#9. Who Writes the Etiquette Rules?
A reaction piece to The Cut's 140 rules for "how to exist in polite society today." Enter at your own risk.
Hi!
I am writing this issue from a pool chair in Palm Springs on a much-needed vacation from subzero temperatures in Minnesota. Paul and I are here on official wedding planning business, but also because we really just needed a break from the cold. It’s currently 65˚outside and I had a totally different issue planned for this week, but when I saw The Cut’s “etiquette rules” article that’s been circulating the internet for the last week, I just couldn’t let it go. Believe me, I tried!
At first, I barely skimmed the 140 “rules” for how to exist in polite society today. A few made me chuckle, others had me nodding vigorously in agreement; I may have rolled my eyes at one or two. Then I saw the Instagram post with more rules from three high-profile women who were interviewed for their take on etiquette rules, and I started to get annoyed. Really annoyed. I went back to the original article, poring over the entire list in varying states of agreement and agitation, and I started wondering… who exactly wrote these rules???????
The Cut only says “we” made these rules. The only specificity we’re given right away is: “We talked to friends, entertaining experts, and service workers.” How unbelievably vague.
I have been reading The Cut since the early days of the pandemic. I am fully aware of their unique brand of humor (The Cut’s Instagram captions have always been unreasonably fantastic, although slightly less so since Taylor Roberts stopped writing them). I’ve always found The Cut to be smart, witty, and relevant–a few recent articles are titled “Ben Affleck Plumbs New Depths of Existential Despair,” “Everyone’s Dissolving Their Pillowy Filler Faces,” and “What If You Just Didn’t Clean That Up?”, among other more serious pieces like “The Future of Abortion Pills Is on the Line” and “What to Know About the Protests in Iran.” Exactly my kind of variety.
I’ve always loved The Cut’s particular way of covering culture, delivering content that is both serious and also not at all. When I saw “The New Rules” article, I definitely had an idea in my head of what I would likely find inside. Even if some of the etiquette rules are kind of funny or entertaining, which is more or less what I was expecting, I thought they would probably also be more-or-less universal and speak to an audience of *regular people* who are just trying to get by in society today to actually be helpful. But that’s really up for debate.
If you haven’t read it yet, here’s the intro of the piece:
“The ways we socialize and date, commute and work are nearly unrecognizable from what they were three years ago. We’ve enjoyed a global pandemic, open employer-employee warfare, a multifront culture war, and social upheavals both great and small. The old conventions are out (we don’t whisper the word cancer or let women off the elevator first anymore, for starters). The venues in which we can make fools of ourselves (group chats, Grindr messages, Slack rooms public and private) are multiplying, and each has its own rules of conduct. And everyone’s just kind of rusty. Our social graces have atrophied.
We wanted to help. So we started with the problems — not the obvious stuff, like whether it’s okay to wear a backpack on the subway or talk loudly on speakerphone in a restaurant (you know the answers there). We asked people instead what specific kinds of interactions or situations really made them anxious, afraid, uncertain, ashamed. From there, we created rigid, but not entirely inflexible, rules.
Then we took our own medicine — we implemented these rules in our professional and personal lives. Some really didn’t work. (“It’s been great to chat” didn’t quite land when we used it as a way to exit a boring conversation at a holiday party.) Others felt like instant canon (we agreed, for example, that text-message amnesty is granted after 72 hours). We fine-tuned and eliminated. We talked to friends, entertaining experts, and service workers. We sparked office arguments and made messes and ended up with a guide that we hope will stand the test of at least a bit of time — until the next great exciting social upheaval.
When I read this intro again after going over the list in totality, I was doubly suspicious of the article’s authorship. This is the edited version? The version that should “stand the test of at least a bit of time?” I really needed some more info on who the “we” is that made these rules, so I dug in a little deeper, and then I started to understand what was going on here. But first, let’s take a stroll through a small sampling of which of these rules I consider great, questionable, and just weird, just so you can get a little taste:
Great
Questionable
What???
The more I dove into who actually wrote these rules, the more I started to understand them. Even though the list was written by a group of “diverse” enough writers (with supplemental rules from three women whose taste we are supposed to trust I guess), and this might be obvious given that it was written by staff members at The Cut, but all of these people live in New York.
I’m pretty sure (and I say this with jest lol) that New Yorkers think they are cooler than the rest of us. And by the rest of us, I mean people who live in O.G. rival city, Los Angeles (I was one of these until pretty recently and still sort of consider myself able to say “we” when referring to Angelenos, who knows when that will fade) and also everyone else who lives in other, I’m sure considerably less cool places in the minds of New Yorkers, like Minneapolis, where I currently reside. Most of us in the Midwest don’t need a rule for how to act when meeting famous people (#43) or how to refer to famous people you’re friends with (#44). I mean, I lived in a city full of celebrities for a decade and only met a few, and I’m pretty sure my I-just-met-a-famous-person! behavior was just fine without specifically adhering to rule #43. Lana del Rey offered to take a photo of me and an ex-boyfriend at a wedding one time, and then I left her alone the rest of the night (even though I am a massive fan), *somehow* making it through the experience without totally embarrassing myself. Good for me!!
Don’t get me wrong–I love New York. The city has a vibrant energy that I find wildly appealing, and there was even a time when I thought I’d end up there. A 21 year-old me thought for sure I would move to New York after college to pursue a career in the fashion industry. Then I found a job in L.A. instead, and that was that.
But much of this article feels like a rather masturbatory display of New Yorkers thinking they get to set the rules for how they feel everyone should act. There are *so many references* to famous people and how to make sure not to act like an ass around them, it feels like many of the article’s writers are scarred from once making these very mistakes themselves and are terrified of doing it again. My read on most New Yorkers is that they’re either pretty well-off and live a different kind of lifestyle than the rest of us (I would argue that these are not the majority of people reading this article in the first place!), or they’re varying degrees of struggling to get by because of the astronomically high cost of living in New York City and grinding work culture. Reading these 140 rules and considering this in its authorship, I feel like I’m getting a bit of whiplash between the two extremes.
I also noticed that the ages of many of the contributors ranges from middle Millennials (hi, currently in our mid-thirties) to Gen Xers pushing 50, and even a few Boomers, which also makes a lot of sense. If I could only pick one, rule #71– “If you put out bowls of cigarettes at a party, you have to let people smoke inside”– feels to me like the best example of the unrelatability of the article’s authorship. This is not the 90s, you guys. Bowls of cigarettes at a party????????? Give me a fucking break, lol. Maybe New Yorkers in their 50s with famous friends *actually* do this, but the fact that this made a list of etiquette rules in 2023 is fucking hilarious.
Rules #84-91, which are all about tipping, aren’t even in the actual list. They are linked to a Grub Street article that doesn’t even try to hide the fact that it’s all about New York and the extremely high cost of living coupled with inflation and a minimum wage ($15/hr) that is in no way sufficient for pretty much anyone to live off of in New York, where the average monthly rent price last summer surpassed $5,000 (in Minneapolis, for reference, it’s around $1,500). Some of the rules feel totally fine, like tipping 20-25% at a restaurant and $1 per drink or 20% for a cocktail if you’re at a bar, but there is no way most people are tipping “at least 20%” every time at every small coffee shop right now when a 12 oz oat milk latte in Minneapolis is already $6-$7 and we’re taking it to go. Not tipping on a bottle of water doesn’t make us miserly, either. I’m sorry. I can’t. Don’t hate me.
Rules #6, #30, #52, #70, #72, and #94 make me feel like we all need to check on a New Yorker. All of these rules suggest a certain brand of anxiety that may afflict New Yorkers specifically? It’s not okay to text a friend or a co-worker in the middle of the night, lol. Unless you want that person to absolutely panic if they happen to wake up and see it–they *will* think it’s an emergency. And speaking of emergencies, you are *absolutely* allowed to wake up your significant other if you think someone has broken into your house!!! What the fuck???? Are New Yorkers really that sleep deprived that they’re sleeping through break-ins? Or was this an attempt at humor that just didn’t land?
Rules #95 and #96 also feel like proof that these rules were written almost exclusively by people over the age of 35. It’s remnants of the “ass in seat” mentality that some of the older generations are so famous for. I’m a manager of an all-remote team, and if the work gets done, I’m good. Same goes for rules #20 and #55. While splitting the bill evenly is nice in theory (and something I personally do most of the time), people are on tight budgets these days, and it’s unfair to ask everyone to split the bill evenly if I’m feeling extravagant that day. Even before the pandemic, two-thirds of Millennials did not split bills evenly and half wanted separate checks. Someone else’s financial situation (and their decisions for what to order while out with friends) is none of our business!
A part of the article but technically outside the 140 rules, I did a background check on all three women who were asked for their etiquette rules, which appear in the margins (are these the “entertaining experts” alluded to in the intro?), listed here from least to most annoying:
Amy Sedaris is a 61 year-old actress/comedian who you’ve definitely seen in something before (I know her from “Elf”). Amy was born in New York, raised in North Carolina, and started her acting career in 1995. Of the three, Amy easily has the nicest rules.
Best rule: “Leaving negative comments says more about you, the person who left the negative comment.” Yes! This! Amy!
Worst rule: “Lose music in shops or just play jazz. Old songs are triggering.” C’monnnnnnnnn.
Most annoying rule: “If you bring flowers to a party, they should already be in a vase.” Totally get what she’s saying, but nobody does this. Vases are expensive and then it becomes a whole “thing,” and we were just trying to be nice and picked some up at the grocery store on our way to a party. Condolence flowers though, 100% absolutely.
Laila Gohar is a 35 year-old chef, artist, and designer with “exquisite taste” who “fully hates weddings,” but hers was featured in Vogue. Lol.
Best rule: “Don’t say things like “I don’t go above 14th street.”” Yes, this is not nice.
Worst rule: “Don’t ask people how much they pay in rent.” This is the exact opposite of rule #112. Who edited this??????
Most annoying rule: “Don’t smell like Le Labo Santal 33.” I am admittedly triggered because this is precisely what I smell like lol, but my favorite retort in perhaps all of my research for this issue was someone saying, “just wanted y’all to know that Santal 33 is okay in LA! I checked” in the comments of this Instagram post. Excellent.
Lauren Santo Domingo is a 46 year-old entrepreneur, socialite, and former editor of Vogue who is married to a billionaire-heir and was considered one of the top 100 most influential New Yorkers in 2013.
Best rule: “Be up-to-date with The White Lotus. As in, don’t put your hands over your ears and scream “No spoilers!””. Also, TWL is just really, really good.
Worst rule: “Never ask your guests to take off their shoes.” The COMMENTS in this Instagram post, y’all. Whew.
Most annoying rule: “Never ask your guests to smoke outside – or not to smoke at all.” What’s with New Yorkers and smoking????? If you’re going to smoke, there is a 100% chance it will not happen in my house.
Almost every rule Lauren Santo Domingo listed is annoying and reeks of classism except for the one about The White Lotus and a nice one about introducing people who you think have something in common. I’m surprised The Cut allowed her rules to run, honestly. Or maybe I’m not, because LSD is apparently the type of person we should be looking up to, in the minds of New Yorkers? Full disclosure, 11ish years ago when I had just moved to L.A., I thought she was the epitome of cool. And now I just find her extremely unrelatable.
Other contributors to this article include:
Freddie deBoer, an “overeducated Xennial” who runs a really successful Substack and describes himself as “cool but rude.”
Rachel Sugar, a freelance journalist who has been writing about food and culture for publications you’ve heard of since 2009 (likely an older Millennial?) who lives in Brooklyn and is passionate about muffins.
Wendy Goodman, New York Magazine’s design editor who began as the magazine’s fashion editor in 1984 and lived for 27 years in a stunning brownstone in Greenwich Village where she threw a lot of parties for her famous friends.
Madeline Leung Coleman, who is a Millennial writer/editor who has been writing in New York for a decade and honestly seems pretty cool.
Hua Hsu, a 45 year-old Professor of Literature at Bard College who has been contributing to The New Yorker since 2014.
Fran Hoepfner, a writer and lecturer at The New School who is likely an older Millennial and has a newsletter called “Fran Magazine”. In her Substack bio, she says: “Does anyone want to give me a full-time job with benefits?”
Truly no shade to any of these people (except maybe Lauren Santo Domingo lol) and maybe I’m taking this all too seriously!!! All I’m saying is that the group who is responsible for “the new etiquette rules” to guide us in this post-Covid era seems to be quintessentially New York. How hard would it have been to get some differing perspectives from people in other cities? A lot of the things they came up with are actually really good! Credit where it’s due. But I’m deeeeeefinitely thinking twice about this article knowing who it came from, and considering the rules that a very specific group of New Yorkers have written–some of them millionaires, some of them on some level of struggling to get by–with a heavy dose of Midwestern skepticism.
What’s Up This Week
Speaking of New York, if you haven’t watched the AD home tour of Lily Allen and David Harbour’s Brooklyn townhouse yet, you must. Love it or hate it, this Alice in Wonderland-esque explosion of eccentricity is a daring, non-traditional spectacle. It is the antithesis to the current beigification that has taken over so many interiors as of late, and even if there are many choices I personally wouldn’t make in this house (a carpeted bathroom and windowless bedroom????), overall I absolutely adore it, even if it’s just because it really swings for the fences. The risk taking is refreshing.
My favorite thing in their home is without a doubt the floral wallpaper in the living/garden room. I almost gasped when I saw it, because it bears a striking resemblance to my wedding dress, just a bit more bold…
I also enjoyed Hunter Harris’ scathing review of the house in last Friday’s issue of Hung Up more than I thought I would: “The rest of the house is a parade of Etsy art (derogatory–there’s an embroidery of sexually transmitted diseases, which is what it would look like if 2014 could be distilled into one horcrux). This is a home worth wrecking–demolition NOW.”
The theme song of our trip to Palm Springs is a very dance-y remix of the Bee Gees’ “More Than A Woman.” Absolute fire.
Reader Request(!): A Cru Beaujolais under $30
Dear Readers,
It has been my absolute pleasure to tender these absurd wine tasting notes for your consumption. I thank you for the opportunity. Now let's get into a “Wine of The Week” of a different kind. Some time ago, a reader of this fine publication wrote in with the following prompt:
"I would love Paul's thoughts on a good, affordable Cru Beaujolais for around $30 or less. I have heard of these and my partner really wants to try one, but I am a bit overwhelmed by the options."
My knee-jerk reaction when Kelly told me of this request was a big fat: "Why??"
Why is this person making such an unusual request? Does she have experience with Beaujolais Nouveau, and likes it so much that she wants to "step up" to Cru level? Is she conflating Beaujolais with the more famous red Burgundy? Is she looking for a less expensive Pinot Noir? Is Cru Beaujolais a necessary step on one's wine journey? Is it a phase that they need to experience before graduating to the "real stuff," similar to how people get stuck on Apothic Red, or white Zinfandel, or Argentine Malbec? (Certainly I am offending folks now!)
How did she even hear of Cru Beaujolais?! Should I run with this and just celebrate the request, or honor my initial and now longer-standing frustration with the question itself: WHY CRU BEAUJOLAIS?!?!
Allow me to lend context. Beaujolais is a region in Burgundy which is located south of all of the action. They focus their red wine production on the Gamay grape rather than Pinot Noir. This region is famous for its simple, cheap, light, meant-to-be-drunk-young Beaujolais Nouveau: a wine that is not taken seriously anywhere on Earth, and in fact is largely looked down upon in France itself. It is the original Wal-Mart wine.
Cru Beaujolais, however, is the "actual wine" produced from the Gamay grape in this region, which gave us the annual festival of cheap bubble gum wine known as Beaujolais Nouveau.
Cru Beaujolais represents this wine growing region's centuries-long effort to make something serious of their wines. Unlike most other regions of France, the "Cru" designation in this region does not necessarily denote the quality of one vineyard site, rather, the designation is assigned to entire villages comprising vast tracts of land. Any producer growing and vinifying Gamay in Cru Beaujolais village-areas such as Morgon, Brouilly, and others are automatically considered Cru, regardless of the quality of their winemaking practices. For context, I have had several Cru Beaujolais over the past ten or so years. To make a short story long, they've all been uninspiring to this palate. I can direct you to a ton of more complex and delicious French wines for $20/bottle.
To wrap this up–when someone asks you for a recommendation on a Cru Beaujolais, it usually means they're confused about Burgundy in some way, or that they love Beaujolais Nouveau, or that they are pretty advanced and are well on their way to discovering/conquering the entire world of wine. It is a subtle request, it is unusual, and in any case it leads (in my opinion) to looking ever more intensely for good value Pinot Noir based Burgundy, or to lackluster Gamay based wine. We decided to try one despite all of this negativity. Kelly, her parents, and I secured a bottle of Morgon last night to test these conclusions!
2019 Gilles Copéret Morgon Cru Beaujolais
MSRP: $20ish
Discovered: At BevMo in downtown Palm Springs
Availability: Should be fairly wide
Worth it?: Not a chance.
Nose: Do I have Covid, or can you can barely smell this? Thankfully, confirmed by both Kelly and her dad that the nose is almost non-existent. I get a whiff of dried cranberry, red berries, a hint of tangerine rind, maybe a bit of lavender. We are searching here.
Palate: Light body with good alcohol integration! A party wine. Simple. Notes of strawberry juice and a touch of herbs-de-provence. Slightly astringent, which sounds clinical, but it's acid-driven with little other structure, and it tastes like underripe cherries. Super short finish and rather unidimensional. Would be better with cheese.
Conclusion: Not offensive, not great. Not... anything. Don’t buy it! Put your money into something that excites you. $20 for a bottle of wine can go so much further! I would steer folks to any southern Rhone before this. How about Vacqueras? Gigondas for $25? Even a decent Côtes du Rhône has a similar but superior flavor profile and value. Come on!
Are you looking for a KILLER red Burgundy? It’s a favorite of mine. Who wants that to be an upcoming wine of the week in these curious times?
Whew! That’s it. Paid subscribers, I’ll see you on Friday with part two of my wedding dress journey and the story of how I finally picked a dress after several days of *extreme* indecision!
K bye,
Kelly
looooved this! hahaha just a funny side note- i think the bowl of cigarettes rule was in reference to the rumor Mary Kate Olsen had bowls of cigarettes at her wedding a while back 🤣
The Cut is part of New York magazine. I don’t think anyone intended for it to be relatable everywhere in the country. I’ve lived in New York for 7 years and these all make sense to me. I agree with 99% of them. It sounds like you’re offended that people from a different city have a different lifestyle than you. Just because it went viral doesn’t mean it is about you.