Miss Manners rocks

[telerib]

Miss Manners answers a slightly snarky letter on forms of address for same-sex married couples.

First, she snarks right back.

Second, the advice is perfectly good and carefully accounts for all the usual permutations (sharing last name, or not, preferring Mrs., or Ms.)

Third, in the case of "two men not sharing a last name" she recommends that "each be addressed by his full name with the appropriate honorific (Mr., Dr., Colonel)."

Took me a minute to catch it.

Colonel.

That's a classy and understated way of making a point.

Comments

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

Do not attempt to bring the snark around Miss Manners. If you do, you will lose, and everyone will know.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I just adore Miss Manners.

[hueffmea.livejournal.com]

I just don't get it. It probably has something to do with the fact that such formality seems a ridiculous throwback to the stupid ages that has for more to do with technologies and caste systems that we don't have and can't properly conceive, but after rereading this for days and trying to figure out every possible angle. I have finally thrown up my hands in frustration and simply confess to not getting why the honorific Colonel is snarky. I even had to look up Snark to see if it was perhaps snarky and I was simply missing the meaning. As it turns out my search for Snark took a while and never gave me a good definition or for that matter a loose one. Thus I determined that it was a relatively made up word used to imply sassy. Which left me still trying to figure out the Colonel comment. I deduced that it had something to do with the fact that gays are to recently in the military to elevate to the rank of Colonel and perhaps the odds of one making it there was being equated to the odds that someone would need to send an invitation to a gay married couple. This is my best theory but I was expecting more of a bang than that. Can anyone help here?

[telerib.livejournal.com]

"Snarky" is somewhere between snooty and sarcastic.

Go with the post title as the organizing thought, rather than the first bullet contained within it.

3 Reasons Why Miss Manners Rocks

1. Some cops an attitude with her, she cops one (tastefully) right back.

2. Her answer to the question was sensible and will undoubtedly be useful for people addressing formal invitations (like for weddings and bar mitzvahs).

3. She managed to make a statement about her position on gays in the military without even directly addressing the topic. By sliding "Colonel" in there, casually and with no fanfare whatsoever, she's indicating that gays are and ought to be honored members of the armed forces.

Reasons 2 and 3 why Miss Manners Rocks have nothing to do with Reason 1.

Clearer?

[hueffmea.livejournal.com]

Yeah that makes sense. I asked Mary about it and she came up with a different but good answer. She believed it was obvious that someone was trying to force Miss Manners into a position of stating her views on Gay Marriage. Mary was saying that Miss Manners by the very nature of her job is one of the keepers of the older ways and thus obviously more concervative. In any case Miss Manners ducks the implied questions entirely and points out gaping flaws in the letter, while answering the question asked.

[telerib.livejournal.com]

I don't know about Miss Manners being more conservative. If she is, she keeps it entirely to herself when answering some of the more "modern" etiquette questions.

She's pretty good about advocating civility and respect for all. So, while she may or may not personally think tattoos are tasteful, she definitely sat on someone who thought that the open display of tattoos was carte blanche for making snide comments about them (7/7/04 column).

The concept of respect for everyone, not just the "right" people, is pretty open-minded and tolerant. That (and her overall tone, which amuses me) is one of the reasons I enjoy her column.