Close

What Is In A Name?

Recently trending in the news was the story of a woman by the name of Titi Pierce who had filed a lawsuit against TV host Ellen DeGeneres claiming invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. During a segment of her skit “What’s Wrong With These Ads…and These Signs,” DeGeneres pronounced Pierce’s name as “Titty” as she displayed one of the woman’s advertising signs that did not have the real estate agent’s cell phone blurred out and proceeded to make a breast joke. You can watch the segment HERE.

Titi’s name is Nigerian, it translates as “Flower” and is pronounced Tee Tee.

Within minutes of airing this segment, Titi began receiving hundreds of calls on her personal cell phone, most of them insulting, mocking and vulgar regarding her name.  The sudden influx of hundreds of telephone calls by people who are not doing so out of the kindness of their hearts but because you are the butt of a national joke is invasive, disturbing and scary.

What concerns me are the comments in social media overwhelming calling for Titi Pierce to drop the lawsuit, to suck it up and smearing her as a money grubber.   I’m not sure these commentators are grasping the magnitude of what occurred.   A powerful celebrity,  a public figure with a national platform to be heard has used that position of power to make a non-public person the object of ridicule.   It’s one thing when we chose to become a public figure either by intentional choices or through illegal behavior but no one has the right to rip aside the veil of privacy each of us expects and make us a public figure against our will.   When Etiquette Hell started a long time ago, the legal consideration I needed to be concerned about most was not libel or copyright but rather invasion of privacy of the subjects of the stories.   My attorney drilled it into my head the importance of hiding personal identifiers in a story and to change names, location, relationships, genders, etc. so that no one’s real identity could possibly be construed by the content of some submitted stories.  The stories in the books are extremely sanitized of those identifying marks.

So Titi is using the only platform she has to “equalize” the disparity in power and she is doing it via a lawsuit.  I hope she prevails.

Give Me A Hug, Famous Celebrity!

This happened at a party I attended recently. I was curious as to how someone else would handle the situation.

The backstory is this. I live in an area known for a specific industry that involves a large number of celebrities. Many of them have large houses in the area and they tend to have families that live there with them.

I was at a small party thrown by a friend (we are considered “millennials” and frequently stay in and have small events at each others’ homes) when I encountered someone I’d never met at one of these small parties before. She and I were chatting and I learned that she worked for a local nanny agency. These agencies work by having a group of nannies on staff, and when you call them they send out one of their contractors to babysit instead of hiring the local teens. It’s short-term only, and you generally can’t request a specific person. Sitters frequently know who they will be sitting for in advance for safety purposes, but often they won’t be informed of who they’re seeing if it’s a celebrity that’s called. This protects the clients’ privacy and prevents unwanted visitors in the form of those obnoxious individuals who have been known to show up, unannounced and uninvited, on the doorsteps of the rich and famous for pictures and autographs.

As this woman and I were talking, she mentioned that she’d never babysit for a local celeb we will call J again. I asked her why. Her words, exactly, were “because she’s a b—h.”

Upon further questioning, I learned why this woman had come to the conclusion she had.

She had been called one night to do an emergency sitting job for someone who’s original sitter had cancelled at the last minute. She raced over to a specific celeb-filled neighborhood and arrived at J’s house. She was unaware of who it was she would be babysitting for, but she knew it would be a celeb. When she arrived, it was none other than her favorite singer, J.

Now, this is not her first babysitting gig for a celebrity. She had apparently babysat for several other celebrities without incident, which is why she was chosen for this job. Therefore, she should have known better.

She asked J for a hug. Apparently J gave her an awkward side hug, left a note with the important numbers, and booked it out of there very quickly.

And that, apparently, is why J is a b—h.

I was floored. So, a stranger didn’t want to give this woman a hug, and somehow she’s a horrible person? For various reasons, I don’t like hugging people I don’t know well. I’d prefer a handshake. I found an excuse to talk to someone else at the party and escaped this woman. At the end of the party, I successfully avoided hugging her.

She’s been talking to our mutual friends. I didn’t want to hug her either. Apparently that makes me a b—h too!!  0111-16

People are not stupid and as she tells her version of the story, it only makes her look bad in many people’s eyes.   Asking the client to give you a hug is unprofessional. Because it was an emergency job, J the celebrity singer was probably late to the event she needed to be at and to expect her to disengage from that “business mode” to give the hired babysitter a hug was the height of entitlement.    If J were smart, she’d call the agency and report the lack of professionalism and request that this woman not babysit for her again.

Had you had a closer relationship with this woman I’d have suggested you say something to her but seeing as you had just met her, I think your beandipping and avoiding her thereafter was a fine solution to the dilemma.

Jimmy Kimmel’s Annual Halloween Exploitation of Children

I’m sure by now most people know about the famous talk show host who sends out a challenge every year for parents to record telling their children that they ate the children’s Halloween candy. This is done as a prank for fun. It seems kind of mean to me, but I will say it also shows that there are some truly gracious children out there, too. Some of the kids actually express forgiveness and love toward their parents, despite losing all the candy they worked so hard to acquire. 1106-14

This is an annual challenge by late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel to film your kids after telling them, “I TOLD MY KIDS I ATE ALL THEIR HALLOWEEN CANDY”.    I decided to not embed sample videos into this post in keeping with this site’s firm position against exploitation of children.

It’s a challenge just to watch these videos.   What we witness are parents deliberately lying to their children telling them a falsehood that all their candy that the child has accumulated through trick or treating has been consumed by one or both parents while the child slept and there is none left.   The reactions of the children are predictable and in the case of the younger children they respond as if the world has crashed on them.   At that age, a pile of candy is a rare treasure and a beloved parent has unjustly taken it all.  Jimmy Kimmel himself understands this, “You know, for kids, Halloween candy is a sacred thing.  For a lot of them it’s the first time they ever earn anything.”   The collection of videos records reactions of  shock, disbelief, anger, tears, screaming, tantrums, despair, rage at parents, declarations of hatred, threats of physical violence, loss, grief all displayed on unpretentious little faces.   There are rare examples of sad but gracious understanding by a few children but what harm is done when that precious quality is tested and exploited for a joke?  The audience finds these displays to be quite laughable.  In a 2013 montage, one little boy understands the moral depravity of the joke played on him when he cries, “Well, that wasn’t very kind.”    What parent does this?

Most of these children are pre-schoolers who lack the cognitive maturity to recognize the potential of a prank being played on them or to reason why a hungry parent didn’t eat a peanut butter sandwich or to handle this kind of news well.   This annual tradition is nothing more than an exploitation of vulnerable and gullible little children for the entertainment of adults.

For the chance of a youtube video to be featured on The Jimmy Kimmel Show after Halloween, pranking parents are willing to teach their children a host of undesirable truths that have the potential for negative consequences over time.   Truths such as…1) Mom and Dad will lie to you to get an emotional rise that they will film and disseminate to a worldwide audience.   2)  Mom and Dad will not respect your ownership of private property.   3) Mom and Dad will manipulate your emotions to amuse themselves.  4)  Parents cannot be trusted.   5) Blameshifting.   A surprising number of parents excuse their choice to prank the child by blameshifting to Jimmy Kimmel for “making” them pull this prank.   6)  Undermines the value of a sincere apology if Mom or Dad are willing to “apologize” for something that never really happened.   6)  Jerking people’s chains resulting in an emotional reaction is great fun!

If we were to reverse the roles, many parents would find this type of behavior by a child to be disrespectful and troubling.  It is therefore an abuse of the power inherent to being a parent to put one’s children through emotional hoops for the sake of a laugh or to become entertainment fodder for strangers.   Would we find it amusing if those same children, upon becoming adults caring for their aged parents, played a prank on mentally challenged senior citizens that manipulated emotions for the entertainment of others?   As a society we consider that abusive but for some odd reason, children are fair game.

EtiquetteHell has been consistent over the years that minor aged children should never be exploited on television and social media to provide entertainment for a audience that now can easily span around the globe.   Minor aged children lack the maturity to understand the consequences of losing their right to privacy and are therefore dependent on adults to protect them until they reach an age where they can make informed choices as to how they will be depicted.  It’s obvious that there are parents who have no qualms about exploiting their children if it means a moment of fame.

Just stop, Jimmy.

Laugh Til You Shriek

Recently I surprised my husband with tickets to his favorite comedian.  He had no idea where we were going and who we were seeing until we actually sat down in the theater and the opening act mentioned the big name. It was so hard to keep it secret for so long!  So the opening act started, who was pretty funny, and we heard it for the first time: the lady’s ginormous laughter who was seated right behind us.  This lady laughed at EVERYTHING, even things that did not seem very funny.  Her laugh was so loud and obnoxious that we couldn’t even hear what the comedian was saying.  This carried through to the main act.. at some point I must admit that I somehow blocked her out while trying to listen to the main act, but her laugh somehow made it through my wall eventually.  Everyone was turning around to look at this lady and she never took a hint—along with the screaming laughter there were loud “Oh My God’s!!!” and “No, He Didn’t!!!”. It was just insane.  Was there anything we could have done?  I mean, it’s a comedy show, and you’re supposed to laugh.. but how loud is TOO loud? 0911-15

That’s a good question for which I don’t know if I have an appropriate answer.   The woman most definitely had the ability to refrain from her verbal comments and to regulate her laughter to the non-shrieking decibel levels.   But true belly laughter is harder to rein in and by “belly laugh”, I mean the kind of laughter that overcomes you for short periods of time otherwise you would lose your breath.  It’s great in short bursts but just is not sustainable for an hour and a half.   During a comedy show, there is an expectation that jokes will be followed by a response from the audience and that the audience self regulates how long that period of laughter will be.   However, some comedians time the delivery of jokes to keep that laughter momentum going and that’s when you get instances where you miss the first part of new joke because the laughter from the previous one hasn’t really died done enough.  I really don’t know what to tell you since I do not know who the comedian was and whether this was a method of joke delivery he chose thus setting up the situation where someone just keeps laughing and laughing and laughing.  Let’s see what the readers think…

The Bubble of Personal Space In A Crowd Controlled Situation Can Be Quite Small

Recently, a well-known celebrity made an appearance at a local sports event, and as big fans of this celebrity, my husband and I were fairly excited to meet him and get an autograph.

Since only the first 400 people would be getting to meet the celebrity, my husband and I showed up to the stadium several hours early and waited in line, although we were told that when the gates opened we’d have to make our way to a separate autograph line. When the gates were opened, we made a beeline for the autograph line and received wristbands that would enable us to get autographs. The event was very heavily staffed with both stadium security and local police, and they were very clear with their instructions: stay in the line, move up as much as possible so that the maximum amount of people could be shepherded into the holding area, and only one autograph per person. (We’d expected that and brought one small item apiece.)

An event like this generally CAN be a recipe for chaos and Etiquette Hellbound folks of all stripes, but for the most part everyone was very respectful, mostly because we were all just excited for the rare opportunity to meet this guy. There was exactly one person there who didn’t seem excited. The woman directly in front of us in line was rolling her eyes at the entire spectacle and texting nonstop. She had spread a large amount of personal stuff out in front of her, including two bags stuffed with posters and other merchandise, and she was refusing to move, so when security made their eleven-thousandth plea for people to move in, there started to be a little bit of a bottleneck behind her. My husband and I stepped in as much as we could, but we couldn’t move in any further without stepping on this lady’s things or getting into her personal space. I have a bit of crowd-specific claustrophobia, so I’m always pretty careful to leave as much space as I can between myself and strangers in this kind of situation.

It was then that I saw the content of her latest text: “If the couple behind me doesn’t get off my [expletive] I’m going to punch them.” (I promise, I’m not in the habit of reading over people’s shoulders. Her phone display was set to show a huge font or I probably wouldn’t have noticed.)

Not particularly wanting to be punched, I politely inquired, “Excuse me, ma’am, are we crowding you?”, and she spun around and snapped at us, “[Expletive]! Don’t you have any sense of personal space?” I guess without noticing the 200 people behind us, packed in far tighter and trying to move in further still. I attempted to apologize, indicating that we were all continually being told to move up, but she just huffed and turned back around.

Irrational as it was, I was so distraught over the prospect of standing in line next to a woman who’d expressed a wish to assault me that eventually I asked the people behind us if they’d be willing to switch places in line with us, which they were happy to do with no explanation required, and I don’t believe the woman picked a fight with them, though she certainly continued rolling her eyes and scoffing at all and sundry for the rest of her time in line. Meanwhile, the rest of our fellow line-dwellers were awesome, and we swapped stories about our love for this celebrity’s work while we waited for the line to move.  0810-15