
What if you threw a party tonight?
Parties are, of course, a simple-in-theory way to bring a bunch of people together, but preconceived notions about what these gatherings should be can hamstring us from setting a date in the first place. What if no one shows up? Is my house clean enough? I'm a terrible cook with crappy dinnerware. Is this the most boring party ever? 'There's traditionally been a lot of pressure, especially on women, to be an accomplished host right out the gate,' says Lizzie Post, etiquette expert and co-president at the Emily Post Institute. 'It's a skill that we develop over time.'
Rather than work yourself into a ball of nerves, I propose a humble gathering solution: the come-as-you-are party. Growing up, I heard tales of these impromptu, deliciously fun get-togethers my grandparents pulled together within a few hours in the '70s and '80s. Every so often, the story goes, my grandfather would wake up on a Saturday morning and casually suggest having a party that evening. All day long, my grandparents would call their friends to invite them over later. The only catch: Don't change your clothes, don't shower, and simply show up in whatever you're wearing. Oh, you're painting your kid's bedroom? Well, looks like you're attending a party in paint-splattered coveralls.
The only catch: Don't change your clothes, don't shower, and simply show up in whatever you're wearing.
Perhaps the key to a successful party — and in fact, making sure you throw one at all — is to minimize the amount of time spent agonizing over it. Despite the fact that my grandmother managed to clean the house and prepare enough food for over two dozen guests in a matter of hours, she says the event never caused her anxiety. She loves to cook and if people couldn't come, well, no sweat. 'It was on a Saturday, and there was no stress,' my grandmother told me recently. 'They didn't have to get dressed up. They didn't have to go get their hair done.'
According to Priya Parker, the author of The Art of Gathering: How We Meet and Why It Matters , my grandparents may have hit on something important long before the party recession and decades before the loneliness crisis: Your house will never be clean enough, the decor never perfect enough, the menu never tasty enough, and the timing never ideal enough for a party, so you should just throw one anyway. 'People prefer connection over perfection,' Parker says.
Hanging out with your friends ideally shouldn't feel like drudgery or an obligation. Lower the stakes, and the standards, by hosting a gathering you'd want to attend yourself, Parker says. For my grandparents, that was a low-effort evening where attendees brought their booze of choice and played drinking games all night. Maybe yours is having people over for a Fast & Furious marathon or a brunch party because you're neither a morning person nor a night owl.
Even in an age of overscheduling and burnout, guests are less likely to turn down a low-lift, delightful invitation, Parker says. People can more easily find time to squeeze in an impromptu pasta night when a friend texts 'I have too much basil, come over and eat some pesto!' when all that's required of them is to show up with an appetite. All that's needed is a reason to hang out: According to a 2022 study, the most socially fulfilling parties are ones where there's food and drink as well as a reason for celebrating. 'A huge part of thinking about how [to] gather and not worry about all of these other things,' Parker says, is 'one simple conceit that helps wake up the group, connect the group.'
Try not to let any declines bruise your ego, Post says. It's not about you.
No reason for gathering is too small, says Kelley Gullo Wight, an assistant professor of marketing at Indiana University and the co-author of the 2022 study on celebrations and social support. 'Maybe someone just submitted a big project at work,' she says. 'Maybe someone just did their first yoga class, and that was a hard thing to go do.' Amassing even a small group to revel in the good moments helps to build a social network that will reliably show up when things get rough, too.
Instead of overthinking every possible detail, from aesthetics to entertainment, Post suggests a short checklist of essentials: basic refreshments, a clean-enough space, and a welcoming attitude.
Still, the most hospitable mindset doesn't ensure that people actually show up. With impromptu parties especially, some would-be guests may have other plans. Try not to let any declines bruise your ego, Post says. It's not about you. Sometimes, the invitation alone may be enough to show your friends how much you appreciate them. And if you desire to live in a social environment where your friends prioritize reciprocity, gathering, and inclusion, you might need to make the first move. Soon enough, others may follow your lead.
If you're consistently throwing little shindigs — my grandparents hosted several parties throughout the year — chances are greater that more people can attend. What matters is giving yourself space to spend time with the people you love in whatever way possible. Even if your guests do show up in sweatpants. See More: Advice
Even Better
Friendship
Life
Relationships
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
How the gender education gap is impacting dating
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. More and more women are "marrying down" when it comes to education, said The Atlantic. Marriages had been moving in a "more egalitarian direction" since the mid-20th century, when more women began attending university and entering the job market. But now the trend of women "partnering up with their educational equals" seems to be reversing, with a growing number practicing "hypogamy" – wedding someone of a lower social class or education level. Too picky? Women now outnumber men in higher education in almost all developed countries. In the UK, more women were accepted into university than men for the first time in 1996, and that gap has only grown; in 2024, female students outnumbered male students by 28%, according to government figures. While women's educational advancement is a "cause for celebration", it's also causing "issues" when it comes to heterosexual relationships, said The Independent. There has been an increase in "assortative mating", where people want their potential partners to have the same education level as them, as well as having similar attitudes in areas like politics, personal habits and finances. A 2023 study from the US-based Institute for Family Studies found 45% of single women with a degree said their relationship status was due to an "inability to find someone who met their expectations", said the paper. In her book "Motherhood on Ice: the Mating Gap and Why Women Freeze their Eggs", Yale professor Marcia Inhorn said the women she spoke to were having trouble finding partners who fulfilled the "three 'E's: eligible, educated, equal". And it appears they're not just being "too picky". As part of the study, polling expert Daniel A. Cox surveyed more than 5,000 people, and found his interviews with the male participants "dispiriting"; many were "limited in their ability and willingness to be fully emotionally present and available". 'Romantic pessimism' Women's academic success, coupled with the "male breadwinner norm" that remains a lingering "cultural anchor", gives the "shrinking pool of more successful men tremendous power", said Sarah Bernstein in The New York Times. Social media is "rife with male fantasies", including "beautiful, submissive tradwives" embracing traditional gender roles. But while a small group of rich, successful men are "reaping the benefits", others find themselves struggling to compete in the dating market. "Enter the manosphere", a space filled with "romantic pessimism" and the idea that "modern women are not to be trusted". And women themselves are feeling "similarly despondent" about dating. In fact, according to a study by the Survey Center on American Life, 41% of single people in 2023 had "no interest in dating at all". It's "too soon" to know whether this "gulf in attitudes" among young people today will negatively impact the already "tumbling birth rates", said The Economist. But "early signs are discouraging". Policymakers must tackle the "underlying problems that are driving young men and women apart", starting with figuring out how to make education work for underperforming boys at school. It's not all bad, though. There is some evidence that beliefs are "evolving", said The Atlantic. Christine Schwartz, a sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin, analysed data from the World Values Survey and found that in the countries where hypogamy is more prevalent, people were less likely to agree with the statement "if a woman earns more money than her husband, it's almost certain to cause problems". And while hypogamous marriages used to be more likely than others to end in divorce, recent analyses of marriages in Europe and the US suggests this is "no longer the case". These trends don't necessarily prove a major shift is under way. "But they might offer a reason to be cautiously optimistic about society's ability to adjust to new realities." Solve the daily Crossword


Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Emancipation Day talk to highlight Haldimand's Black history
Free on Friday? Heritage Haldimand invites the public to an Emancipation Day gathering that explores Haldimand County's ties to the Underground Railroad. Emancipation Day refers to the declaration of the end of slavery in the British Empire in 1834. In the United States, some African-Americans fleeing slavery took refuge in Canfield, a hamlet in Haldimand where Black and European settlers lived harmoniously, according to local historian Sylvia Weaver. 'Canfield was a special place,' Weaver told The Spectator in an earlier interview. She described how Black, Scottish and Irish inhabitants 'worked side by side' to clear the land. 'They lived together, went to school together, went to church together,' Weaver said. 'They were all equal and they got along.' The story of one of Ontario's oldest Black settlements is told in ' Canfield Roots, ' a documentary by Haldimand filmmaker Graeme Bachiu. Friday's free Emancipation Day event runs from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Canfield Community Hall at 50 Talbot Rd. The centrepiece of the program is a talk by historian Rochelle Bush, a descendant of Samuel Cooper, the first Black settler to make Haldimand his new home. Bush will tell stories of the Cooper and Street families, some of whom are buried in a historic cemetery in Canfield for Haldimand's earliest Black settlers. In an earlier interview, Bush said the African-Americans who came north to Canfield were authors of their own liberation and should be referred to as 'freedom seekers' rather than runaway or escaped slaves. 'They were self-emancipated (and) found their way to British soil, where they could find freedom,' Bush said. Haldimand's fourth annual Emancipation Day celebration 'serves as an opportunity to reflect on the history of slavery in Canada, acknowledge the contributions of Black Canadians and address ongoing systemic anti-Black racism,' the county said in a press release. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


Atlantic
a day ago
- Atlantic
The Birth of the Attention Economy
This is an edition of Time-Travel Thursdays, a journey through The Atlantic 's archives to contextualize the present. Sign up here. Early in the Civil War, Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. announced in The Atlantic that the necessities of life had been reduced to two things: bread and the newspaper. Trying to keep up with what Holmes called the 'excitements of the time,' civilians lived their days newspaper to newspaper, hanging on the latest reports. Reading anything else felt beside the point. The newspaper was an inescapable force, Holmes wrote; it ruled by 'divine right of its telegraphic dispatches.' Holmes didn't think he was describing some permanent modern condition—information dependency as a way of life. The newspaper's reign would end with the war, he thought. And when it did, he and others could return to more high-minded literary pursuits—such as the book by an 'illustrious author' that he'd put down when hostilities broke out. Nearly 40 years after Holmes wrote those words, newspapers were still on the march. Writing in 1900, Arthur Reed Kimball warned in The Atlantic of an ' Invasion of Journalism,' as newspapers' volume and influence grew only more intense. Their readers' intellect, Kimball argued, had been diminished. Coarse language was corrupting speech and writing, and miscellaneous news was making miscellaneous minds. The newspaper-ification of the American mind was complete. The rise of the cheap, daily newspaper in the 19th century created the first true attention economy—an endless churn of spectacle and sensation that remade how Americans engaged with the world. Although bound by the physical limits of print, early newspaper readers' habits were our habits: People craved novelty, skimmed for the latest, let their attention dart from story to story. And with the onset of this new way of being came its first critics. In our current moment, when readers need to be persuaded to read an article before they post about it online, 19th-century harrumphs over the risks of newspaper reading seem quaint. Each new technology since the newspaper—film, radio, television, computers, the internet, search engines, social media, artificial intelligence—has sparked the same anxieties about how our minds and souls will be changed. Mostly, we've endured. But these anxieties have always hinted at the possibility that one day, we'll reach the endgame—the point at which words and the work of the mind will have become redundant. Worries over journalism's invasive qualities are as old as the modern daily newspaper. In New York, where the American variant first took shape in the 1830s, enterprising editors found a formula for success; they covered fires, murders, swindles, scandals, steamboat explosions, and other acts in the city's daily circus. As James Gordon Bennett Sr., the editor of the New York Herald and the great pioneer of the cheap daily, said, the mission was 'to startle or amuse.' Small in size and packed with tiny type, the papers themselves didn't look particularly amusing, but the newsboys selling them in the street were startling enough. Even if you didn't buy a paper, a boy in rags was going to yell its contents at you. These cheap newspapers had relatively modest urban circulations, but they suggested a new mode of living, an acceleration of time rooted in an expectation of constant novelty. Henry David Thoreau and other contrarians saw the implications and counseled the careful conservation of attention. 'We should treat our minds,' Thoreau wrote in an essay posthumously published in The Atlantic, 'that is, ourselves, as innocent and ingenuous children, whose guardians we are, and be careful what objects and what subjects we thrust on their attention.' This included newspapers. 'Read not the Times,' he urged. 'Read the Eternities.' But the problem was only getting worse. The Eternities were steadily losing ground to the Times—and to the Posts, the Standards, the Gazettes, the Worlds, and the Examiners. In the last third of the 19th century, the volume of printed publications grew exponentially. Even as more 'serious' newspapers such as the New-York Tribune entered the marketplace, the cheap daily continued to sell thousands of copies each day. Newspapers, aided by faster methods of typesetting and by cheaper printing, became twice-daily behemoths, with Sunday editions that could be biblical in length. A British observer marveled at the turn of the century that Americans, 'the busiest people in the world,' had so much time to read each day. American commentators of high and furrowed brow worried less that newspapers were being left unread and more that they were actually being devoured. The evidence was everywhere—in snappier sermons on Sundays, in direct and terse orations at colleges, in colloquial expressions in everyday usage, in the declining influence of certain journals and magazines (including The Atlantic). If I may apply what Kimball deplored as 'newspaper directness,' people seemed to be getting dumber. Those who were reared on slop and swill wanted ever more slop and swill—and the newspapers were all too ready to administer twice-daily feedings. Writing in The Atlantic in 1891 on the subject of ' Journalism and Literature,' William James Stillman saw a broad and 'devastating influence of the daily paper' on Americans' 'mental development.' No less grave were the political implications of a populace marinating in half-truths, seeking the general confirmation of what it already believed. In such a market, journalists and their papers had an incentive to perpetuate falsehoods. Was all of this hand-wringing a little too much? Has not one generation predicted the doom of the next with each successive innovation? Socrates warned that writing would weaken thought and give only the appearance of wisdom. Eighteenth-century novels occasioned panic as critics worried that their readers would waste their days on vulgar fictions. And as for newspapers, didn't Ernest Hemingway famously take 'newspaper directness' and make it the basis for perhaps the most influential literary style of the 20th century? Each innovation, even those that risk dimming our broader mental capacity, can stimulate innovations of its own. But at the risk of sounding like those 19th-century critics, this time really does seem different. When machines can so agreeably perform all of our intellectual labors and even fulfill our emotional needs, we should wonder what will become of our minds. No one has to spend much time imagining what we might like to read or pretend to read; algorithms already know. Chatbots, meanwhile, can as readily make our emails sound like Hemingway as they can instruct us on how to perform devil worship and self-mutilation. Thoreau may have never divined the possibility of artificial intelligence, but he did fear minds smoothed out by triviality and ease. He imagined the intellect as a road being paved over—' macadamized,' in 19th-century parlance—'its foundation broken into fragments for the wheels of travel to roll over.' 'If I am to be a thoroughfare,' Thoreau wrote, 'I prefer that it be of the mountain-brooks, the Parnassian streams, and not the town-sewers.'