DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the workplace, I find myself feeling increasingly disconnected from fellow workers who seem to operate under the precise opposite of my beliefs on proper business behavior.

I've grown up with a rather exaggerated hourglass figure, and have learned to avoid tight clothes for aesthetic reasons. Finding flattering clothes can be a chore, but I've always thought it to be a necessary one. Conversely, they are obviously putting less and less effort into their clothing, as gaps between buttons and too-tight shirts that reveal every line of their undergarments are daily sights. Professional dress should be the norm, not the exception, but displaying it has made me seem the prude of the office. (And in my early 20s, at that!)

Yet again, simple logic doesn't seem to hold, for it's the women who are flashing their bodies that are the heavily religious and conservative ones. To be blunt, I am basically the sort that many of my fellow employees would label a social degenerate, if only by association. They know none of this, because I believe that one's religious, political and social affiliations are best kept to the personal sphere.

This brings me to my problem: because of my conservative dress, many of these women show no hesitation in coming up and spouting beliefs which I find perplexing at best and offensive at worst. Although it's difficult to keep a neutral face, I can usually deflect their attention onto a question about work.

However, this has continued to the point where I internally cringe whenever religion is brought up, and I fear I might start to cringe visibly in short order. I must continue to work with these women, and telling someone that their religious beliefs are offending you is certainly a way to ice over an office.

However, I fear my breaking point is fast approaching. How do I put a permanent lid on their "lighthearted" chats about which segments of society are hell-bound without being too subtle for these unprofessional professionals or being too blunt to allow for a decent workplace environment?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners would have thought it a tremendous advantage for a social degenerate (or a social degenerate once removed) to be thought a prude. Perhaps what you need is to seem more of a prude.

At the next approach of a lewdly-dressed proselytizer, try casting your eyes down and mumbling, "Oh, I can't talk about God. I'm sorry, I just can't."

After two or three reiterations of "I just can't," the suspicion will arise that your beliefs are as buttoned up as your clothes. Miss Manners is counting on their fleeing when it occurs to them that you might expect them to observe the same strict standard.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am curious what is the proper place for one to lay a paper (as opposed to a cloth) napkin when one is eating. I've often felt that paper napkins are to be placed in one's lap, while some believe it's OK to leave the paper napkin on the table while eating. I would like to have your insight into this so I can be sure that I am doing this properly.

GENTLE READER: Because etiquette cannot bear to think of paper napkins, it has no special rules for them. For example, it is probably not a good idea to wash and iron them, but there is no rule against it.

So Miss Manners is afraid that you are going to have to put the silly thing on your lap. A soiled paper napkin on the table would look even worse than a soiled cloth one.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I happen to be very good at remembering names and faces of people to whom I have been introduced before. I have noticed, however, that this is not a universal trait.

If you are introduced to someone or if someone comes up and introduces themselves to you, and you distinctly remember having met them before, what is the proper response? Do you play along and act as though you are indeed meeting them for the first time, or is there a gentle way of letting them know that you have met before without leaving them feeling embarrassed for not remembering you?

GENTLE READER: Have you considered running for public office? Being able to remember people's names is gold for politicians, and if you won, you might not have the problem of people's not remembering yours.

Miss Manners also has a less strenuous and less expensive way for you to help your less fortunate fellow citizens. That is to advance on them announcing your name and where you met, giving them the opportunity to say, "Yes, yes, of course," just as if they had remembered.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What happened to the "rule" that said family members do not host bridal or baby showers?

GENTLE READER: Nothing happened to the rule; it's still there. It is the sense that it is cheeky to ask for presents for your relatives that something happened to.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is the proper etiquette for a mother who is insufferable?

Currently my father is ill and all the talk is what my mother had to suffer -- how much she stayed up late, how far she had to drive -- along with the running commentary, while my father is gravely ill, of how fat all my sisters and I are, what color nail polish we are using, what we are wearing, etc.

Worse than that is her belief that her "thinking" made him well (vs. any efforts by doctors and medications) -- her rudeness and threatening of hospital personnel, her refusal to have any religious personnel present even though my father is a religious man.

This woman abused me as a child constantly and I have no desire to have any relationship with her, particularly not one of further abuse. Anyway, this psycho says she wants me to not have a visit with my father unless I say that her methods are right and no others are necessary.

GENTLE READER: You are asking Miss Manners the wrong question. It should be "What is the proper etiquette toward a father who is gravely ill?"

The answer is to avoid embroiling him in a quarrel with the person who is taking care of him. Insufferable as your mother may be, you point out that you have been suffering her, as it were, for many years. If saying, "Sure, sure, if you say so" a few times more buys you time with your father and relieves him from suffering through a feud, it strikes Miss Manners as the decent thing to do.

:

A horrid burst of euphoria often follows an outburst of rudeness. The offender does his offensive little number and then compounds it by declaring, "I feel better now."

Well, sure. As in the case of other unfortunate bodily emissions, the person who does it feels relieved, while everyone else is suffering from the suddenly poisoned atmosphere.

Miss Manners suffers from this sequence of events even when she is not in the immediate vicinity. That people sometimes lapse from perfect behavior, she is all too aware. But why can't they at least feel ashamed of themselves?

Etiquette is generous in providing ways of dealing with failure to meet its standards. It not only makes allowances for newcomers who are not yet familiar with the particular etiquette forms they are encountering, but requires those who are to help spare them embarrassment.

It even has a mechanism for inexcusable lapses, a form of social whiteout called the apology. This requires some effort. The amount of self-condemnation has to be fitted to the error committed: too little, and the assumption is that the apology is insincere; too much, and the assumption is that the apology is sarcastic.

It is true that sincerity can be simulated, which many regard as a flaw. How can they know if the apologizer is really, really sorry in his heart of hearts?

They can't. But Miss Manners does not regard that as a flaw. Sincerity has its place among the moral virtues, but if everyone's truest feelings about everyone else were constantly being made obvious, civilization would collapse. Even the kindest of souls occasionally harbor unkind thoughts, but if they can plausibly deny them, no harm is done. To apologize is to recognize the legitimacy of the complaint, and usually that is all it takes to restore peace.

All the same, Miss Manners counts on a smidgeon of commitment to the notion that peacefulness is desirable, and that therefore one should refrain from actions that rile up others. And she counts on a conscience that produces a bad feeling, rather than a triumphant one, when one is guilty of such an action.

Unfortunately, there was a time, not so long in the past, when the society exerted itself to drum out these qualities. It condemned feelings of guilt, hardly bothering to distinguish between irrational ones and the valuable mechanism by which wrongdoers punish themselves. It deemed it courageous to say provocative things bluntly, with the misleading expectation that insults would be appreciated if they represented honest feelings. It promised health benefits to getting unpleasant things off one's chest, without considering that other people were then getting them in the face.

This was a sort of reverse child-rearing, teaching adults to forgo inhibitions and come straight out with -- anything at all. It did not work out well. After all, there are still thoughts that are socially unacceptable, and you have to learn to control them.

You may have an occasional accident. In that case, excuse yourself, clean up as best you can, and for goodness' sake don't point to it with pride.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: While dining out I asked myself and my dinner companion what would be the proper time during the meal to offer a taste to the other party? Would it be immediately, following the first bite, midway through the meal, or at the end?

GENTLE READER: All three are possible with the right dinner companion, but each has a different meaning.

An offer made after your first taste means, "This is wonderful, and I'd like you to share it." Offered mid-meal, it means, "Aren't you going to offer me some of what you're eating?" And at the end it means, "Here, why don't you have this; I can't finish it."

Miss Manners does not advise the second with any but an intimate friend, and the third with any but a spouse.

: