Men ordering for women - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

desilu #1 · 01-04-2005, 08:08 PM

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?

OK Beaver Fan 89 · 01-04-2005, 08:40 PM

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

rockrgurl71111 · 01-04-2005, 10:02 PM

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!

miss landers · 01-05-2005, 03:48 AM

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.

OK Beaver Fan 89 · 01-05-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss landers

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.

mimi · 01-06-2005, 12:34 AM

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

miss landers · 01-06-2005, 01:29 AM

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.

SDGirl90 · 01-06-2005, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss landers

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!

tdr · 01-06-2005, 05:56 AM

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

]. I was wearing jeans and a knit shirt. We looked over the menu and both chose one of the lowest priced platters [it was a seafood place]. 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 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.

miss landers · 01-06-2005, 06:18 AM

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.

OK Beaver Fan 89 · 01-06-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss landers

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?"

OK Beaver Fan 89 · 01-06-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss landers

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.

desilu #1 · 01-06-2005, 03:19 PM

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.

OK Beaver Fan 89 · 01-06-2005, 03:54 PM

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

desilu #1 · 01-06-2005, 04:24 PM

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?

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.

01-04-2005, 08:08 PM	#1
desilu #1 Lucy/Desi 4-EVER Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 23, 2000 Location: Battle Creek, Michigan USA Posts: 724	Men ordering for women 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?
	__________________ Amy M. Weaver

01-04-2005, 08:40 PM	#2
OK Beaver Fan 89 Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Oct 11, 2004 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 283	I am willing to bet it was just "snobby" June.
	__________________ ~Amy~ Member of the LITB Fan Club

01-04-2005, 10:02 PM	#3
rockrgurl71111 Quit asking me!!!!!! Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 02, 2005 Location: ~ Where ever Amy Lee,Billie Joe Armstrong, Frank Bank, Colin Mochrie, Ryan Stiles, Drew Carey, and Tony Dow hang out~ Posts: 214	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!
	__________________ The representive from Califorina has the floor: Zieg Heil to the president gasman.Bombs away is your punishment.Pulverize the Eiffel towers who criticize your government.BANG BANG goes the broken glass kill all the **** that don't agree. Trials by fire setting fire is not a way thats ment for me. http://www.lp.org/ Libertarian Party: THE political party! I am not Republican! I am not Democrat!

01-05-2005, 03:48 AM	#4
miss landers Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Dec 29, 2004 Location: Northeast Posts: 226	It's Quite True! 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.

01-06-2005, 12:34 AM	#6
mimi Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Aug 04, 2002 Posts: 6	men ordering for women in those days it was politically correct for the gentleman to place the woman's order (sometimes even decide what she wanted)

01-06-2005, 01:29 AM	#7
miss landers Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Dec 29, 2004 Location: Northeast Posts: 226	You Are Mistaken, OK Beaver Fan 89 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.

01-06-2005, 05:56 AM	#9
tdr Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 23, 2001 Posts: 1,454	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 ]. I was wearing jeans and a knit shirt. We looked over the menu and both chose one of the lowest priced platters [it was a seafood place]. 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 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.

01-06-2005, 06:18 AM	#10
miss landers Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Dec 29, 2004 Location: Northeast Posts: 226	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.

01-06-2005, 03:19 PM	#13
desilu #1 Lucy/Desi 4-EVER Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 23, 2000 Location: Battle Creek, Michigan USA Posts: 724	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.

01-06-2005, 03:54 PM	#14
OK Beaver Fan 89 Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Oct 11, 2004 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 283	I agree that it is romantic and charming desilu #1. The other poster was just going way off the deep end I thought.

01-06-2005, 04:24 PM	#15
desilu #1 Lucy/Desi 4-EVER Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 23, 2000 Location: Battle Creek, Michigan USA Posts: 724	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? 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.