Miss Manners^®

DEAR MISS MANNERS: The tradition of Christmas cards is slipping away: We have no time to write them, it costs too much to send them, and they are ultimately thrown into a landfill. Somebody has suggested a telephone call to everyone on the Christmas card list, observing "people will enjoy it more" and the money would be put to use elsewhere.

All true, as far as it goes, but a couple of points in favor of an old-fashioned, pretty card:

One of the joys my brothers and I share when we visit our parents during the holidays is a leisurely browse through the holiday cards they receive. A phone call would be nice -- but the card touches more than the person who answers the phone. Many old family friends and even relatives don't stay in regular touch with the extended family -- but Mom and Dad will get cards from out-of-town great-aunts, etc., who we rarely hear from except at Christmastime. Even the much-derided "mass letter" is a treat (I think the derision comes from cynics who don't want to write them, more than folks who don't want to read them).

On the other hand, folks who only send cards to people who send THEM cards should probably stop sending any cards at all. If holiday greetings are meted out as rewards for good behavior, they're a little insincere, aren't they? Or am I just lost in Irving Berlin Land?

GENTLE READER: You were fine until you got to the part about it being insincere to stop pouring greetings into a void. Miss Manners, who practices charity toward all, assumes that one can be sincere and even jolly-spirited without feeling the urge to spread greetings to people who never greet back. Even those people might be sincere, jolly-spirited folk who are racking their brains trying to remember who their greeters are.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: All our sons are married and I want to write out one Christmas check to each couple, addressed to "Mr. and Mrs." My wife has insisted that we give the sons a check addressed to them individually and that we write a separate -- and substantially smaller -- check (totaling about 4 percent of what we gave the boys) to each of their wives.

Since all the boys are happily married and we know the money will go into one pot, I don't understand why we would send a separate check that carried with it a potentially insulting or belittling message. My wife argues that since it all went into one pot, it didn't make a difference.

I believe it does make a difference. After all, she does not work outside the home, but I would never suggest that the gift was just from me, since I, technically, earned the money. Although the couples each end up with $200 more when we take my wife's approach, I feel that writing just one check to the couple is, ultimately, more generous. What is your opinion?

GENTLE READER: That if your sons are happily married, you should not behave as if you were worried that the daughters-in-law could get their hands on the money in defiance of their husbands or in divorce settlements. What Miss Manners finds worse is the clear statement of worth you assign your sons, and the discounted rate you put on their wives.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Are you aware the use of word "lady" is sexist? One reason is that it refers to prostitution. I cringe when I hear congresspersons use the word ("congresslady," etc.).

I am also disenchanted when I see it from your readers and you don't point out the sexist connotation of the word. I believe you have used this term before and that got me to wonder if you have used it in addressing women.

I was not aware that it was a sexist word until I attended a business management class called "Women in Management." It was one of the best courses I have ever attended. What do you think?

GENTLE READER: That it did a fine job of spreading sexism. Have you ever noticed how titles for females that start out as forms of respect, such as "mistress" and "madam," pick up smutty connotations, while the equivalent male ones, like "mister" and "sir," remain dignified?

Your attempt to besmirch the word "lady" suggests that you are no gentleman.

"Lady" and "gentleman" are used in place of "woman" and "man" when there is the intent to indicate respect, as when a speaker addresses his audience as "ladies and gentlemen," or refinement, as when the point is made that a certain person is "a real lady" or "always a gentleman."

Miss Manners, like Congress, keeps using it to encourage a high level of behavior even when it seems unlikely. She is not going to stop.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Thanksgiving was held at my sister's home with all the family. Most of the people there were disappointed in the preparation of the mashed potatoes and gravy. My sister decided since she was dieting, everyone would have to eat them that way.

I feel this is rude. I think she should also have had these foods made the natural way for people who did not want to eat diet versions.

When mentioning it to my sister, she didn't think she was rude at all, after all it's "her house" and she can do what she wants. I don't feel she has the right to make dieting decisions for others because she is dieting. What do you think?

GENTLE READER: That it is not the mashed potatoes. Mashed potatoes, however bad they may be, never rise to the dignity of being one of life's major disappointments.

Goodness knows that Miss Manners is used to hearing people use nonsensical pretexts for squabbling while claiming that they are only interested in upholding etiquette. There is no other explanation for the etiquette hysteria of people involved in weddings, when they show no previous or subsequent interest in the subject.

And that is another occasion of which it is often claimed that one person can do whatever she wants to do.

That is never quite right. The hostess should exercise her taste in doing the planning, but it should take into consideration what might please her guests. Guests are sometimes grateful that everything is not as fattening as possible, and you have not convinced Miss Manners that your sister knowingly palmed off something she knew would displease.

Nor have you told Miss Manners what the antagonism between you is really about.

:

It's not just less blessed to receive, a sizeable minority of Miss Manners' Gentle Readers claim. It's a downright nuisance.

While she is kept busy chastising the greedy for their blatant demands, the background hums with G.R. grumbles:

-- "My home has slowly become totally cluttered and overrun with a vast array of crafty, cutesy, tasteless decorative items and accessories given as gifts. I am running out of room, I no longer enjoy the way my home looks, and gift-giving season is upon us."

-- "For years now, my aunt has persisted in giving me bath oils and salts, chocolates and new-age music. I am allergic to chocolates and perfumes, and I find nature recordings and new-age music generally irritating."

-- "My husband and I boycott items manufactured in a certain country, because these places are notorious for the ill use of their workers, many of whom are underage. We also try to instill in our daughter that Christmas is about love and family and charity and kindness by doing volunteer work and making donations. But every year, we end up at my husband's parents' house and his family gives her far more gifts than she needs, many of them from the precise country we boycott."

-- "My brother decided to present to all his siblings a contribution in their name to a certain charity, unfortunately selecting a charitable organization that my wife and I do not support. Indeed, we oppose its mission and goals, and greatly suspect its management of incompetence, at the very least. My brother knows, as well as he knows his own name, how my wife and I feel about this organization."

-- "We live in a small apartment and have two garbage bags full of stuffed animals already. I have tried to get it across to both sides of the family that the children don't need any more -- I have even suggested storage units as gifts -- and only one person got the hint."

-- "My brother is a minister. Our religious views differ sharply. Each holiday season, he gives my two young children numerous gifts such as books, videos and puzzles, with overly religious messages, which I perceive as an attempt to influence the religious views of my children. I don't want my brother to give them any more such items."

As all of these people swear that they accept graciously whatever they are handed and try not to look crestfallen, Miss Manners is slightly abashed. The gift registry, the gift certificate and gifts of cash would also solve their problems as much as those of the ungraciously greedy.

Miss Manners does not waver in her opposition to the solution of eliminating the elements of thought, symbolism and surprise from presents, and having people simply pay one another for getting through the holidays. But she is feeling responsible for the consequences. What about all that awful, unwanted stuff?

Here is the polite procedure for minimizing the damage.

Hints are in order in advance ("Check out my Web site" is not a hint), as are mutually negotiated deals, such as, "There are so many of us now, why don't we agree to get presents just for the children?"

When those fail, as Gentle Readers testify they so often do, the polite recipient protects the donor from knowing the present was a failure. Thanks, and no complaints. To refuse a present is a high insult, and that includes asking the donor to go exchange it.

However -- here comes the relief -- the donor is equally bound to silence, which means that the present does not have to be used or displayed. (Exceptions are wise when the donor is beloved and close at hand, but these are voluntary.)

This leaves room for returning, giving to charity and re-gifting, none of which is rude if the rule is strictly observed about protecting the donor from knowing. This requires fresh wrappings and logs of who gave what, and a ban on yard sales and re-gifting anywhere near the donor.

And, most of all, it requires an attitude of "I didn't really expect to make a profit on Christmas anyway."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was approached by the sister of a young man (they both work at a local establishment that my husband and I frequent) who was expressing her wish to purchase a rather expensive Christmas present for her brother. Not knowing this girl very well, I told her that it was a very nice gift, but far more than I could ever afford, even for my own husband.

Her response? "Well, I thought I would take donations from everyone here at the restaurant (myself included). That way, I wouldn't have to bear the brunt of the whole thing."

I was FLOORED, and would like to know how to politely respond with "not a chance" when asked for a contribution.

GENTLE READER: "That's very generous, but wouldn't it be too much of a financial burden for you? Because, of course, then you'd be obliged to help all of us buy what we'd like to give."

: