Etiquette, Parenting and a Pick-Pocket

                                                                                         

It just isn’t possible to be Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde parents. We can’t make one code for ourselves and another for our children. They will insist upon sharing our code. Mother can never hope to teach her child honesty and openly practice dishonesty in her presence. 

Little Lady Pick-Pocket

I know a mother who severely chastised her child for taking money from her purse without permission, and expending it to suit her childish fancy. She punished her, berated her act, and named it theft. And then discoursed on the terrible disgrace of being a thief. She asked the teacher to keep an eye on her to see that she did not appear in school with the fruits of petit larceny about her. How do you suppose this child evolved the notion of appropriating another’s property? I could not but wonder, since she came from a home where funds were ample and the opportunities of a generous allowance were provided her. 

X encouraged the child to make a confidant of me and sought to have her elucidate the problem we were to help her overcome. She explained that she didn't think she was stealing at all since mother took money from father’s pocket-book when he didn’t know it. “And mother,” she suggested, “gets a lot more allowance than I do.” I tried to explain that mother was father’s partner, and that they probably had an understanding regarding the family funds, but the child remained firm and finally said, “Well, just the same they have lots of fights about it, but mother doesn’t stop it.” 

The father confirmed the truth of the child’s statement. This mother was objecting to her own pattern. Where do you suppose she expected her child to get her notion of respect for the property of others? She not only failed to play the game squarely financially herself but subjected the child to the sordid discussions that followed when she picked father’s pockets. It just isn’t possible to be Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde parents. We can’t make one code for ourselves and another for our children. They will insist upon sharing our code. Mother can never hope to teach her child honesty and openly practice dishonesty in her presence. 

Better begin now, mother, to set your child an honest example or you will be shocked in a few years to hear your young daughter say or infer by her attitude that her mother is a hypocrite whose advice she can't afford to take seriously. There is a cure for little lady pick-pocket, mother, and I think it consists in a frank explanation on your part that it is unfair and unwise to take or appropriate the property of another. It doesn’t matter if that person is a member of your own family, and responsible for your care. Why not agree that you will both refrain from a habit that you know leads to unfairness and dishonesty. There’s no disgrace in admitting you were wrong. I think your daughter will respect you all the more if you are sincere and live up to your agreement. – James Samuel Lacy, 1929

 🍽Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette for Calling the Detectives

“New times, new customs—and new developments, must be met and settled once and for all. What the books of etiquette might find a ‘best seller’ feature just now, is the final word as to who is the one to engage the private detective.” Adding in some etiquette for being a thoughtful guest and not stealing items from other guests, is also an excellent subject to address!

Who Calls the Detective When Someone Steals from a Member of the Smart Set?

Need, crying need, exists for definite rulings as to points of good form in our richest and smartest circles. Strange, indeed, that there should be hesitation as to what is quite the correct thing under any and all conditions among the socially elect. But, new times, new customs—and new developments, must be met and settled once and for all. What the books of etiquette might find a “best seller” feature just now, is the final word as to who is the one to engage the private detective. 

Now, don't be alarmed, don't be misled. This is nothing scandalous. Jealousy plays no part in this little meditation on the smart set. But when there is a house party. When things—things of value —disappear. When the others of the house party are all friends tried and true. When the servants are all of the family variety. Who, oh, who, should engage the detectives? Those detectives who ask such questions—my dear, you would hardly believe me if I told you the way those men pry into one’s finer affairs. But the consolation is that you sometimes get the things back that are lost. 

Of course, it was easy to arrange matters when the Crocker pearls and the De Sabla diamonds disappeared. Those were both in hotels, and no one felt any sort of bread and salt scruples. In fact, it was a sort of a contest as to which could get the detectives first. But at the home of a girl you went to school with—or whose husband used to be one of your very best friends—what then? Within the 50 mile circle around the city, not so very long ago, a diamond brooch disappeared. They were very gorgeous diamonds and they disappeared very thoroughly over night. It was a small and intimate house party.

When the loss was realized, the hostess said, “Send down detectives at once.” Only what she did say was “private detectives.” That seems to take the curse off the dreadful publicity of such things. The one-time owner of the diamonds said: “I didn't send down a detective. I don't like to do such a thing in any one’s house. It seems such a liberty. Of course, if she had had one herself, I would not have objected, but I couldn't suggest that.” The hostess said: “So strange she wouldn't send down a detective, but if she didn't do it herself, I felt she had some reason, and I couldn't do anything. I would have been more comfortable if it had been thoroughly sifted.” Then again, a sable muff mysteriously evaded its owner at one of these house parties.

It might have been in San Rafael, or perhaps it was Woodside. Anyway, the muff was gone, and it was of Russian sables, that made the heart of womankind like unto water just to gaze upon it. Again, the hesitation as to the sleuths supplied by an agency or the police department. Again, the hostess and the bereaved guest bowed and urged each other. Some one suggested that it be left to the men of the two families involved. Then there would be no hesitation in the matter. Not so, however. In matters of social form American men are prone to let their womenfolk take the initiative. Neither husband would do anything more definite than say, “I leave it to you, my dear.” Will some social authority step forward and settle the matter? It can't be left to the police. They are concerned merely with the transgressions of social observances, and to decide upon the reverse, would be out of their line of action. But who should engage the detectives? – The San Francisco Call, 1913

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia