DEAR MISS MANNERS: In my eighth-grade history class, we came upon the subject that women have equal rights to men. We talked about how men used to be the dominators and that women were known as wives, end of sentence.

Women have come far in their fight for equal rights. But men still pull out the chairs for women to sit down in, and they still open doors for women and say, "Ladies first."

So, for the sake of manners, is it still right that men are treating women better than women are treating men?

GENTLE READER: Are they? Surely someone in your class must be arguing that such gestures of deference are actually bad treatment, intended to humiliate and handicap women by marking them as helpless.

Not that Miss Manners is taking that position, or yours, either. But then, she has had enough advanced etiquette history to know that both have elements of truth, and neither tells the full story. (Nor does your conclusion that women were "wives, end of sentence." Many managed to distinguish themselves in various fields despite barriers and prejudices.)

Chivalric etiquette was an improvement on the previous system of "Ladies never." Nevertheless, symbolically declaring women too superior to run the everyday world had an amazingly similar effect to declaring them too inferior. And, by the way, chivalry originally applied only to upper-class ladies, and while a version of it was extended to the middle-class in the 19th century, it never inspired anyone to defer to the lower classes.

In order to debate whether remnants of this system should still be practiced, you must understand the cultural and sentimental part that tradition plays in history. The manners at any given time are not an exact fit with a society's philosophy, nor should they be. It takes awhile for consensus to build, even -- or especially -- for the most morally sound changes, and progress is not helped by the abrupt condemnation of familiar ways.

Still, everything evolves, and sometimes needs help to do so sensibly. The trick is to distinguish practices that might be harmful from those that are merely graceful.

If the boys in your class opened doors for the girls and pulled out their desk chairs for them, it would emphasize gender differences just when you are supposed to try to forget them and concentrate on your work. But would you welcome a rule that, as everyone is equal, you all have to dress alike for the prom?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was eating lunch in a mall restaurant a few days ago, when a woman who was eating alone a couple of tables to my right paused in her eating/reading, reached into her purse, and pulled out a cell phone. She looked at the screen, put down her fork, and, as she raised her phone to her right ear, she raised her left hand to her mouth and cupped the phone.

The resultant conversation was only barely distinguishable from the restaurant background noise and much quieter than the live conversations around us.

As I was leaving, I thanked her for her courtesy and said I would pass her practice on. She thanked me.

GENTLE READER: But did you get her telephone number? Miss Manners only asks because she would be happy to thank the lady, too, if only she knew how to reach her.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am currently working on a research paper on the parental right to censor music. My question for you is, Should parents censor or monitor their children's listening habits? And, if so, how should they go about doing so?

GENTLE READER: Such a harsh word -- "censor." All freedom-loving people, even small ones, bristle when they hear it and rise to protect their liberties from those who would usurp them under the guise of benign paternalism.

But wait. Isn't benign paternalism what parents are supposed to provide? What else are they there for, besides providing the wherewithal to purchase disgusting music?

Miss Manners realizes that parents cannot hope to protect their children for long against outside influences, however nasty. The protection they can provide them is to teach them that there are other, higher standards, and that they subscribe to these and expect their children to do so.

Are the children actually going to do so? Of course not. But the parents can make rules against buying and bringing into the house what they consider to be vulgar or otherwise objectionable. They can also use the issue to discuss why they feel the way they do, thus making their resentful children aware that there are people -- including people they love and respect in spite of their differences in taste -- who maintain their own standards instead of succumbing to whatever is out there.

Will their rules and arguments be challenged, ridiculed and broken? Of course. That is why parents do need to do some reasonable monitoring.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What, precisely, are the obligations of the host when the guest room is also the living room? In a one-bedroom apartment, there is often a disconnect between the host's sleeping schedule and that of the guest.

I'm starting to dread going to my dad's very small apartment. First of all, he won't go to bed until 1 a.m. or so. The apartment is so configured that the only place to put the air mattress is right in front of his chair, and that can't be done until he retires for the evening (and he's not willing to do that earlier because the television is in the living room).

It then takes me until 3 a.m. to drop off. He gets up at 9 or 10 a.m., which means I have to get up, too, because he wants to watch television.

GENTLE READER: It is Miss Manners' painful obligation to tell you that someone who is not concerned about whether his daughter gets a good night's sleep is not going to change his habits upon being told that hosts are indeed obligated to make their guests comfortable. If you are an adult, she urges you to stay elsewhere when visiting your father. If you are a minor, she hopes you will confide the arrangements to someone in a position to insist that he accommodate you properly, even if it means sacrificing some television.

:

Because it is vulgar to adorn oneself with too many valuables, there has long been a rule cautioning ladies to protect themselves against the danger of looking flashy. Miss Manners learned it from her dear mother:

"When you believe you are perfectly dressed, and are quite satisfied with your appearance, before you go out, remove one piece of jewelry."

So that she would never forget, Miss Manners copied this rule onto the back of a photograph of Queen Alexandra, who is demurely pictured wearing five different diamond necklaces stacked as chokers, diamond drop earrings, two snake bracelets, nine brooches, five jeweled orders and a crown. At least that is all that is visible in this particular pose, which is only a three quarter view, and shows her turned slightly to the side. Presumably the jewels nestling on one shoulder are matched on the other, and there seems to be something glittery peeking out from under the arm in which she is carrying a jeweled fan.

Miss Manners has always wondered what it was that the dear lady removed.

The rule is just as good today as it was then, and probably just as faithfully followed. When today's ladies are dressed to face the world, they should check their appearance and remove one valuable object.

But what will it be?

The security identification on a chain around the neck? The telephone hitched onto the belt? The personal organizer sticking out of the jacket pocket?

Something's got to go, and the one earring that was taken off in order to answer the telephone doesn't count.

Miss Manners is not so much worried about ladies looking flashy as she is about their being overburdened. It seems that the more convenient and miniaturized a lady's necessaries become, the more things she has to pin or chain to her clothes.

In addition to the likelihood of resembling an electronic bulletin board, there is the danger of pitching forward from the weight. If shoulder bags and backpacks weren't required for everything a lady must haul but can't actually hang or pin on herself, they would still be needed for ballast.

Ladies didn't used to need security tags. But, of course, that was in days long past, as far back as six months ago. However, they had even more utilitarian objects to hang on themselves or their clothing:

Before the invention of the wristwatch, watches were worn on the lapel, hanging from little matching brooches, or as rings for the fingers. Eyeglasses might be attached to an elastic band to hang on their own brooch, or worn on a chain around the neck.

Also to be worn on the fingers were rings with tiny chains attached to clasps, to hold handkerchiefs, or to larger mesh circlets to hold gloves, or to tussy-mussies for holding nosegays.

Coin purses and key rings were made with short chains and hooks to fit on the belt. So were skirt lifters (for lifting the long skirt slightly above the ground when the street was messy; what did you think?).

Then there was the chatelaine, the wide brooch from which all sorts of miniaturized-but-useful things might dangle on chains: scissors, pencils, notebooks, stamp holders, needle cases, thimbles, pin holders, button hooks, pen knives, spoons, pill boxes, mirrors, perfume bottles, vinagrettes, nutmeg graters and boxes to hold beauty marks.

Presumably, a fastidious lady did not wear them all at the same time. Before she went out, she might have removed the stamp holder.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have never adjusted to the everyday assumed intimacy by acquaintances and strangers. When I am asked my first name, I find that answering "Mrs." is very helpful -- the other person will then ask for my last name and nothing more is said. This usually solves my problem and often brings a smile.

GENTLE READER: Is it possible that you and Miss Manners are related? She has never countenanced instant intimacy, either, preferring the voluntary kind; she also imparts this information gently to people who assume otherwise -- and she has the good fortune to bear the given name of Miss.

: