All right, get set. Tomorrow will be Memorial Day, which, in addition to its solemn meaning, has a festive place on the etiquette calendar: You may put on your white shoes! You won't have to take them off until Labor Day, which is 3 1/2 months away! Provided, of course, you figure out a way to change your socks.
Miss Manners is dimly aware that this is only big news in small circles. The number of people who don't know that there is a rule restricting what time of year one can properly wear white shoes is exceeded only by the number who don't care.However, those who do know and care, care passionately. You would be amazed; even Miss Manners was when she found how high sentiments ran.
She knew there were a few other souls who would rather run barefoot over ice or coals than be shod in white before the exact hour permitted. What astonishes her is that this is nothing compared to the emo-tions of those who despise this rule and keep demanding that it be repealed.
Apparently it epitomizes everything they can't stand about rules in general, and etiquette rules in particular. It is arbitrary. It can't be justified on moral grounds. And it violates their common sense.
All these charges are true, of course. This rule is not from that realm of etiquette dedicated to discouraging people from impinging unnecessarily on one another's feelings. Although it is easy to get people to agree that refraining from driving others over the brink justifies some etiquette rules (and infinitely harder to get them to make the next step and obey such rules), even Miss Manners can't claim that seeing white shoes out of season damages the sensibilities of anyone except herself.
There is no logical reason that pink or beige shoes are not banned as well, or that babies and brides should be given immunity. Any argument that white is a hot-weather color is easily demolished by pointing out that the weather has gone haywire since we were all young, and no longer confines itself to the designated seasons.
Socially conscious people argue that this rule forces the poor to buy more shoes than they can afford. Frivolously conscious people argue that they have managed to slip in "winter white" woolens and need to be able to wear the shoes to match.
Even some who believe in the rule argue that the opening date should be Easter, or that resort areas be exempted.
Does Miss Manners really need all that flak? Shouldn't she be concentrating all her attention on etiquette violations that produce body counts? Can't she just let that little one go?
It isn't as though she is committed to opposing change. On the contrary, she has appointed herself the arbiter of etiquette change - the final authority on whether a rule should be changed, and if so, how. This is why she cherishes the vainglorious illusion that if she were to let go of that pesky white-shoe rule, no one else would have the heart to go on with it.
But - no. She can't bring herself to do it. Sorry.
The world and the weather and fashion are all chaotic, she readily admits. But that is all the more reason why we should rise above the whimsicality and impose our own order.
One has to stick by what one believes, no matter how strong the popular opposition, as many a ruler has proclaimed, including some who are now unfortunately headless.
Dear Miss Manners: My gentleman friend mentioned to me that his office was going to send their sales team on a cruise around the Bahamas as a bonus. He told me all about how much fun we would have going together, dancing, touring and just having a vacation. Then when the cruise was formally announced at his office, he asked his mother to go.
I was mortified and broke off our relationship. He does not understand. I feel that he should apologize and make amends.
Gentle reader: So you said, "I never want to see you again."
And you think he should have replied, "Sure, fine, but where would you like to go on our vacation?"
Miss Manners agrees that you have a grievance but can't help noticing that you left no room to solve it. Similarly, she suspects that the gentleman had a problem but left no room for you to help him solve it. She can only conclude that you are both dreadful negotiators. Please do not accept any appointments on peacekeeping missions.
The gentleman should have agonized over wanting to go with you and yet feeling he ought to give his mother a vacation, and kept it up until he either gained your sympathies or wore you out. But given that he simply bumped you, you should have agonized over your disappointment until you wore him out.