I am giddy with anticipation as I write today's post. Tomorrow, I am taking a long awaited trip to the mall with my mom, my sister, my little boy and my nephew. Strollers will not hinder the shopping that will happen. Nor will the comments from passer-by about how cute our babies are slow us in the least. We three girls and our two little boys are about to embark on something I like to refer to as: Power Shopping 2011.
Perhaps that's being a little dramatic. But we really are going shopping tomorrow, and I think it's safe to say I'm more than a little eager. You see, I can't even remember the last time I went shopping for myself at the mall. I'm almost positive it was before my son was born in May. That's over NINE MONTHS, people! And for someone who loves to shop as much as me, it has been a true discipline to steer clear of that beautiful, sky-lighted, multi-story building known as the mall.
I probably won't be buying much, but I think I will allow myself one little thing. Hey, I went back to work recently - it's only right I should reward myself with something, right? I can't wait! But to ensure I don't go overboard and that I make the most of my purchase (singular, keep it singular), I have enlisted the help of Good Housekeeping's Guide to Successful Homemaking. There is plenty of great advice for shopping for women's clothing. I will list some of my favorites here:
1. Make a list at home - Know what you want before you shop. Consider the type of life you lead, the money you have to spend, the articles you need as against those you merely want.
Whoa, they have my number. I am quite the list-maker. And if I'm forced to make a list for the purpose of 50's living, well I guess that would be ok. However, the type of life I lead is one where I get pooped on and peed on occasionally, and the money I have to spend is, well, limited at best. I'm beginning to think I should be switching the location of the shopping trip to Salvation Army...
2. Buy twice a year for the main items of your wardrobe - Make a list in March and in September for the next months.
YES, it's MARCH 1st tomorrow! This was truly meant to be. I'll make the list tonight (a short one) and buy "the main items of my wardrobe" tomorrow. Oooh, maybe this means I can talk my husband into a little more buying since this will be one of two annual shopping trips for wardrobe essentials.
3. Don't go shopping with a group of friends - Or even with your best friend, unless you consider her taste so much better than your own that you are willing to follow her advice.
Um, no. Shopping is so much more fun with friends - especially my mom and sister! They will give me their truly honest opinions and maybe...just maybe...help me stick to the list. And, maybe, just maybe...they will defend my purchases to my husband for me.
4. If your budget is limited, buy things you can wear for several years -A well-made tailored suit or coat, bought with common sense and restraint, can be worn, with minor alterations, for five years. Good material will last that long.
So apparently I'm not the only one with a limited budget. And this is just giving me fodder for my "presentation" to my husband about why I bought what I did. Don't get me wrong, he's no tyrant. Our budget is just literally that limited.
5. Never lose sight of yourself - Be the complete egoist. Visualize yourself in the clothes you are buying.
Hmm...this shouldn't be too hard. Especially with the help of those new-fangled things called mirrors.
6. Never buy anything just because it is cheap -Look for fabric labels, good workmanship. Always it is better, when buying tailored clothes, to buy the very best you can afford.
So...limited budget...don't buy just because it's on sale...I think the message is ultimately to buy things that are quality so you only have to buy them once in a while. There's nothing worse than buying something and having it wear out or get a hole after wearing it once. But price doesn't always suggest quality, so I'll have to consult my posse for that. See, it's a good thing they'll be there?!
7. Think before you buy novelty gadgets - When something comes into fashion publicity that is fantastic, be wary of it. No matter how stylish a fashion or trend may be, wear it only if it suits you.
I'm not really in the market for any "gadgets" per se, but who hasn't suffered from a case of buyer's remorse when they buy something that's "in," wear it once or twice, and in the blink of an eye it's "out." I tend to hold on to clothes for a looong time, so this has been especially painful for me at times...the eyesores still inhabit my closet and taunt me every time I see them.
8. When you buy dresses, coats, or suits, take time to have them fitted carefully and altered if necessary - It is a rare figure that does not need some slight alteration in a ready-made.
I thought we were talking about saving money! Sorry, but the ready-mades are going to have to work for me. I will just have to be ultra-careful in the dressing rooms and take my time to make sure the fit of anything I buy is just right.
Oh, who am I kidding? I'm going to have a 9 month old with me! I'll be lucky to get a quiet moment in the dressing room at all! Too bad he can't talk yet...it would be nice to get a guy's opinion on these things.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Country Apple Dessert
We had some friends over for dinner last night and I thought it would be fun to try out a 50's recipe on them. Unsuspecting guinea pigs, they were. I don't think any of them even know I am writing this blog, with the exception of my husband. We kept the dinner very simple, as Friday night dinners should be. My husband grilled out BBQ chicken and we had french fries to go with it. The 50's portion came at the end of the meal - country apple dessert.
I found this recipe in Successful Entertaining at Home and it, too, looked surprisingly simple and so, perfect for a Friday night. The recipe is:
To serve 6:
1 No. 2 can sliced apples (canned in sugar syrup)
butter
1/2 cup sugar
1/4 teaspoon grated nutmeg
1/4 cup heavy cream
One more apple dish - a country apple dessert and here's how you make it. Place sliced apples with the sugar syrup in a small, shallow baking dish and dot with butter. Mix sugar, freshly grated nutmeg, and heavy cream. Pour over the apples. Cover the dish and bake in a moderate (350 degree F) oven for 30 minutes. Uncover the last 5 minutes of baking time. Serve warm.
I was a little concerned that my apples may have been Number 1 or Number 3, as opposed to Number 2 (I have no idea what that means), but they were the canned kind in syrup used for apple pie filling so I figured they would work. I had to use 2 cans (so the number 2 did come into play at some point) in order for there to be enough to serve 6.
I think it was a hit, although I realized late in the game I didn't have aluminum foil to cover the baking dish...so uncovered it went, into the oven. It was basically like baked apples, which is a favorite of mine, and this was much simpler to prepare. Of course, I cheated a bit by not grating my nutmeg freshly. But it's all the same right? Anyway, it tasted good and hit the spot after dinner. I have to admit I was a little disappointed no one shared either my love of coffee or the 50's way of serving dessert enough to indulge in after dinner coffee with me. And, to avoid my caffeine addiction coming to light, I try to avoid drinking alone.
That's all I've got for today...the little one is teething and needs a cuddle from mama. Ah, now there's something that I imagine transcends all decades.
I found this recipe in Successful Entertaining at Home and it, too, looked surprisingly simple and so, perfect for a Friday night. The recipe is:
To serve 6:
1 No. 2 can sliced apples (canned in sugar syrup)
butter
1/2 cup sugar
1/4 teaspoon grated nutmeg
1/4 cup heavy cream
One more apple dish - a country apple dessert and here's how you make it. Place sliced apples with the sugar syrup in a small, shallow baking dish and dot with butter. Mix sugar, freshly grated nutmeg, and heavy cream. Pour over the apples. Cover the dish and bake in a moderate (350 degree F) oven for 30 minutes. Uncover the last 5 minutes of baking time. Serve warm.
I was a little concerned that my apples may have been Number 1 or Number 3, as opposed to Number 2 (I have no idea what that means), but they were the canned kind in syrup used for apple pie filling so I figured they would work. I had to use 2 cans (so the number 2 did come into play at some point) in order for there to be enough to serve 6.
I think it was a hit, although I realized late in the game I didn't have aluminum foil to cover the baking dish...so uncovered it went, into the oven. It was basically like baked apples, which is a favorite of mine, and this was much simpler to prepare. Of course, I cheated a bit by not grating my nutmeg freshly. But it's all the same right? Anyway, it tasted good and hit the spot after dinner. I have to admit I was a little disappointed no one shared either my love of coffee or the 50's way of serving dessert enough to indulge in after dinner coffee with me. And, to avoid my caffeine addiction coming to light, I try to avoid drinking alone.
That's all I've got for today...the little one is teething and needs a cuddle from mama. Ah, now there's something that I imagine transcends all decades.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
My Dear Mr. Chief Justice
Today I learned that the Chief Justice of the United States is John G. Roberts, Junior. It's probably sad that I had no idea of this fact prior to sitting down to write this post. Also, I really don't know much about the office of Chief Justice in general. And I'm guessing I'm not the only American who could be found lacking in this area.
How does this relate to the 1950's you ask? I was perusing Amy Vanderbilt's Guide to Gracious Living and noticed a huge portion of the book dedicated to the proper etiquette for addressing all sorts of people socially, in government, in the community, and even royalty! In this day and age of email, Twitter, and Iphones, it seems totally crazy that there was once a time (only about 50 years ago!) that people primarily communicated by letter. Obviously, there were telephones also, however, even casual invitations to small social gatherings were communicated by written invitation, so I imagine communication with the higher ups in government were as well.
Which begs the question, is the art of letter writing dead? It makes me wonder. I love to write, but I honestly can't remember the last time I sat down and wrote an actual letter. I'm not including thank you cards or birthday cards here. I'm talking about a "hey, how are you? how are things? things here are great, the family is well, next month we're going to the Catskills" LETTER.
And honestly, who doesn't love getting a letter? I remember when I was a senior in high school and my boyfriend (now my husband) lived 4 hours away at college. We wrote each other letters at least once a month, even though we also talked on the phone multiple times a week. It was so thrilling to go to the mailbox and get a letter from my man. I still have all the letters and cards he ever sent me in a big envelope. What can I say, I'm a hopeless romantic. But even as a kid at camp or a freshman in college myself, letters from my parents were always so wonderful to receive. Getting a letter from someone just really shows you they care. Sure, a text or a Facebook post could get the "I'm thinking of you" message across, but a letter takes it to the next level.
I think I'll start writing more letters to people. It will be interesting to see the response I get - I think it could make some people feel awkward because we are so drifting away from anything truly personal in our society. People expect a call every so often or an email update here and there, but a heartfelt letter out of left field really has the potential to bowl someone over. I love it.
Fortunately for Mr. John G. Roberts, Junior, I won't be writing him a letter any time soon. Frankly, I just wouldn't know what to say. I'm sure he's doing a great job, and from what I gather, he's in there for life, so the way I see it, it won't make much difference what I say to him one way or the other. In case any of you are better patriots than I, I will include Ms. Vanderbilt's excerpt on how to address the Chief Justice of the United States:
Letter opening: Sir (business) My dear Mr. Chief Justice (social)
Closing: Very Truly Yours (business) Sincerely Yours (social)
Speaking to: Mr. Chief Justice
Introducing or Referring to: The Chief Justice
Pretty straightforward. And now, in case we should ever meet, the Chief Justice and I, I will be well prepared. For now, I'm off to go ponder who I'll write to first. Until next time, I remain, Very Truly Yours.
How does this relate to the 1950's you ask? I was perusing Amy Vanderbilt's Guide to Gracious Living and noticed a huge portion of the book dedicated to the proper etiquette for addressing all sorts of people socially, in government, in the community, and even royalty! In this day and age of email, Twitter, and Iphones, it seems totally crazy that there was once a time (only about 50 years ago!) that people primarily communicated by letter. Obviously, there were telephones also, however, even casual invitations to small social gatherings were communicated by written invitation, so I imagine communication with the higher ups in government were as well.
Which begs the question, is the art of letter writing dead? It makes me wonder. I love to write, but I honestly can't remember the last time I sat down and wrote an actual letter. I'm not including thank you cards or birthday cards here. I'm talking about a "hey, how are you? how are things? things here are great, the family is well, next month we're going to the Catskills" LETTER.
And honestly, who doesn't love getting a letter? I remember when I was a senior in high school and my boyfriend (now my husband) lived 4 hours away at college. We wrote each other letters at least once a month, even though we also talked on the phone multiple times a week. It was so thrilling to go to the mailbox and get a letter from my man. I still have all the letters and cards he ever sent me in a big envelope. What can I say, I'm a hopeless romantic. But even as a kid at camp or a freshman in college myself, letters from my parents were always so wonderful to receive. Getting a letter from someone just really shows you they care. Sure, a text or a Facebook post could get the "I'm thinking of you" message across, but a letter takes it to the next level.
I think I'll start writing more letters to people. It will be interesting to see the response I get - I think it could make some people feel awkward because we are so drifting away from anything truly personal in our society. People expect a call every so often or an email update here and there, but a heartfelt letter out of left field really has the potential to bowl someone over. I love it.
Fortunately for Mr. John G. Roberts, Junior, I won't be writing him a letter any time soon. Frankly, I just wouldn't know what to say. I'm sure he's doing a great job, and from what I gather, he's in there for life, so the way I see it, it won't make much difference what I say to him one way or the other. In case any of you are better patriots than I, I will include Ms. Vanderbilt's excerpt on how to address the Chief Justice of the United States:
Letter opening: Sir (business) My dear Mr. Chief Justice (social)
Closing: Very Truly Yours (business) Sincerely Yours (social)
Speaking to: Mr. Chief Justice
Introducing or Referring to: The Chief Justice
Pretty straightforward. And now, in case we should ever meet, the Chief Justice and I, I will be well prepared. For now, I'm off to go ponder who I'll write to first. Until next time, I remain, Very Truly Yours.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Getting Your Money's Worth
A lot of people close to me have recently asked "Why did you start your blog? How did you choose a topic for it?" Basically, I wanted to write about something that I find interesting, and for whatever reason, the 50's have always intrigued me. I am a social worker, and I love family work - the 50's family has always appealed to me, at least the way it is depicted on tv and in movies. I wanted to choose something that I wouldn't soon lose interest in, even if no one else chooses to tune in to what I have to say.
Also, I'm a terrible "housewife." Perhaps terrible is too strong a word, but at the very least, homemaking does not come naturally to me. But I so want it to. I often find myself perusing MarthaStewart.com and reading an article where she is explaining something she (and presumably most of her readers) will find relatively simple...and I'm scratching my head wondering how the heck to plant flowers, grow vegetables, or serve a whole chicken. And I'm not convinced I will ever truly "get it."
So this is my fun experiment, and if I can learn a thing or two along the way, that's good, too. I hope to benefit my family with the changes I'm going to make, and perhaps friends, too if they should be so lucky as to sample some 50's fare (excluding noodle loaf!). I read something that encouraged me in my pursuit today and I thought I would share it with you. It's from Successful Entertaining at Home, which is quickly becoming one of my favorite books. This particular passage has do with the idea of making the most of what you have and living a rich life even if you aren't, well...rich.
I read an insurance report not long ago which said that money troubles, strangely enough, were not the greatest troubles in families. Families do remarkably well at living within their means, it seems; but getting happiness from the money they have is the great problem (p. 355).
How true is that? Since my son was born in May, my husband and I went from being DINKS (double income, no kids) to OIOKs...ok, I just made that up...one income, one kid...s..not sure it works quite the same. A synonym for that is: CRAZY. We live in one of the most expensive areas of the country and my husband is a teacher...so, you know, we're not exactly rolling in the dough. However, neither of us could stomach the idea of me working full time and putting our baby boy in daycare.
The funny thing is, we have not really struggled much, despite having significantly less money than we did a year ago. I mean, I don't get Starbucks as much, and I haven't been to the mall in a while, but I don't feel as if we've really given anything up. We still have friends over for dinner, we still go out occasionally, and we live a very full life. Not to mention I get to be with my sweet boy all day and don't have to shell out an ungodly sum for daycare every month. Oh, also...we still eat, have heat, can buy food for our son, have clothes, and HD cable TV. It's funny to think about how worried we were about money only to realize we have always had everything we need. And then some. We are truly blessed.
...Living and homemaking is a business these days, as much as any other. Let's hope you get your money's worth.
I don't know about you, but I fully intend to.
Also, I'm a terrible "housewife." Perhaps terrible is too strong a word, but at the very least, homemaking does not come naturally to me. But I so want it to. I often find myself perusing MarthaStewart.com and reading an article where she is explaining something she (and presumably most of her readers) will find relatively simple...and I'm scratching my head wondering how the heck to plant flowers, grow vegetables, or serve a whole chicken. And I'm not convinced I will ever truly "get it."
So this is my fun experiment, and if I can learn a thing or two along the way, that's good, too. I hope to benefit my family with the changes I'm going to make, and perhaps friends, too if they should be so lucky as to sample some 50's fare (excluding noodle loaf!). I read something that encouraged me in my pursuit today and I thought I would share it with you. It's from Successful Entertaining at Home, which is quickly becoming one of my favorite books. This particular passage has do with the idea of making the most of what you have and living a rich life even if you aren't, well...rich.
I read an insurance report not long ago which said that money troubles, strangely enough, were not the greatest troubles in families. Families do remarkably well at living within their means, it seems; but getting happiness from the money they have is the great problem (p. 355).
How true is that? Since my son was born in May, my husband and I went from being DINKS (double income, no kids) to OIOKs...ok, I just made that up...one income, one kid...s..not sure it works quite the same. A synonym for that is: CRAZY. We live in one of the most expensive areas of the country and my husband is a teacher...so, you know, we're not exactly rolling in the dough. However, neither of us could stomach the idea of me working full time and putting our baby boy in daycare.
The funny thing is, we have not really struggled much, despite having significantly less money than we did a year ago. I mean, I don't get Starbucks as much, and I haven't been to the mall in a while, but I don't feel as if we've really given anything up. We still have friends over for dinner, we still go out occasionally, and we live a very full life. Not to mention I get to be with my sweet boy all day and don't have to shell out an ungodly sum for daycare every month. Oh, also...we still eat, have heat, can buy food for our son, have clothes, and HD cable TV. It's funny to think about how worried we were about money only to realize we have always had everything we need. And then some. We are truly blessed.
...Living and homemaking is a business these days, as much as any other. Let's hope you get your money's worth.
I don't know about you, but I fully intend to.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
What to Know about Vino
I have a confession to make: I love wine. Don't get me wrong, I'm no alkie. But I just love a glass of wine with dinner or after dinner. If I could, I would have a glass a day - and on vacation, I do. It is my alcoholic beverage of choice, no matter where I am or what the occasion. Sure, the girly drinks are tasty and cute (who doesn't love a cosmo every now and again?), but there's just something about wine that is classy, elegant, and meant to be savored.
So as I sip a crisp glass of pino grigot (my favorite), I can think of nothing better to blog about than wine, and what every good 50's housewife should know about it. I must say I'm pleased it is mentioned at all, and exceedingly pleased that Carolyn Coggins devotes a section of her book to wine, as to how it should be served and enjoyed. For starters, Ms. Coggins suggests that it is not necessary to stock a zillion different types of wine glasses. In her own words:
Although your society grandmother may have had thirty-some different kinds of glasses for serving everything from an apertif to a liqueur, she had rows and rows of cupboard shelves for their storage and a staff to whisk them in and out. The illustrations showing different glasses for serving various things will interest you only if you are likewise ensconsced amidst the spaciousness of the past (p. 161).
Yes, I did just look up the definition for "apertif" on Merriam-Webster.com. An alcoholic drink taken before a meal as an appetizer. I didn't even know that was an option! Is that in addition to some light apps? Because who doesn't love a fine wine with a nice cheese and cracker plate? I think I'm definitely going to be a hostess who offers apertifs. And I think I might bring the word apertif into everyday conversation when possible. People will think I'm so classy. Like my beverage of choice.
Also, I must give Carolyn credit for being a woman who was probably ahead of her time. I don't know what her situation was, but I would hardly describe myself as "ensconsced amdist the spaciousness of the past," not only because I don't often use the word ensconsced, but also because in my house we find ourselves more cramped amidst the confines of our teeeeeny home. We hardly have room to walk when my son's swing, exersaucer, bumbo seat, and various other toys are out in the living room. So do we have room for shelves upon shelves of wine containers? Not a chance.
For the rest of us - which is the majority - the four-ounce stemmed glass is suggested for serving all wines. In it, pour two ounces or less of an apertif or dessert wine, or fill it when table wine is served.
It's nice to know I'm in the majority. One thing I'm curious about, however, is how you know when you've reached the "two ounce" mark. I could probably estimate a cup rather effectively, but that is what we like to call a healthy pour. I literally just asked my husband "If there are 8 oz. in a cup...that means that....2 oz. is 1/4 a cup...right?" Hmm...it might be time to put down the pino, Cath.
One thing I'm noticing is that the pours seem to have been a bit smaller in the 50's. For me, if I'm planning on having about a 1/2 a cup (4 oz.), why would I pour only 2 oz. to begin with? I feel I would be saving myself a trip to the kitchen and feel less like a lush if I only have "one glass," using my definition of it.
Too bad I didn't read this before I poured the pino tonight...into a stemless wine glass, to boot. I guess I'm learning more and more every day how much I have yet to learn about being a 50's housewife and hostess with the mostess. So, ok, I won't feel inadequate for having 6 total wine glasses in my house (4 without stems) and I'll start pouring less into each glass...starting.....now....
And by now I mean tomorrow!
So as I sip a crisp glass of pino grigot (my favorite), I can think of nothing better to blog about than wine, and what every good 50's housewife should know about it. I must say I'm pleased it is mentioned at all, and exceedingly pleased that Carolyn Coggins devotes a section of her book to wine, as to how it should be served and enjoyed. For starters, Ms. Coggins suggests that it is not necessary to stock a zillion different types of wine glasses. In her own words:
Although your society grandmother may have had thirty-some different kinds of glasses for serving everything from an apertif to a liqueur, she had rows and rows of cupboard shelves for their storage and a staff to whisk them in and out. The illustrations showing different glasses for serving various things will interest you only if you are likewise ensconsced amidst the spaciousness of the past (p. 161).
Yes, I did just look up the definition for "apertif" on Merriam-Webster.com. An alcoholic drink taken before a meal as an appetizer. I didn't even know that was an option! Is that in addition to some light apps? Because who doesn't love a fine wine with a nice cheese and cracker plate? I think I'm definitely going to be a hostess who offers apertifs. And I think I might bring the word apertif into everyday conversation when possible. People will think I'm so classy. Like my beverage of choice.
Also, I must give Carolyn credit for being a woman who was probably ahead of her time. I don't know what her situation was, but I would hardly describe myself as "ensconsced amdist the spaciousness of the past," not only because I don't often use the word ensconsced, but also because in my house we find ourselves more cramped amidst the confines of our teeeeeny home. We hardly have room to walk when my son's swing, exersaucer, bumbo seat, and various other toys are out in the living room. So do we have room for shelves upon shelves of wine containers? Not a chance.
For the rest of us - which is the majority - the four-ounce stemmed glass is suggested for serving all wines. In it, pour two ounces or less of an apertif or dessert wine, or fill it when table wine is served.
It's nice to know I'm in the majority. One thing I'm curious about, however, is how you know when you've reached the "two ounce" mark. I could probably estimate a cup rather effectively, but that is what we like to call a healthy pour. I literally just asked my husband "If there are 8 oz. in a cup...that means that....2 oz. is 1/4 a cup...right?" Hmm...it might be time to put down the pino, Cath.
One thing I'm noticing is that the pours seem to have been a bit smaller in the 50's. For me, if I'm planning on having about a 1/2 a cup (4 oz.), why would I pour only 2 oz. to begin with? I feel I would be saving myself a trip to the kitchen and feel less like a lush if I only have "one glass," using my definition of it.
Too bad I didn't read this before I poured the pino tonight...into a stemless wine glass, to boot. I guess I'm learning more and more every day how much I have yet to learn about being a 50's housewife and hostess with the mostess. So, ok, I won't feel inadequate for having 6 total wine glasses in my house (4 without stems) and I'll start pouring less into each glass...starting.....now....
And by now I mean tomorrow!
Saturday, February 19, 2011
WWJD
I'm not sure when things changed, but as far as I can tell, people used to dress a lot more thoughtfully than they do now. It seems like these days people are far more concerned with comfort than style - hello, girdles! - than they were in the 50's. Don't get me wrong, I love to be comfortable as much as the next girl, and I'd be lying if I said there weren't some days when I don modified pajamas from morning until evening because, let's face it, I often end up with upchucked Gerber as an accessory. One of the things that fascinates me most about 50's housewives is that they always seemed to be able to get things done while looking fab. I mean, let's be real - these women dusted in pearls!
From what I gather, it's not just women who were to be meticulous in their clothing and appearance. Amy Vanderbilt has plenty to say about menswear and what was appropriate or not for a man to wear to the office. Her advice to men everywhere? Be prepared.
It is safer to be dressed for any business occasion that might occur than to go to the office in clothes that might be out of place if an important client should turn up or a vital meeting be called. The beloved rainy-day suit looks shabby when the sun comes out at noon, the old tweed jacket throws a man off stride if he's suddenly precipitated into a group of men wearing directors' jackets...(p. 141).
I love how she describes this dressing up in terms of being safe. I don't think many men today (or women, for that matter) would consider their choice of wardrobe based on a very important event that might take place that day. Back then, a jacket and tie was standard attire for a working man. Obviously, there are certain professions today in which men still dress up (some even wear suits every day), but I think we are trending toward comfort and less emphasis is placed on the way we present ourselves to others.
Right out of college, I was taught that when going to a job interview, a person should wear a suit and dress not for the position they are interviewing for, but for the boss' position. But then the first day on the job, they come in dressed "business casual" (define it how you wish), and look nothing like the polished person they interviewed. I confess I have done this very thing, and it's only now that it amuses me. What I mean to say is it seems like our society is heading towards doing just the bare minimum when it comes to making appearances (and they are not, as they say, everything), rather than making an assertive statement with our clothing and appearance day in and day out. I know I probably walk and carry myself differently when I'm wearing a suit or a cocktail dress than I do when I'm bumming around in pajamas. I imagine I'm not the only one.
There's nothing worse than walking into a place where you think the dress code is _______ (insert how you are currently dressed here) and finding out it is really _______ (insert 6 times nicer than you are dressed here). My sister recently regaled me with a horrific story (well, she was horrified) of attending a cocktail party hosted by new friends one evening. She walked in the door, cute as can be in a long sweater, jeans, and fun boots. Only when she walked in the door, there was not a pair of jeans to be seen. Everywhere she looked, there were ladies in cocktail dresses, men in suits - people were dressed to the nines. She told me the story the next day in church and said, in a mortified whisper, "Cathleen, I showed up in jeggings!"
While I'm quite sure my sister was still the belle of the ball, I think most of us can relate to the feeling of..."Uh-oh... I wish someone had told me this was a fancy party," or even, "How did I miss the memo?" And I think Amy's point is just that. You won't miss the memo if are always dressed up. I don't think this means prancing around the house in heels (at least, I haven't read that chapter yet!), but I do think it means dressing up a bit more than we're used to and taking a bit more pride in the way we present ourselves to the world. For me, it will mean thinking: "What am I going to wear?," then choosing an outfit and asking: "WWJD?" What would June do?
From what I gather, it's not just women who were to be meticulous in their clothing and appearance. Amy Vanderbilt has plenty to say about menswear and what was appropriate or not for a man to wear to the office. Her advice to men everywhere? Be prepared.
It is safer to be dressed for any business occasion that might occur than to go to the office in clothes that might be out of place if an important client should turn up or a vital meeting be called. The beloved rainy-day suit looks shabby when the sun comes out at noon, the old tweed jacket throws a man off stride if he's suddenly precipitated into a group of men wearing directors' jackets...(p. 141).
I love how she describes this dressing up in terms of being safe. I don't think many men today (or women, for that matter) would consider their choice of wardrobe based on a very important event that might take place that day. Back then, a jacket and tie was standard attire for a working man. Obviously, there are certain professions today in which men still dress up (some even wear suits every day), but I think we are trending toward comfort and less emphasis is placed on the way we present ourselves to others.
Right out of college, I was taught that when going to a job interview, a person should wear a suit and dress not for the position they are interviewing for, but for the boss' position. But then the first day on the job, they come in dressed "business casual" (define it how you wish), and look nothing like the polished person they interviewed. I confess I have done this very thing, and it's only now that it amuses me. What I mean to say is it seems like our society is heading towards doing just the bare minimum when it comes to making appearances (and they are not, as they say, everything), rather than making an assertive statement with our clothing and appearance day in and day out. I know I probably walk and carry myself differently when I'm wearing a suit or a cocktail dress than I do when I'm bumming around in pajamas. I imagine I'm not the only one.
There's nothing worse than walking into a place where you think the dress code is _______ (insert how you are currently dressed here) and finding out it is really _______ (insert 6 times nicer than you are dressed here). My sister recently regaled me with a horrific story (well, she was horrified) of attending a cocktail party hosted by new friends one evening. She walked in the door, cute as can be in a long sweater, jeans, and fun boots. Only when she walked in the door, there was not a pair of jeans to be seen. Everywhere she looked, there were ladies in cocktail dresses, men in suits - people were dressed to the nines. She told me the story the next day in church and said, in a mortified whisper, "Cathleen, I showed up in jeggings!"
While I'm quite sure my sister was still the belle of the ball, I think most of us can relate to the feeling of..."Uh-oh... I wish someone had told me this was a fancy party," or even, "How did I miss the memo?" And I think Amy's point is just that. You won't miss the memo if are always dressed up. I don't think this means prancing around the house in heels (at least, I haven't read that chapter yet!), but I do think it means dressing up a bit more than we're used to and taking a bit more pride in the way we present ourselves to the world. For me, it will mean thinking: "What am I going to wear?," then choosing an outfit and asking: "WWJD?" What would June do?
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Grammy's Coming to Town!
Since my husband's parents are on their way to visit us this weekend, I thought it appropriate to study etiquette with in-laws. I have heard countless horror stories from my married friends about meddling mother-in-laws and worse...just plain mean ones. Part of me can't imagine that otherwise normal women become heinous witches once the bride and groom say "I do," so maybe it's also that the wives become a bit more sensitive. I get the whole dynamic of a son leaving his mom's home and starting a new one with his wife (who, in my husband's case is less of a cook and housekeeper than his mother) - and I guess it is difficult for some women to be ok with that.
I, however, have been fortunate to marry into a family that is loving, kind, and even reads my blog! They have accepted me with open arms, faults and all, and I can honestly say I feel like one of the family. Having been so lucky, I find it interesting that sometimes when I start a story with, "My husband's parents are coming to visit," friends will smile sympathetically, as if to say "you'll get through it." Then I rush to say "No, no, I'm very close with my in-laws actually." It's almost as if it's ingrained in our culture to be dramatic about this relationship, particularly with reference to mother-in-laws. I guess father-in-laws are just dudes who don't make much of a fuss about such things.
Amy Vanderbilt has this to say on growing up, moving out, and the formation of a new family:
When we marry, we literally must "forsake all others" and consider the marriage bond the paramount one. The whole process of growing up is that of growing away from one's parents in the physical sense, and to a great degree in the emotional one, too (p. 497).
I guess this makes sense. I remember how exciting it was to think about living with my husband and having a place of our own. For me, it couldn't happen soon enough. We dated for 5 years and had an 8 month engagement - and at the end I just couldn't wait to wake up every morning next to the man I love and my best friend in the world. I never stopped to think about what anyone else might be thinking or feeling about it. Least of all, our mothers.
I remember coming back from our honeymoon, expecting everything to be roses, and my mom told me my sister cried her eyes out the day after I got married. Not because she wasn't happy for me, but because she had a great sense of loss, that things would be different now - and certain things would never be the same. Never again would we live in the same house together. Looking back, I realize that's kind of a big deal. And I imagine if that's the way my sister felt, perhaps my mom and mother-in-law had a bit of that sentiment, too.
Where in-laws are to be considered, especially a mother-in-law who finds it difficult to relinquish hold on her child, the very first steps in the relationship are most important. A young son-in-law, for example, should not be made to feel like a culprit because he can't call this relatively strange and sometimes seemingly hostile older woman "mother."
I'm trying not to read too much into this, but perhaps Amy's husband had issue with the elder Mrs. Vanderbilt? I can honestly say my husband has a great relationship with my family. Also, there was never any question of what we would call each other's parents. When we were teenagers dating, it was "Mr. and Mrs." I think shortly before we were engaged it switched to calling them by their first names. And I love what Amy has to say about that:
Both she and her son-in-law might be more comfortable with the modern "Mrs. Brown" or just "Jane" as if she were a contemporary. Then when the children begin to arrive, a pet name usually solves everything, and "Mrs. Brown" or "Jane" becomes comfortable old "Nanny" or "Granny" or any other variation of a child's loving title for his grandmother to everyone in the household. And somehow with little hands in hers she feels less shut out, more needed in the new living arrangement, and she usually is" (p. 497).
I won't have the chance to ask our "Grammy" whether or not this is true until she arrives tomorrow, but I have a hunch Amy is once again correct. Grammy becomes almost giddy upon seeing her baby grandson, and when she holds him, it appears as though they're in their own little world, happy as clams. And for that matter, I'm fairly certain tension or drama simply cannot exist in a room where that baby boy is smiling.
See you tomorrow, Sherry! Safe travels!
I, however, have been fortunate to marry into a family that is loving, kind, and even reads my blog! They have accepted me with open arms, faults and all, and I can honestly say I feel like one of the family. Having been so lucky, I find it interesting that sometimes when I start a story with, "My husband's parents are coming to visit," friends will smile sympathetically, as if to say "you'll get through it." Then I rush to say "No, no, I'm very close with my in-laws actually." It's almost as if it's ingrained in our culture to be dramatic about this relationship, particularly with reference to mother-in-laws. I guess father-in-laws are just dudes who don't make much of a fuss about such things.
Amy Vanderbilt has this to say on growing up, moving out, and the formation of a new family:
When we marry, we literally must "forsake all others" and consider the marriage bond the paramount one. The whole process of growing up is that of growing away from one's parents in the physical sense, and to a great degree in the emotional one, too (p. 497).
I guess this makes sense. I remember how exciting it was to think about living with my husband and having a place of our own. For me, it couldn't happen soon enough. We dated for 5 years and had an 8 month engagement - and at the end I just couldn't wait to wake up every morning next to the man I love and my best friend in the world. I never stopped to think about what anyone else might be thinking or feeling about it. Least of all, our mothers.
I remember coming back from our honeymoon, expecting everything to be roses, and my mom told me my sister cried her eyes out the day after I got married. Not because she wasn't happy for me, but because she had a great sense of loss, that things would be different now - and certain things would never be the same. Never again would we live in the same house together. Looking back, I realize that's kind of a big deal. And I imagine if that's the way my sister felt, perhaps my mom and mother-in-law had a bit of that sentiment, too.
Where in-laws are to be considered, especially a mother-in-law who finds it difficult to relinquish hold on her child, the very first steps in the relationship are most important. A young son-in-law, for example, should not be made to feel like a culprit because he can't call this relatively strange and sometimes seemingly hostile older woman "mother."
I'm trying not to read too much into this, but perhaps Amy's husband had issue with the elder Mrs. Vanderbilt? I can honestly say my husband has a great relationship with my family. Also, there was never any question of what we would call each other's parents. When we were teenagers dating, it was "Mr. and Mrs." I think shortly before we were engaged it switched to calling them by their first names. And I love what Amy has to say about that:
Both she and her son-in-law might be more comfortable with the modern "Mrs. Brown" or just "Jane" as if she were a contemporary. Then when the children begin to arrive, a pet name usually solves everything, and "Mrs. Brown" or "Jane" becomes comfortable old "Nanny" or "Granny" or any other variation of a child's loving title for his grandmother to everyone in the household. And somehow with little hands in hers she feels less shut out, more needed in the new living arrangement, and she usually is" (p. 497).
I won't have the chance to ask our "Grammy" whether or not this is true until she arrives tomorrow, but I have a hunch Amy is once again correct. Grammy becomes almost giddy upon seeing her baby grandson, and when she holds him, it appears as though they're in their own little world, happy as clams. And for that matter, I'm fairly certain tension or drama simply cannot exist in a room where that baby boy is smiling.
See you tomorrow, Sherry! Safe travels!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)