Places kids don't belong?

[Elret]

@Malthus

Why not make sure the bad stuff doesn’t happen?

Because it’s an endless list of possibilities! Why should the queen make some of her guests uncomfortable by not providing a finger bowl just in case someone doesn’t get it? Why should a host make some of his guests uncomfortable by advising them like children not to invite anyone other than who he invited just in case some of his guests don’t get it?

The easiest, clearest, most logical, least ambiguous way to communicate who you want to attend a party is simply to issue an invitation to that person.

If I give you a recipe, I tell you what ingredients to put in, right? It would seem weird and condescending if I also gave you a list of what NOT to put in, right?

[Malthus]

@Elret

Because it’s an endless list of possibilities! Why should the queen make some of her guests uncomfortable by not providing a finger bowl just in case someone doesn’t get it? Why should a host make some of his guests uncomfortable by advising them like children not to invite anyone other than who he invited just in case some of his guests don’t get it?

The easiest, clearest, most logical, least ambiguous way to communicate who you want to attend a party is simply to issue an invitation to that person.

If I give you a recipe, I tell you what ingredients to put in, right? It would seem weird and condescending if I also gave you a list of what NOT to put in, right?

In this case, there is really only a single major misunderstanding that is likely to crop up.

[doreen]

@Malthus

Add to that the general societal expectation that parents will keep with their kids as much as they can, and the fact that most humans understand this and that it is a traditional part of our society.

Presumably, this does not apply to your dentist. But then, maybe he’s a rather demanding fellow.

I don’t know that there’s a general societal expectation that parents never be separated from their children - there’s a reason we all know what a “babysitter” is. In any event, children are not the only people brought along without explicit invitations. I once had a family of cousins who treated my invitation to the five of them as five admission tickets- two or three of my cousins showed up and they brought friends I had never met to get to five. At other times, I’ve known of families or couples who were invited who brought along other adults who were staying with them temporarily. Few people believe those two instances are appropriate, and I’ve never heard anyone advocate that invitations have a line printed on them that " only the specific people named in the invitation are invited" in the way that people advocate that invitations say “adults only” even though it’s often not true*. It’s as if only parents are assumed to be incapable of understanding the convention and to be honest , those who do understand will very likely be insulted by implication that they don’t. It’s almost like adding a line to the invitation stating that " the use of silverware is expected"

• Few if any weddings are adults only. Most have flower girls or ring bearers or the children or nieces and nephews of the bride and group attending. This does not mean the B&G must invite the children of every guest.

[doreen]

@Malthus

In my experience, that depends on the host parents, who are often more than happy to have additional adult supervision and help - rather than having their home used for some free daycare for a few hours.

In short, it is a bad example.

In my experience, the host parents certainly do appreciate additional adult supervision - and they invite certain parents ( usually their own friends ) to provide it. When they do want one parent to stay for each child, it is clear from the invitation.

[Malthus]

@doreen

I don’t know that there’s a general societal expectation that parents never be separated from their children - there’s a reason we all know what a “babysitter” is. In any event, children are not the only people brought along without explicit invitations. I once had a family of cousins who treated my invitation to the five of them as five admission tickets- two or three of my cousins showed up and they brought friends I had never met to get to five. At other times, I’ve known of families or couples who were invited who brought along other adults who were staying with them temporarily. Few people believe those two instances are appropriate, and I’ve never heard anyone advocate that invitations have a line printed on them that " only the specific people named in the invitation are invited" in the way that people advocate that invitations say “adults only” even though it’s often not true*. It’s as if only parents are assumed to be incapable of understanding the convention and to be honest , those who do understand will very likely be insulted by implication that they don’t. It’s almost like adding a line to the invitation stating that " the use of silverware is expected"

• Few if any weddings are adults only. Most have flower girls or ring bearers or the children or nieces and nephews of the bride and group attending. This does not mean the B&G must invite the children of every guest.

Ah, the old “excluded middle”. I was wondering when it would come, to keep “slippery slope” company!

[Elret]

@Malthus

In short, you thought up a “slippery slope” argument. I seem to recall your adding your “dentist” to the list acouple of times.

The easy refutation - which I have made several times - is to point out that these alleged other contingencies do not commonly occur among reasonable people. They are not easily forseeable.

One does not have to put that “this is a your buddy Chuck free event” or “this is a dentist-free event” because, contrary to the Slippery Slope, one does not reasonably foresee guests bringing their buddy Chuck or their dentist to (say) a wedding without asking. We know people do commonly bring young children to sich family-type events. So if you don’t want young children, discretion being the better part of valour and accomodation being the better part of politeness, it is better to specifically tell people about it.

Please. Enough with the dentist. I mentioned the dentist ONCE, but you have managed to bring it up in almost every post, all while completely ignoring my other examples of other various situations (some involving children, in fact) which are not as cut-and-dried as the dentist. And I ask again: What if it is NOT in fact a child-free event, but YOUR children don’t happen to be welcome? How is the host to word that?
Or, as in some of my examples, what if I don’t know that Great-Aunt Mary and Great-Uncle Doug have their grandchildren living with them temporarily? How would I even know to tell them not to bring them? Oh, I have a great idea! What if, instead of telling them who NOT to bring, I just sent them something saying, “Dear Aunt Mary and Uncle Doug, I would like to invite YOU to my party!” Then they know who I would like to invite to my party. Seriously. You don’t get that NO, not everyone sees kids as an automatic extension of the parents, even for events that traditionally include kids (for which your definition may vary anyway!) Yes, I agree that a host should try to make his guests comfortable, and I think that univited guests should be received graciously. But I think a guest who brings someone who wasn’t invited is a really inconsiderate guest. The solution in MY perfect world is obviously that the people invited are the people invited. I am blown away that this is a weird concept to you. Sounds like the solution in YOUR perfect world is that all hosts specify in the invitation who is invited AND who isn’t (again, not sure of how that would be done) In the real world, there is no perfect solution because not everyone does things consistently enough either way. My point is as it has always been, that I will just never understand how there came to be people like you who choose to read a perfectly clearly worded invitation and decide to see it as ambiguous.

[Malthus]

@doreen

In my experience, the host parents certainly do appreciate additional adult supervision - and they invite certain parents ( usually their own friends ) to provide it. When they do want one parent to stay for each child, it is clear from the invitation.

I’ve never in life seen such specificity on a kiddie B-Day party invite, though I suppose it’s possible. Usually, such matters are resolved informally. “Wanna stay and help out? - Sure”.

[Malthus]

@Elret

Please. Enough with the dentist. I mentioned the dentist ONCE, but you have managed to bring it up in almost every post, all while completely ignoring my other examples of other various situations (some involving children, in fact) which are not as cut-and-dried as the dentist. And I ask again: What if it is NOT in fact a child-free event, but YOUR children don’t happen to be welcome? How is the host to word that?
Or, as in some of my examples, what if I don’t know that Great-Aunt Mary and Great-Uncle Doug have their grandchildren living with them temporarily? How would I even know to tell them not to bring them? Oh, I have a great idea! What if, instead of telling them who NOT to bring, I just sent them something saying, “Dear Aunt Mary and Uncle Doug, I would like to invite YOU to my party!” Then they know who I would like to invite to my party. Seriously. You don’t get that NO, not everyone sees kids as an automatic extension of the parents, even for events that traditionally include kids (for which your definition may vary anyway!) Yes, I agree that a host should try to make his guests comfortable, and I think that univited guests should be received graciously. But I think a guest who brings someone who wasn’t invited is a really inconsiderate guest. The solution in MY perfect world is obviously that the people invited are the people invited. I am blown away that this is a weird concept to you. Sounds like the solution in YOUR perfect world is that all hosts specify in the invitation who is invited AND who isn’t (again, not sure of how that would be done) In the real world, there is no perfect solution because not everyone does things consistently enough either way. My point is as it has always been, that I will just never understand how there came to be people like you who choose to read a perfectly clearly worded invitation and decide to see it as ambiguous.

First, I keep mentioning “dentist” because I find it a hilarious example.

Second, I’d agree, in a perfect world this problem would not arise.

My point is that in this imperfect world we live in, it is better to plan ahead and prevent the problem from arising.

For example, just look at this:

You don’t get that NO, not everyone sees kids as an automatic extension of the parents, even for events that traditionally include kids (for which your definition may vary anyway!)

Yeah, I get that “not everyone sees kids an an authomatic extention …” (or however you want to word it). I really do.

My point is that such an attitude is pretty common in the real world (not the perfect world), and it is better to deal with it than pretend it isn’t.

Third, just because I think it is a good idea to accomodate such folks, doesn’t mean I, personally, am one of them.

[doreen]

@Malthus

Ah, the old “excluded middle”. I was wondering when it would come, to keep “slippery slope” company!

If you’re referring to this

“I don’t know that there’s a general societal expectation that parents never be separated from their children - there’s a reason we all know what a “babysitter” is.”

, it’s not the excluded middle at all.

You say

“Add to that the general societal expectation that parents will keep with their kids as much as they can, and the fact that most humans understand this and that it is a traditional part of our society.”

which implies that there are indeed places/events where parents are not expected to bring their kids. It would only be reasonable for people to assume that their children are included in every invitation addressed to the parents if either

1. They are absolutely certain that **everyone **who sends them an invitation always means to include children and doesn’t bother to write “and family” . This is almost never going to be true, since most of us have received invitations from people we have never met (cousin’s fiancee’s parents etc).

2. There is a social expectation that parents never be separated from their children to the point that it is rude to invite parents without their children

[doreen]

@Malthus

I’ve never in life seen such specificity on a kiddie B-Day party invite, though I suppose it’s possible. Usually, such matters are resolved informally. “Wanna stay and help out? - Sure”.

Well, that’s how the host’s friends would be invited to help. When the hosts really want one parent to stay per child, it’s generally because of some activity ( rock climbing or something ) and the invitation will say something to the effect of " Because we will be _______, we ask that a parent remain at the party ."

[Malthus]

@doreen

If you’re referring to this , it’s not the excluded middle at all.

You say which implies that there are indeed places/events where parents are not expected to bring their kids. It would only be reasonable for people to assume that their children are included in every invitation addressed to the parents if either

1. They are absolutely certain that **everyone **who sends them an invitation always means to include children and doesn’t bother to write “and family” . This is almost never going to be true, since most of us have received invitations from people we have never met (cousin’s fiancee’s parents etc).

2. There is a social expectation that parents never be separated from their children to the point that it is rude to invite parents without their children

Sure it’s an excluded middle. Practically a textbook example.

Having ‘a general expectation of X as much as they can, as a traditional part of society’ is not the same as ‘always doing X without exception’, and I’m sure you know it.

[Elret]

@doreen

Well, that’s how the host’s friends would be invited to help. When the hosts really want one parent to stay per child, it’s generally because of some activity ( rock climbing or something ) and the invitation will say something to the effect of " Because we will be _______, we ask that a parent remain at the party ."

Exactly! Since as you say yourself, Maltheus, parents who are invited to stay are usually informally asked to stick around and help, doesn’t that completely negate your assertion that every parent of each invited kid is invited to stay?

How about a concrete example?

You are hosting a birthday party for your mother. You have limited space, and your guest list includes the following:

1. Your adult siblings, their spouses, and their children
2. Your elderly aunt and her live-in caregiver
3. Your mother’s best friend from high school and her spouse. Her niece and nephew are staying with her for the summer, but you don’t know that. They are not welcome.
4. Three of your mother’s coworkers and their spouses who have children who are not welcome.
5. One of your mother’s coworkers who has a newborn she is nursing, you wish to accommodate the baby.
6. Your mother’s best friend from college and her spouse. Their grandchildren live with them permanently, which you know, but the children are not welcome.

Please, explain to me how, as host, you would word the invitations to these guests to ensure that only the people you wish to attend will show up.

[Malthus]

@Elret

Exactly! Since as you say yourself, Maltheus, parents who are invited to stay are usually informally asked to stick around and help, doesn’t that completely negate your assertion that every parent of each invited kid is invited to stay?

I never asserted any such thing.

My assertion was that littlr Suzy’s B-day intive in Senior KG is a very bad example of the sort of invite that is absolutely cut-and-dried, because in fact in many, many cases, parents will be asked to come to the party, too - and this is usually not on the invite.

How about a concrete example?

You are hosting a birthday party for your mother. You have limited space, and your guest list includes the following:

1. Your adult siblings, their spouses, and their children
2. Your elderly aunt and her live-in caregiver
3. Your mother’s best friend from high school and her spouse. Her niece and nephew are staying with her for the summer, but you don’t know that. They are not welcome.
4. Three of your mother’s coworkers and their spouses who have children who are not welcome.
5. One of your mother’s coworkers who has a newborn she is nursing, you wish to accommodate the baby.
6. Your mother’s best friend from college and her spouse. Their grandchildren live with them permanently, which you know, but the children are not welcome.

Please, explain to me how, as host, you would word the invitations to these guests to ensure that only the people you wish to attend will show up.

My interest in this is limited.

[Dangerosa]

@Malthus

One does not have to put that “this is a your buddy Chuck free event” or “this is a dentist-free event” because, contrary to the Slippery Slope, one does not reasonably foresee guests bringing their buddy Chuck or their dentist to (say) a wedding without asking. We know people do commonly bring young children to sich family-type events. So if you don’t want young children, discretion being the better part of valour and accomodation being the better part of politeness, it is better to specifically tell people about it.

You go to very different parties than I do.

Because when we have an informal sort of party where we don’t specify, there are often half a dozen people there my husband and I have never met.

When we have a formal party, only the people we invite show up - if that includes kids, the kids show, if it doesn’t they don’t.

In your circle you bring kids, but apparently, no one brings Chuck. In my circle you need to be fairly precise in your invitation.

(Honestly, I have been to a party - I did not host it - where someone brought their chiropractor. They were trying to set me up with said chiropractor and thought this would be a good place for us to meet. Chiropractor is not dentist though. And I wasn’t looking.)

[doreen]

@Malthus

Sure it’s an excluded middle. Practically a textbook example.

Having ‘a general expectation of X as much as they can, as a traditional part of society’ is not the same as ‘always doing X without exception’, and I’m sure you know it.

I do , and I didn’t say it was the same. What I said was that the assumption would only be reasonable if the latter were true, either for society as a whole or for everyone who might invite a particular parent. If society generally thinks parents should be with their children as much as possible , it does not follow that " any invitation to parents includes their children"

Oh, and re the birthday party- the written invitation to Suzy is cut-and-dried. Some parents may be separately and informally invited to stay and help, but that is an invitation which cannot be assumed from the invitation addressed to Suzy.

[Elret]

@Malthus

I never asserted any such thing.

My assertion was that littlr Suzy’s B-day intive in Senior KG is a very bad example of the sort of invite that is absolutely cut-and-dried, because in fact in many, many cases, parents will be asked to come to the party, too - and this is usually not on the invite.

What you said was:

@Malthus

inviting little Suzy is, quite often, an invite for a parent/guardian as well, in my experience - certainly little Suzy isn’t going to drive herself to the party, or in most cases going to walk there on her own (if it is close enough to walk).

which is different. My point was, if Suzy is invited to a party, it is not assumed that her parents are automatically welcome to stay as an additional guest, and you seemed to be claiming that in fact they were. If we both agree that only the parents who are explicitly ASKED to stay are welcome to stay, then you are agreeing with my point that only people invited should attend parties.

@Malthus

My interest in this is limited.

Are you serious?

[Elret]

I’m even going to add a couple of scenarios to my question that you’re inexplicably refusing to answer because I hope that someone else who feels the same way you do (since the world is full of them, right?) will be willing to answer, but until then you’ve really just proven my point that what you’re saying just doesn’t make sense.

7. Your cousin who has been dating someone for a few weeks but you have no idea, and his girlfriend is not welcome.

8. Your cousin who has been dating someone for a few weeks and you do know but the girlfriend is not welcome.

[Sally_Mander]

@Elret

You are hosting a birthday party for your mother. You have limited space, and your guest list includes the following:

1. Your adult siblings, their spouses, and their children
2. Your elderly aunt and her live-in caregiver
3. Your mother’s best friend from high school and her spouse. Her niece and nephew are staying with her for the summer, but you don’t know that. They are not welcome.
4. Three of your mother’s coworkers and their spouses who have children who are not welcome.
5. One of your mother’s coworkers who has a newborn she is nursing, you wish to accommodate the baby.
6. Your mother’s best friend from college and her spouse. Their grandchildren live with them permanently, which you know, but the children are not welcome.

Please, explain to me how, as host, you would word the invitations to these guests to ensure that only the people you wish to attend will show up.

@Elret

7. Your cousin who has been dating someone for a few weeks but you have no idea, and his girlfriend is not welcome.

8. Your cousin who has been dating someone for a few weeks and you do know but the girlfriend is not welcome.

I’ll take a whack at it. I was raised to know that if your name is not on the invitation, you ain’t invited.
Some of this would depend on the formality of the event.

1. Jane & John Sibling, Billy & Suzy, or The Sibling Family
   Depending on the age of my sibling’s kids, they might get their own invitation.

2. This one’s a bit tricky. Am I inviting the Caregiver as a guest, or to be there to take care of Auntie?

3. Mark & Mary HighSchoolBestFriend. No mention of niece and nephew.

4. Lucy & Larry Coworker, Rosie & Robby Coworker, and Cathy & Curt Coworker. No mention of kids.

5. NewMom & NewDad Coworker. I’d add a personal note that she is welcome to bring the baby, and would make sure she knew that she’d be able to nurse in private in a bedroom or somewhere.

6. Debbie & Dave CollegeBestFriend. No mention of grandchildren.

The cousin one is a bit different. Is this a formal event, at a nice restaurant where it costs $80 a head and I’m paying for everything? Is Mom terminally ill, and you want to keep it close family only? Or is it a casual affair at my own home? In the first case, the invitation would be addressed to just the cousin. In the second case, where I know the new girlfriend, I’d be inclined to invite her. In that case, I’d address it as Sam Cousin and Sally Girlfriend.

[Malthus]

@Elret

Are you serious?

Sure, I’m serious. I have other things I want to do today, rather than write six, or now eight, invitations.

[Malthus]

@Dangerosa

You go to very different parties than I do.

Because when we have an informal sort of party where we don’t specify, there are often half a dozen people there my husband and I have never met.

When we have a formal party, only the people we invite show up - if that includes kids, the kids show, if it doesn’t they don’t.

In your circle you bring kids, but apparently, no one brings Chuck. In my circle you need to be fairly precise in your invitation.

(Honestly, I have been to a party - I did not host it - where someone brought their chiropractor. They were trying to set me up with said chiropractor and thought this would be a good place for us to meet. Chiropractor is not dentist though. And I wasn’t looking.)

We are talking about formal-type events - remember the example was a wedding. If someone brought Chuck to a wedding without asking, it would be pretty unusual.