DEAR MISS MANNERS: Perhaps you know the drill that charity organizations use to rate their donors: Large donors are "Patrons" and "Benefactors," while smaller donors are merely "Associates."

Although I believe in giving to charity, I was recently between jobs and could not give that much. A $15 check was a real sacrifice for me at that time. I felt slighted when I had to check off the "Associate" box when I had stretched my budget to include charitable giving.

I am not asking whether this fundraising practice is rude; I know that it's always rude to slight or demean people because they have less money. My question is, how much slack do these organizations deserve (because their cause is good) before I decide to stop having anything to do with them? Is there any hope for etiquette in nonprofit fundraising?

GENTLE READER: Not as long as they can succeed in getting donors like you to take this gimmick seriously.

Miss Manners is afraid that it is as common in the nonprofit organizations as it is in business to look only at the bottom line, giving scant consideration to the feelings of the customers -- or even to the possibility of driving away small donors before they are in a position to give more. Doing good is never an excuse for behaving badly, but it is particularly unwise in an organization that depends on appealing to people's own good nature.

Unfortunately, they have discovered that appealing to baser instincts also works. Miss Manners can't imagine why you are insulted to be called an "associate," but if they can make you feel shamed at this rating, perhaps to the extent of giving more than you can afford, they will continue it.

Sensibly, irritating fund-raising practices should have no more effect on what charities you support than objectionable advertising should steer you away from good products. But they both do. If the listings annoy you, you can escape them by asking that your donation remain anonymous.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am currently unemployed, single, with no children. I would like to be employed again. What do I say to people when they ask, "What do you do?" In this society, it is what you do that matters, and not much else. When appropriate, I tell people I'm unemployed, and I will also ask them if they know of any jobs. However, there are times when I feel it is inappropriate to answer the question with "I'm unemployed." Some people subsequently treat me like pond scum once they find out I'm unemployed. (You'd be surprised how often this happens.) I would like to have an appropriate response to "What do you do?"

GENTLE READER: Even when this question is posed as an innocuous conversation-opener, and not by one of those dreadful people who uses social occasions to angle for professional advantage, Miss Manners finds it tedious. She was about to sympathize with you and advise you to treat it as if it were the more general question, "Tell me about yourself."

But hold on. You want to use social occasions to angle for a professional advantage. If you want to hear about job opportunities, you are going to have to tell people what kinds of jobs you can do. The upbeat way of saying "I'm unemployed and desperate" is "As a matter of fact, I'm just now looking for something challenging."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Only you can help me, as I consider this strictly a question of manners and do not wish to be told to seek counseling or get in touch with my feelings.

My parents were "on again, off again" since I was born, and I had last seen my father when I was about 10. They then met somewhere after 12 years and started seeing each other, later getting married. I invited him to my own wedding as a courtesy to my mother and, after a few years, our family developed a polite, though not close, relationship.

Then they rather violently broke up, and he made quite a few hateful comments about me and my as-yet-unborn child. I, of course, have maintained my distance, and although he has expressed wishes to other family members to be included in my and my son's lives, I have refused.

Well, wouldn't you know it, my parents are now back together!

What is the least polite way one is obligated to treat one's rather fickle, mean, and hateful father who had abandoned one as a child and cursed one as an adult but who is now "happily" married to one's mother? My mother urges me to let him into my life and let them both visit my home and family, although she had badmouthed him profusely before. I harbor no resentment, but am very tired of this type of upheaval and just want to live my life in peace with my husband and 1-year-old son. I don't want to have anything to do with this man, or with his and my mother's relationship, such as it is, but my mother is making me crazy with her requests. Do I owe it to her to be courteous to her spouse, or can I just cut my deadbeat dad out of my life?

GENTLE READER: You may rest assured that Miss Manners never tells her Gentle Readers to seek counseling or get in touch with their feelings. Never.

They know how they feel. What is more, they are already seeking counsel -- from her. She is not about to shrug and tell them to go find someone else.

Your feelings are conflicting, in that you want to keep your father away without upsetting your mother, but they are clear. Miss Manners' counsel is to allow her to bring him and of course treat him cordially when he is with her, but to decline any opportunities to see him alone.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My boss sent out an invitation to a party he is throwing and invited only 13 people out of 31. He now wants to send a memo to everyone letting them know he is having this party and is unable to invite everyone. Should this be done?

GENTLE READER: Does he hope to downsize the office without paying severance?

People do not react well to being told, "Ha, ha, I'm having a party and you're not invited!" which is why kindergartners are so fond of doing it. If you are in a position to influence your boss, Miss Manners suggests telling him to say he is having a retreat for a third of the office and is excusing the others.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am writing about an etiquette problem common in historic re-enactment/living history groups, for any given historic era: people who are popularly known as "authenticity police."

Authenticity policing takes the form of walking up to another person, closely inspecting their clothing (even lifting up women's skirts to examine their underwear), then informing them that they "ought to" have used 100-percent natural fibers, or hand sewn their seams, or that they are "too old" to wear a given style, or that "you shouldn't wear vintage clothing because you're destroying a part of our history."

They feel authorized to personally evaluate the reproduction (or antique/vintage) clothing of fellow members and event attendees for "authenticity" or "accuracy." This is in addition to, and usually well beyond, any official standards or requirements that may be imposed by the organization the re-enactors belong to or are attending as nonmembers).

Authenticity police insist they are being "educational," "scholarly," even "helpful." Sometimes they are overtly nasty, sometimes merely condescending. Sometimes the information they give is correct; sometimes, in my opinion, it isn't. Either way, their unsolicited criticism is primarily one-upmanship and pressure toward social conformity. It is done in public and can cause considerable embarrassment.

People usually become defensive. If they plead that they don't have enough money to buy expensive fabrics, they are then told to buy on sale, or that "re-enactment isn't a cheap hobby." If they say they don't have enough time to hand sew, they are told, "Well, I work full time, too, and I hand sew all my outfits." If they insist that what they are wearing is indeed accurate, citing books, pictures, or other research sources, they are told that they "didn't use a primary source" or "this wasn't typical for the period; you need to provide me with at least three examples."

It is not uncommon for strangers, bombarded with criticism, to leave and never return. Some humbly ask what they are allowed to wear, how they should make it, what vendors they may buy from, and so forth, and once they have some seniority, may become authenticity police themselves.

People seldom have the gumption to assert that their own clothing (and other personal matters such as their finances and how they use their free time) is their own business. Nor do they commonly point out that they are in fact conforming to the official organizational standards; and that since re-enactment is a hobby, they are free to choose how "authentic" to be beyond official standards.

Because I am interested in history and historic costume, I enjoy re-enactment activities in concept (though not some of the re-enactors). I have not found a solution to this problem other than to tell the "authenticity police" to mind their own business -- more forcefully, I'm afraid, than Miss Manners would approve.

I do think modern etiquette should apply to this situation, because socially these are modern groups. Besides, Miss Manners might not approve of the etiquette that would have been used in some historic eras, for example, physically assaulting the criticizer.

GENTLE READER: No, but neither does she care for the modern assumption that it is acceptable to go around insulting people. Officious types who behave dreadfully to improve society have always been among us -- as have those who make self-righteous excuses for lifting women's skirts -- but their victims were not always so willing to stand still for them.

Miss Manners would advise responding with a nice old-fashioned statement from whichever period the group re-enacts, along the lines of "How dare you question my honor!"

: