Part 9

“Is it proper for a company of young people to go out on a camping expedition for several days, even with a chaperon?”

This would depend on the character of the company. One chaperon would not be sufficient for a company of young men and young women. There should be chaperons,—a man for the young men, and a woman for the young women; and if the company is large, there should be a sufficient number of elderly companions to give them all necessary protection and support in the enjoyment of the occasion. There could be no reason why a select party of young people, properly accompanied, should not enjoy an outing of this description. But in such a case it would be not only bad form, but criminal, for any young man or woman to take advantage of the occasion to break over any of the protective regulations upon which all should agree before starting out. Common politeness and good sense would lead each to co-operate with all to secure the most perfect good order in the camp from beginning to end, by daylight and dark.

“Is it proper for young people to take moonlight rides together?”

A moonlight ride for a company of young people, accompanied by fathers and mothers, or teachers, or suitable friends of mature age, would certainly be proper and enjoyable. Under no other circumstances.

“What would you say to a young man who would stand around and talk with a young woman while she is at work?”

That he was indulging in a very rustic and childish procedure, impolite in the highest degree, necessarily hindering and prolonging the work of the young woman, and perhaps complicating all the affairs of the day. What would I say to him?—That he had better go and finish his work while I finish mine, and then if he has really anything to say, come to the family sitting-room, at some suitable time, and we will talk it over.

“What is the best way for a woman to meet indecent remarks or actions from a man? Should she ‘scorch’ him, or slap him in the face?”

Neither. To take the slightest notice of him or of his remarks is to give the man the advantage. At such a time as this rudeness would not be good form. The only safe course would be to ignore him as you would the buzz of the locust in the tree, or the sound of the cable along the track of the car line. You are obliged to be conscious of its presence, but you go on your way, just the same, and let it buzz or roar. Whatever such a fellow may say or do, never turn your eyes one hair’s breadth. Allow him to wonder if you are really blind and deaf. A word or act of even protest would give him a chance to reply. One word would call for another, and no one could possibly forecast where it would end.

“What can be done with students who will not listen to the advice of teachers upon questions of proper behavior, who will not believe what is told them about the character of those with whom they are associating?”

Unless it is a reform school, the only thing would be to send them home.

“When it is known that a young man or young woman in school is impure in thought, language, and habit, what is the duty of those in authority in the matter?”

It is impossible for any one to know the thoughts of any other being, so as to judge of their intrinsic character. The language and habits, when judged from your standpoint, may be impure, but they may be really only the result of wrong methods and circumstances over which the child has no control, and for which he is not at all responsible. In manner and habit he may be vile, and yet be no more responsible as far as thought and motive is concerned than he would be for having the measles. He has simply been exposed, caught it, and needs to be cured. But whatever the thought and inner life may be, if his language and habits in the school association are on the impure level, the pupil should certainly be kept in quarantine at home, unless the school is like a hospital prepared to take the case, and give the treatment that will lead to mental and moral health.

“In what respect does the relation of those in charge of a school home differ from that of the parents?”

In responsibility, during the school term, there is no difference. In point of privilege the parent has greatly the advantage, as he alone is capable of understanding the secrets which may be locked away, in the breast of the child, from any possible discovery by the teacher. The responsibility of parents, however, never ends, while that of the teacher is limited to the hours in the school, and the school term. The parents’ responsibility covers the whole life, and can never be transferred.

“Is it good form for students in their work to eat bits of food from the dishes they are handling?”

It is not only bad form, but a very disgusting practise for any one to pick up things lying about on plates, table, in cupboards, or on fruit stands, public or private, and put them into the mouth. The only suitable place for eating is at the table, the picnic basket, or the traveling lunch box, and that at the meal-time. The habit of nibbling is also productive of many very troublesome forms of disease. Good form requires that one should be as neat and tidy in the necessary handling and preparing of food as in presiding at or enjoying a banquet.

“Is it good form for a gentleman to put on a lady’s skates?”

Any woman who is able to skate is able to fasten her own skates, and should feel a womanly contempt for that childish form of incapacity that would make her willing to receive that kind of attention from any man. The corseted woman, trussed like a fowl, can not get down to her feet so as to put on a pair of skates; but neither can she skate enough to make it worth while to take note of her efforts. Of course she must have a man to perform this puerile service for her.

“What is the proper form of accepting or declining invitations to receptions, weddings, graduations, etc.? Should an acceptance or refusal of such an invitation be accompanied by a gift? If so, what is the most appropriate, and the best form in which to give it?”

The above questions can all be answered upon the same principle. The formula of acknowledging invitations to receptions differs as widely as the style of cards; but the very best “good form” is for each invited guest in her own natural manner, in a personal, kindly note, to either accept, or express regrets at not being able to attend. Books on etiquette give an assortment of styles varying in degrees of stiffness, which you can copy if you wish, but they are the most ungraceful relics of dead form on record.

Concerning weddings: in many circles it is supposed that a response to a wedding invitation must necessarily include a wedding gift; but to assume that such an event is the occasion of soliciting silverware, dry-goods, and furniture is one of the very worst of all bad forms. The wedding gift has become one of the most troublesome expressions of social hypocrisy. If it could be possible to abolish it, and give society a chance to go back to the simple habits of fifty years ago, it would be a blessing indeed. It is a misfortune to a young couple to receive even one gift that either for its pretended or real value would make the simple style in which they will doubtless be obliged to begin life seem mean. Flowers or books are the most suitable things to bring to a wedding, and even flowers may be so profuse as to become vulgar. This does not of course include those gifts that would naturally be made by the family for the purpose of giving the young couple “a start in life.”

“What are the proper conditions and forms upon which introductions should take place?”

Good form requires that no man shall address a lady without an introduction, unless it be in a case of extreme necessity. An emergency, for the time being, nullifies all ceremony; but after the emergency is passed, the informal acquaintance should be ended. Every boy should be so taught in the home that as he grows up, and goes out into the world, he will not offend against good form, and bring himself under suspicion by intruding upon the notice of any young woman whom he may happen to fancy, without the formality of an introduction by some one of whom he will have no reason to be ashamed.

Good form requires that the introduction of any two persons should be by the desire of both. The slightest objection upon the part of either would make the introduction a gross intrusion. The reasons for this are obvious. Society has seen that after the introduction, anything may follow, and the only chance for a young woman to protect herself from undesirable and dangerous association, may be in the rigid enforcement of this simple rule of rights. The proper form of introduction is that which is most easy and graceful in manner for the one who is to do the introducing. As in everything else, individuality should be given a chance; the spirit and manner carries much more weight than the words. Always, however, the person who is to be in any way advantaged by the introduction, favored either in pleasure or profit, is the one who is to be presented to the other. For instance, Mr. Lane has seen Miss Mason, and has recognized her as one whose acquaintance he would enjoy. He asks a mutual friend to secure the privilege of this introduction; Miss Mason has been asked the favor with the assumption that it will be entirely for Mr. Lane’s advantage and pleasure. Miss Mason is gracious, and consents to grant the request. Mr. Lane is therefore brought to the place where the young lady is waiting. Never should a person who is to receive another be asked to come to be introduced. Bring the candidate for this social favor, to the one of whom it has been asked, and upon approaching, you will say, “Miss Mason, allow me the pleasure of presenting Mr. Lane. Mr. Lane, Miss Mason,” upon which Miss Mason will bow slightly, Mr. Lane a little more noticeably. They will not shake hands, but will stand, or perhaps be seated, and converse for a few moments, when Mr. Lane will take his leave, if he knows what is good for him, and wait for some further recognition from Miss Mason.

Among very intimate friends, where it is well known that an acquaintance would certainly be a mutual pleasure and benefit, this formula is not always necessary. I have been giving the strict social good-form code, which is for protection against annoyances. It would be an unfortunate social misdemeanor for any person to make the second effort to receive an introduction which has been once declined, without some advances from the person who had made the refusal.

When a young man desires to cultivate the acquaintance of a young woman, good form requires that before he utters a word, he shall frankly inform her parents of his wishes, and ask their consent. And this is right; and even if their decision is against him, a young man who is worthy of a wife will have that regard for the rights of the parent which will make him careful how he ruthlessly breaks into the family circle. He will give himself time and opportunity to win the parents, before he disturbs the mind of the daughter. The observance of good form in such matters will bring a blessing, and save unspeakable trouble, even if it should require what seems to the heart of a youth a great deal of unreasonable delay.

“After the introduction should the mutual friend leave, or remain and lead out in conversation?”

After the introduction the newly made acquaintances may or may not be left to their own devices in following up the introduction. This introduction does not under any circumstances bind the young woman to any future recognition of the person who has been introduced to her. She may ruthlessly ignore him the next time she meets him without any violation of good form, it being supposed that she has sufficient reason for doing so, and he will have no occasion to complain. He must accept the fact that he has had all that he can receive of pleasure or profit from this acquaintance, and be satisfied with it, unless he can by some means so bring himself in some manly way to the notice of this young woman that she shall indicate her wish to continue the acquaintance.