I already bitched about this on Facebook today, but I would like to bitch about it to a wider audience.
Let’s say that you are inviting a bunch of people to a party (not a wedding, not some sort of exclusive event meant for an intimate circle – just a run-of-the-mill party), and you are fine with those being invited bringing a guest. And let’s say it’s a group-style invitation, so the invitation is not personally addressed to each and every person on the guest list, but rather to all the people being invited. Here are your options:
A. Say nothing. Since everybody is a grown-up (and since those on the guest list have socialized together at similar events frequently, and this has always been the case), it’s fair to assume people will feel free to bring a person along. I mean, this isn’t a grade-school birthday party, nor is it a middle-school sleep-over. It’s not a dinner party. When aren’t you allowed to bring a guest to an adult-style event like this?
B. Spouses are welcome!
C. Spouses/Partners are welcome!
D. Feel free to bring a guest!
Ok, so A is probably lazy, and probably Miss Manners wouldn’t approve. (I’ll admit that I don’t hate A, though, as an option, since the kind of entertaining I do is usually very specific – like a dinner party, so everybody is very clear about who exactly is invited – or very general – like an open house, where it’s clear anybody and everybody, even a random hobo from down the road, could attend.)
D is grand. “Guest” is neutral and inclusive, and while, sure, people who have spouses/partners might choose to invite them, they aren’t obligated to do so – indeed, they might bring another person along, since you know, people who are married or partnered do have relationships with people other than their spouses/partners – and people without spouses/partners won’t feel like they aren’t “allowed” to bring a guest, you know, because they don’t happen to be in a long-term, serious, committed, sanctioned-by-the-invitation relationship. Also, “feel free to bring a guest” indicates you can only bring one person, so things wouldn’t get all crazy out of control with the number of people, should that be a concern (though again, we are adults, and who would bring 10 people to somebody’s party?). While I suppose some weirdo might interpret “guest” to mean “I’ll bring my unruly toddler!” (when the event won’t be kid-friendly) or “I’ll bring my dog!” or “I’ll bring a criminal!” I am going to go out on a limb and say that when you send out the invite, you have a pretty big clue if you know people like that, and you can contact them individually if you don’t want that to happen.
C is the wrong answer. It’s slightly preferable to B in terms of political correctness, in that we don’t live in the neck of the woods where all people can legally marry and in that not all people believe in marriage as an institution or whatever, but let’s also note that not a single person who will attend this event – gay or straight – requires this politically correct courtesy. B is not more inclusive: it’s disingenuous.
B is, I would hope obviously, the wrong answer. Unless of course everybody invited has a spouse, in which case, what sort of people only socialize with married people? Seriously: do some people just refuse to socialize with all single people, all divorced people, all widowed people? SERIOUSLY?
So, dear readers, if you are throwing a party, please just say that people can invite “a guest.” That is totally the way to make everybody comfortable, and it will get you your desired result.
***
What is perhaps ironic and hilarious about my righteous indignation about this issue and invitation at this particular moment is that I actually am bringing a “plus one” to this event, something I have not done in the historical record of my life. But he is not my spouse and he is not my partner! Don’t fence me in! It’s just a miracle that neither of us has broken up with the other yet! It’s been 7 months, people! That’s like an eternity! And it could end any minute! ANY MINUTE!
I mean, it probably won’t, but let’s not count our chickens before they hatch. And both of us are skittish about the future, and we don’t need any undue pressure!
But with that being said, you might be wondering why I’m bringing The Dude, given my thoughts about this matter. Honestly, I didn’t intend to bring him. I invited him in the first place because the person/people for whom this party is being thrown said they would like for him to be there. And the way I invited him was in a text, basically just saying, “FYI, this event is coming up, and CC would like if you’re there, but I made no promises. Remind me we should talk about it.” I’d have been fine if he weren’t into it. I expected him to ask questions. But then he was all, without discussing it, in a text, “Oh, I’m fine with going to that!”
With that response, I couldn’t resist taking him at his word, mainly because I know if I told him more about it he would beg off (because it’s kind of a work thing). And he probably does need to go to an event with these people at least once, and this is probably the only way I’ll get him to such an event (he is firmly against work things, but what he doesn’t understand is that in the life of an academic, work things are more like family/friend things, and not like the company Christmas party). And it won’t kill him, and it will entertain me to see how he handles my colleagues. And I will get to leave earlier if it’s lame than I would get to leave if he didn’t come with. Note: if this weren’t for CC and CCM (CC’s Man), I would not even have invited him, given our previous conversations about his aversion to “work socializing.” I’m not an asshole who wants to force The Dude into going to events that I don’t even want to attend. And he does like CC and CCM, and I know he wants to celebrate their upcoming marriage (which is what this party is for).
The other, secondary, reason why I sort of want for him to come to this is that beyond meeting CC and CCM and my parents, The Dude has not met my people or spent time with them. Now, part of that is the logistics of the fact that my best friends span the nation – indeed, the globe – and my family lives four hours away. As time passes with us, sure, he’s going to meet more of the people, but it’s also the case that I don’t live in my hometown, and that makes a difference to how all this works.
In contrast, I’m apparently now a permanent fixture at his parents’ house (we’ve had dinner there 3 of the 4 past Sundays), I’ve met and spent time with his whole family, I’ve met and spent time with his close friends…. Look, I like that I know his people. I like that they like me! I like that I like them! But you know what? If this is going to go forward, he needs to understand that in some ways, though probably not the most important ones, my colleagues are my “local people.” And just like I am going to go over his parents’ for a cook-out on the Fourth, and hang out with them and him and his brother and sister-in-law and his nephew and nieces, and just like I’m going to go over to his grandma’s the Sunday after for breakfast and to watch Wimbledon, he is going to go to a party with my colleagues, every now and again. (1. It’s strange introducing a person to academic culture. 2. It’s strange being incorporated into somebody else’s family, after having avoided that for the 22 years I’ve been actively dating – seriously, I’ve never allowed this to happen, even when I was in high school.)
So how will The Dude handle being thrown into the deep end of a “Department Party”? Honestly, I think he’ll be great, but I also think he’ll be slightly pissed off at me for not giving him more of a heads up. But you know what? It’s time. And I do promise I won’t make him go to these things every time they happen (which is at most two or three time a year), and I feel like that’s a pretty good deal, when I apparently go to his parents’ for dinner every Sunday.
***
But at the end of the day, I was pissed about the “spouse/partner” sort of invitation when I didn’t have a boyfriend – manfriend? – and I am still pissed about it now. I feel slightly better after the passive-aggressive rsvp I sent to the invitation, but not much. At the end of the day, just as I said at the end of my last post, “But you know what? SCREW that. I am a person. And I have my own fucking agenda.” And GOD is it annoying to me when people don’t treat me like a person in my own right – and that’s exactly why the whole “bring a spouse or partner” thing bothers me so much. And I think it would bother me even if I were spoused or partnered. BECAUSE I WOULD STILL BE A PERSON IN MY OWN RIGHT IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
Reassigned Time 2.0 
Our invitations use the phrase “you and your spouses/partners/whatevers”. Does that piss you offe?
No! The addition of “whatevers” makes it ok! My issue is that not everybody has a spouse/partner. EVERYBODY has a “whatever”!
“D” is the best option, and “A” seems unexceptionable, but “B” and C” are appalling, particularly if the party is in any way a “department party”—if the social event is to some small degree a professional event. The term “whatever” fails to redeem the earlier “spouse” or “partner” because the writer seems to imply that the three possibilities are analogous, and so “whatever” means “a person who is spouselike in at least one respect.” I think it is wrong even to indicate that invitees should not bring a guest unless the guest is “significant” to them.
Oh, see, ELP, I took the “whatever” option as the “get out of jail free” of heteronormativity-marriage-industrial-complex-partner-centric shit. I saw “whatever” as “whomever” – whomever you’d like to bring. All that said, “guest” is SO much more of a neutral option, not open to unhappy interpretations. That said, I’d love to have had a “whatever” option on this invitation, as what I have is a “whatever”!
Amen to the strangeness of introducing a non-academic to academic culture! My partner’s not an academic nor does ze have any interest in academia and struggles to be OK with (even after 10 years together) the fact that my people here are in most ways my work people. Thanks for articulating that so clearly!
Don’t be so sure that people won’t bring their children unless you specifically say that it’s an adults-only kind of thing, or start the party at 7 p. or something like that. (Even then, with some people, you never can tell. I’ve seen kids dragged to all kinds of inappropriate events in the past 15 years.)
I think it’s obnoxious to bring anyone who was not invited to the party or specifically included in the “feel free to bring a guest/plus-one/whatevs” clause. But, there are some families who apparently never spend any non-work time away from each other, even bringing children to clearly adult-oriented gatherings. This happens even when the host doesn’t have children–something I find jaw-droppingly presumptuous. (Has no parent today ever heard of the quaint custom called “babysitting?” And spare me, please, the lectures about how hard-to-find or expensive they are.)
Hosts want their guests to have a good time, and their guests won’t have a good time if they don’t follow the instructions on the invitation & instead bring children to a party where the children will be bored to death/in the way/exposed to inappropriate entertainment. You are being a good host if you issue an invitation that makes it clear as to the kind of party it is & the kind of person who will enjoy the event. (I vote for D.)
I love you and all the commenters. My department norm is totally of the “you and spouse/partner” sort and I have the same reaction. The kid issue is tricky for me – this may just be my kid-free guilt paranoia in seeming un-kid-friendly to a married-couple/young-kid heavy department. It’s great to have some kid friendly events, but some kid-free events are good too.
(I once had a good friend bring a dog to a party in my no-dogs-allowed apartment. I did not know what to do with that).
Well, you know, babysitters are expensive and more difficult than you’d think to engage but I think there’s an equal chance what’s happening is a clash of expectations in terms of what’s an appropriate moment to bring children.
I actually don’t think specifically inviting spouses would deter a person from bringing the kids. To the contrary, I never bring my spouse to such things because I have children and dammit if babysitters aren’t in fact expensive and kind of hard to find. If I were bringing my spouse, there’s a greater chance I’d also bring the children. Except I wouldn’t because I am all about the chances to get out without the children.
No, I think the folks in question really thought they’d covered it with partners. Spouse suggests legal relationship. Partner is your catchall. And I do rather suspect that they meant to invite you and the people closest to you, not you and your new friend from yoga class. I guess I get why they wouldn’t have thought to simply put guest. They aren’t asking (or demanding) that you bring a date for the sake of having one and they aren’t necessarily looking to have a bunch of extraneous people there. Just our department and the people who are close to them. In which case, I support the “whatevers” amendment. In my grad dept, the invites always said “spouses/partners/others welcome.” I do think that’s different from “feel free to bring a guest.”
I tend to do very casual get togethers, either pot lucks, or dinners before campus theater/concert stuff, so I usually say something along the lines of “please invite friends, partners, and loved ones.” It seems to work out well.
I hate the departmental “everyone’s married or should be” socializing, and usually avoid those things.
Awesome……..Just Awesome Share.I love it.Looking forward for more.Alex,Thanks.
Wow, I’m glad I don’t have to go to parties with judgmental people. Bardiac, “loved ones” is also presumptuous! How dare you find that acceptable? Partner, in fact, could be “partner-in-crime” or “business partner”, but loved one, no, that assumes something.
I did go to a lovely party on Saturday that started at 7pm and specifically invited children. When it isn’t clear if children are invited or not, I ask, and if they aren’t then either we don’t go or only one of us goes. We usually don’t particularly want to go to the parties that are adult-only anyway as they tend to be thrown by people we don’t particularly like but have to socialize with anyway.
And agreed with Anastasia… not every party giver wants to meet your new friend from yoga class. It’s socially acceptable to exclude kids, but not socially acceptable to exclude marital partners and other romantic partners. Perhaps they would if they could.
We, of course, solve this social conundrum by not having parties. Then we don’t have to deal with silent judgment from people who have been offended by how we addressed the invitations.
That comment was less civil than it needed to be. Sorry about that. Of course you have every right to feel offended by what you consider to be non-inclusive language. And you have every right to not bring a partner (whatever partner means) or to specifically not invite children to a party.
Of course, people also have the right to not invite strangers into their homes, and “and guest” can include all sorts of people that a person just met, not just the new yoga friend who is probably harmless.
For what it’s worth, my judgment about this wasn’t silent. In my rsvp I highlighted that I would be bringing a guest who was neither my spouse nor partner. And, for what it’s worth, “partner” is pretty explicitly a term for a spouse-like person. It isn’t the equivalent of “friend” or “significant other” or some other relationship. Seriously: just ask some of your single friends, if you’ve got them. “Partner” does not have a flexible meaning. Nobody uses it as “partner in crime” or “business partner” in this context. NOBODY.
It’s also worth noting that I know the people who are doing the inviting, and have known them for many years. This isn’t about them not wanting strangers in their homes, nor is it about trying to prevent people from bringing kids or animals or something. (Honestly, I think kids and animals would be encouraged… and strangers probably would be ok too). It’s about a certain kind of obliviousness that assumes that “married” is a default identity for grown-up people. And it’s not like I can just not be friends with these people or not go to their events because, again, it’s kind of a work thing. If it weren’t work-related, then yes, probably I should just quit my bitching and choose the people with whom I socialize more carefully. But, frankly, since it IS work-related, AND NOT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE MARRIED OR PARTNERED UP AND IT WAS ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO WERE INVITED TO THIS THING, I think I have every right to be peeved. Sorry to get shouty.
nicoleandmaggie, you acknowledge the need for inclusive language, but you think this need has little or no force if the hosts were not obliged to have the party (that is, if it is a *party*). This does not follow.
“We, of course, solve this social conundrum by not having parties. Then we don’t have to deal with silent judgment from people who have been offended by how we addressed the invitations.”
Then you’ll also be invited to fewer parties, but it sounds like that’s OK with you since you don’t like them much, anyway! Reciprocation is at the heart of sociability, and generosity is called for among both hosts and guests alike.
The spouse and I have thrown a backyard party each of the past two years for colleagues and other academic friends in the area, and I believe my email says: “children, spouses, partners, BFFs, all welcome–as is anyone I might inadvertently have left off this list.” Point is, anyone you think you might want to bring, who’d have a good time and/or make you feel more comfortable by being there? That’s cool! Bring that person!
My feeling is, make it easy on everyone. Let them know they’re welcome, and that it’s not a party JUST for those with one specific kind of domestic arrangement.
I typically say “Friends and/or family are welcome!”
I haven’t been “partnered” for about 15 years and I’ve never been even slightly offended by the “spouses/partners” section of invites. YMMV (and clearly does vary!) but it always seemed appropriate for people to ask to meet the people their colleagues (or whatever) are closest to. But then I know some people are uncomfortable going to parties by themselves; I have one colleague who feels that way and used to bring a “non-spouse/partner” friend to department parties.
On the rare occasions I throw medium-size parties (I’m more of a dinner party hostess) I probably do some form of D, though.
You know, this is the thing. I’m not really so much offended by it as annoyed by it. Remember, I’m an English professor, and the people issuing this invite are English professors. Words tend to matter to people like us. So what’s annoying about it more than anything is that people who are *experts in language* are thoughtless about words and what they mean.
It’s also worth noting that I’m more annoyed by it now that I actually want to bring somebody to one of these goddamned events (which really are sort of awful) than in the past, where I always just rolled solo. I know it’s “time” to bring The Dude around, but I also know that we are in no way “partners” or “married.” So some of this is about my anxiety about bringing him around, and my fears about how people will treat him/us/me, and not about the invitation… so much as what the invitation will “mean” in terms of how he/we/I are evaluated socially. (Seriously, my department is kinda marriage-happy, and I’m not really interested in people speculating about my ring finger. If I were to get married, I honestly would not tell the people in my department until after the fact, in part because of how I’ve seen them react to other people’s announcements of engagement.)
With all of that being said, though, I do think there are better ways to indicate who is welcome to attend something, and I do object to “married/partnered” as a default assumption for adult-style people’s identities. Seriously: it’s just unnecessary, and also kinda stupid when so many people, for so many different reasons, aren’t in traditional married-style relationships.
This is a bunch of interesting cultural nuances going on here, because it my circles in the UK at least, ‘partner’ is pretty much code for ‘Plus one’, ie if I got an invite saying FA + Partner, I wouldn’t feel obliged to bring my spouse but anyone who I fancied (and who was otherwise socially appropriate for the event). They wouldn’t need to be particularly BFFs or anything. As a result of this, my sis in her wedding invite did not give the ‘partner’ option, as she didn’t want any ‘randoms’ as she put it. Invites were sent to named individuals (if as couples, Bill and Ben, or family groups, ie to Jill, Jack, Penny and Peter), and the only people who got the ‘plus partner’ were the few individuals who weren’t part of other networks and so wouldn’t have friends there to socialise with. There was no expectation that the ‘partner’ was in fact a partner; indeed in all cases it explicitly involved people who didn’t have partners, hence couldn’t have them invited by name.
In Australia, from what I can gather this also appears to be largely true but there can be some clashes on this issue. So, Mr FA’s colleague recently got married and was upset because a guest had interpreted the ‘and partner’ to mean ‘a friend’, as his actual partner wasn’t available.