Re: "No gifts", and how it backfired.
- From: "Jenn" <jennifsa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:24:03 +1000
get over it. he was just sharing a view that may help other people. No-one
wants to listen to you bitching.
"Ericka Kammerer" <eek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kYidncyzdYZjT4neRVn-pQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> akbar_smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> To a certain degree, you're right. It's something I'm struggling with.
>> I
>> hate to be ingracious, but we really didn't want/need any gifts,
>
> But my point is that your needs are irrelevant. If you *need* something,
> then it's your job to provide it for yourself/your family. Gifts are not
> about
> fulfilling someone else's needs. They're a form of expression from the
> giver
> to the recipient. And, as with most forms of expression, people will vary
> in how (and how well) they express things. That's just the way life is.
> But your first misstep is to think of receiving gifts as something that
> has
> anything to do with your needs.
>
>> and suspect
>> many gave them out of a sense of obligation.
>
> How do you know that? Yes, it's true that gift-giving at weddings
> is customary. However, it's customary for a reason. It's customary
> because
> it is common for people to *want* to commemorate major events in their
> loved ones' lives with some token of their esteem. *Plus*, given that you
> said "no gifts," believe me, those who were dreading shopping and would
> have done it only out of a sense of obligation would have been the first
> to take you at your word. Odds are, those folks who gave you gifts
> *wanted* to give you something.
>
>> Although they are "gifts", we made our preferences known, and those
>> preferences were disregarded. In retrospect, we see that we should have
>> stuck to more conventional methods of making our preferences known.
>
> The strictest etiquette mavens would say that you shouldn't have
> said *anything*--no registry, no nothin'. And really, that puts the
> emphasis where it belongs. This has nothing to do with you. Those
> who choose to give will, and should, give what they wish to give. Now,
> the best of them will do their best to discover what might delight you,
> but that's gravy. There's no rule saying you have to be a perfect gift
> giver in order to give a gift--you know that old saying, "Never look a
> gift horse in the mouth." Now, most etiquette mavens are basically
> okay with the idea of your basic wedding registry, so by all means,
> have one if you like. However, a registry is *NOT* to tell everyone
> what to get you. The purpose of a registry is properly *ONLY* to let
> guests who already wish to get you a certain kind of gift know what
> your patterns are, or what sizes/colors you have, or avoid duplicating
> what others are already giving. It's a service to the GIVER, not a
> service
> to assist you in furnishing your home.
> With all the wish lists, Christmas lists, registries for every darned
> event, and so on, people have really lost sight of the fact that we're
> talking about *gifts* here. You didn't spend a dime of your money, or
> a minute of your time, or any of your energy procuring these items.
> You were not entitled to expect them. They are simply an expression
> of the givers' esteem for you. Your only obligation is to accept that
> communication and express your deep and humble gratitude that
> someone else thought highly enough of you to spend *their* time
> and money and energy to attempt to do something nice for you (even
> if you don't feel that they succeeded). After that, if you want to
> discreetly get rid of the material form of that expression, you are
> certainly free to do so. Return it or sell it and donate the money to
> your charities, if you like. Just do it in such a way that it isn't
> obvious to the givers (who are not supposed to snoop).
>
>> Most importantly, I hope our experience benefits others when faced with
>> similar decisions.
>
> Sure, I agree that from a practical standpoint, those who are tempted
> to say "no gifts" (or to direct gift giving in a restrictive way, like to
> charities
> or their mortgage/travel fund, or whatever) should realize that no only is
> doing so rude, but it is also likely to be unsuccessful. But at its
> heart,
> the solution for this problem is for people to truly understand that they
> just don't really have a right to control the gifts they receive.
> By the way, I'm not trying to make you out to be an ogre here.
> I'm sure that you came at this with absolutely the best and most generous
> of intentions. Most people who do what you did are honestly trying
> not to be a burden, or to help others (unlike those who try to say
> "cash only" or "send money to my mortgage fund") and are shocked
> by the notion that it might be considered rude or controlling or whatever.
> I'm just trying to say that if you peel back the layers, there's something
> fundamentally wrong with the idea that you have the right to control
> the gift-giving in the first place. If you, or others in their future
> wedding planning, start from the perspective that you just don't have
> any business imposing anything in that department and that givers
> have the prerogative to do as they please, you avoid not only the
> problems you experienced, but also all the fretting and ill will that
> being overly controlling about the gifts can generate. For instance,
> many people who see "no gifts" on an invitation interpret it to mean,
> "We don't need or want whatever crap you might think of to send us,
> so please just don't" and take that really personally. They'd *like*
> to at least retain the illusion that you would treasure something they
> sent just *because* they were the ones that sent it.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka
.
- Next by Date: Re: "No gifts", and how it backfired.
- Next by thread: Re: "No gifts", and how it backfired.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
