Miss Manners Rescues Civilization

“The tiniest custom may offer a glimpse into how a mannerly concept, such as fairness, has been translated into behavior,” she writes. “Tradition is what gives a society meaning and the rules by which it lives are what make it work.” — Miss Manners

Handling More Than Mere Manners 

From Sexual Harassment, Frivolous Lawsuits, Dissing : and Other Lapses in Civility by Judith Martin

A Book Review

“Miss Manners insists on the E-word,” writes Judith Martin in “Miss Manners Rescues Civilization,” the latest in her long-running series of lighthearted lessons in behaving well in our benighted world.

The “E-word,” of course, is etiquette, and etiquette has long been a highly lucrative enterprise for Martin. Why, she has even registered “Miss Manners” as a trademark, and a federal trademark symbol is neatly affixed to the famous name on the cover of her book.

Still, Martin’s seriocomic approach to good manners conceals an earnest interest in what defines and preserves a civilization against decadence and decline. Much of what Martin writes is actually a kind of study in cultural anthropology, even if she dresses up her field notes with artful parody and self-deprecating humor.

“The tiniest custom may offer a glimpse into how a mannerly concept, such as fairness, has been translated into behavior,” she writes. “Tradition is what gives a society meaning and the rules by which it lives are what make it work.”

As she sets up and knocks down straw men, debating with carping letter-writers and always getting in the last word, we realize that Martin is passionately interested in the weightiest and most urgent issues in our troubled world— class hatred, senseless acts of violence, the struggle for social justice, the search for enlightenment and fulfillment. In that sense, the title of her book (like the book itself) only appears to be satirical.

So Martin ponders when it is appropriate to wear hats or white shoes or black tie; she pontificates on the correct way to address a former president; she protests against putting on make-up in public. But she also makes a convincing case for the proposition that good manners can be a matter of life and death.

“Miss Manners may be used to a certain loneliness in her devotion to etiquette as the basic force of civilization, but when a disaster occurs, she has plenty of company,” writes Martin. “After the bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City, large and small acts of consideration, thoughtfulness and kindness abounded.”

Indeed, there is literally no arena of moral controversy into which she hesitates to wander, no form of human encounter too bizarre to baffle her sense of right and wrong. Miss Manners instructs a ninth-grader on how to conduct a decorous argument on the subject of abortion; she counsels a woman whose waist-length hair attracts fondling by strangers to call the cops; she opines on the proper degree of decorum in dealing with a former neighbor who once molested a reader’s daughter.

Here and there, Martin bulks up her book with questions so dunderheaded and answers so predictable that one suspects she is simply running out of material for yet another book. “Is it ever appropriate to give one the finger?” one reader asks in apparent innocence. “Certainly not,” says the unflappable Miss Manners, surprising no one at all.

More often, though, Miss Manners finds herself drawn into the role of defining, rather than reporting on, the fast-changing standards of etiquette, a role she clearly savors and performs especially well. After all, what does the traditional rule of etiquette tell us about how to deal with a neighbor who watches pornographic movies with the window blinds wide open, or the mourner who brings his video cam to a funeral?

“It seems to Miss Manners that you are showing far too much interest in the nature of your neighbor’s habits,” Miss Manners scolds one reader, and the other reader she comforts: “To film weeping mourners is an appalling intrusion on their privacy.”

Behind the mask of Miss Manners lurks a subtle parodist named Judith Martin, and deep inside Judith Martin beats the heart of a an authentic visionary who is enraptured by the prospect of a world characterized by social equality and social justice. The fact that she uses the “E-word” to characterize her faintly utopian vision— and the fact that she uses such sly good humor in describing it— makes the whole enterprise no less stirring. — By Jonathan Kirsch, Special to the Times, 1996

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

Etiquette and Physical Appearance

It’s your wedding, “but etiquette does not have rules for the more personal aspects of one’s appearance… Please try to remember that you want your brother to be part of your wedding because you love him, not for his looks.”

DEAR MISS MANNERS - My wedding will be quiet, elegant and 

simple, and I would like my brother to be in the wedding party. But he is a professional musician, with spiked and shaved hair, and would be a sight to behold at our formal service.

He says he can’t and won’t change his hair; it’s part of his professional business. I love my brother, but his appearance would be such a strange sight, really ruining the image I would like. Please advise.


GENTLE READER - You probably didn't expect a defense of wearing spiked hair to candlelight weddings, did you? The rule of etiquette extends to setting the general standard of dress for a social occasion, and if he demanded to wear whatever his stage costume is (Miss Manners would prefer not to imagine that), you would be within your rights to insist that he wear dress proper to a member of the wedding party.

But etiquette does not have rules for the more personal aspects of one's appearance. For instance, you could not reasonably require all your bridesmaids to adopt the same hairstyle, even though you are having them dress alike. Please try to remember that you want your brother to be part of your wedding because you love him, not for his looks. – Miss Manners, aka Judith Martin, 1987

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor of the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Politically Correct vs Polite Etiquette

The usual defense by those who express nastiness is that they are being frank and honest about what they think. As indeed they are. But that does not make their spoken opinions any less nasty.

Miss Manners: What's the difference between politically incorrect and rude?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the light of rude comments made by political candidates under the guise of not being politically correct, could you please explain how to be polite without being politically correct?

GENTLE READER: Good question. As modern usage of the term "politically correct" has meant refraining from delivering wholesale insults to groups of people, that would be difficult.

The usual defense by those who express nastiness is that they are being frank and honest about what they think. As indeed they are. But that does not make their spoken opinions any less nasty.

When much of the public stopped tolerating hate talk, Miss Manners was thrilled. It became her favorite counterexample to those who believe that etiquette has steadily deteriorated since the days of King Arthur or at least their own vaguely remembered childhoods.

But now this tremendous advance is being threatened by both detractors and supporters of political correctness.

Those who scorn the term declare that political correctness is a danger to our constitutional right to free speech, which Miss Manners, like all Americans, holds sacred. No, it is not. Surely you have noticed that lots of people are exercising their legal right to spew obnoxious thoughts, and there are no legal reprisals. Etiquette relies on voluntary compliance.

True, there are social reprisals. Those who seize their right to be offensive should not be shocked that others take offense.

But name-calling is not conducive to debate. All serious arenas of conflict — legislatures, courtrooms, athletic contests — have rules against this. That is necessary because holding opposing goals and debating actual issues require treating opponents with respect.

Yet even that has been perverted by some of the proponents of political correctness. An aggressive form of what calls itself sensitivity — and yet attacks people for perceived slights when clearly none were intended — is, itself, insensitive to the point of rudeness.

Miss Manners is particularly discouraged when such people try to extend the ban on bigotry to cover topics they might find upsetting, even for reasons of private experience. This would reduce meaningful discourse to universally approved issues, presuming that such things existed.

What these critics and proponents of political correctness have in common, besides an ugly presumption of ill-will in others, is an inability to imagine, much less strive for, a civilized society in which sincerely held differences can be safely aired.

The resulting confusion is that many people deplore political correctness when they only mean to declare that they support the principle of free speech and dislike arrogance disguised as sensitivity.

That blanket condemnation puts them in the position of defending cruelty, vulgarity and bigotry. So she suggests that everyone take a look at the content of what is said in the name of eschewing political correctness — is it expressing something nasty? — and judge political candidates accordingly. – By Judith Martin, Nicholas Ivor Martin and Jacobina Martin, United Feature Syndicate, February, 2016

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

Etiquette and Meals on a Tray

“Etiquette may have been forced to recognize the buffet dinner, which is barely this side of the border that separates civilization from chaos, but it does not require any human being to use a knife and fork to attack a plate supported only by his own bedridden lap.” ~ Lady Mary of Downton Abbey, enjoying breakfast on a sturdy legged bed tray. – Image source, Pinterest

Meals on a tray don't have to be unappetizing, do they?

People who receive meals on trays are not generally in a position to complain about them. The position they are usually in is bed, and the tray is presented either as a great favor, such as breakfast-in-bed for a special day, or as a necessity to someone who is being waited on because of illness. "Surprise!" the tray-bearer shouts, when one was snuggling in for a lazy morning; or "Look what we have here," when one has been struggling against an unpleasant physical sensation.

But no one wants to spoil a treat or overload someone on whose labors one depends for the comfort of existence. So even the grumpiest person will usually muster an "Oh, how lovely" at a surprise tray, or a lower-key "Oh, good" at an expected one, and postpone the nose-wrinkling until the tray-bearer has left the room.

That is not to suggest that it doesn't matter what one puts before such people. Miss Manners believes that meal trays, as much as table settings, ought to be done properly. Anyway, the person who brings the tray is usually responsible for cleaning up afterward and probably does not want to give the bedclothes an extra washing.

The first rule of meal trays, therefore, is that they ought to balance. Miss Manners is not talking about the basic food groups, but about the human knees. Etiquette may have been forced to recognize the buffet dinner, which is barely this side of the border that separates civilization from chaos, but it does not require any human being to use a knife and fork to attack a plate supported only by his own bedridden lap.

Trays with legs are one solution; hospital tables that swing across beds are another. Otherwise, one imitates hotel room service and brings in a table or uses one already there to set up a cozy dining area next to the bed or elsewhere in the bedroom.

Yes, that counts as breakfast in bed. The practice of forcing mobile people to stay in bed to receive the honor of the meal without benefit of toothbrush or other such refinements is not a kind one.

The proper tray setting begins with a tray cloth. (You do too have one: When it is in the dining room, it calls itself a table mat.) Lest anyone protest that this is an over-refinement on the part of someone who is well known to stay up nights thinking of ways to add to honest people's ironing loads, Miss Manners asks you to consider the advantage of placing absorbent material between the food and the blanket.

There should be not exactly - a centerpiece a decoration. A single flower in an extremely short bud-vase, or a blossom lying waterless on the tray, to be transferred to a glass or a hairdo, is customary. Non-perishable decorations- a toy, a figurine, a pretty mineral sample scaled to tray size, are also appropriate.

Real flatware and plates and glasses are a necessity. Miss Manners doesn't even like picnic disposables at picnics, but grass at - least absorbs accidents. It is not less work in the long run, Miss Manners assures you, to have the bedridden one attempt to cut meat with a plastic knife or consume soup from a melting spoon.

Nor is this the time, if there is such a time ever, for paper plates. It is a time to use the odd bit of good china that is left over from a broken set. Special tray sets of china, mostly designed for breakfast, with egg cups and matching china covers with little flower-sprig patterns all over them, are adorable, but there are items. from a child's good tea set that will do just as well. – Miss Manners, 1984

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

Coffee Etiquette to End Your Jitters

My “Après Lunch Coffee” (or in this case, Cappuccino), was not covered by Miss Manners in this particular column, but it certainly was delicious!

How tea came to be perceived as the official drink of the etiquette business, Miss Manners is not sure. Personally, she would have chosen champagne, preferably with a bit of fresh peach juice in it and a view of the Grand Canal,

But a less exciting addition is in order. Coffee is making great headway on the social scene, what with all those nice copper machines puffing away, and it seems time to review and revise the rules connected with serving coffee under a variety of with all those nice copper machines puffing away, and it seems time to review and revise the rules connected with serving coffee under a variety of conditions.

Here, then, is a coffee schedule for the day -a day less likely to end than to careen straight into the next day.

• Breakfast: This is the only meal at which coffee cups and saucers are properly set on the table from the beginning. Miss Manners hopes to get this rule past those who love coffee during all their meals by stating it early, before they are fully awake.
• At informal breakfasts, mugs may replace cups and saucers, provided no one puts a wet spoon flat on the table, a prohibition that does much to explain why cups have saucers in the first place. The spoon may never be left sticking up inside, even for a second. Don't ask Miss Manners where to put it instead; she always uses a cup and saucer.
• Late morning coffee: This is properly served with bread, sweet or otherwise, and gossip, sweet or otherwise. Mugs are used, as, contrary to popular belief, paper does not hold coffee.
• If the gathering is in someone's house, the person who lives there naturally makes and serves the coffee. If it is in an office, people either take turns or fend for themselves, now that putting a particular employee in charge of fetching coffee for others has become so fraught with unfortunate symbolism.
• Lunch: The rule against serving hot coffee during lunch is admittedly sometimes in conflict with the rule about pleasing one's guests. One way for the individual coffee drinker to get around this is to claim having skipped breakfast, so that starting with coffee represents breakfast.
• Iced coffee is a proper luncheon drink, but the tumbler or stump-stemmed glass in which it is properly served presents the same spoon problem as the coffee mug. Hot coffee may be served at the table with dessert only for an informal lunch; at a formal lunch, coffee service follows the meal, preferably out the dining room door, as at dinner.
• Coffee break: See Morning Coffee, above.
• Teatime: You may well ask what coffee is doing at tea, but it is a customary second offering, although a cold drink may be offered instead in hot weather, and hot chocolate in cold weather.
• That coffee is not the star of a tea party is shown by the fact that the person who pours tea at a tea party (a high honor designated to a distinguished friend) is considered to outrank the person who pours coffee.
• Dinner: The only coffee properly taken at the dinner table is in those households that once were considered conservative but now are thought of as wildly permissive, where the smokers (formerly known as gentlemen) are left at the table to take cigars and port, sometimes accompanied by coffee, while the non-smokers (formerly known as ladies) withdraw for serious conversation. Otherwise, coffee is served away from the table, in demitasses with wee little spoons that keep falling off the itty-bitty saucers. – by Judith Martin, aka “Miss Manners,” in the Press Democrat News, 1993

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

Spoon Identification 101

An assortment of egg accoutrements including eggshell cutters or breakers and a fried egg server, along with several diminutive egg spoons with ovoid-shaped bowls. Shorter than teaspoons and most about the length of coffee spoons, egg spoons are perfectly sized to fit into egg shells and egg cups. The best suited for eggs are those with gilding on the bowls to protect against the corrosion from salt.

Miss Manners on Spoons

DEAR MISS MANNERS: At home and in restaurants, I have always been given a teaspoon to eat soft desserts such as pudding, fruit cocktail and ice cream. However, when I went on a cruise with a foreign-owned cruise ship, they gave us soup spoons for such desserts.

I was amazed by this, and even asked the waiter if he made a mistake, but he said this is the way this line does it. Is the use of soup spoons for dessert a common practice abroad, and is it ever done in the United States?

GENTLE READER: Not often enough. That was no soup spoon–it was a proper dessert spoon, which the teaspoon is not.

As a dessert spoon is a large oval spoon, Miss Manners understands that you mistook it for a soup spoon, which is oval and only ever-so-slightly larger. Maybe it even is a moonlighting soup spoon. But it would still be the more nearly correct implement for dessert than the teaspoon. 

Great Spoon Debate Rages On

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What spoon do you eat with, a teaspoon or "soup" spoon? I have relatives who are doubtful, and I get teased all the time about this.

GENTLE READER: Please do not take it as adding to your torment when Miss Manners explains that soup spoons are used to eat soup and teaspoons to stir tea.

Flatware is not the etiquette booby-trap that people seem to think. Truly, we only ask that tables be set with the equipment people need to eat the food in front of them without making an undue mess, and that it be laid out in the order in which that food is to be eaten. On the whole, the nomenclature is pretty straightforward.

Perhaps the confusion you experience comes from the scarcity of dessert spoons. An oval soup spoon can easily pass for one, but because teaspoons are sold as an indispensable part of the basic place setting, people who don't give daily tea parties reach for that instead, figuring it must have some use. It would be more sensible to buy a double set of oval spoons for those who want both soup and dessert at the same meal. – by Judith Martin, Nicholas Ivor Martin and Jacobina Martin, 2010 & 2011

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

Etiquette and Finding “Good Help”

It has always been a ludicrous fiction that servants were deaf and blind to what was going on around them, and people who envy the household staff of bygone eras might reflect on what they did to privacy. There may have been fewer attempts to publish the family secrets then, although that was not unknown, but instances blackmail, from the gentle variety to the blatant, were plentiful. —Image of Douglas Sills, left, Michael Cerveris, Celia Keenan-Bolger and Kelley Curran in a scene from HBO's “The Gilded Age,” by Alison Cohen Rosa/HBO

DEAR MISS MANNERS - I have just been engaged as a maid in an exceedingly aristocratic household. I suspect it is true that “Good help is hard to find nowadays,” since I got the position without having had any previous experience. I think my false letters of recommendation may have assisted in this; at any rate, many uncomfortable moments have arisen from my lack of expertise. Most recently, my employer — who is rather eccentric, comme tout le Beau Monde, n'est pas? — insisted on introducing me to one of her visitors, a young woman who, according to the newspaper, is heir to $50 million. This heiress greeted me pleasantly, but didn't offer to shake my hand. I just smiled and clutched my dust-mop. Should I have offered my own hand? I would very much appreciate an answer to this and any suggestions you might have for my success in the domestic service. I want to stay hired at least until I have enough material for a novel entitled “The Dust-Mop May Eavesdrop.”

 

P.S. In all fairness, I think you should also include some advice for my employer. Thank you.

GENTLE READER - Miss Manners’ advice to your employer is: Watch out. You’re welcome. 

It has always been a ludicrous fiction that servants were deaf and blind to what was going on around them, and people who envy the household staff of bygone eras might reflect on what they did to privacy. There may have been fewer attempts to publish the family secrets then, although that was not unknown, but instances of blackmail, from the gentle variety to the blatant, were plentiful. Nevertheless, that fiction served the dignity of both employer and employee. If nothing is officially observed by the servant, then there is no need for commenting about what is going on —which always leads to trouble. — Judith Martin, aka “Miss Manners,” 1982

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

Miss Manners on Hollywood Manners

On the Yes-But-No Ritual: “Stringing someone along— that’s not fair. If you have something under consideration and you have reached a decision, you should let people know the decision.”

 Miss Manners on Hollywood Manners and Mores. . .

Judith Martin is the author of the “Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior” and has been writing the Miss Manners syndicated column since 1978. These are her views on how people should behave in Hollywood— or anywhere else.

* After screenings: “You’re obliged to be polite. You find something nice to say. I mean, the vaguer, the better. I’m not against the blatant, ‘It’s simply wonderful. I had a wonderful time,’ and you don’t specify whether it was seeing the person or the film or whatever. If I have you to dinner, I hope when you leave, you’ll say, ‘It was lovely. Thank you very much,’ and not say, ‘The beef was underdone, and you should have served this with that.’ The idea that everybody wants an honest evaluation of everything they do is highly exaggerated. The fact is it’s not your critical opinion that is being solicited. It’s your support as a friend. People are asking for a little cheerleading, not movie reviews.”

* On telephones: “The telephone in itself may be a useful instrument, but it is extremely rude in that it says, ‘Drop everything and pay attention to me.’ It’s funny that people do tend to consider phone calls so important that they’re more important than human beings standing in front of them.”

* On returning calls: “If you have the resources to be generous about affording some time to people who are not of immediate benefit, you should (return calls). Look at your phone calls as if you’re a polite person examining your mail. You’re not obliged to answer every piece of mail you get.”

* On call waiting: “Call waiting is rude. After all, you’re already on a call. If a second person can’t get through to you, they can figure out that you’re (already) on the phone.”

* On the Yes-But-No Ritual: “Stringing someone along— that’s not fair. If you have something under consideration and you have reached a decision, you should let people know the decision.”

* On rudeness to subordinates: “One of the greatest crimes of etiquette is being rude to people who are not in a position to defend themselves, because they work for you.”

* On responding to rudeness: “I never believe in answering rudeness with rudeness. That’s a blanket rule. Socially, if someone insults you, you refuse to have anything to do with that person. In a business situation, that might not be possible. I do not mean that you say, ‘Hit me again, please.’ There are polite ways of defending yourself rather than descending to their level.”

* On networking: “Don’t. You give up your private life. And you need your life. I doubt its effectiveness. People who neglect genuine leisure and personal ties and friendship and recreation end up paying a very stiff price for that.” — By Connie Benesch, 1992

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

The 1990’s Etiquette Era

New etiquette books were suddenly plentiful in the last dozen-or-so years of the 20th century, in preparation of the 21st century and to address all of the technological advances of the 1990’s. Judith Martin’s, “Guide for the Turn-of-the-Millennium” was one of the most popular.
—————
“What’s the office etiquette when men and women work together? Judith Martin: The very simple rule that takes care of most problems is that gender is simply not relevant in the workplace. Once you realize that, then the questions of who goes through the door first and who pays for lunch are very easily settled. It should be settled just as if it were an all-male workplace— by rank and position.”

Establishing Polite Parameters for the 1990’s

Dear Amy: Help! On second thought, make that: Help, please! 

Ms. Vanderbilt, you must be turning over in your grave because of the problems that polite society is suffering as we enter the ‘90s.

I mean, as manners go, I’m not exactly a model of decorum. (I take special pleasure in cutting off Camaros on the freeway). But even I know there should be a better way of congratulating your second husband on the birth of his first child from his third marriage than just looking embarrassed and saying, “Gee, you told me you’d had a vasectomy!”

Or writing to all your friends in one fell swoop by using the recall button on the personal computer. Or telling a potential sexual partner to use a condom by strategically leaving a dozen boxes of Trojans next to the Champagne in the refrigerator. Or wrestling with the complexities of call-waiting by shouting “Hang on!” or murmuring “Sorry, this new caller is richer than you, Mr. Murdock.”

Just consider, for instance, the contretemps I found myself in just trying to write this story. I was chatting on the phone to New York etiquette arbiter Charlotte Ford when suddenly I heard a “beep” and Miss Manners (a.k.a. Judith Martin) was holding on call waiting from Washington.

“Uh, what do I do, Charlotte?” I asked in a panic.

“It’s easy,” she replied, soothingly. “I think that whoever’s on the phone first when call-waiting comes in takes precedence. Tell the other person you’ll call them back.”

Hmmm, logical enough. So I clicked back to Martin.

“Judith? I’ve got Charlotte Ford on the other line, and she says I should stay on the phone with her and call you back. Does that sound OK?”

Miss Manners paused a moment to consider.

“Absolutely,” Martin purred.

What I need, Amy, is a definitive guide to all this stuff. Something to keep right by the bedside to govern matters of a sexual, or nonsexual, nature. It’s no good to find out the proper way to act after the fact. By then my social life is going to degenerate into watching reruns of “Facts of Life.”

But wait, what are these packages on my desk? Could it be that America’s foremost etiquette experts have been working overtime to establish polite parameters for the ‘90s?

Some of these books are from the usual suspects: Judith Martin, Letitia Baldridge, and Charlotte Ford. But, suddenly there are new names making waves in the manners business. After all, who better than Sidney Biddle Barrows of Mayflower Madam fame to solve such bedroom dilemmas as: Do you make eye contact at an orgy? (No.) Do you use your lover’s toothbrush? (Yes.)

“My literary agent thought up the idea,” Barrows confides. “Most people think sex is inherently not very polite, and certainly not something one talks about unless one absolutely has to. But etiquette is a way of romancing between men and women. And now that we’re not jumping into bed with someone, we need something like this to drag out the courtship a little longer.”

All the authors attempt to create a new code of etiquette for a new time. Let’s see, Amy, how do I explain it? Men are sometimes women. A child can have four different mothers. Answering machines talk to one another.

As social arbiter Letitia Baldridge notes, “Manners comprise everything in our human relationships, all the things that we do all day long and the way we interrelate with people. And if any of these things change, then we want to change with them.”

That’s why Baldridge, the former chief of staff during Jackie Kennedy’s stint as First Lady, has written her “Complete Guide to the New Manners for the ‘90s.” (Remember her, Amy? In 1978, four years after your death, she updated your etiquette book. Then Tish decided she was a big enough name to go it alone.)

Baldridge, who cheerfully dispenses advice on what a pregnant bride should wear and whether it’s polite to send a dinner invitation through the fax machine, is convinced that manners are making a comeback in the ‘90s. “You bet. I see it in my mail, I see it in the people I lecture.”

But why? “We became very self-obsessed in the ‘80s when the philosophy was ‘succeed, make money and spend it.’ And I think it’s time to stand back and start spending as much energy thinking about other people.”

I thought, at 646 pages, Baldridge’s book would be le dernier cri . Yet, it’s beaten hands down in sheer heft and chutzpah by fellow Washingtonian Judith Martin’s latest opus, released in November and entitled grandly enough, “Miss Manners’ Guide for the Turn-of-the-Millennium.” The syndicated columnist takes 742 pages to impart her wit and wisdom on contemporary quandaries from the decline of the nuclear family to the rise in women in the workplace.

Are things really that bad to warrant so much space? “Certainly,” Martin sniffs. “We have such a long way to go to get to some place approaching civilization.”

It’s her view that American society is coming to the end of a generation-long experiment that started in the ‘60s when the baby-boomers decided just to chuck existing rules of behavior and be themselves.

“This is what I call the Jean Jacques Rousseau School of Etiquette,” Miss Manners relates. “The problem being that in our natural state we’re not all that livable.”

In addition, Martin sees our current social situation complicated by two main factors: technology— the fax machine and answering machines weren’t ubiquitous a decade ago— and sex. Not only are sexually transmitted diseases a topic that must be addressed these days, but so is sexual etiquette in the workplace.

“The very simple rule that takes care of most of these problems— that gender is simply not relevant in the workplace— is a very difficult concept to get across. Because once you realize that, then the questions of who goes through the door first and who pays for lunch are very easily settled by rank and position.”

Compare that to the Mayflower Madam. She was only too willing to be interviewed about this month’s “Mayflower Manners,” which describes itself as an “Etiquette for Consenting Adults.” Of course, Barrows is the very picture of politeness as she delves into such uncharted territory as: Is it rude to rip an exotic garment off a woman? (It depends on how much the thing costs.) Or when two people meet through personal ads, who is the host? (Whoever placed the ad.) Or even whether there are basic principles of etiquette that apply to the menage a trois. (No one should show favoritism.)

Barrows, of course, believes she’s providing a valuable public service. “I don’t think you’ll find anywhere in the other books the proper etiquette for treating a call girl or escort service. And I don’t think you’ll see too many pages on how to behave at an S & M party in a club or a private home.

“A lot of people think, ‘Ugh, an etiquette book’ and think of Letitia Baldridge and all that dry, ponderous stuff,” says Barrows, defending her lighter touch. “That’s what makes my book fun.”

But it wasn’t fun at all when a seemingly simple question about AIDS drew Barrows into a national controversy recently and one gay activist group in New York City claimed the Mayflower Madam had made a major faux pas.

The question was: “If a host invites a known carrier of AIDS to a dinner party, should he so inform his other guests?”

Barrows responded: “Yes. Most people will know that they cannot contract the disease by being seated at a dinner table with a carrier. But it is a courtesy to all to let them know ahead of time.”

As a result, Barrows was “disinvited” to the premiere of a movie, while her publisher, Doubleday, was asked to issue an apology.

Using language not printable in a family newspaper, Barrows fumed that she had been the victim of a setup by “a very radical gay group that’s always looking for media attention. How could I be disinvited to something when I was never invited in the first place? This whole thing is so personally upsetting to me I can’t tell you. It’s a real nightmare.”

As for what to do in the situation, Barrows still sticks by her advice. “I have a huge number of gay friends and every time I’ve ever been invited anywhere I was always told if there was somebody with AIDS who was going to be there. Not because these people were trying to warn me. But because they wanted other guests to have an extra level of sensitivity.”

On the other hand, both Baldridge and Martin didn’t see the necessity for telling anyone anything. “At most respectable dinner parties,” notes Miss Manners, “there wouldn’t be any activity where you would catch AIDS so I don’t see why you should have to tell people.”

But etiquette arbiter Charlotte Ford professed some confusion as to what to do. “Hmmm. Such a tough situation,” she murmured. “I think there are certain people who don’t care, and there are other people who would be just devastated if they were at a party with someone who had AIDS.”

Her solution, she decided, was simply not to invite the person with AIDS to dinner— which AIDS support groups say is also wrong.

So who’s right, Amy? I honestly don’t know. The only thing I’m certain of is that by next week, next month, next year, another social phenomenon will create another conundrum for etiquette experts.

And, Amy, you won’t be here to help us through it.

What’s the office etiquette when men and women work together?

JUDITH MARTIN: The very simple rule that takes care of most problems is that gender is simply not relevant in the workplace. Once you realize that, then the questions of who goes through the door first and who pays for lunch are very easily settled. It should be settled just as if it were an all-male workplace— by rank and position.

CHARLOTTE FORD: If I was a woman and invited to dinner by a male colleague, I would certainly say, “Let’s have lunch first.” I just wouldn’t be available for dinner.

How do you ask a man to wear a condom?

LETITIA BALDRIDGE: You can say to him, “I’m very sorry, but if you don’t use a condom, there’s just no way we can be together.” You can then give him some, or tell him where the nearest drugstore is, or tell him, “Let’s have dinner another night,” and send him away.

MARTIN: If you know the person well enough to make that necessary, you ought to be able to say anything. What amuses me is when people shift into prudery. If you are on intimate terms with somebody, surely you can ask them intimate questions.

FORD: I’d be a little bit embarrassed and a little bit shy and say, “Listen, I hope you’ve taken some sort of protection because I don’t want to contract any diseases, and I’m sure you don’t either.”

SYDNEY BIDDLE BARROWS: It is not seemly, nor necessary, to smile on the first date and say, “Love your dress. By the way, will you be giving me a fatal disease?” Instead, allow time to pass--that’s what these dates are for, after all. By the time sex seems a possibility, you will have necessarily both crossed that line beyond which these sensitive issues may be discussed.

If you’re giving a dinner party and invite someone who has AIDS, should you tell your other guests?

BALDRIDGE: I don’t think you tell anybody that the person has AIDS. Because frankly the guests are not catching AIDS from that person. It really isn’t relevant.

MARTIN: It depends on the activity of the dinner party. At most respectable dinner parties, there wouldn’t be any activity where you would catch AIDS, so I don’t see why should have to tell people. Would you tell your guests that one of them had cancer? But if you were giving an orgy, I think you should tell people.

FORD: I don’t know that I would invite somebody to dinner knowing they have AIDS, simply because I think it would make everybody very uncomfortable. But I think it all depends on the situation. If you are going to do that, I think you have to be very careful how you do it and whom you invite.

BARROWS: Yes. Most people will know that they cannot contract the disease by being seated at a dinner table with a carrier. But it is a courtesy to all to let them know ahead of time.

What is the proper way to use your answering machine?

BALDRIDGE: The best way is to record as short a message as possible, 15 seconds, and be very business-like and be very up.

MARTIN: The telephone is a very rude instrument. Monitoring calls on the answering machine is polite. People somehow put the onus of politeness mistakenly against people who do not accept all calls at any time. There is nothing wrong with picking and choosing.

Is it polite for a mother to breast-feed her baby in public?

BALDRIDGE: Definitely not. Anyone looking over, especially any man, immediately starts to conjecture about the size and shape of the breast.

MARTIN: No. In some countries people breast - feed on the street, but it is not done properly in the United States, and the argument that it is a natural thing bears no weight with me.

FORD: I’ve always said that whatever a mother wants to do is her business. The only thing is, I think you should do it in private. Go to an airport area not populated by people, go into another room in someone’s house.

If a child has several sets of parents because of divorces, how do you decide who should come to school on parents’ day?

BALDRIDGE: It’s up to the child to decide whom he or she wants. The child should ask that parent to come and then apologize to the others and explain why they weren’t asked.

FORD: It all depends on the relationship between the adults. Forget the children. It’s the adults that set the mood for whatever the function’s going to be. It’s very, very hard, but somebody’s got to bite the bullet.

MARTIN: That is incredibly complicated. I’d say parents, their mates and assorted other people who want to be involved. I was president of a school board where we didn’t realize for a long time that it was offensive to send out questionnaires where it gave only one line for “mother’s name” and “father’s name.” So we would put four lines under each for families to do what they liked. So those things have had to be adjusted.

What is the worst new breach of entertaining etiquette?

BALDRIDGE: Some people feel that they should turn on their TV sets even at dinner parties. I’ve seen guests leave the table to go and watch their favorite football game in the library.

MARTIN: The understood social contract whereby the host sets the terms of the contract and the guests can take it or leave it has broken down miserably. People now consider an invitation to be the opening of negotiations. You tell me what you’re serving for dinner, and then I tell you this is going to kill me, or you tell me who the other guests are and then I decide if I want to accept. And heaven forbid if you try to set a dress code.

FORD: Hosts who ask guests to take their shoes off. You have to respect your host’s wishes. But as somebody said, if their carpets are that good, why do they ever have any guests? — By Nikki Finke, Los Angeles Times, 1990

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, , is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia