Author Topic: I know this is for women only, but I'm going to conspicuously hang around anyway  (Read 10342 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Zizi-K

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 716
I stand 100% and unequivocally in my belief that he believed he was being playful.  There has been no willingness on the part of generally otherwise openminded regulars to see the possibility that you're dealing with a well-meaning though awkward couple.  I'm amazed and, if I'm being bluntly honest, appalled.

It draws into question the quality of the advice on other threads.

In the meantime - this is a circular exercise for everyone at this point.  The OP long ago made up her mind that he was rude, as her follow up posts make clear.  The camps and lines were drawn pages ago and the advice is utterly unchanged and echoed by both sides of the conversation --- Amy needs to be talked to, EITHER because her husband was "rude" or because she didn't understand how seriously you took the mandate of ladies only.

I would hope and encourage you to have a bit wider of a bandwidth for style in the future, however, OP, since while I was the first to voice my belief that the husband wasn't rude - over the course of 9 pages I have been far from the only one to see it that way.  Clearly there is a different attitude in that household and NOT one that can be assumed to be the result of marital problems as some other posters have so inappropriately suggested.  Whether that means Amy is no longer invited to be part of your social circle via Bunco, that is up to you.

Ok, so just to clarify, I have never in any of my posts speculated about this couple's marriage. Not one word. I've only stated what was said while I was there, how I felt about it and that their behavior didn't mesh well with the dynamic of the group.

I don't know or care or wish to speculate in any fashion on their relationship.

Others might have mentioned that but not me.


As far as him being playful, I just don't see how you can "100% and unequivocally" decide that. Ok, maybe that's your opinion. But you are basing that totally on some words you read on a screen. You weren't there. It was not playful. It was matter of fact. It was said in a flat tone as a statement of intent, not in any way as an attempt at playfulness.

He said it in such a way as to inform us that regardless of our expectations and previous mores, he was going to buck all that, like it or not.

That was his tone.

Per the bolded - I just want to acknowledge that you didn't do that and I'm sorry if my comments made it sound like I thought you did.  I know it was other posters who made those claims and that you weren't the only speculating on it.  (Given the heated, though in my opinion still polite, nature of the thread - it seemed important to acknowledge that).

Well I did speculate on their relationship, because that kind of info could come in handy for deciding how to approach the wife about it in the future. But if you (op) don't want to discuss it here that's fine. So have you decided how to address it?

lowspark

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3995
In this situation, where Amy's husband was rude was announcing he was going to be rude. Trying to change the rules of an established group is rude, even if done in his own residence. If he had a problem with Amy hosting, he and Amy needed to find a solution before the event, even if it meant that Amy had to leave the group.

OP, I guess you can be glad that he didn't plop down in the middle of the room in his underwear, belch and expel fumes from his netheregion, while scratching his belly...... (of course it is HIS house so if he wanted to......)

Haha!! Thanks for making me literally laugh out loud.

lowspark

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3995
Well I did speculate on their relationship, because that kind of info could come in handy for deciding how to approach the wife about it in the future. But if you (op) don't want to discuss it here that's fine. So have you decided how to address it?

I think I'm going to talk to at least a couple of other people in the group before proceeding any further. Aside from that, my plan is to reiterate the rules & expectations in the May email. I won't limit it to just "no men", but I'll just remind everyone that they have to provide snacks & wine, that they need to email a week in advance, etc. So it will be just a reminder of all the things that anyone might need reminding about.

If it happens again the next time she hosts, I'll take it a step further. Discussing what to do with a couple of other members should clarify what next step would be appropriate.

DavidH

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1745
I'm still on the side of rude, since he seems to have had at least some idea it was a ladies night only.  I think the situation is different with one's children than a spouse, and that the spouse has some type of role in hosting since it's their house too.  Greeting someone, asking if you can get them a drink or snack while you're in the kitchen or passing through is reasonable.  Interjecting constantly, no, but if you are passing through and hear the discussion, I don't think a comment or two is out of line.

Speculating on the state of their marriage, comments that he was so territorial that the only thing he didn't do was piddle in the corner is, to me, over the top.  He could be socially awkward or lonely.  He could be abusive or controlling and not want to let her out of his sight.  She could be abusive and controlling and not want to let him out of her sight, so he had to stay.  She could have recently had an affair and he was concerned that it might be starting again, and thus listening in.  We just don't know. 

A reasonable thing to do is to talk to her, tell her than having her husband there changed the dynamic for the worse and that while you have no objection to seeing him at other times, Bunco night is meant to be women only.  Make the comment about the rules of the night, not her husband.

etiquettenut

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 315
I stand 100% and unequivocally in my belief that he believed he was being playful.  There has been no willingness on the part of generally otherwise openminded regulars to see the possibility that you're dealing with a well-meaning though awkward couple.  I'm amazed and, if I'm being bluntly honest, appalled.

It draws into question the quality of the advice on other threads.


Conversely, you know what amazes me? When posters are 100% convinced they know the situation better then the OP who witnessed the events. When posters are so bent on arguing the minority opinion they downright refuse to accept all the evidence to the contrary. Sometimes it seems like people are doing it just to be purposely contrary because there is zero evidence to support their hypothetical, and in this case your actual, conclusions.

What you are seeing is not a refusal to be open-minded. It's a refusal to attribute alternative motives to people who literally spoke their motives aloud.

I also find that last statement incredibly offensive. I don't see this thread a drawing into question the advice given in other threads. I see it as calling into question advice from people who absolutely refuse to accept the evidence they are given. And if we are going to be so dramatic as to use words like "appalled," I'm "appalled" that you refuse to accept the evidence presented in the first post (the title no less!) and then accuse the OP of adding detail to bolster her position.

I get the whole idea of not attributing malice etc etc, but there's a difference between that and refusing to look at the actual evidence because you are bending over backwards to make excuses for people.

tinkytinky

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 435
In this situation, where Amy's husband was rude was announcing he was going to be rude. Trying to change the rules of an established group is rude, even if done in his own residence. If he had a problem with Amy hosting, he and Amy needed to find a solution before the event, even if it meant that Amy had to leave the group.

OP, I guess you can be glad that he didn't plop down in the middle of the room in his underwear, belch and expel fumes from his netheregion, while scratching his belly...... (of course it is HIS house so if he wanted to......)

Haha!! Thanks for making me literally laugh out loud.

You are welcome! I tend to try the Pollyanna approach, finding the good..... ;D

            Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Sophia

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 11765
  • xi
Yeah... I'm going to change your story a bit to make it more like what actually happened.

DH plays poker once a month with a group of male friends, and they rotate venues, with each person in the group hosting around once a year. These affairs, I understand, are typically boys' nights, with wives and partners making themselves scarce for the evening. Last week it was DH's turn to host. Now, while I understand that it was a boys' night, I thought I would just stay in the kitchen and use our family computer, while the guys played cards in the dining room. As soon as everyone arrived I announced I'd be hanging around even though I knew all the other wives didn't. Every so often, one of them would say something of interest to me and I'd comment to them from the kitchen. Was this rude of me? Knowing that it was usually a 'men only' event, should I have made myself absent from the house that night, or else stayed upstairs?

Okay, but even with those amendments, I'm still not sure whether this hypothetical poster would be chastised as rude, or if people would be more accepting.

A couple of people have corrected my assumption that he wasn't seeking out conversation. Can I just get a couple of things clarified:

Was Amy's husband actually going into the rooms where people were playing and sitting by the group of players in the room, or was he interjecting into conversations he could hear from the kitchen?

Was the actual nature of his comments mean-spirited, or sarcastic, or where they in keeping with the tone of your conversation (i.e. if another player at the table had made the same comment, would you have said they were rude)?

I think the amended version of your reversed story is equally rude. 

I see what he was doing as being equally rude as interjecting yourself into the conversation of the table next to you at a restaurant.  Yes, you can hear, but you aren't a part of the group or the conversation. 

MariaE

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4627
  • So many books, so little time
Yeah... I'm going to change your story a bit to make it more like what actually happened.

DH plays poker once a month with a group of male friends, and they rotate venues, with each person in the group hosting around once a year. These affairs, I understand, are typically boys' nights, with wives and partners making themselves scarce for the evening. Last week it was DH's turn to host. Now, while I understand that it was a boys' night, I thought I would just stay in the kitchen and use our family computer, while the guys played cards in the dining room. As soon as everyone arrived I announced I'd be hanging around even though I knew all the other wives didn't. Every so often, one of them would say something of interest to me and I'd comment to them from the kitchen. Was this rude of me? Knowing that it was usually a 'men only' event, should I have made myself absent from the house that night, or else stayed upstairs?

Okay, but even with those amendments, I'm still not sure whether this hypothetical poster would be chastised as rude, or if people would be more accepting.

Apparently you missed my last comment then. I would definitely have told her she was rude.
 
Dane by birth, Kiwi by choice

mspallaton

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
I stand 100% and unequivocally in my belief that he believed he was being playful.  There has been no willingness on the part of generally otherwise openminded regulars to see the possibility that you're dealing with a well-meaning though awkward couple.  I'm amazed and, if I'm being bluntly honest, appalled.

It draws into question the quality of the advice on other threads.


Conversely, you know what amazes me? When posters are 100% convinced they know the situation better then the OP who witnessed the events. When posters are so bent on arguing the minority opinion they downright refuse to accept all the evidence to the contrary. Sometimes it seems like people are doing it just to be purposely contrary because there is zero evidence to support their hypothetical, and in this case your actual, conclusions.

What you are seeing is not a refusal to be open-minded. It's a refusal to attribute alternative motives to people who literally spoke their motives aloud.

I also find that last statement incredibly offensive. I don't see this thread a drawing into question the advice given in other threads. I see it as calling into question advice from people who absolutely refuse to accept the evidence they are given. And if we are going to be so dramatic as to use words like "appalled," I'm "appalled" that you refuse to accept the evidence presented in the first post (the title no less!) and then accuse the OP of adding detail to bolster her position.

I get the whole idea of not attributing malice etc etc, but there's a difference between that and refusing to look at the actual evidence because you are bending over backwards to make excuses for people.

The OP did not describe the tone of Amy's husband's statement until almost 11 pages into the thread and gave several responses before indicating what tone he used to make his statement.  At the same time, posters who were ALSO not present made several assumptions about the state of Amy's marriage, the nature of his comments to the guests and their frequency and volume before receiving the clarification, all while jumping to the worst possible conclusion.

I won't claim I'm not guilty of hyperbole and frustration because I am, but I absolutely stand by my belief that assumptions on this thread are concerning in their implications for other circumstances.  What set me off and what I found appalling were the speculations on the state of their marriage.  I'm shocked there aren't more people concerned about those statements as well.

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6997
I stand 100% and unequivocally in my belief that he believed he was being playful.  There has been no willingness on the part of generally otherwise openminded regulars to see the possibility that you're dealing with a well-meaning though awkward couple.  I'm amazed and, if I'm being bluntly honest, appalled.

It draws into question the quality of the advice on other threads.


Conversely, you know what amazes me? When posters are 100% convinced they know the situation better then the OP who witnessed the events. When posters are so bent on arguing the minority opinion they downright refuse to accept all the evidence to the contrary. Sometimes it seems like people are doing it just to be purposely contrary because there is zero evidence to support their hypothetical, and in this case your actual, conclusions.

What you are seeing is not a refusal to be open-minded. It's a refusal to attribute alternative motives to people who literally spoke their motives aloud.

I also find that last statement incredibly offensive. I don't see this thread a drawing into question the advice given in other threads. I see it as calling into question advice from people who absolutely refuse to accept the evidence they are given. And if we are going to be so dramatic as to use words like "appalled," I'm "appalled" that you refuse to accept the evidence presented in the first post (the title no less!) and then accuse the OP of adding detail to bolster her position.

I get the whole idea of not attributing malice etc etc, but there's a difference between that and refusing to look at the actual evidence because you are bending over backwards to make excuses for people.

The OP did not describe the tone of Amy's husband's statement until almost 11 pages into the thread and gave several responses before indicating what tone he used to make his statement.  At the same time, posters who were ALSO not present made several assumptions about the state of Amy's marriage, the nature of his comments to the guests and their frequency and volume before receiving the clarification, all while jumping to the worst possible conclusion.

I won't claim I'm not guilty of hyperbole and frustration because I am, but I absolutely stand by my belief that assumptions on this thread are concerning in their implications for other circumstances.  What set me off and what I found appalling were the speculations on the state of their marriage.  I'm shocked there aren't more people concerned about those statements as well.

I am shocked that  you are shocked at those statements! anytime there is a thread dealing with problems with a married couple there is at least one poster - sometimes more - saying it is a sign of abuse and that they should get out now. I admit I don't pay all that much attention to who post any given post so don't know if it is always the same person but it is always there. I usually just roll my eyes at them and move on.