Laura is ridiculing Mrs. Emily Post for being a powerful New York figure who maintained her marriage to an openly philandering husband marriage as long as she could, but ultimately divorced after his infidelity led to a scandalous lawsuit. Hilary Clinton, a powerful New York figure maintains her marriage to an openly philandering husband even after his infidelity led to a lawsuit so scandalous it brought the entire federal government to a standstill.

Laura attacks Mrs. Post under the guise of feminism, but really it is out of the liberal insecurity that comes from knowing how many ways life used to be better in America before the radicals had their way. Every ladish magazine, every girl gone wild is also the face of feminism and anathema to Mrs. Post's rules. Laura is right that Mrs. Post's message is lost - this is obvious every time one has to listen to an obnoxious cellular telephone conversation on the train, endure an airplane flight next to an unshaven unkempt bore, or try to watch a movie while half a dozen conversations go on around the theatre.

Mrs. Emily Post described etiquette as the thousand small sacrifices we make each day to ensure the world runs smoothly for all those around us. The radical view that replaced etiquette, much to Laura's delight, is that everyone is so unique, so special, so brimming with self esteem, he should never feel obligated to sacrifice anything, no matter how minor. Don't bother with fussy notions that you should bath before flight, describing your sexual escapades is too important to wait until you can find privacy, your conversation is more important than others being able to watch the film - to think otherwise isn't just outdated, according to Laura it's unfeminist.

Well said, but in disparaging the writer you come off no better than her. A common question surfaces about Mrs. Post's contributions in light of modern society (not just feminism)- relevance- in an age where the servants are now our equals. It has been on paper for hundreds of years and now, I believe, we are closer to that reality than we've ever been. Much work to do, still. Maybe by incorporating some of Mrs. Post's principles (you so aptly identify) we can integrate a dignity of self with a dignity of the human person.

Thank you for your correction and I apologize for my vitriol. I do disagree that our servants now are our equals, and certainly not more so than the way Mrs. Post describes. In New York, in her era, servants lived with their families and the house was small economy unto itself. With a breadwinner earning the capital to keep the institution running and the homemaker ensuring the daily operation of the household ran smoothly. It was an obligation to take care of the medical, emotional, and moral health of one's servants. For instance Mrs. Post describes at length how to arrange and chaperone dates between one's young female servants and gentlemen from other houses, lest they get into trouble on their own (the same as one would look after her own children's well being). Today, I don't even know the name of the maids or gardeners who work on my place - they are sent over by a service while I am out of the house. I assume the services pays their social security tax; I've no idea about health care. But the gap is clearly greater than when everyone who contributed to a household, either as resident or employee, lived under the same roof.

The article never states that common courtesy is unfeminist. And you'll find that your conservative friends are just as likely to be boorish as your hated liberals.

What she's saying is that Emily Post's rules weren't all an unalloyed good. Mixed in with her admirable entreaties to make life easy for other people was the unblinkered faithfulness to heirarchy. That was the unfeminist part - the absolute separation of servant and served, the absolute subjugation of wife to husband - not the bathing before flight or keeping private conversations private.

There's a lot about American society today that could be better, but you're kidding yourself if you think the 20's or the 50's were a better time for women.

Kaiso is right. Traditional institutional hierarchies do not do women any favors, even if there are superficial benefits (like the groom paying for the honeymoon, no matter what the circumstances).

In fact, there have been studies done on the Middle East and how traditional economic structures--buttressed by oil--have helped continue the suppression of women's rights. Because women in these countries have not gone through the process of labor unions and other gradual, incremental rights, they're still very much stuck in traditional roles.

I think what Shapiro was trying to do in talking about Emily's troubled marriage was suggest that the woman's clinginess to traditional etiquette and roles was a form of compensation.

I think what Shapiro was trying to do in talking about Emily's troubled marriage was suggest that the woman's clinginess to traditional etiquette and roles was a form of compensation.

For what, then, is Ms. Shapiro's reveling in the troubled marriage of a long dead author compensation?

kaiso:

There's a lot about American society today that could be better, but you're kidding yourself if you think the 20's or the 50's were a better time for women.

The 20's or the 50's were obviously a worse time for everyone - both men and women - due to the fact that we're much richer and have better technology today.

The real question is whether they were a better or worse time for men/women in comparison to one another. Which is a much more difficult question than you make it out to be.

For ambitious, intelligent women who were constrained by society in their choices, it was inarguably a worse time. For your average woman? Tough to say. If you want children, or are more interested in pursuing your own hobbies than a career, you'd probably find yourself happier back in the 50's.

I suspect you're emphasizing all those things you think women gained, without appreciating all that they lost. Feminism was not a 'net win' like Civil Rights for blacks. It caused a fundamental shift in the basic organizing principles of our society and the consequences of that shift are both negative and positive.

of course the issue is complicated. Feminists (such as myself) welcome complication. We realize that women are not simpleminded and are willing to put up with the daily injustices of life in order to attain the same kind of freedom that men have.

That being said I think Emily Post has a lot to recommend her and to call her anti-feminist would be a little too simple. modernity need not be vulgar in order to seperate itself from earlier times.

Or she! Whatever! Gag me with a eti-what, it's Emily Poster herself! Nobody else could talk like that!

...willing to put up with the daily injustices of life in order to attain the same kind of freedom that men have... modernity need not be vulgar in order to seperate itself from earlier times.

Freedom is precisely what replaced etiquette (or to call them by other names, anarchy is precisely what has replaced order). Etiquette was not a choice, it was an obligation. In the absence of that obligation people are free to choose whatever they wish, and left to themselves most people choose what is easiest. It is far easier to be rude than polite, because being polite by definition takes effort. Of course increased freedom and increased vulgarity are inexorably linked.

While I found the review to be too biased about feminism to enjoy, your post is even worse. How on earth can you equate good etiquette to a political party? As a proud liberal, I find your assertions to be boorish. Like you, though, I seem to find myself having to explain why good etiquette is necessary and not just some stupid outdated mode of living.

Your post would have been more believable had you left off your rant about liberals ruining society.

Etiquette was not a choice, it was an obligation. In the absence of that obligation people are free to choose whatever they wish...

Was Emily Post's husband obligated to be a faithful husband? It appears that he didn't even feel obligated to maintain the facade of it, either to his wife, or publicly. So, even then people chose to be rude or uncaring; it's still a choice today.

I happen to be a liberal, and I would never talk loudly on my cell phone in public (although the loud conversations I hear in doctors' offices, etc, tend to be most often by middle-aged men whose conversations make it clear they're Republicans--not necessarily conservatives; but then I live in Texas, so more people are Republicans) or talk in a movie theater. Rudeness is practiced by people of every political persuasion, as surely this current election season illustrates--including by people who ascribe all societal ills to either liberals or conservatives.

I do generally follow the underlying guide that Emily Post claimed to ascribe to: consideration for other people. But if it's true that she lobbied for journalistic silence on a "mixed-race" person, I'd be interested in knowing why. Was she concerned for this person's feelings (possible), or was she more concerned for society's "rights" to keep such "vulgar" people out of sight and out of mind?

When it comes right down to it, etiquette can be practiced for many reasons--some good, some bad. It can protect people, and their feelings, or it can be used as a tool to cover over some pretty ugly social customs.

Let me preface this comment by stating that I am addicted to Emily Post and have nothing but deep admiration, bordering on a girl-crush, on Eleanor Roosevelt.

It's interesting to me that these two women are being pitted against each other by the author. Both Emily and Eleanor were society ladies who made the best of what were essentially sucky situations (philandering husbands who were less-than-interested in them as people). Each launched outward-facing lives as a creative reaction to their circumstances. Both women tried in thier own way to make the world a kinder, more tolerant place for all people. Each came with her own set of baggage (classism, racism, anti-semitism among them) that we'd like to hope was mostly a product of her time. And for all that each was truly radical in her own right, neither was really "feminist" in the way we'd think of it today (ER wasn't a suffragist either by the by). They both took a more broadly humanist approach in their work that was undoubtedly female in its orientation but didn't much buck the status quo.

But let's face it. Most people still think marriage or a romantic partnership is highly desirable. What on earth does it mean when we say that Emily or Eleanor is "more feminist" than Hillary. Em, El and Hil each moved the ball forward for women. So they stayed with their cheating men. So what? I can't imagine anyone holding a man to a similar standard when judging his contribution to humanity.

I want to read the whole book before judging the reviewer, but I can't help but thinking we need to realize who the readers were back in that day. They were the burgeoning middle class, eager to better themselves and their children. In the social and business world of that time, manners could make or break a deal. If a young woman invited a young man home to meet the parents, his table manners had better be up to the mark, his social ease evident, and his dress/hygiene impecable, or he would not get the the gal to the altar with her parents blessing or monetary help. And of course vice-versa. In the business realm all those little niceties could help a person up the corporate ladder, or lacking them could stall a career. I still remember the lessons in deportment from my English grandmother and my German Father; how to walk and sit, how to speak and eat. As annoying as it was for a free and easy wild-as-a-march-hare Californian girl growing up in the '50's and '60's, I absorbed those lessons and unconciously passed them on to my own ornery kids, now in their late 20's and early 30's. And guess what? I was constantly asked how did my children learn to be so polite and well mannered. So Emily Post was just at the forefront of the "pull-yourself-up-by-the-boots­traps" mentality of the American character. She did the best she could with the tools at hand, and had at heart the good of the community, the betterment of society in mind. After all, does not the basis of civil society and even diplomacy between nations rest upon manners and kind consideration of others? I am greatful for her contributions and believe she still has much to teach us.

After all, does not the basis of civil society and even diplomacy between nations rest upon manners and kind consideration of others?

Thank you Flora51, so very well put!

On the personal scale I can agree that as a woman of the younger generation (under 30) I had scoffed for years at my mother's and grandmother's attempts at almost badgering me into etiquette induced submission. It wasn't until I was planning for my recent wedding that Emily Post and her advice (updated by granddaughter Peggy) became my best friend and constant support! Yelling at my delinquent quests who had not RSVP'd would not have gotten me nearly as far (or kept them as friends!) as my polite request via email and then later phone to determine if they were attending the wedding. These efforts were rewarded when the bill came for the reception and it was not inflated because we had an inaccurate count of guests. Further use of the etiquette lessons learned from my mother and grandmother have been put to very successful use in acquiring, maintaining, and moving up in my current career. The discussion of Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Emily Post has not swayed me in either direction, but done what every good discussion should do--spurned me to read the book on Emily Post, follow, or preceded by, reading any good biographical books on Eleanor Roosevelt. Thank you for allowing my voice to be heard.