Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    What size does he wear?  Maybe he wouldn't object to borrowing a pair
    of dress shoes.  If he's just being cheap maybe that's a solution.  If
    it's a matter of principle for him, then you're on your own.  It sounds
    like it's a matter of principle for you.  Something deeper seems to be
    going on here than just a question of shoes.
    
    						- Vick

    How about having your daughter deliver a pair of suitable shoes a
    couple days before the wedding, with a note on the order of "Mike, my
    brain-damaged future in-laws are too straight for words, and they'll
    freak if you show up in your way-cool boots. Just to help me get things
    off to a good start, could you please wear these shoes? Afterwards,
    feel free to set them on fire or give them to the goodwill or both."
    
    Your daughter takes the "blame" but she passes it off to the in-laws.
    Your daughter and Mike conspire in their disregard for dress codes.
    He's placed in the role of "indulgent father" instead "recalcitrant
    son." It's all done with a light touch to avoid making a big deal.
    
    In the longer run, make a point of observing how NICE Mike looks
    whenever he deviates from his ordinary slovenliness. "Gosh, you look
    good in clean bluejeans!" Mike *is* anxious to please you, right? If
    you can simply display pleasure at the positive deviations, instead of
    unhappiness at the negative sartorial movements, you'll avoid his
    adolescent-resistance response and he'll change in the desirable
    direction.
    
    - Hoyt

    Maybe you should move the wedding "out west" where boots *are* dress
    shoes.
    
    fred(who doesn't own a pair of "dress shoes" either);
    
    Ps.  But If it *really* means *that* much to you I'd probably 
         get me a pair of the &^%$ things.  I also suspect that the
         same thing that makes him attractive to you is also part
         of why he's balking at wearing the shoes (ie, stubbornness,
         indepencence).

    
    
    
    RE: .3 beat me to it!
    
    My father wears his boots as "dress shoes" with suits.  My father's in
    the west (and has lived in the west most of his life).
    
    It's perfectly acceptable out there to wear boots as dress shoes.  
    
    I don't want to change your mind or anything, but I just thought I'd
    tell you that it's acceptable in a lot of places in this country (I
    know many southerners that do it too).
    
    kath

Explain that this is a sort of "costume party" and part of the attendance is
that participants wear the costume of the day.

Then go down to a formal wear store and rent shoes for him.


	-- Charles

    Being a "westerner" my self, I first thought .0 was referring to
    'cowboy' boots.  but, I really think she is referring to the sort of
    casual boots you might see on someone riding a Harley (sp?).
    
    I like .1's suggestion... light hearted and all.  however, if the dude
    is nine years younger than the author of .0, and she is old enuf to
    have a marryin' daughter, then HE is too old to be manipulated into
    changing his ways... unless he WANTS to, that is.
    
    tony

    >he refuses to buy dress shoes that  he does not intend to ever wear
    again
    
    Unless he is still growing (you DID say he is immature), a nice pair of
    shoes should still fit him for several years to come for occasions such
    as:
    
    	� job interviews
    
    	� funerals
    
    	� weddings
    
    	� 

    Coming from someone who used to believe that flannel shirts, blue
    jeans, and workboots were suitable attire for all occasions......
    
    I had a block for years against wearing suits, etc. What it is really
    about, though, is showing respect for the wedding of these people
    by dressing appropriately. It is, as Charles said, a costume, as
    is all clothing. The same with suits for work. What is appropriate?
    well, that can get a little fuzzy, but would be determined by how
    formal the family is. 
    
    One tough spot is that you have already agreed that dress boots 
    would be okay; now, what is proper dress boots?
    
    My resistance to dressing differently, by the way, was that I hated
    shopping. I had a girlfriend who thought shopping was recreation, and
    taught me how to shop much more productively. I still do it as a
    last resort, but I'm a lot more comfortable with it.
    
    The real issue, to me, is why he is so adamantly refuses to respect
    your feelings on the subject. Society dresses the way society dresses.
    His feelings about that won't change things.
    
    The easiest solution? Ask him if he will wear dress shoes, if you rent
    them for him, as Charles said. If he balks at that, than there is a
    bigger issue, IMHO.
    
    -roger
    
    

Mike and you agreed that "dress boots" were ok.  He went out and bought
nice new shiny black boots, of a type that he is happy with.  You are
not. Your interpretation of "dress boots" differs from his.  This is a
problem.  Who owns the problem?  In my opinion, it isn't Mike.

DougO

	I'm sorry that is note is not going to be what the author
	of the basenote wants to hear, but I agree with .9  100%.

	I have never understood why it is important to be seen to 
	"do the right things" at weddings. (Well, I have a view, 
	but I'm too cynical to express it here.)   I am currently 
	under pressure to "conform" for a wedding and resent it 
	bitterly, so perhaps I can help represent the other point 
	of view.

	Weddings are parties, times for people to relax and 
	celebrate the love of two people for each other. To move
	too far away from what one feels is comfortable in terms of 
	one's presented image at such events is a bit like acting 
	convincingly - some people can	do it and others can't. 
	(Would you unquestioningly turn up to a party in *anything*
	your SO asked you to ?   Why not ?
	
	So it seems to me that you have both given a bit and should
	be content with the compromise - to try to push him further
	could detract from his enjoying the event.  Maybe if that
	is too much, ask him to wear your idea of dress for the 
	photographs then change into something he feels comfortable in.

	Peter

    It has nothing to do with whether boots are appropriate, or look nice.
    It has everything to do with how people treat each other, particularly
    people who claim to love each other.  The argument could be made that
    each of you should gladly give up your apparently unbreakable
    attachments to differing views of fashion in order to accommodate the
    quirks of the one you love.
    
    In view of the fact that it's your daughter's wedding, and the occasion
    is therefore of considerably greater importance to you than to him, he
    should stop sulking like a five year old and put on some shoes.  He
    sounds like a first-class twerp to me.
    
    Kit

    I'm getting nervous just reading about this wedding!
    
    Maybe Mike's not-quite-dressy-enough-boots will let
    all the other nervous guests relax a bit about their
    not-quite-proper clothing.  Maybe there will be a few
    laughs and people will let down and enjoy themselves.
    
    Maybe Mike's boots are just what this wedding needs...
    
    Wil

    For what it is worth:
                        
    Appeal to his better nature to "make a sacrifice for the happiness
    of others and to not spoil the day for the bride and groom."
            
    A story:
    
    My family had a similar situation, only it had to do with behavior
    rather than dress. My niece's wedding was a near disaster because
    her mother (my brother's ex-wife) decided to "get revenge" on my
    brother and his family.  She used the day to vent her feelings of
    anger by insulting, affronting, and generally slighting our family
    (poor seating arrangements, scenes at the church, etc.) Everyone,
    including the minister, asked what was going on.  My niece, the
    bride, had locked herself in the Laides Room and refused to come
    out.  I was enraged and about to create a horrendous scene. When
    I noticed my brother.  In the grandest gesture he put aside his
    feelings of outrage and, rising above the calumny, he became convivial
    and outgoing, talking to everyone, shaking hands, and presented
    the perfect picture of the proud "father of the bride."  He was
    outstanding.  I asked him if he felt anger at the treatment we all
    had received from his ex-wife.  (Here's the point)  He said:  "Yes,
    but this is my daughter's wedding day and, by george, nothing or
    noone is going to spoil her day." What an example he was to everyone
    and the tone of the reception was totally changed, and the day salvaged.
    The irony was that he is shy and introverted, and above all has
    been constantly and  deeply wounded by his ex-wife.
                                                                           
    Bottom line - Boots is not the issue. Sacrifice is. Whose needs
    come first?  
       

        You claim to appreciate him for what he is.  Well, what he is wears
    boots to weddings.  Sounds to me as though he's already compromised by
    agreeing to wear the suit.  Count your blessings and don't look at his
    feet.  The same kind of thing is gonna come up again; now's the time
    to decide which is more important -- the boots or the person in them.
    Your call.
                                                 /////
						 |||||
						 \___/

    I just reread the .0 note, which I found myself calling
    "the mother-of-the-bride topic."  It makes me feel sad.
    Maybe it is putting me in touch with past scenarios in
    which someone, usually a woman and usually a mother, spent
    enormous energy in orchestrating an event, and gained all
    her sense of pleasure and enjoyment out of witnessing the
    pleasure and enjoyment of others.
    
    Feeling happy in observing the happiness of loved ones is fine,
    but feeling responsible for their happiness (or lack of it)
    in response to something (or someone) else  seems to me to
    be overdoing it.   If your daughter is old enough to be getting
    married she is probably old enough to own her own feelings
    about Mike's boots.  Are you old enough to own ONLY YOUR OWN
    feelings about Mike's boots?  Or must you own your feelings AND
    your daughter's?
    
    Wil

I don't like the tone of the notes that are implying that the woman 
may not be "appreciating him for who he is" by wanting a partner who 
dresses appropriately for weddings.  (I "appreciate" a lot of people 
with whom I wouldn't want to live.)  I also don't see any sense in 
making Mike out to be a bad guy, either.  It's easier for me to focus 
on what makes a good partnership.

From the woman's perspective, I would approach it this way:  "I need 
to decide if I can live with Mike the way he is, or, if I would rather 
not be with a partner who behaves this way 10% of the time."  I would 
first decide how important it is to have a partner who aligns better 
with your values in regard to weddings, etc.  Then, act accordingly.

If you decide that you can live with a partner who is not aligned with 
you at formal occassions--10% of your time together--then I would 
recommend that you let Mike be Mike and let go of the control.  If you 
decide that you would rather have a partner who aligns better with you 
on formal occassions, then I think that Mike needs to know that this 
behavior is threatening to end the relationship.

It's not up to me to determine who's values are "best."  But I can
offer, with confidence, the idea that partners whose values are not
aligned in areas that each consider "important" probably aren't good
partners. Constant friction looms in the future. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for what I would do:

If I were dating Mike, I would think seriously about ending the 
relationship.  In my personal value system, there is something 
seriously wrong with someone who owns a suit yet must be coaxed to 
wear it to a wedding.  I would also have serious reservations with a 
person who fails to understand that his attendance at the wedding is 
not his action alone, but that it involves me, my pride, and my value 
system, too.  In other words, it is not "him"; it is "us."  And that's 
different.

Am I a jerk for wanting someone to dress up to go to a wedding?  Am I 
a jerk for making it "important" in my life?  Perhaps.  But, just as 
we are clear that we shouldn't try to change Mike, why try to change 
me?  And there are plenty of men out there who probably line up much 
better with me on this issue.

...and I have attended a wedding with someone who did not wear a suit.
But it was because he didn't own one, couldn't afford one, and
couldn't borrow one.  He dressed as nicely as he could with what he
had.  Which is all I ask.  The situation with Mike sounds very 
different.

							--Gerry

    Hmmm... someone a few replies back referred to Mike as "whining like
    a five-year-old"... so let's try this one out for size:
    
    $SET MODE/TODDLER
    
    "But Mommy, WHYYY do I hafta wear this yucky suit?"
    "Because it's the thing to do"
    
    $SET MODE/ADULT
    
    I see this whole note as touching on MUCH deeper issues than what kind
    of footwear someone wants to wear.  Think about it:  WHY is everyone in
    this situation expending SOO much energy over what is really a trivial
    item?  Some reasons I've seen for ditching the boots include:
    
    	"He should make a sacrifice".  Wonderful hair-shirt philosophy.
    	It's one thing to make a substantial sacrifice when one is truly
    	called for... but sacrifice for its own sake smacks of the martyr
    	complex....
    
    	"He should show respect".  Sorry; to me, respect comes from
    	within.  I can be deeply respectful of someone or something
    	whether I'm wearing plaid-shirt-and-jeans, black-tie, or
    	nothing at all!
    
    In short, let go and lighten up!
    
    Personally, I think ALL of us can very easily be pushed into
    "acting like a five-year-old" at some point.  If you really
    don't like something and someone else INSISTS on it, the
    level of defensiveness on both sides can easily rise to incredible
    heights.  I mean, what if someone decided that all men were
    to wear dresses and bonnets at this wedding?  And absolutely
    INSIST on it, and get greviously hurt at those who declined?
    Or for that matter, to be more trivial, what if someone INSISTED
    that no woman wear blue, and cried and carried on if someone did?
    It's the same issue here... it's just that the issue involved
    is close enough to the cultural mainstream so that the peer
    pressure is on the refuser to conform...
    
    Sorry... I don't normally get this riled up; however, I have a
    real problem with folks who "hafta" have a picture-perfect
    storybook wedding, where ANY imperfection is reason to break
    down or throw a fit.  Perfection is impossible to achieve in
    this world; winding yourself up over the lack thereof is just
    setting yourself up for a fall!
    
    If you want some perspective on this issue, stated far more
    elegantly than I ever could, I suggest you read Robert Fulghum's
    book "It Was On Fire When I Lay Down On It".  It's a whole bunch
    of his snippets and stories, several of which deal with weddings
    he's had the dubious pleasure of officiating at.  My alltime
    favorite is the one about the bride who threw up at HER supposedly
    picture-perfect, immaculately choreographed wedding.  Kinda puts
    a whole new perspective on the issue!
    
    --jim [who wears a tie to weddings only when HE feels like getting
           dressed up for the occasion!  I'm averaging about 50/50 on
           that score...]
    

    I have a father, stepfather, who wears black. All the time, he is a
    freelance artist. He refuses to wear a tie. Wears his shirts, black,
    with buttons on them, wears his sportjacket. Same color as his shirt.
    Even wears his pants. Same color as shirt. Black. Granted, he looks
    clean and well groomed. But as earlier notes state, who cares. I would
    feel out of place if I wore this kind of atire to work, to parties, to
    social. But he feels very comfortable. It seems rather childish that
    either side is making the fuss that is being made. Yes, pictures for 
    weddings are forever. Too bad the marriages are not though. But if
    the daughers marriage last more than the standard 5-7 years. Would it
    be nice to have Mike conform just once! Then he can be the
    non-conformast conformast. 
    
    	Some time ago, (aaaahem!!) when it was fashionable to wear a Nearu
    jacket. I did! So what! I wanted to have my senior pics taken for
    graduation done this way as well. Welp! I had one of these unique
    principles who explained to me to have one pic taken with the jacket
    and one without. He suggested that I conform just once and go with
    the tie in the year book. I listened. Glad I did too! As often as we
    open the year book, and I look at that old pic of the jacket. I am
    reminded that pictures are forever. And clothing styles and other
    personal statments are not. 
    
    But depending upon what shade of blue Mike is wearing black shoes.work
    boots he may get away with. Esp dark shades of blue.....
    
    
    George

> Weddings are parties, times for people to relax and celebrate the love of
> two people for each other.

Yes and no. Weddings are more and less than parties. Receptions may or may not
be parties, but the point is that this party has certain rules - set by the
bride and groom. If you are invited to a party, and the invitation says
"semi-formal" showing up in tails is just as rude as showing up in jeans. If you
don't like the rules for the party - don't go - but don't ask the host and
hostess to change the rules to suit YOU - it's not YOUR party. When you get
married you can have people dress however YOU want, but this is not your day.

Re: .13

Amen.

A lot of people have said "lighten up" which is a fine idea, but doesn't apply.
If these people want a solemn wedding THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. It's not up to *you*
to tell these people how to run their wedding. You can say "I wouldn't do it
that way" but that's a very different statement from "they should lighten up."

If you choose to make a point about the artificiality and hypocrisy of modern
society and the foolish costumes and superficiality of the people that wear
them, that's fine - I do it myself - but using someone else's wedding to make
YOUR personal statement is selfish. You are perfectly entitled to *be* selfish,
but don't try to make it sound like something else.

And don't expect other people to cheer.

	-- Charles

    Ahh, truly an issue that we can hop on, kick around, and stomp all over
    the participants ... :-)
    
    IMHO, let him be.  First, I would suspect that you are not really as 
    concerned that Mike is wearing boots (i.e. showing disrespect to your 
    daughter) as you are that Mike will embarrass (sp?) YOU - yes, YOU - by
    not dressing conventionally (convention defined as what YOU think YOUR
    friends would expect people to wear).  (A question: does your DAUGHTER
    feel as strongly about this as yo do???)
    
    If I am even half right here, please stop and think about the
    following:
    
    1) How many people are really going to notice Mike's boots?  He's not
       IN the wedding, is he?  He's not giving away the bride, is he?  He's
       not going to give a speech in front of everyone, is he?  No, he's 
       just a guest!  One of dozens, or hundreds!  And all of their
       attention is going to be on...  Mike's shoes???  NO, the wedding party!
       In short, you may be the only one that cares, or notices...
    
    2) If you FORCE Mike to wear shoes:
    
       (a)  he is going to be miserable at the wedding, and may end up
            doing something that will embarrass you much more than wearing
            boots!  (Acting out with other guests, complaining whenever 
            you are not around to everyone else how much he hates dressing
            up, perhaps drinking too much, (and) falling down on the dance
            floor because of those stupid, VERY slippery rented (or new)
            shoes ???)
    
       (b)  you will likely do irreperable harm to your relationship with 
            him.  He will forever after feel that you really don't think 
            he's "good enough" to be seen with your family's friends...
    
    (3) And, finally, what might happen if Mike DOES wear boots?        
    
    (a)  I'm wrong, and everybody notices...   You make a few light-hearted
         comments about "I tried, but he's his own man, but I love him
         anyway" (end of issue)...  and/or, Mike feels embarrassed, and
         later apologizes to you and your daughter, promising that he will 
         listen to you in the future and stop 'acting so childish'.
         (Long term good, right?)  (And besides, every wedding has an 
         'Uncle Joe' that does something for everyone to talk about after -
         what's the big deal if its Mike's boots?  Could be a LOT worse :-)
    
         - Either that, or LIE! :-)  Tell everybody that some unfortunate
         disaster happened to Mike's shoes at the last minute (dog ate 'em?), 
         and the only alternative was for Mike to wear the boots.
    
    (b)  Nobody notices, you feel foolish for making such a big deal out of
         this, and Mike is happier with you, himself, and your relationship,
         knowing that you may now have a little more respect, or at least
         tolerance, for his tastes and conventions.
    
    (c)  You complain in the ladies room, and to your best friends,
         about how embarrassed you are about Mike, and you unknowingly do
         MORE to detract from your daughter's (and her guests) enjoyment
         than Mike did by wearing boots! :-)
                                   
    Having seen what weddings do to the direct participants (makes most of
    them legally insane for a short period of time :-), I would worry about
    those things YOU CAN control - and not the weather, the dress of other
    guests, your daughter's choice of table settings, dinner selections, 
    band/DJ, etc...  In other words, worry about knowing as much as you can
    about your fellow guests, and PLANNING what you, as the charming mother
    of the bride, will say to the well-wishers - what YOU can do to keep
    the guests happy, the conversations lively and light, the MOOD UPBEAT!
    
    In short, this isn't about boots, its about the give and take required
    of relationships.  Looking at it from Mike's point of view, he's
    already given - he IS wearing a suit, right? - and you did agree he
    could wear dress boots, right?  Well, now its your turn to give...
    
    Dave
    
    P.S.  Hope you can find some way to relax and enjoy yourself - it's a
          once in a lifetime day (hopefully), and it'd be a shame to let a   
          really minor thing like footwear ruin it for you and your
          daughter.
    
    BTW, you HAVE to right back and let us know what happened!!!
    
    PPS.  I DID like .2's(?) daughter-rap solution, too :-) :-)
    

    First, I'd like to thank all of you for your suggestions and
    observations. They have all given me some food for thought, and I'm
    going to respond to  some of the notes, for clarification of my
    feelings.  I am not responding in sequence, but rather in my stream of
    thought.  I hope I don't confuse you.   and I'll apologize now for
    being lengthy...
    
    .10>	I'm sorry that is note is not going to be what the author
    .10>	of the basenote wants to hear, but I agree with .9  100%.
    
    I had the basenote entered in Mennotes, because I felt that I needed to
    look at this issue clearly, not only my perspective, and this forum 
    would provide advice and insight from a broad range of 'types'.  I am
    not interested in lot's of "Oh, I'm sure you are 100% right, so tell
    Mike either wear the damn shoes, or GET LOST"  I could probably get
    lot's of my friends to say that :-)
    
    .9>Mike and you agreed that "dress boots" were ok.  He went out and bought
    .9>nice new shiny black boots, of a type that he is happy with.  You are
    .9>not. Your interpretation of "dress boots" differs from his.  This is
    .9>a problem.  Who owns the problem?  In my opinion, it isn't Mike.
    
    Of this, I am accutely aware.
    
    .6> Being a "westerner" my self, I first thought .0 was referring to
    .6> 'cowboy' boots.  but, I really think she is referring to the sort of
    .6> casual boots you might see on someone riding a Harley (sp?).
    
    Correct
    
    .5>Then go down to a formal wear store and rent shoes for him.
    
    Since Mike earns double the salary I do, I would not do this, as lack
    of money for Mike is not a problem.  I, however, am bordering on
    bankruptcy :-)  If this were a matter of affordability, I would
    scrounge the money up, somewhere.
    
    .7>Unless he is still growing (you DID say he is immature), a nice pair
    .7>of shoes should still fit him for several years to come for occasions
    .7>such as:	� job interviews  funerals � weddings
       
    I think I've pointed this out to Mike, - he doesn't plan to attend any
    of these events :-) :-) 
    
    .10>...I am currently under pressure to "conform" for a wedding and
    .10>resent it bitterly, 
    
    This is what I am trying to avoid.  I do not wish to have Mike
    sacrifice his position at the expense of his pleasure in going to the
    wedding.  If I force this issue, to the extent that he's angry and
    resentfull, then we're both going to be miserable.  This is one of the
    most joyous days of my life, I want him to share in it.  Not just
    suffer thru it. 
    
    .10>To move too far away from what one feels is comfortable in terms of 
    .10>one's presented image at such events is a bit like acting convincingly
    .10> - some people can do it and others can't. 
    
    I think that this is a large part of the matter, from Mike perspective.
    
    .15>Maybe it is putting me in touch with past scenarios in
    .15>which someone, usually a woman and usually a mother, spent
    .15>enormous energy in orchestrating an event, 
    
    I'm sure that my statement regarding the "stress of a wedding" led you
    to believe that this might be the case.  Let me clarify this a little.
    My daughter and her fiancee, have planned, and paid for virtually every 
    aspect of this wedding.  One of life's little pleasure's that I've
    missed out on :-) :-)  My pressures have come about simply because of
    the sheer number of things to do, in an effort to ASSIST my daughter
    in any way that I can, and of course, the pressure that I put on myself
    in my desire to see that this occasion is every bit as "perfect" as
    the bride and groom have planned it to be. 
    
    .15>and gained all her sense of pleasure and enjoyment out of
    .15>witnessing the pleasure and enjoyment of others.
        
    I'd like to edit this line a little to: "and gain a great sense of
    pleasure and enjoyment out of witnessing the pleasure and enjoyment of
    my family". Now that is me, and lot's of other mothers, as well.  But
    while I appreciate  your attempt at looking deeper into the situation
    that I presented, you  just didn't peg it right!
    
    .15>If your daughter is old enough to be getting married she is probably 
    .15>old enough to own her own feelings about Mike's boots.
    
    Daughter, doesn't know that this confict exists.  Regardless of how it
    is resolved, I don't think it is necessary for her to concern herself 
    with it now.    
        
    .1> Something deeper seems to be going on here than just a question of
    .1> shoes.
        
    What I've felt happen as this issue has played itself out, does go
    quite a bit deeper.
    
    .11>It has everything to do with how people treat each other, particularly
        people who claim to love each other.  The argument could be made that
        each of you should gladly give up your apparently unbreakable
        attachments to differing views of fashion in order to accommodate the
        quirks of the one you love.
        
    There have been times in the past when I have considered Mike's
    opinions regarding my apparell.  While I can't say that the "shoe has
    been on the other foot" (pun intended) -when asked specifically NOT to
    wear something that he did not want me to wear, I complied, for no
    other reason, than the fact that it was important to him.  It bothers
    me that he does not seem to care how important this is to me.  I'm
    asking myself, if I'll be able to consider his feelings again in the
    future.  and if I can't do that, then I doubt that we would have any
    kind of quality relationship.
    
    .11>In view of the fact that it's your daughter's wedding, and the occasion
    .11>is therefore of considerably greater importance to you than to him,
    .11>he should stop sulking like a five year old and put on some shoes.  
    
    My thoughts exactly!  :-) :-)
    
    .11>He sounds like a first-class twerp to me.
    
    Well, it's been my experience that there is some "twerp" in all of
    us, at one time or another :-)  and actually that portion of "twerp"
    in Mike, is really quite small. 
    
    .8> Society dresses the way society dresses.  His feelings about that
    .8> won't change things.
    
    I agree, wholeheartedly!  and I feel as though Mike thinks that if he
    agrees to wear these more formal clothes,for ANY occasion, then he's 
    "giving in" to society. 
    
    .13>Bottom line - Boots is not the issue. Sacrifice is. Whose needs
        come first?  
           
    I'm not so sure that this is the bottom line, precisely.
    
    .14> You claim to appreciate him for what he is.  Well, what he is
         wears boots to weddings. 
    .14>The same kind of thing is gonna come up again; now's the time
        to decide which is more important -- the boots or the person in them.
        Your call.
        
    I really wish it were this simple.  Of course, Mike is more important
    than the darned boots, but is he the only one in this relationship
    that's important.
    
    .16>I don't like the tone of the notes that are implying that the woman 
    may not be "appreciating him for who he is" by wanting a partner who 
    dresses appropriately for weddings. 
    
    Me neither! :-)  But I've had to ask myself if I am failing to do this.
    and I don't think I am. Refer back to the 90% - 10% ratio stated in the 
    basenote.
    
    .16>I would approach it this way:  "I need to decide if I can live with 
    .16>Mike the way he is, or, if I would rather not be with a partner who 
    .16>behaves this way 10% of the time."  I would first decide how important 
    .16it is to have a partner who aligns better with your values in regard
    .16>to weddings, etc.  Then, act accordingly.
    
    You put into words those feelings that I keep coming around to.
    
    .16>I would also have serious reservations with a person who fails to 
    .16>understand that his attendance at the wedding is not his action alone, 
    .16>but that it involves me, my pride, and my value system, too.  In other 
    .16>words, it is not "him"; it is "us."  And that's different.
    
    .16>Am I a jerk for wanting someone to dress up to go to a wedding?  Am
    .16>I a jerk for making it "important" in my life?  Perhaps.  But, just
    .16>as we are clear that we shouldn't try to change Mike, why try to change 
    .16>me?  
    
    and this I think is the bottom line for me.  Thank you Gerry, again,
    you put into words those feelings that I've had.  
    
    >...and I have attended a wedding with someone who did not wear a suit.
    >But it was because he didn't own one, couldn't afford one, and
    >couldn't borrow one.  He dressed as nicely as he could with what he
    >had.  Which is all I ask.  The situation with Mike sounds very 
    >different.
    
    It is different, and oh, how much easier it would be if it wasn't.
    I can't say that this is ready to be resolved, but all of you have
    helped me to clarify my own thoughts, and also given me other points
    to consider.  Thank You

    If your daughter doesn't know about his boots, maybe you should ask her
    how important it is to HER what he wears on his feet?  It is her
    wedding after all.  It sounds to me like the issue is with YOU deciding
    what is important for a wonderful wedding by your standards, not by her
    standards.  It sounds like the issues are between you and him, and the
    wedding just brought them to the forefront of your situation.
    
    Personally, if I ever get married, I want people to be comfortable.  I
    want them to be joyous.  If that means they all wear bunnyslippers, so
    be it!  It is a time for joy, for each person celebrating in their own
    way, for people to focus on your daughter and her new spouse.  
    
    yes, the issue with the boots seems very important to you.  I guess a
    lot of people here have suggested some WHY'S.  I guess my take is to
    not blame the wedding, or let it ruin how you enjoy the wedding or how
    he enjoys the wedding, but to discuss it separately if possible.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .0 and .21
    
    Thanks so much for the careful reply to all the comments!
    
    Sometimes, anonymous topics are entered, after which
    lots of people beat the subject (and sometimes each other)
    to death, and there is never any acknowledgement from the
    anonymous person.   Your original topic was carefully
    worded and the acknowledgement was equally carefully worded.
    
    It would be great if all anonymous people were so considerate.
    
    Wil

    Somehow, reading all of this I don't think the issue you have is with
    boots ...

Bravo Jody,

Just what I was thinking.  Find out how your daughter feels.  If you know
that it's of no concern to her, it might not mean as much to you (maybe
it still will.)

Upon reading all of this, I get the impression that you and Mike made an
agreement, he's going with that and now your changing the rules.  

Just MHO.

>>>Ken

>Upon reading all of this, I get the impression that you and Mike made an
>agreement, he's going with that and now your changing the rules.  

I don't think that he went with the agreement.  The agreement said 
"dress boots" (at least as far as I can tell from the notes here).  He 
came close but not quite.

Since I'm not intimately familiar with the situation, I don't know for 
sure, but me suspects a chilish act of pushing limits.  I'll come 
close and see if she complains.

If indeed that is happening, that's not honoring an agreement.  That's 
playing childish games.

[Only the people involved can read the situation clearly.]


							--Gerry

Personally, I think Mike has been very conciliatory and considerate of the
feelings of the basenoter.

He didn't want to dress up, and made this clear.  Nevertheless, he agreed to
wear a suit.

The issue of shoes came up, and after some discussion, they reached a
compromise on "dress boots".  So he went out and bought a pair of expensive
dress boots.

Now, the basenoter is reneging on the compromise.  The boots aren't the right
color.  She's saying that his taste isn't up to her definition of "dress 
boots".  She's bringing up "shoes" again.

If I were Mike, I'd be feeling awfully pushed around at this point.  I'd be
wondering what other mutually-agreed-upon arrangements the basenoter might be
planning to renege on.  I would be thinking that now, in addition to me being
uncomfortable at the wedding because I'm in that suit, I'm going to have to
go through the whole shebang with the basenoter looking critically at my
clothing.  How humiliating.

You might be able to get Mike to wear shoes, but you'll probably get some
backlash and resentment as well -- especially if the groom shows up in boots.

    Sharon
 

    If this "Mike" fella is reading this note, I would say to him to
    lighten up.  It is only shoes.  Gotta agree with the ones who say
    it is the bride's call.  Somehow I have a feeling that the daughter
    couldn't care less about 'em "shoes".  There are so many things to
    worry about before wedding.  They are planning for the rest of their
    lives.  Chances are, if it is a relatively big wedding, someone is
    gonna show up dress funny.  Heck, what's the big deal?  Did ya notice 
    or remember who was wearing what shoes during your wedding?
  
    Now, I don't know what to say if you think it's a manifestation of
    some "deeper problems", but if anytime a pair of shoes gets
    "manifested" into "deeper problems", I don't think you and "Mike" are
    gonna last very long.
    
    Eugene

    
     Beat him up:-)
    
    David

    As one of those, made to ...stand up... to somebody else's standards.
    
    I got something to say. LET IT GO, you already got Mike to deviate
    from his standards, and he agreed to (for you), now you are just nitt 
    picking and being negative.
    
    Compliment him instead for wearing a suit and "his" dress boots.
    
    In Mike's "shoes" (-;  I would be petty mad, if after having done
    all that. You came back with further requests and complaints, instead
    appreciation for what he is doing. He may just not go...
    
    In my case, I felt and still do, that there is no ocation that really
    requires dressing formally. And really didn't apreciate people forcing
    me to do it. But on the other hand I have come to enjoy wearing a suit
    sometimes, for the nice clean cut figure "I imagine" I make. 
    
    My change of opinion or suits came about, not by wearing suits at
    "required" ocations. But by simply dressing to eat out, and so on. One
    little bit more everytime, and the POSITIVE responses of my SO and other 
    people.
    
    Gil

As another jeans-and-sneakers type I can see Mike's point. I do own, and wear,
for appropriate occasions, suits, ties and dress shoes. While I would not say
that I do so "grudgingly", I can certainly understand someone who does feel
that way. As far as I'm concerned, those things are all damned uncomfortable.
I don't like the feeling of a shirt buttoned up to my neck with a tie further
constraining me. Both pairs of my dress shoes are absolutely miserable to wear
for any longer than an hour or two. The cut and fit of a suit is no where
near as comfortable as a pair of jeans. Invariably, if I need to attend an event
which requires these things, I take my sneaks along and change into them at
the first possible moment afterwords. I also either loosen or remove the tie
and unbutton the collar ASAP. For years before I joined DEC I needed to dress
(painfully) like this on a daily basis. It was probably one of the major
reasons I needed to get a job here.

Dave Carr expressed most of the things I wanted to say in his .20, specifically,
how many peoople do you think are going to pay any attention to what Mike
has on his feet, especially if they're dark leather? If the concern is simply
that you'll be painfully aware of it, then re-assess your relationship, don't
expect Mike to placate you.

Especially, re: .21

>    .10>...I am currently under pressure to "conform" for a wedding and
>    .10>resent it bitterly, 
>    
>    This is what I am trying to avoid.  I do not wish to have Mike
>    sacrifice his position at the expense of his pleasure in going to the
>    wedding.  If I force this issue, to the extent that he's angry and
>    resentfull, then we're both going to be miserable.  This is one of the
>    most joyous days of my life, I want him to share in it.  Not just
>    suffer thru it. 

How much do you expect Mike to enjoy it even if you do convince him to wear
shoes which you feel are appropriate after all of this? I'd be surprised if
he even enjoys it in his boots at this point!

Ask yourself a few other questions - like, how would you feel if Mike told
you he'd rather not come to the wedding at all, than wear shoes he didn't
care to? What's _really_ important to you here?

-Jack    

    Suppose for a moment, that Mike's job changed... perhaps (let's dream a
    little, shall we) he were to be offered an EXCELLENT opportunity to
    become a very highly salaried executive.
    
    But, this new opportunity requires meeting the public, and in highly
    visible, elite circles, at that.  Suppose, also, that one of the
    REQUIREMENTS of the job were to meet certain dress standards... and
    that boots (any kind) were NOT acceptable.
    
    Now, suppose Mike really wanted to try this new job out.  Do you think
    his "standard" for dress code would change?  Do you think he'd
    compromise his stance on shoes?  I certainly do.
    
    While there isn't a parallel with the above scenario and the present
    situation... it does cause me to wonder if this intransegence isn't 
    more a test of wills, and/or control.  
    
    I'm sure that if Mike *wanted* to conform (as he might well want to in
    the ficticious scenario above) to another standard, he would.
    
    (After all, if he wears "dress" shoes now, he's bound to have to
    conform again, for another reason, sooner or later.)
    
    
    tony

    Well, there have been plenty of views expressed now. Seems to me that
    either this issue is a focus for something deeper in your relationship,
    or a redirected focus for another issue of stress in the wedding 
    preparations. (Perhaps it might be that you feel excluded from the 
    preparations that your daughter and her fianc� are making, and can't 
    influence one area you think you ought to be able to, but I really
    can't guess for you.)

    If you *think* it's something else in your relationship, please take 
    time to re-assess the incident *after* the wedding. I hope that 
    you'll see things in a different light and, who knows, maybe even 
    wonder what the fuss was about.

    Let us know how the wedding goes ! - isn't that what's *most* important 
    to you ?

    Peter

    I think it's FASCINATING that what on the surface seemed like a very
    minor problem, drew 33 replies and no clear resolution.  I think
    Spock would agree with me.  We are a strange species, indeed.
    
    					- Vick (Beam me outta here, Scotty)

    As the basenoter, and one of only 2 people who know exactly what has
    been going on regarding this whole issue,  I must say, that some of the
    responses have been extremely interesting.
    
    I think it's time for a little clarification, as well as an update on
    the situation.
    
    First, it's important that you all know that there has NOT been a lot
    of discussion between Mike and I, around this issue.  Some folks seem
    to have this idea, that I've been pushing, prodding, and/or nagging
    Mike about what he's going to wear, and that isn't the way it's been.
    
    .27>If I were Mike, I'd be feeling awfully pushed around at this point. 
        I'd be wondering what other mutually-agreed-upon arrangements the
        basenoter might be planning to renege on.  I would be thinking that
        now, in addition to  me being uncomfortable at the wedding because I'm
        in that suit, I'm going  to have to go through the whole shebang with
        the basenoter looking  critically at my clothing.  How humiliating.
    
    While I am not any paragon of virtue, I certainly don't think that I am
    the sort of person that this response implies.  I can't help but wonder
    just what statements in my notes, could lead you to this assumption. I
    thought that I had made it pretty clear that Mike's feelings in this
    are extremely important to me.  I'm not so unselfish, as to ignore my
    own feelings, but I certainly wouldn't allow them to go so unchecked,
    as to create this scenario.
    
    The question of Mike's apparrel for the wedding, came up quite a few
    months ago.  We discussed it, and he agreed on the suit (reluctantly,
    but I certainly did not do any arm twisting, at least I don't think
    so).  Since I just assumed  he'd be wearing regular shoes with the
    suit, nothing specific was discussed at that time.  A little time
    passed, and like a little bomb being dropped, it was mentioned that his
    boots were pretty worn, and he needed new ones, and that it would be
    nice that he would have a new pair of boots to wear to the wedding.  I
    was shocked, and at this point I'm sure I stated clearly that I didn't
    think that boots were appropriate, that he should be wearing shoes, and
    Mike made it clear that he did not wish to wear shoes, he doesn't like
    shoes.  I certainly wasn't too happy, but as I stated in my basenote
    
    me>but I've tried to keep this in perspective with the other fine
       qualities that he possesses, and mostly, I've just tried to accept 
       this as a difference between us.
        
    so, we discussed it, and I did agree (reluctantly)that new black dress
    boots would be acceptable.  Mike and I went shopping quite a few times, 
    for boots.  I began to realize that we had a BIG difference in taste,
    and  the definition of "dress boots" was quite different for the both
    of us.   I began to realize that "we" had a real problem coming on.  In
    a couple of  shoe stores, I attempted to get Mike to at least look at
    shoes, but he refused, and it was mostly at these times that he
    discussed his attitides towards shoes and clothing.  I may have
    supplied my feelings, in a general sense, regarding my attitudes, but I
    did not attempt to change Mike's mind regarding his. I was concerned
    that I could easily escalate this into an argument, and that would be
    futile.  I've been know to have a short fuse, that I've worked very
    hard to control and overcome.
    
    One evening Mike came over my house, to show me new boots he had just
    bought.  I was very disappointed, when I saw them but I felt unable to
    say  anything at all.  He asked what I thought of them, and I hedged
    around.  This  was clearly a matter of taste, (and we all know, there's
    no accounting for  that!) and I didn't feel that I could or should
    state my opinion, even though  he asked.  He had just spent approx $150
    for boots, and he liked them.  I  wasn't about to say that not only did
    I not like them, but that I just couldn't see them as appropriate for
    the wedding.  And this was the beginning of the  problem for me.  Mike
    never had a problem with this at all.  There has been virtually no
    further discussion.  I couldn't see any point in bringing it up to
    Mike, after all, he met his end of the bargain.
    
    Well, over the last few weeks, this issue has been eating away at me. 
    I've  thought about it over and over, and I just couldn't reconcile my
    attitude of wearing the appropriate clothing for this occasion, with my
    desire to accept Mike as he is, respect his right to wear whatever he's
    comfortable with.  We have a very good relationship, with very few
    areas of conflict. It is important to me (and to Mike) to resolve
    conflicts in a way that is least harmful to the relationship, as
    possible.  The more thought I gave the issue, the less clear I became
    on how to handle it.  I was losing all perspective on any possible
    resolution, as well as perspective on importance. It was either just
    accept the situation, no matter how uncomfortable I was with it, and
    deal with any resentment that I might feel, or  change it. However, I
    was not relaying this to Mike, as I felt that if I were to bring the
    subject back up for discussion, I needed to be clear and precise about
    my feelings.
    
    And so, I put the basenote in Mennotes...
     
    Now, at the beginning of this lengthy (another one!) reply, I stated
    that I would give you an update, and I will.
    
    By last Friday evening I had considered all the different points that
    were  brought up in Mennotes, as well as considering my own attitudes,
    and I felt  that I was clearer in my mind, about what was important,
    and just what was the "bottom line" here, that I was now ready to talk
    to Mike about it.  Mike  is not a regular reader of Mennotes, so I had
    him add it to his notebook, I  gave him the note number and asked him
    to read it, and we discussed it after. 
    
    And since this is beginning to seem more and more like a SoapOpera, and
    this reply is getting rather lengthy,  I'll ask all of you to stay
    tuned for the details of the discussion between Mike and me, and the
    resolution.  In the very near future.

Hmm, after reading your update, I'm afraid I have to reconsider. This is
clearly about more than boots. *Why* is it so important to *you*? Are you
concerned about what other people will think about Mike? About you because of
how Mike is dressed? About your daughter? Imagine the worst possible reaction
to Mike wearing his boots to the wedding... what reaction is it? That might
give you a clue about the real issues. Deal with them.

My advice - let it go.

	-- Charles

    
        Do most of the wedding attendees know Mike?   If they do- they 
     know that he is the way he is, jeans and all, so they might be shocked 
     to see him in a suit to begin with.     You mentioned in your reply
    that  you have very few differences, yet you would go to this wedding 
     alone, merely beacuse he won't wear dress shoes.   This issue seems to
     be casuing a lot of strife in your relationship- it shouldn't- you
    can't base that on what someone wears on their feet.
        Some people just plain won't wear certain things.  Wearing boots
     is part of Mike.   He feels very comfortable in what he wears, leave
    him be.  I am going to assume he isn't going to go straight from the 
     barn to the wedding- that he will be neat in appearance, and the boots
     will be free of loose debris-  It adds something to the occasion.  
     A wedding should be enjoyuable for everyone involved, not just another
     bellybutton perfect occasion, where the matchbooks match the curtains-
       Does the daughter even care????    I personally could care less what
     people wear to the occasion, so long as they realize it is a very
     special event, and demands some sort of respect, so neatness, and a
     little care in appearance count loads more than the actual items being
     worn.
    
     I have always worn balck cowboy boots with a suit- day in, day out, my
     job requires a suit, but I have never ever had a negative comment
    about my boots, only compliments.
    
       Let the poor guy wear what he wants- it is his decision to do that-
      and forget about it.
    gt\
    

To the basenoter: hmm, obviously my reply in .27 came across as harsher than
it was intended to.  Sorry 'bout that.

    This scenario reminds me of the time I wore a pair of belly-cut python
    boots to my grandmothers funeral.  I couldn't believe my relatives made
    such a big deal about it.  From my perspective, weddings, funerals, etc
    are not fashion shows, you're there for a specific reason, and fashion,
    IMHO, has nothing to do with it.  To be quite honest, I wouldn't be
    caught dead in some of the clothes I saw some people wearing (which I
    guess was quite "acceptable" by others).  Bottom line: No matetr what
    someone wears, it could be worse, but will it ever be "acceptable" by
    others?

    I can't believe that you have such poor communication with this guy that
    you let a Notes conference address the issue on your behalf.  Really
    poor choice on your part ...
    

I can't believe some of the callous replies this poor woman is receiving.

Lighten up! She asked for some opinions.

-Jack

From a purely logical standpoint--totally disconnected from any human
emotions--it makes perfect sense that boots and wedding clothing is
nothing to get upset about.  But so much for logic! 

The fact is that the basenoter's gut is telling her that there is 
something wrong with this picture.  Wrong for you?  No.  Wrong for me? 
No.  Wrong for Mike?  No.  Wrong for _her_.   

Any advice for her to ignore it or to let it go is _very_
dysfunctional, in my opinion, and very harmful to the relationship.
Why?  Because ignoring feelings leads to acting them out anyway in
more harmful and indirect ways.  And because intimate partners are
supposed to be concerned with what the other partner is feeling. 

After all, what good is having an intimate partner if you can't talk
with her or him about what is nagging at you most?  Even if what is
nagging at you is "silly."  This is true even if it's the partner that
is part of what's nagging at you.  (From a song I like: "Would you run
to me if somebody hurt you?/Even if that somebody was me?") 

If nothing else comes out of this, I think that it is important for 
Mike to understand that the boots and the wedding triggered something 
very deep and very important in his SO.  This doesn't mean that Mike 
has to change the way he dresses or that the couple has to break up.  
It just means that more communication has to take place and that 
respect for the values of *both* partner needs to be shown, as "silly" as 
they may appear to other people.  Mike needs to show her that he 
understands that this is "big" for her, and that he has some 
sensitivity to that, that's all.  (The attempts to choose one person's 
values over the other's is futile; the point is not in judging these 
people, but in suggesting ways for them to blend their styles.)

We can say that she shouldn't be upset about the boots until we are
blue in the face, and it won't change the fact that she is.  And,
unless we are willing to give up all of _our_ little, important,
emotional whims (please don't make me stop watching Celtics games!!!),
then I think we should cut the basenoter some more slack, at least as 
much as we are cutting Mike. 

[I promise to shut up about this now.  Say something 3 times, why say 
it again?]

							--Gerry

    Right on, Gerry!             Wil

    Any guy who spends $150 for shoe-leather is no advertisement for the
    let's-all-be-comfortable-and-to-hell-with-fashion lifestyle. He's a
    hopeless slave to fashion, which was pretty obvious from the start when
    he made such a big fuss about what he would or wouldn't wear. 
    
    Kit

    re .44,
    
    You are right!  How could I miss that.  As I recall, I did feel 
    something odd when I read that $150 shoes.  I agree with the second 
    point too.  The true fashion un-concious people couldn't care less about 
    'em shoes.
    
    Eugene

Oh, c'mon.  Quality and durability are not necessarily the same as fashion.
I'm not someone who wears boots but I could see spending $150 for boots if
I expected to wear them a lot and wanted them to both last and be comfortable
and look better than scuffed up.  People can choose to pay for quality without
being slaves to fashion.  

DougO

    RE: .44 and .45
    
    I wouldn't assume that a guy who spent $150 for boots is
    a slave to fashion.  I would only assume that he is willing
    to pay for what he wants.  The basenoter said that he was
    not hard up for money.
    
    Let's distinguish between "fashion" and "personal style."
    
    Someone who tries to be fashionable is aware of what the
    fashion industry is saying about clothes and attempts to
    dress to it.  That often means buying a lot of clothes
    because the fashion industry keeps changing what is "in."
    Still, a careful person can dress to the current fashion
    without being a "slave" to it.  (The fashion industry's
    pronouncements are lost on me, because I distrust  the
    whole business of someone profiting from telling me how 
    I should look.)  But I don't have to condemn someone who
    is fashionably dressed.
    
    Someone who has a personal style and dresses to it has my
    admiration, however.  I've known a couple of people who have
    distinctive styles of dress.  They might change slightly over
    the years, but generally, you can depend on them to have a
    certain look about them.  They always looked very comfortable
    in their clothes, not because the clothes were inherently any
    more comfortable than "fashionable" clothes might have been,
    but because these people knew what they wanted on their body
    and made sure that they got it.  If it took $150 for the right
    pair of boots, they would pay it.  If they could buy it in a
    second-hand store, they bought it there.  They had sewing
    machines and often sewed their own, or altered a second-hand
    item to fit.   The ones that I knew did not spend a lot of
    money on clothes.
    
    I think the basenoter was saying a lot more about Mike's 
    "style" than about his fashion-consciousness.  Mike appears
    (to me) to be fashion-unconscious, but I wouldn't say he
    was without a style.  He knows what he likes to wear and what
    he doesn't like to wear (suits, shoes).  He has a style.
    Some might call it casual, some might call it comfortable,
    some might call it sloppy, and some might call it nerd.
    But Mike's reluctance to wear clothes that don't match
    his style gets my admiration.
    
    How he works out his adherence to his style with a woman
    who wants him to wear clothes that don't match his style 
    is something else again.
    
    Wil

    re .46, .47,
    
    Come on, you know exactly what we are talking about.  When was the last
    time you spend 150 bucks on shoes?  It really tells a lot about a
    person's priority.  Personally, I would prefer to spend that money a
    house or
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    booze. :-)
    
    
    
    Eugene

Eugene, I don't think *you* know what you're talking about.  People
have vastly different models of how they should use their money and
other resources to obtain satisfaction.  You're using a very narrow
viewpoint to observe the expenditure of $150 for boots.  I've spent
that, more than that (well, they were ski boots.)  I needed boots of
a certain quality, and while I could've bought something for less,
it wouldn't have satisfied me as much.  Am I slave to fashion?  No,
I'm slave to high performance ski boots.  I need them to satisfy my
desires to go careening down a mountain at unholy speed with some
degree of control and responsiveness.  I don't ride a motorcycle as
the fellow we're talking about does, so I can't say from personal
knowledge that to get high quality boots suitable for a motorcycle
rider shouldn't cost $150.  And I don't think you can say it either.
I can well imagine, though, given my experience with other goods in
which people put a high degree of importance on minimizing equipment 
failures by purchasing high quality goods like skis, ski bindings,
windsurf booms, boards, masts and sails, rock-climbers rope, etc,
that the top gear commands premium prices, and some people pay it for 
reasons of safety over all other concerns.  Think about it.

DougO

    re .50,
    
    Look Doug, we ain't questioning the fella's taste or anything like
    that, and there ain't nothing wrong being a fashion slave.  Ya
    certainly ain't a fashion slave for spending big bucks on ski equipment,
    but will you deny that you are a "ski slave"?  Besides, motocycle boot
    ain't the same as ski equipment.  What exactly is the difference in
    performance between an ordinary "on sale" pair of sneakers and 150 buck 
    boots?  Now if you are talking about 600cc or 800cc, I would have agreed 
    with you that he is more of a "cycle slave" than a "fashion slave".  
    
    That fella was presented with an image of an uncouth engineer which
    coulda fooled me.
    
    Eugene
          

    Engaging in double-talk over the difference between "style" and
    "fashion" is simply buying into the advertising nonsense that tells us
    the way to express our true inner self is to spend too much money on
    clothes. That's true whether you subscribe to the GQ model or the urban
    cowboy look, or the $150/per pair yuppy motorcycle model.
    
    Fine. Do it, it's your money. But spare us this nonsense about
    "personal style".  Clothes are by definition public. If you spend sums
    out of proportion to the utilitarian purpose of the clothes, or you
    dress in some way out of the context of the people you're around, you
    are interested in drawing attention to your clothes, not your soul.
    I submit that someone who shows up in jeans and boots at a wedding
    (I know, I know, Mike's wearing a suit) is far more fashion conscious
    and concerned with fashion, than the guy in his gray suit and loafers.
    
    I think it's clear that Mike places far too much emphasis on his
    clothes, and probably not enough on the joy that comes from making his
    loved one happy and comfortable.
    
    Kit
    

RE: .52
    
>    Engaging in double-talk over the difference between "style" and
>    "fashion" is simply buying into the advertising nonsense that tells us
>    the way to express our true inner self is to spend too much money on
>    clothes. 
 
  Strange.  I spent a lot of years coming up with my understanding
  of the difference between my STYLE (the way I feel about myself
  in my clothes) and FASHION (the way others tell me I should feel 
  about myself).  I never thought that my style was "buying into" 
  advertising nonsense, since I thought what I was doing was rejecting 
  advertising nonsense.  I've looked at GQ once or twice (in a barber 
  shop, I think) just long enough to know that it had nothing in it 
  that interested me.  

>   Fine. Do it, it's your money. But spare us this nonsense about
>   "personal style".  Clothes are by definition public. 

  Clothes are also private.  I wear them on my body, I don't hang
  them up for others to look at them.  If you think they are only 
  public then you have made the same assumption that the fashion
  industry makes -- that they are there primarily to be looked at 
  by others.

  I make the assumption that they are there to be worn on my body.

  The first criteria is how I feel in them.  Sensually, how do they
  feel on me, as I sit, stand, move, lie down, etc.  And also how do
  they make me feel about myself -- proud, competent, etc.

  The next criteria is how I look to myself in them.  When I catch
  myself in a mirror, or watch a video tape of a class that I have
  given, I think, "would I like to get to know that guy?"  And part of 
  the answer comes from how "that guy" looks in his clothes.  (Only
  part of the answer -- also how he moves, how he talks, how he uses
  gestures, how he listens, etc.)  If I
  find myself wanting to get to know myself, I feel good.  I feel 
  good because I feel "together".  How I feel about myself inside
  coincides with how I feel about myself when I look at myself from
  the outside.  I don't worry about whether I am going to be given
  any "best dressed" awards.

  The next criteria is whether my clothes are acceptable to others in the 
  situations that I expect to be in.  I wouldn't wear a suit to play 
  tennis (uncomfortable), and I wouldn't wear my tennis gear to the 
  office (too cold and distracting) and I wouldn't wear my office 
  clothes to a wedding (inappropriate).

  Way down on the list is some kind of vague awareness about whether
  other people wear the same clothes and whether the advertising that
  I see is telling me that I am supposed to be wearing these clothes.

  (I bought a leather jacket for the first time a couple of years ago.
  I had no intention of buying one, but the woman I was with urged me
  to try it on.  I got hooked by the feel of it.  I wear it whenever
  I can now.  It feels wonderful.  I think it is supposed to be "in"
  and I also think I am supposed to feel bad that I am wearing an
  animal skin.  So I think I am supposed to be proud that I am 
  fashionable, and apologetic that I am not ecologically sound.  
  I am neither -- I'm just enjoying the jacket.)
 
>    If you spend sums
>    out of proportion to the utilitarian purpose of the clothes, or you
>    dress in some way out of the context of the people you're around, you
>    are interested in drawing attention to your clothes, not your soul.

Kit, this is your opinion.  You are making a statement about what clothes
mean to you.  You are describing your style.  The style is "utilitarian,
economical and non-ostentatious."  That's fine by me.  I don't have
any argument with that.  In fact, I share those criteria as well, but
"how it feels on me and how I feel about myself when I am wearing it"
comes ahead of those criteria, and gets tempered by price, utility,
and ostentation.  (If I didn't have the money for the leather
jacket, I would not have bought it.  But I had the money, I liked how
I felt wearing it, and I bought it, for more that Mike paid for his
boots!)  And we are both rejecting the fashion industry!

>    I submit that someone who shows up in jeans and boots at a wedding
>    (I know, I know, Mike's wearing a suit) is far more fashion conscious
>    and concerned with fashion, than the guy in his gray suit and loafers.

It seems to me that you are saying that anyone who does not use 
the same criteria that you use is driven by "fashion".  I'm trying
to say that a person can have personal reasons for doing what he
does and can be just as rejecting of "fashion" as you.

>    I think it's clear that Mike places far too much emphasis on his
>    clothes, 

He places more emphasis on them (at least boots!) than you do, that's all.  
Why do you have to be so condemning of that?

>    and probably not enough on the joy that comes from making his
>    loved one happy and comfortable.

Yeah, how he works out his "stuff" with his loved one is, indeed,
the problem introduced in the base note.  And $150 boots is just one
example of it.

Your last line is the tip of another whole discussion, around 
"boundaries" in a relationship.  Who makes what sacrifices toward
the happiness and comfort of the other, and how much is one's joy
dependent on the joy of one's partner?  As someone who has gone
way overboard in that arena, I read the basenoter's note and
replies with much interest.  And I see Mike and the basenoter trying
to draw those boundary lines.  (IMHO, where the lines get drawn
is up to the individuals in the relationship, not for me to say.)
Where the lines get drawn in my relationships is for me to say,
and for her to say, not for an outsider to say.   

I think you are imposing your willingness to make clothing sacrifices
for the happiness and comfort of your loved one onto Mike.  You
seem to be saying that Mike should not spend a lot of  money on
his clothes, that he should be "going along" with others by dressing
like others, and he should be looking for his own joy to come 
out of the joy and comfort of the basenoter.  And that imposing
seems to be intertwined with a condemnation of fashion.

Wil

    in re 'booze' and new style of English 'ain't' etc..
    
    is this the "new" Eugene Xia?
    
    :-)
    
    Bonnie

     
    There obviously aren't too many boot wearers in this conversation. I
    say this because those who do regularly wear boots know that $150 is
    just about the entry level price for good western boots.
    
    Tony
    

    I think a man's "fashion slaveness" can be measured by the length of
    his notes in defence of fashions or styles or whatever.  Otherwise, 
    what do you care what other people think if it is fashion or style or 
    whatever?
    
    re .54,
    
    Bonnie, I think you forget that I went to school in the south. :-)
    
    Eugene

RE: .56           

>    I think a man's "fashion slaveness" can be measured by the length of
>    his notes in defence of fashions or styles or whatever.  Otherwise, 
>    what do you care what other people think if it is fashion or style or 
>    whatever?

Faulty logic.  My long note indicates an interest in this subject, 
that I have done a lot of thinking about it, and I want to share 
my ideas.  That doesn't make me a slave to any part of the subject.
For example, if I write long notes about patriotism, war, peace, etc,
it does not make me a "war monger" or a "lily-livered peacenik".
What I say about war, peace, etc might cause you to apply one of those
labels to me, but writing long notes about it shouldn't.

I wrote a long note distinguishing "fashion and style" because I 
have done a lot of work on that subject to clarify it for myself, 
and to help me understand the agonies my kids seemed to be in as 
they went through it in their teen years.  I decided to share my
thoughts since they seemed pertinent to this topic.

Then I got told that my distinctions between style and fashion
were just a lot of high-priced poppycock, and that I was a
"slave to fashion" if I did not 

   a. pay only according to the utility of the clothing
   b. dress so as to blend with the crowd
   c. take my joy from the happiness and comfort of my partner

I debated giving up, but decided to write a longer reply,
since I didn't get "through" with the first one.  Now the
longer note is under attack because it is long?  Now I am 
called a "slave to fashion" because I write long notes
defending my views?  Are you saying there should be another 
entry in the above list?

   d. do not defend one's views on clothes

There is no doubt in my mind that I care more about what I wear
than Kit and Eugene.  But labelling me as a "slave to fashion"
because I have more concern about my clothes than you or a different
concern about my clothes than you seems a little extreme.

Wil

    
    
    I paid $200 for a pair of lizard skin boots in Nevada last year. I"m
    going back this year and plan to buy a pair of snake skin. I love
    my boots, they are as comfortable as my sneakers.
    
    bonnie

Ever since I saw a mail-order catalog offering rather ordinary-looking
men's dress shoes at $300 a pair, I've ceased to be astonished at what
certain kinds of clothes cost.  I think it's unreasonable to argue that
someone shouldn't buy and wear expensive clothes if they can afford it and
enjoy doing so.  I certainly don't condemn people for buying $35,000 cars
even though a $15,000 car would get them where they're going.  It's all
a matter of personal taste.  Just because I wouldn't buy $150 boots
or a $35,000 car, that doesn't mean that people who do so are "slaves to
fashion".

My take on the situation posed in the base note is that it's more than likely
that nobody other than the basenote author will know or care that Mike
is wearing boots and not "dress shoes".  If I were the author, I'd be asking
myself why this was so important to me, and might think about how I'd feel
if my SO told me that an item of clothing which I thought was perfectly
acceptable for the occasion was "wrong".

			Steve

    re:   <<< Note 582.55 by COMET::COSTA "The slow burn of vindication" >>>

     
<    There obviously aren't too many boot wearers in this conversation. I
<    say this because those who do regularly wear boots know that $150 is
<    just about the entry level price for good western boots.
    
    it was established early in this string, that the boots in question are
    not 'western style'
    
    just a nit... 'cause, i am quite sure one can pay $150 for motorcycle
    boots as well.    
    
    Tony
    
    

    

    re: .53 
    
    Wil, 
    
    Hmmm, I did come off a bit harsh in .52. Sorry about that. I do
    believe, however, that we tend to overlook how much of "personal style"
    is really set by advertising and peer pressure (whether it be "high"
    fashion, motorcycle clothes, or even a conscious flaunting of unusual
    dress in the face of "standard" blend-in clothes.  After all, most
    advertising quite explicitly encourages us to "be yourself" or "set
    your own style" by buying the clothes they advertise.
    
    But my real problem here, as expressed before, is that Mike should be
    less concerned about standing on the "principle" of what he should or
    should not wear, and more concerned about the feelings of the one he
    loves, for whom this is not just "a" wedding, but "the" wedding. To be
    sure, the same argument can be made about her position, but,
    considering the circumstance, I believe his is the more unreasonable
    position.
    
    Kit

    re: .61
    
    Kit,
    
>    Hmmm, I did come off a bit harsh in .52. Sorry about that. 
    
    Okay.
    
>    I do
>    believe, however, that we tend to overlook how much of "personal style"
>    is really set by advertising and peer pressure (whether it be "high"
>    fashion, motorcycle clothes, or even a conscious flaunting of unusual
>    dress in the face of "standard" blend-in clothes.  After all, most
>    advertising quite explicitly encourages us to "be yourself" or "set
>    your own style" by buying the clothes they advertise.

Yeah, I agree.  I like to think my "style" is all mine, but
I certainly didn't create my view of myself in a vacuum.  There
were lots of things influencing me, consciously and unconsciously.

>    But my real problem here, as expressed before, is that Mike should be
>    less concerned about standing on the "principle" of what he should or
>    should not wear, and more concerned about the feelings of the one he
>    loves, for whom this is not just "a" wedding, but "the" wedding. To be
>    sure, the same argument can be made about her position, but,
>    considering the circumstance, I believe his is the more unreasonable
>    position.
 
Yeah, my problem is that I only have the basenoter's views of
herself and Mike.  Mike has not stated his views, except as they
are filtered through the basenoter.  And the basenoter is writing
anonymously, so I have no other information about the basenoter
which might supply a context in which to put this.  So I have
to imagine the rest of the context.  

We're kind of like blind people standing around an elephant, 
describing the animal that we're touching, and commenting on 
the elephant's relationship with its mate, who is not even present...
(I've got the elephant by the tail and I'm quite sure that the
animal and its mate are lizards...)

Wil
    

me>And so, I put the basenote in Mennotes...
me>Now, at the beginning of this lengthy (another one!) reply, I stated that
me>I would give you an update, and I will.

For those anxiously awaiting my update of the situation between Mike and me,
I apologize for taking so long to get back to this.  

Meanwhile, the replies have taken an interesting turn in emphasis, and I 
enjoyed reading them when I had the chance to catch-up, however, I'm just 
going to talk about my own, and Mike thoughts and attitudes here.  But first 
I'm going to go off on a little tangent myself...

me> He had just spent approx $150 for boots, and he liked them. 

Mike has asked me to clarify that he paid exactly $140 for the boots.  He was
quite astonished to read that spending that much money, made him a "slave
to fashion"  -- nothing could be further from the truth! :-) :-)
and FWIW that price could not be considered anything other than moderate,
for the quality, and style of the boots, in this (our) area of the country.
Regardless of the fact that Mike can well afford that price range, the only
reason he paid it, was because he liked those boots, and after having invested
a great deal of time looking, he couldn't find anything cheaper that he liked.
and the last thing that Mike could care about is whether or not anybody else
liked them! 

Back on the track...

me>By last Friday evening I had considered all the different points that were 
me>brought up in Mennotes, as well as considering my own attitudes, and I felt 
me>that I was clearer in my mind, about what was important, and just what was
me>the "bottom line" here, that I was now ready to talk to Mike about it.  Mike 
me>is not a regular reader of Mennotes, so I had him add it to his notebook, I 
me>gave him the note number and asked him to read it, and we discussed it 
   after. 

After Mike read the basenote, and the 20-25 replies, he called me immediately,
and said "Look, this is your daughter's wedding, and if it's that important
to you, I'll buy shoes, I just didn't realize HOW important it was to you"
No, he couldn't have realized how important it was, I never let him know it
was `THAT' important, because I wasn't really sure WHY it was THAT important.
I avoided any possible conflict, because other than "because I do" I couldn't
answer THE most important questions here (to me).

But the funny thing is, I had already decided that regardless of the WHY,
I wanted Mike to conform to my standard of suitability, I was putting far
too much energy into this.  This little voice kept saying "Put this into
perspective, they're a pair of boots!  In the whole scheme of life, what
the heck do they matter!"  and deep down inside, I couldn't justify asking
Mike to make this "great sacrifice" for me.  If someday down the line, I have
to ask him to do that, I think it should be for something far more important
than this.  So, I decided to let it go... Mike is Mike, and like somebody else
said Mike wears boots to weddings.  Acceptance is one of the key ingredients
to loving someone, (IMO) and as much as I expect his love of me to be based on 
understanding and acceptance, I don't intend to offer less. 

.11> It has everything to do with how people treat each other, particularly
.11> people who claim to love each other.

This IS an important question, but I decided that rather than look to Mike
to prove his love for me, by sacrificing his comfort, I should look inside
myself and prove to myself that I loved him enough not to ask this of him.
He didn't belong in this position to begin with!  The issue at hand, wasn't
worth it!  and as much as it might make a great relationship pure bliss, if we
 always agreed on this kind of issue -  we don't, so, I thought about this:

.16>If you decide that you can live with a partner who is not aligned with
.16>you at formal occassions--10% of your time together--then I would
.16>recommend that you let Mike be Mike and let go of the control.

So Mike is going to be Mike and wear the boots and I'm comfortable with that 
but what some might find interesting is that a couple of important questions
seemed to dog the both of us,and it took a few other discussions, as well as 
some serious looking inside myself, to answer and resolve something that
to me, really is far more important than what Mike wears on his feet.  

Mike asked the following (paraphrased)

    Knowing you, and your independance, as well as the fact, that you've 
    rarely ever conformed to the pressures of what other people think, why
    is what I wear is so important!  I can't remember how many times I've 
    heard you say that the last thing you care about is what other people 
    think!  and WHY do YOU think that what I wear is a reflection on you?

Now, some of you are thinking that I seem to be very much a conformist,
based on my entries.  You have only my sayso, that in some very important
ways, I am as far away as a woman can get, to conforming to the mainstream.
But, if you take my word on this, then you can easily see why I had a problem
asking Mike to conform.  I've spent a lifetime, not conforming!  How could I
ask someone else to?!  It's just that for me, clothing has not really been
an area that I choose to be different in.  I like clothes, like to wear all
different styles, so this isn't where I ever made my statement, other than
in a few instances.

So,  WHY was it so important to me that Mike dress appropriately?  Well,
it took a lot of looking inside to find the answer, but it all seemed
pretty simple to me, when I began to see the answer.  -- Because

I've spent a lifetime of being different, within my family (and without, as
well!)I've always been the controversial one, some consider me close to a 
"black sheep",  my life just didn't follow the traditional path.  My daughter 
has had a lifetime, of this!  Remarks, jokes, questions, comments of one kind 
or another, about me, how different I am from most mothers.  I just wanted 
Mike and I to present an image as close as possible to "normal"!  I wanted 
her to have one day where she didn't have to deal with this.  Just one day 
where her mother would at least look the part of traditional, and just do 
the traditional things. I wanted to do NOTHING that would bring attention to 
me, especially not in a way that could give anybody anything derogative to say,
My daughter never asked this of me, she wouldn't.  But this is her and her
fiance`s day, and I just wanted the attention to be on them, and the occasion,
not on me, or Mike, or us - as a couple.

And so, quite naturally the question begs, Why would what Mike is wearing,
be a reflection on me?  On the surface a person might easily say "it shouldn't,
and it doesn't"  but there are somethings that many a woman of my age group, can
have so impanted, so much a part of her environment, her past that it's
seems impossible to cast off, especially when you don't even realize it's
there.  In my home, in my time growing up, one thing that was very well known
was that --for sure "A woman takes care of her man" -- if his shirt needed 
ironing, it was "What's wrong with his wife, she can't iron a shirt for him? 
If his clothes weren't right it was "well, you can make sure that I'd never 
allow my Joe, to be seen dressed like that!"   or "You'd think that for an 
occasion like this, the guy would at least buy a decent pair of shoes, what's 
wrong with her, she can't take him shopping!" etc,etc,etc...
If I didn't see to it that Mike dressed properly, then I wasn't caring for him
properly!  The fact that we aren't married, really isn't important here in this
context, the line is very thin, for those having a hard time understanding
this, the assumption is that since he is there at this type of occasion, this
is a committed relationship, and as such I would be just as responsible as a
wife, and if you throw in the fact that I'm older that Mike, I'm even more
open to criticism 'cause I'm old enough to know what's appropriate dress!
If I'd let Mike wear those comfortable boots, I'd be setting myself up for 
big time criticism, the one thing I wanted more than anything else to avoid.
Now, let me tell you when I finally came to working this out (with Mike's help)
it helped me understand a lot of things about myself.  Without even realizing it
I've resented this whole damned business of it being my job to take care of
anybody other than my children and myself, and yet I "bought into it" a long
time ago!  I've done the "taking care of" in every important relationship
I've ever had, then I'd become angry and resentful, 'cause I'd end up with
men who didn't take responsibilty for themselves!  This is one area, where
I tried to conform to expectations , probably because it was supposed to be
how you showed your love and devotion, yet, very seldom did I ever "pull
it off" mostly I just dumped the guy! In many ways taking care of a man 
seemed to be as natural as taking care of my children, and if you throw into 
all this the fact that I've been a mother since the age of seventeen, you can 
see that assuming the role of mother telling child what to do has really easy 
for me to fall into!  

So, the story ends here.  Mike is a grown man, perfectly capable of taking
care of himself, choosing his own clothing, and reflecting only his own style
and taste.  If and when he wants my opinion about what to wear, he'll
ask for it.  And me, well I know that if either Mike or I are critisized for
anything at all, at my daughter's wedding, ...well she'll understand, and
she'll handle it, she has for long time now, and there have even been times
when she told me in some ways she felt lucky for having a mother who was
different.  The wedding is May 4th, I hope she feels the same on that day.

Regards to all

    To the basenoter:
    
    Wow.  Thanks for the update.  It sounds like this has been a real
    learning experience for both you and Mike, and that your relationship
    will be stronger for it.  I'm glad it's worked out and that you've
    been able to work it out together.
    
    Karen.

    re .63,
    
    Glad to hear everything worked out for ya.  Despite the fact the boots
    cost 140 bucks, me think this "Mike" is an OK fella.  "What do you care 
    what other people think?", I like that attitude.  Now for those of us,
    the real nosy fellas, we wanna know what kinda icing is gonna be on the
    wedding cake, and how much the wedding rings cost, so we can gossip if
    your daughter and son in-law too are "fashion slaves".
    
    Eugene
                                        

    Nah, Eugene can gossip, but the rest of us know that wedding rings are
    safer based on cost ;-).
    
    DougO

    This whole thing was a riot.  It's like this big barroom brawl got
    started over a disagreement between Miss Kitty and her beau and when
    the dust settled and everyone is looking up from all the blood and
    gore, there is Miss Kitty and her beau over in the corner giving each
    other a big hug and kiss, on account of they looked at the bar glasses
    and teeth and everything flying around and they said, "Hey wait a
    second, lets put this all into perspective..."  Well, I love it, I really
    do.  Let's do it again sometime.  And I gotta say, I was so touched by
    the basenoter's last reply that I got all choked up and kinda
    misty-eyed, no kidding, really.  I really think it's great, and very
    very funny.  My best wishes to Miss Kitty and her beau and if you ever
    have another disagreement, PLEASE let us know.  I am NOT being
    facetious.
    				- Vick (it's just a bruise) Bennison
    

    I know a producer in the TV business who says she is interested in
    making a soap opera based on this.
    
    - Vikas

To the basenoter:

Sounds good.  It sounds as if you learned a lot about yourself, your 
feelings, and your motivations.

But I'm nagged by something.  It appears as if you did all the 
self-searching work in this scenario.  I mean, I think it's great 
that you have a greater understanding as to why you wanted to control 
what Mike wears.  However, does Mike have a clue as to why he was 
unwilling to give up his philosophy for his partner on a very special 
and exceptional occassion?  Did Mike do any self searching in this 
scenario?  

We know why your position was so important to you.  And that's good.  
Now, why was Mike's position so important to him?

Fair question, I think.

							--Gerry

    I thought she answered that nagging question, Ger. 
    She didn't tell him it was that important, and when
    she did, he said he would go buy some shoes.  I think
    the basenoter had all the conflict between being a
    maverick at heart, but not wanting to be so at the
    wedding, and feeling responsible for her man's
    appearance, and hiding all that from him until all
    this noting and then all their talking got it out
    in the open.
    
    I, too, was impressed at all the work and results.
    
    I wonder sometimes if anyone actually "changes" due to 
    the effort that is put into this notesfile, and in this
    case, it sounds like something really changed.
    
    Change is hard work!               Wil

Good work! Thanks and good luck!

	-- Charles

>    I thought she answered that nagging question, Ger. 

She did and she didn't, I think.  Let me try it from another angle:

If you look at this situation as, "One partner is being a bit foolish 
and the other one is A-Okay, let's determine which is which," then her 
answer fits.  The implication is that she failed to tell him how 
important his dressing up was to her, and she was subconsciously 
trying to control their appearance more than was necessary.  Mike was 
A-Okay, and, as soon as he heard how important it was to her, was 
willing to go out and buy some shoes.

If you look at the situation differently, there are more unanswered 
questions...from Mike.  You can look at the situation like this: 
"Neither partner is right or wrong, neither is foolish, and both are 
A-Okay; however, their differences are getting in the way; let's 
thoroughly understand what got in the way, here."  In this case, I 
think that we (and the basenoter) thoroughly understand that 
communicating the feeling of importance earlier to Mike would have 
been a better way to go, and that letting go of some of her 
desire to control how he dresses is a good idea.  Way cool.

But what about Mike?  What is it about Mike that makes it so important 
for him to dress inappropriately for a wedding?  (Remember, he had to 
be "convinced" to wear a suit.)  What is it about Mike that, when he 
agrees to buy dress boots, he ends up buying motorcycle boots?  What 
are his issues about clothes?  Why is it so important to him?  To me, 
it is obvious that Mike's flaunting the wedding conventions was as 
"important" as her obeying the conventions; why does her position 
merit more analysis?

Again, not that there is anything "wrong" with Mike.  I'm just looking 
for the same kind of self-reflecting understanding of his behavior 
that we have seen from the basenoter, and I'm not getting any 
indication that this is happening.

Why is it that (in general) men use logical reasons for doing things 
("It is against my personal philosophy to be bullied by society's 
dress conventions"), and simply "do" or "don't do"?  Why is is that 
women (in general) do all that men do, and, on top of it, are expected 
to understand (and change!) the emotional baggage behind every 
decision and behavior?  

Is this another case in which a woman has to take on the complete
"emotional" responsibility for the conflict and the man doesn't have
to budge from his position?  If this indeed is happening, then I don't
think that this is equal and healthy partnership.  How many times can
women listen to male partners say, "That's just the way I am," and how
many times can women put themselves through the analysis wringer to
work around how her man is before she decides that the effort is too
much? How often can she do that before she concludes that--on the
emotional front--it is only her effort that is keeping the
relationship going? 

In my opinion, both partners should work.  One shouldn't always have
to change and grow around the other.  (And conceding to wear shoes
because it's "important to my partner" is not change or growth; it's a
compromise that can be tossed back at the partner at some future time.
"I only did it for you.) 

It all goes back to something that I said in my first note: the
concept of "us."  I see the basenoter changing and growing to
accommodate "us," but I see Mike working out of "me" and "you."  That
concerns me. 

To the basenoter:  If this is a one-shot deal, then, change and grow
yourself, and let Mike be.  However, I'd make sure that it doesn't
become the working model for the relationship. 

							--Gerry

I figure that, if I'm going to ask Mike to do some soul searching, 
maybe I should do the same.  At lunch, I asked myself why this note is 
so charged for me, and I got an answer: because I'm afraid that what 
happened to my parents will happen to other couples.

With my parents, there was a lot of compromise.  And I can remember 
things working relatively well in my early childhood (but, then again,
how discerning is a 6 year old?).  I noticed, though, that the
compromising grew really bitter throughout my teen years.  I'm not
saying that compromising is bad, but I guess that I am saying that, if
not done right, it can be like a mild toxin, building up resentment
over the years until it kills you. 

What I mean is this: when a relationship is young, it seems to me that 
it is really easy to do something I don't like because it is important 
to my partner.  On the flip side of things, it is pretty easy for me 
to so some soul searching, some changing, and then to let go of 
something I had wanted because my partner wants it.  

You see, when my mother got her way, it was because she "felt it was
important to her." When she compromised, she approached her self in a
self-analytical way, found out what was "wrong" with her, and changed
it.  When my father got his way, he was able to out debate my mother
in a logical way.  When he compromised, he did it because, logically
speaking, it was important to her.  Dad debated or shut up, mom talked 
about the importance of her feelings or shut up.  Sometimes dad would 
talk about a feeling and mom would debate, but, in general, they fell 
into roles in which the man worked harder on issues using logic, and 
the woman worked harder on issues using emotion and self analysis.

They approached every emotionally conflicted issue with an emphasis of 
"me, as I relate to you."  Sounds pretty good, but it gets 
problematic in the long run.

If you think about it for a second, what must it feel like when you do 
something you don't want to do just because your partner wants it?  
One time, it must be relatively easy, depending on the issue.  But, 
what about the thousands of times that partners must do it in the 
course of a 10, 20, or 30 year relationship?  After 10 years of 
wearing shoes to weddings mainly because my partner wants me to, I'm 
going to feel angry and manipulated.  After 10 years of self-analyzing 
and changing trying to allow Mike to wear what he wants, I'm going to 
feel as if I'm pulling more of the weight in the relationship, and I'm 
going to feel as if Mike is using me to do all the changing so that he 
can stay the same.

That's what happened to my parents.  My mom self-analyzed and shifted 
her position so many times that she got dizzy, and she eventually said 
to herself, "Wait a minute.  Why am I trying to change around him?  
There's nothing wrong with me.  Why doesn't he ever attempt to do some 
changing around me?"  My dad grew to see my mother simply as an 
emotional creature who didn't make sense.  When she demanded more of 
him, he labeled her a Controlling B*tch.  They divorced at the 20-year 
mark.  (And there were a lot of other factors to the divorce, as 
well.)

I think that a lot of couples can probably do okay with a "me, as I 
relate to you" attitude.  And I think that simple "I'll do it because
it is important to you" compromise can help most relationships to go
quite far.  But what about our divorce rate?  What about the number of
couples--who have been together for 30 years or more--who quietly tip
toe around the other person's hot buttons, simply trying to get as
many personal needs met as possible (for more information, see "Mr. 
and Mrs. Bridge")? 

I just think that couples might be able to avoid the toxic build-up of 
disconnected compromise.  But the only way to prevent this is to shift 
from a "me, as I relate to you" attitude to a "we" attitude.  In other 
words, if my partner's needs are my needs, then I would never do 
something because "it's important to my partner."  Why?  Because, with 
work and communication, my partner's important issues are my own.  If 
my partner wants it, I want it.  If my partner would enjoy it, I enjoy 
it.  

There's a difference between 1) Feeling uncomfortable because I don't 
want to do something, doing it, and throwing a coating of my-partner-
wants-this-so-it's-good-for-the-relationship sugar on top, and 2) 
Getting excited and happy about doing something because I treat my 
partner's needs as my own ("we").  The second attitude gives a feeling 
of joy and a clear understanding that, by approaching it from "we," 
I'm helping myself.  The first attitude feels okay for a while, but 
the discomfort builds over the years into major resentment.

And I understand that partners' desires will conflict.  In those 
cases, the only thing to do is for each partner to walk in each 
other's shoes and then hang out with that for a while.  In time, the 
path to be taken will become obvious.  Why?  Because, with both 
partners walking in each other's shoes, they will begin to approach 
it from a "we" perspective again, and feelings will guide them.

That's why I get concerned when I think of the basenoter and Mike.  In 
order for both partners to walk in each other's shoes, he needs to 
know about what led up to her controlling what he wears, and she needs
to understand what led up to him wanting to flaunt dress conventions.
After they talk about it and live with each other's perspectives for a
while, then the answer will present itself. 

What concerns me about the boots scenario is that I'm not sure that 
the basenoter was given a chance to walk in Mike's boots (Ha!).  From 
what I can gather, he hasn't self-analyzed and hasn't shared that with 
her.  I fear that they will fall into the Man Thinks and Woman Feels 
roles.  I fear that his "I'll do it because it's important to her" and 
her "I'll self-examine and change because I need to accept him as he 
is" will build up a huge resentment over the years.

So, that's where I'm coming from and why I have been off-the-wall 
about it.  Fear that I will end up like my parents, I guess.


							--Gerry

    yeah, I was aware that May 4th was the day, too, and was
    wondering how it went...             wil