in space and time.

The old etiquette rules stated that the host provided everything and the guests, if gracious, were expected to reciprocate a similar invitation in return. Potluck events merely change the logistics of this reciprocation, by making it part of the very event the guests are being invited to. This removes the necessity to organise an expensive happening in return for everyone concerned, because the reciprocation is the fact that everyone participates tio the event they are being invited to, the host merely providing the venue.

Considering the busy schedules of most people, the financial burden "really" entertaining represents, the financial constraints so many people face these days, and also the fact that we don't live like everyone rural in the 19th century anymore - not everyone has the space necessary to reciprocate a huge shindig... I find the new prevalence of potluck events to be a very natural and even predictable development.

Re: shar simonelli #29
"Etiquette is not a ‘style' that goes in and out with the times."
No, it doesn't, but etiquette itself will evolve on its own, following the changes in lifestyles and needs.

We may want to bemoan the loss of good old times, but... like language which tends to drop unpopupar, less used patterns of speech whether we like it or not, usage by the majority determines correctness in the long run.

When I throw a party, I love to plan and cook a themed menu- but that's me. My guests still bring food, drinks, plants, and so on, even though I assure them that they don't have to do that, but it is considered good manners around here. I have friends and relatives who do not get a kick out of planning menus, shopping, and cooking the food, but like to entertain. They usually call a caterer, and sometimes ask us to bring a dish. Nobody minds, we would rather go to a party than critique the way it is planned. Now, when I plan a party for my in-laws, that means that 30 to 60 people will come, and they rarely commit ahead of time. It is always a surprise to see who shows up. And we all know this. So it is customary to plan to serve plenty of food, but everyone brings a dish and/or beverage, to help feed the extra guests that didn't reply. Nobody's panties bunch up; we accept that this is the way it is. And I would rather be surrounded by family that makes up their own rules rather than sit alone in my house, clutching my Emily Post book and wailing "you're all so ruuude!"

Etiquette does not change. People, fashion, reasons to ‘party', mores, underwear and calendars change. Or ‘evolve'. And even devolve. I can assure you that when gloves and tea parties come back into fashion, etiquette will offer a gentle reminder that gloves should be removed before the lady picks up her teacup.

If I extend an invitation for any event, I'M THE HOST, unless I alert my ‘guests' in advance that I expect them to pick up the tab. At that point, I should expect my guest list to greatly diminish.

Etiquette does not change. People, fashion, reasons to ‘party', mores, underwear and calendars change. Or ‘evolve'. And even devolve. I can assure you that when gloves and tea parties come back into fashion, etiquette will offer a gentle reminder that gloves should be removed before the lady picks up her teacup.

If I extend an invitation for any event, I'M THE HOST, unless I alert my ‘guests' in advance that I expect them to pick up the tab. At that point, I should expect my guest list to greatly diminish.

Re: shar

Of COURSE etiquette changes! It changes constantly, and varies between places. Do you think a 2013 USA etiquette guide would be the same as a 2000 BC Chinese etiquette guide??

Many rules of etiquette are kind of abstract, in place to help society function smoothly. But as society changes, rules of etiquette may and do change with it.

Really? Ancient Samurai vs. Miss. Manners? I'd pay money to see that.

PEOPLE change and to suit or soothe their conscience declare good manners a moving target.