DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have become aware of increasing instances of gender-specific words being replaced by gender-neutral terms, for instance, "waiter" and "waitress" having been replaced with the generic "server." I understand that this practice began to prevent gender-based exclusion. And I appreciate substitutes such as "letter carrier" for "mailman," "fire fighter" for "fireman," "police officer" for "policeman" and "chair" for "chairman," as each of the traditional terms implies that a woman could not take up that vocation.

But I find it troublesome to think that perfectly acceptable and commonly used gender-specific phrases have become politically incorrect. What is degrading about being a waitress or a stewardess? And why are actresses now calling themselves female actors?

It seems as though women hate to be viewed as feminine, and so they are adopting gender-neutral titles. I affirm the need for neutrality when words exclude women from a given profession, but why must we fall to the least common denominator when there are perfectly familiar and comfortable gender-specific terms?

I realize that this inquiry may seem a bit old-fashioned. For what it's worth, I am 24 years old and simply hate to think that I'm living in a world where I must keep my womanhood under wraps.

GENTLE READER: If you are puzzled, you can imagine the bewilderment of a sweet, old-fashioned feminist like Miss Manners. She has no problem with the gender-neutral terms, such as "server"; what bothers her is when male terms are used to replace female ones. Little did she think, as part of the effort to assert female dignity by disallowing grown-ups to be called "girls" that they would then endorse being addressed as "you guys."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My housemate's 5-year-old son is very fond of me, probably because, until recently, I mistakenly succumbed to most of his demands on my attention. Now I can't count on a minute alone from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. If he catches me outside my room, he follows me wherever I go; if I guiltily ignore his constant knocks at my door, he comes in anyway.

I've begun to say no, tried to offer alternative activities for him, and explained that I wish I could play but I want to be by myself for a while. This sometimes makes him cry, which makes me feel awful and is usually plain ineffective.

If his mother's paying attention, she keeps him in check very well, but she makes long daily phone calls, the duration of which he spends in my room, demanding my full attention. Do you have any suggestions for how to (gently) teach a 5-year-old a few manners, especially regarding closed doors?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners has the heartbreaking feeling that manners are not what this child most obviously lacks. She finds herself hoping that you return his affection and that although you understandably need time for yourself, you are devoted enough to help him secure some much-needed companionship.

The simplest way to do this is to inform his mother that she cannot leave him to his own lonely devices, which turn out to be you, but should arrange activities such as play dates and after-school sessions when she is too busy to be with him herself. As she seems oblivious, this may not be the most effective way, however. If you were to take the initiative in doing this, Miss Manners would consider it an excellent deed.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am wondering what is the best way to handle men who approach me on the street with the intentions of -- I'll assume the best -- courting me.

When I say I have a boyfriend, they don't seem to care. If I leave my boyfriend out of it and say I'm not interested, they try to get me interested by continuing the conversation.

I think that just because they are being rude to me doesn't mean I need to be rude back. However, it is often the only way to make them stop -- and then I feel guilty about being rude. In my experience, ignoring them is even worse, as then they try to embarrass me. I don't want to seem like a snob. I have a boyfriend, and I'm not looking for a second one.

GENTLE READER: And if you were, would you look for one on the street? Where, of course, the prospects don't care if you have a boyfriend, because they will be happy to hand you back to him in short order?

Miss Manners assures you that it is neither rude nor snobbish to refuse to weigh the advances of amorous strangers and unnecessary to produce an excuse if you do not accede to their suggestions.

A lady does not "handle" strange men on the street. She ignores them and leaves; if they pursue her, she goes to the police.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: How promptly should one respond after being called to the family dinner table?

The chef, who has so lovingly prepared the meal, believes that the diners should take their seats as soon as they are summoned, even if this means that the food is still arriving at the table while or after everyone is being seated. This ensures that the food, which is intended to be eaten while still hot, will be placed on the table at the temperature most likely to compliment the cooking and please the diners.

The nonculinary principals involved believe that an effort to arrive at the table is not necessary until the food has been placed on the table in its entirety and the chef is seated and remains seated. Once this is achieved, the noncooking family members often take five or more minutes before arriving at the table, taking the time to do one or more of the following: dress for dinner, wash hands, or select and open a bottle of wine.

Once arriving at the table, a request to say grace is then made. Food is now growing cold, and it is difficult to restrain hungry children, not to mention the chef. Giving all diners a five-minute warning prior to calling everyone to the table has not seemed to help.

GENTLE READER: As Miss Manners does not find it difficult to detect a point of view in the way this question is presented, she thinks you will be pleased with the answer. You win on two counts.

The cook is entitled to be tyrannical about setting dinner time; even George Washington claimed to be afraid of his cook and went to table at the appointed time without waiting for tardy guests. Parents are also empowered to require mealtime promptness.

Miss Manners is afraid that you will have to insist upon exercising your double authority. She can validate it for you, but she cannot come over and round everyone up.

:

Our vast cadre of social scientists is focusing its attention on marriage now, with the intention of rescuing that institution from a wayward predilection for extra-legal cohabitation and divorce. This strikes Miss Manners as only fair, considering what these folks accomplished with their last generation of techniques for improving marriage.

True, today's experts are mostly not responsible for the previous go-around. It is just that Miss Manners has witnessed so many cycles in which solutions to social problems were trumpeted, tried and then trounced that she pictures all experts as members of the same guild, taking turns keeping their profession going and the public entertained by alternately issuing alarming warnings and counter-warnings.

Appreciating their dedication and concern for public welfare, she hopes they take comfort from knowing that when they are not able to help, at least they are not unduly upsetting the public. Millions of people drift into a good night's sleep when they hear the soothing tones of a favorite announcer proclaiming, "New studies show...."

One cannot be told often enough to be careful not to ingest household cleaning solutions and to be nice to one's spouse. Miss Manners only objected to these study-based findings when they turned out not to suggest being nice to one's spouse, stressing, instead, the need for total, frank, open communication.

Whatever else that is, it is not nice.

Loyal, loving spouses sometimes think, "I'm so lucky I married you" and "You get cuter all the time," both of which should be stated, although preferably not while the person in question is trying to recover accidentally deleted work that is due the following morning.

But those loyal, loving spouses may also have such thoughts as, "I suppose you can't help it, but how can any human being be that clumsy?" and "If you died, nobody would mind my leaving my stuff where I want it."

These thoughts and feelings should not be shared.

Miss Manners does not share the experts' confidence that there are teachable "marriage skills" that can be applied to all couples. She once heard one such expert ask in despair, "Why is it that we teach high-school kids how to drive, and yet we don't even try to teach them how to have a happy marriage?" Her timid reply was, "Maybe it's because we know what makes cars work?"

Yet she does know something that always helps domestic life, although she would hardly classify it as a skill. It is (surprise!): ordinary politeness.

A myth exists that one of the pleasures of private life is the ability to drop manners and, as people always put it when they assert the desire to be repulsive, be themselves. On the contrary, that rapidly becomes one of its drawbacks.

True, family manners are less formal than those that are supposed to be applied outside the home. In family privacy, it is not improper to gnaw the chicken bones and walk around in bunny slippers. But when no manners are practiced -- when people start licking their plates or living in their underwear -- things usually go bad. And when the manners of personal respect disappear, and couples feel free to insult each other when they happen to harbor unflattering feelings, they get rapidly worse.

So if the new skill that experts are vaunting is politeness, Miss Manners would be willing to forget that it is the very one that their predecessors advised jettisoning.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Which side of your body is the proper place to wear nametags and/or jewelry?

We have heard that it is "proper" to wear them on the right side, and yet any time we see anyone of importance, i.e., the queen, Laura Bush and others that should know, they always have their jewelry on the left side. Can you clarify this for us?

Also, can you instruct us on when executives should and should not wear nametags?

GENTLE READER: Nametags on the right, jewelry on the left. Miss Manners is disappointed that you neglected to take up the question of whether the queen and Mrs. Bush should wear nametags, and if so, what they should say.

"HELLO! I'M/Your Majesty"?

"MY NAME IS/Laura (not Barbara)"?

: