And while some people simply refuse to respond to Evite invitations, countless others find themselves composing clever detailed responses that require so much effort, they end up R.S.V.-Peeved.Ha. You don't sound too "bloggerlike" to me. The article goes on to print the chirpy regret she took 20 minutes to write and how much personal vanity she invested in the project. I suspect that the author of this NYT "Style" piece is friends with Fitzpatrick, heard her tale of tiny woe and then got the idea to concoct the "Style" piece.
Just last week Carolyn Fitzpatrick, 32, a retired lawyer from Wollaston, Mass., spent 20 minutes drafting a “no” response to an Evite.
“Twenty precious minutes,” said Ms. Fitzpatrick, the mother of a 3-month-old and a 2-year-old. “Do you have children? You don’t understand what 20 minutes to yourself is.”
So why bother?
“There’s pressure,” Ms. Fitzpatrick said. “You’re on stage.”
Well, do people want to go to parties or not? Why not send out invitations for parties that will never even exist and just create a forum for everyone you know to write a message bragging about all the things they are so busy doing this time of year?
पोस्ट्स
१३ टिप्पण्या:
"chirpy regret" - luv it
TMJ: I think the women involved believe it's flattering. As to cool, to me it sounds as cool as the usual Christmas letter.
Jims, You caught one of the same things that caught my attention: retired at 32? If she were a competition swimmer, maybe, but a lawyer?
Boorish, crass and tacky.
Figures we'd find a way to turn a simple ritual of courtesy into a form of exhibitionism. (That applies to the invitation as well as the replies.)
Ezra Klein noted this phenomenon a few months back:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/how_evites_expl.html
As for the "retired lawyer" I'd guess she "retired" from the law and is planning to work in another field. Its not uncommon at all for lawyers to decide after a few years that practing law isn't for them, or, in this case, to take time off for parenting and then move on to some other field. I don't think the decision to switch should be viewed as something to be ashamed of. In fact, suffering in a career that you've found you don't like seems like the bigger shame.
But, then again, the relevance of including her status as a former/retired lawyer is a bit obscure, unless the writer wants to show that this phenomenon is an affliction of certain kinds of professionals (as Ezra noted in his post on the subject).
There is an official status called "retired from the practice of law." It means you don't have to pay dues but you're still a member of the bar.
I think I read too much into too many jims' comment, which led to my above comment about whether one should admit to having retired from the law.
"Sorry, I'll be busy paying my daddy's whores that night."
That ought to hold 'em for awhile.
Now I feel really dumb. I just say yes or no when I get an evite!
I have noticed nowadays that there is a certain loss of face in admitting that you are indeed not busy enough to decline an invitation.
Since we did away with etiquette of entertaining, the entire thing has gone downhill, IMO.
I'm hoping this is an east coast burden. Here in Madison, when I get an evite, I just say Yes or No. I didn't realize I'm being judged by my acceptances/declines.
For someone who has to include in her description that she's a retired lawyer (this is relevant to the story how, exactly?), however, I'm unsurprised that she feels pressure to slam her inlaws in the national press. I hope they're reading.
btw, Ann, I agree that Ms. Fitzpatrick knows someone at the Times and that's why this filler is in the paper. I don't know if they are friends, however, as Ms. Fitzpatrick doesn't come off looking very good here.
Your post reminded me to reply to two Evites in my inbox... and to experiment with what you can put into the response box. It's not blog-like...you can't put in HTML for links!
Two of my brothers, and their families, live in Wollaston. Wollaston never struck me as being a bastion of pretentiousness. Fitzpatrick sounds like an idiot, and I'd be mortified if such a write-up ever appeared anywhere about me.
I quit software development eight years ago to stay home with the kiddos -- when I was laid off I didn't look for another job -- but I have never consider myself "retired". "Retired" means you're not working for pay anymore, nor do you intend to ever do so again. Fitzpatrick may never practice law again, but there has to be a better way of saying "she stopped being a lawyer to care for her children" than "retired." Wouldn't "former" do?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा