I guess this question would be for people like Boomer who grew up in this era but I was wondering if men really ordered for the women in the resturants or was this just another "social policy" for June?

I am willing to bet it was just "snobby" June. :D

I think its always been a costum for men to order for women. I mean, thats like a comon fact does Julie foster order for her self in tonites episode? I guess i'll wait and see! :p

In that era a lady did not to speak directly to a strange man if she was accompanied by a gentleman. The gentleman conducted any exchange.

In that era a lady did not to speak directly to a strange man if she was accompanied by a gentleman. The gentleman conducted any exchange.

I don't think a waiter qualifies as a "strange man." It's not like Julie was randomly talking to some man on the street. :lol:

in those days it was politically correct for the gentleman to place the woman's order (sometimes even decide what she wanted)

A waiter would definitely qualify as a "strange man" and not only a strange one but one beneath a lady's notice. Any man who worked with his hands was beneath a lady's notice. A lady simply did not speak to a working man under any circumstances. A lady did not work nor did her associates and a lady spoke only to her associates.

A waiter would definitely qualify as a "strange man" and not only a strange one but one beneath a lady's notice. Any man who worked with his hands was beneath a lady's notice. A lady simply did not speak to a working man under any circumstances. A lady did not work nor did her associates and a lady spoke only to her associates.

This is absolutely ridiculous! My parents are from that era and they have told me it wasn't that way at all! And Miss Landers, why is a waiter "beneath" a "lady?" In my family "working with one's hands" is honorable! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It was around 1980 when I went with a girl to a restaurant for the first time. I was from a blue collar family background, and she was from more of a middle-class professional family. She got 'dressed up,' saying she didn't know whether to do that or not, so she didn't want to take a chance [like Beaver not wearing a tie and coat for the football awards banquet :lol: ]. I was wearing jeans and a knit shirt. We looked over the menu and both chose one of the lowest priced platters . When the waiter took our order, I was waiting for her to order first, but she looked at me surprised, then she ordered the platter, then I said I will have the same, the only difference being in the choice of salad dressing. I assumed she expected me to order for both of us, whch is why she hesitated and looked at me questioningly.

There may be some similarities of then and now in some circles... "Is that [i]still how we're supposed to do it?" But I doubt if that particular dilemma is part of it. Teenagers and young adults are more independent and individual, and there are few young ladies who would like the idea that a man is supposed to do her talking for her. Even if they do prefer "old world charm," it wouldn't go so far as that the man has to assume all the responsibility.

It is still consider proper in the very best circles for the gentleman to place the lady's order. Waiters and others who work with their hands are of questionable backgrounds, morals, characters, habits, and motivations. A lady should not under any circumstances hold discourse with one of them if she would retain her distinction as a lady. To do so would indicate to onlookers or passersby that she is sexually available. A lady simply does not speak to strange men - and strange men includes waiters. End of discussion.

It is still consider proper in the very best circles for the gentleman to place the lady's order. Waiters and others who work with their hands are of questionable backgrounds, morals, characters, habits, and motivations. A lady should not under any circumstances hold discourse with one of them if she would retain her distinction as a lady. To do so would indicate to onlookers or passersby that she is sexually available. A lady simply does not speak to strange men - and strange men includes waiters. End of discussion.

I have to agree that this is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read! Are you actually trying to say that if a woman speaks to a male waiter she is indicating she is "sexually available?" :rolleyes:

It is still consider proper in the very best circles for the gentleman to place the lady's order. Waiters and others who work with their hands are of questionable backgrounds, morals, characters, habits, and motivations. A lady should not under any circumstances hold discourse with one of them if she would retain her distinction as a lady. To do so would indicate to onlookers or passersby that she is sexually available. A lady simply does not speak to strange men - and strange men includes waiters. End of discussion.

I also feel it is REALLY offensive for you to state that men who work with their hands are of "questionable morals." I don't know about the rest of you, but I think there are just as many accountants and lawyers with "questionable morals" as there are carpenters and electricians. :rolleyes:

Ok...I just asked a question, I didn't mean to start a war. ;) I guess I had never thought about it before until June specifically told Wally to do that. I might be an odd-ball here but in some ways I like the "old world charm", I find it exciting and it may be because I have never experienced that good old fashioned treatment and I find some of it kind of romantic. Now, I must say that I hold a hard working man of any occupation in high respect so I can't see why they would be beneath a woman nor do I see it as making herself available sexually. And isn't true that single women had no choice but to work back then before they were married? They had to make a living somehow and let's face it, they weren't lawyers and judges back then. ;)

I agree that it is romantic and charming desilu #1. The other poster was just going way off the deep end I thought. :lol:

Yeah, I think it might have come off that way but maybe Miss landers didn't mean it as harshly as it sounded. I'm assuming that miss landers is a woman according to her screename but it did kind of sound like something that Fred Rutherford would say...huh? :lol: I also think that just as today people had different beliefs back then, meaning that some men took the saying of "man of the house" quite literal and thought that women belonged in the home and catered to the man's needs in the bedroom when needed. My dad is that way for sure.

When my family goes out to eat, my father (if he's with us, he usually isn't) orders for all of us. I was never really sure why, until now.

so "miss landers", you're saying that if a woman talks to a male waiter she's implying she wants to have sex with him and she's available? OMG that's stupid and wrong. :rolleyes: also in your post you said "End of Discussion". who says it is your place to say when the discussion is over? :rolleyes:

so "miss landers", you're saying that if a woman talks to a male waiter she's implying she wants to have sex with him and she's available? OMG that's stupid and wrong. :rolleyes: also in your post you said "End of Discussion". who says it is your place to say when the discussion is over? :rolleyes:

Well said! :p

I think Miss Landers was just saying that that was the way things were then. Jeez, some of you guys need to chill out!

I think Miss Landers was just saying that that was the way things were then. Jeez, some of you guys need to chill out!

So you agree that if a woman talked to a male waiter that meant she was available sexually? And that men who work with their hands have a bad moral character??

So you agree that if a woman talked to a male waiter that meant she was available sexually? And that men who work with their hands have a bad moral character??


I asked my grandmother and she said that that was the way things were back then. Personally, if someone told me that I couldn't order for myself because I would come across as sexually available, I wouldn't be offended.

Well I don't want to start up another fight so this is all I am going to say. I disagree completely and don't think it was necessarily that way in all parts of the country. Also I will say again that there are just as many lawyers with low moral character as farmers.

Also I will say again that there are just as many lawyers with low moral character as farmers.



Of course there are, but in society, a lawyer is more socially presentable than a farmer is. It all boils down to how others veiw you.

The original post said men who work with their hands are of "questionable" backgrounds and morals and I think that is totally ridiculous!

You know I see what you are saying about how "other people view you", I noticed that with all my grandparents, they always cared about what everyone thought, which I never did understand as long as you are a decent human being. My grandparents were also farmers and worked very hard but when they went out socially they dressed very nicely, which to me was very acceptable.

You know I see what you are saying about how "other people view you", I noticed that with all my grandparents, they always cared about what everyone thought, which I never did understand as long as you are a decent human being. My grandparents were also farmers and worked very hard but when they went out socially they dressed very nicely, which to me was very acceptable.

Again I agree that dressing up and concerns about how a person was viewed by others were much more important then. However, I still disagree with the other things "Miss Landers" posted.

I guess there is another Amy on the board? Hi! :wave:

Well, Hi to you also! :wave: And just for the record, I do agree with you! ;) Although, I really don't care about how people view me socially because I work hard for what I get and I'm a good person. I just don't spend alot of money on clothes just because others think it's the thing to do. Things have always came hard for my family and me so we were thankful to have what we had. But, I guess I'm just rambling now.

Well, Hi to you also! :wave: And just for the record, I do agree with you! ;) Although, I really don't care about how people view me socially because I work hard for what I get and I'm a good person. I just don't spend alot of money on clothes just because others think it's the thing to do. Things have always came hard for my family and me so we were thankful to have what we had. But, I guess I'm just rambling now.

I think you are absolutely right! That is why the insinuation that anyone who worked with their hands was immoral or something got under my skin. Things are just about the same way for my family too. :lol:

Let me also add that just because I don't usually buy expensive clothing, I'm not a slob either. You know, it's funny that people think that if you don't buy the name brands then you are a slob or beneath them. If people would just let go of that superficial crap, it would be a better world to live in. It seems it's all about who has what and how much they paid for it. :rolleyes: I'm sorry I'm kind of getting away from the subject at hand here.

Sometimes I think people are even more superficial today than in the time of LITB too. Oh yeah everybody has to have all the name brands and help pay more bonuses to the athletes and entertainers who endorse them. :rolleyes:

Again, I agree!