Jenn Shreve

Media Circus: Miss Manners, up yours!

The original rule girl thinks she can teach us a thing or two about online etiquette. She needs to RTFM first.

  • more
    • All Share Services

a recent ad campaign for MCI touts the Internet as a world more civil than the real one. A world of ideas. A world without race, without gender. A virtual Eden.

Yeah, right. As MCI might have noticed if they weren’t so busy trying to rip AT&T a new long-distance orifice, indecorous exchanges and foul suggestions have permeated chat rooms and Usenet groups since their inception. Though such uncouth behavior is considered standard, there are some basic rules: Don’t SHOUT. Lurk before you post. RTFM. These rules and innumerable others, are spelled out in some detail in countless guides to Netiquette spread across the Net — on Web pages, in Newsgroups, in every language imaginable. Break a rule, and the chances are someone will refer you to one of them, with a clear directive to Read The Fucking Manual.

Out here in RL, the preeminent chronicler of American etiquette for the last few decades has been the formidable Judith Martin, a k a Miss Manners. So it’s not too surprising that Miss Manners herself would take on the daunting issue of etiquette in cyberspace. Martin’s latest book, “Miss Manners’ Basic Training: Communication” (part of a nine-book “Basic Training” series) attempts to nudge the Net away from barbaric flame wars and adolescent sex chats and into the world of civilized discourse.

Miss Manners deserves praise for her undertaking, one that ranks up there on the difficulty scale with Hercules’ cleansing of the Augean Stables. But in attempting to crack down on Net users’ boorish ways, she herself breaks the most fundamental rule of etiquette, online or off. “When thou enter a city abide by its customs,” the Talmud says, and this lesson is repeated endlessly, in slightly different forms, in virtually every serious guide to Netiquette. Miss Manners herself has made this very point repeatedly over the years, encouraging her readers to do as the Romans do. Here, she manages to do the exact opposite. Demonstrating no real knowledge of (or even much interest in) Internet ways, she blusters into the middle of the party, an uninvited guest, and starts making her dogmatic pronouncements. (Just like a newbie!)

“Technology likes to play a Catch-Me-If-You-Can game with etiquette,” Miss Manners writes. “‘You don’t have any rules for this,’ it sneers, ‘because we just invented it.’ Then it goes tearing off into the future, laughing like crazy, under the cocky assumption that Miss Manners can’t catch up.”

Miss Manners declares that not only can she catch up, she already has. But by insisting that the Net has no rules, she shows she’s not even close. Miss Manners is certain her well-founded, old-school rules for “excruciatingly correct behavior” are up to the challenge of flame wars, spamming and all-caps SHOUTING.

THEY’RE NOT.

In her early chapter on “cyberspace etiquette,” for example, Miss Manners devotes a mere five pages to e-mail, USENET groups and computer bulletin boards. She mentions “flaming” only in passing — mainly, it seems, to suggest that she’s heard of the term. The bulk of the chapter deals with such urgent issues as misaddressed computer labels and the rudeness of “personalizing” a letter.

The rest of the book follows the same basic pattern. Miss Manners tries to stay in cyberspace, but slips ever so hastily into more familiar territory: “The Written Word,” “The Engraved Word.” Looking down her nose at e-mail invitations, she recommends you write, address, stamp and mail a real monogrammed card every time you want to invite a friend to coffee. (Well, it might be quicker than sending the mail via AOL.) Though some good suggestions are scattered here and there, Miss Manners clearly remains much more comfortable with a goose-quill pen and scented paper than with a mouse.

This isn’t an unforgivable crime. We expect Miss Manners to be slightly out of touch; that’s part of her charm. Considering how basic manners have degenerated in society, it’s no bad thing if our guardians of civility are a little behind the times. But Miss Manners’ new book is less about using the tools of technology in a civil way than about eliminating them from your life. Telephone calls? Gentle reader, screen them. Beeper? Gentle reader, ignore it. E-mail? No need to respond right away. Miss Manners has clearly never worked at Microsoft (or Salon).

To realize just how out of touch Miss Manners is, one need only take a quick look at “Netiquette” by Virginia Shea. Published in 1994, this book is both a guide to using technology politely and a history lesson for people like me, who didn’t really pay attention to the Internet until URLs started appearing on TV commercials. When Shea wrote her book, the Net was still in puberty, so to speak. She mentions things unheard of by most contemporary users — like FTP sites, Mosaic and Lynx. Still, Shea’s basic advice–to absorb the rules of the digital domain before speaking up, to show consideration for other people’s privacy (and valuable time) and to share knowledge with others in a non-condescending way — are insightful and helpful. They’re also common sense. And they prove what once might have seemed inconceivable: that in the world of etiquette, Miss Manners could learn a thing or two.

E X T R A !


Precious bodily fluids

“Violence is male; the male is the penis; violence is the penis or the sperm ejaculated from it.”

— Andrea Dworkin, summarizing the “governing sexual scenario in male supremacist society” in her book “Pornography.”

“Andrea Dworkin … has written 10 books, including such seminal works as ‘Intercourse’ and ‘Pornography.’”

— Publicity material for Andrea Dworkin’s upcoming book, “Life and Death: Unapologetic Writings on the Continuing War Against Women” (Free Press).

Italics added.

Feb. 19, 1997

PC Pirates

Real pirates weren't nice people. So why does Disney seem to think their robotic descendants should be sensitive enough to please both feminists and family-values conservatives?

  • more
    • All Share Services

by now you’ve probably heard the news: One of Disneyland’s top attractions, the Pirates of the Caribbean ride, is getting a politically correct face-lift intended to make the ride more family values-oriented. It seems certain scenes from this wholesome attraction have created a stir among passengers and within the ranks of Disney’s amusement park architects as well. In particular: Scenes involving naughty pirates chasing the damsels of a sleepy Caribbean village, Senator Packwood-style.

While deciding to upgrade the ride’s technical aspects, Disney imaginEARS (yes, that’s really what they’re called) decided to go all the way — make it a real ’90s kind of ride. The pirates will no longer be chasing the women per se, but food — food that just happens to be carried by women. (In the name of equality, a scene in which a buxom, booze-chuggin’ woman chases a frightened male pirate will also be altered; she, too, will be after food, his food.)

According to Susan Roth, senior publicist for Disneyland, the lust theme “just wasn’t appropriate for the ’90s.” The hipper, more PC Disneyworld in Florida has already implemented the food theme in its ride. The original theme park in Anaheim, Calif., just had some catching up to do.

Usually this kind of news story might merit an Associated Press-style brief in your local paper, or a 30-second joke on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. But Bill Maher devoted one-third of his ABC debut of “Politically Incorrect” hashing over the topic with guests. The New York Times’ Tom Kuntz bemoaned the renovations in Sunday’s Week in Review section, arguing that Disney was being pecked to death by “the guardians of political correctness [and] the sticklers of historical accuracy,” and accusing Disneyland of abetting the crime by “[y]ielding to complaints of sexism” — a charge that Roth denies. The Washington Post, reported that “feminists were pleased” by the changes, even if fans of the “rowdy pirates” might not be. The Los Angeles Times and several other large newspapers ran full stories on the “controversy” as well.

Why all the fuss over a silly ride?

Actually, the Pirate makeover is not, as too many have suggested, simply about political correctness; it’s also about that mother-of-all-headline-makers: family values. At first glance, it seems an odd mixture. While PC has remained in the intellectual domain of left-wingers and radical academics, “Family Values” tends to be a right-wing thing — although during election year Democrats also tend to pilfer the “issue” for strategical purposes.

But Disneyland’s managed to combine the two: using “feminist” complaints to reevaluate what constitutes family entertainment. “You have to measure what is appropriate for a theme park, where families are going to have a good time and not be offended,” says Roth. “It’s not a museum.”

No, it’s not a museum, but it’s quickly becoming a mirror of the current state of American social discourse — a discourse that neatly melds two conflicting ideologies: the conservative belief in the mythical nuclear family as the cornerstone of our society — a dream that ignores the true state of American families — and the liberal desire to appease any discomfort presented by reality by simply slapping on a new, purportedly more respectful label. Suddenly, polar opposites are revealed to be … almost the same. No wonder they call it The Magic Kingdom.

Amidst all the hoopla, one tingly little fact remains: Disneyland’s alterations to the ride are all superficial, much like the ideologies that initiated them. By simply replacing the pirates’ lust for sex with an uncontrolled appetite for food, Disney hasn’t exactly struck a blow against real-life, non-robotic raping and pillaging. And certainly the feminists who purportedly complained about the ride’s sexual harassment theme won’t be entirely pleased when they see the town’s women reduced to mere servants, conveying trays of vittles to the hungry menfolk.

But Disney can’t transform the ride completely, now, can it? “The essence of the attraction is pirates and they’re invading a Caribbean town,” Roth notes. “They’re not boy scouts.”

Then why change the ride at all? The ride is a remnant of two historical pasts — one, the time of the ride’s original creation; the other, a mythologized (if not utterly fanciful) pirate past. In its own playful way, it reminds us that women have not always enjoyed the respect and status they have today. Is it better to pretend that the past is a kind of utopia, to teach children that history can be written and rewritten to conform to present political demands? Disney seems to think so. Now they just need to finish construction and collect.

Continue Reading Close

Page 15 of 15 in Jenn Shreve