DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am in need of advice on birth announcements. My husband died a year ago October. Using embryos we previously had frozen, I became pregnant and am due with our daughter at the end of May.

Throughout my pregnancy it has been very important to me that when people learn I am pregnant that they know that my late husband is the father -- a sometimes difficult thing to explain for people unfamiliar with current infertility procedures.

I've seen wedding announcements where a deceased parent is recognized. I would like to recognize my late husband on my daughter's birth announcement. Can you recommend a way that I might do this that considers my unusual situation?

GENTLE READER: Devoted as she is to tradition, Miss Manners is reluctant to admit that there can be situations so new that precedent is useless. There have been posthumous children born throughout history, especially during wartime. (True, the time gap is new -- although she seems to recall queen consorts who claimed succession for children born rather long after the monarchs who fathered them were deceased.)

However, the more recent and relevant example you mention is a tricky one. Wedding announcements should indeed include deceased parents, but sentiment has also misled people into putting their names on wedding invitations. The effect of being invited by someone characterized as "the late" is unfortunately confusing and creepy.

A third-person announcement is difficult, but if you styled yourself "Mrs. Kevin Demott" and announced the birth of your and your late husband's daughter, it would get across the essential idea. A first-person note is a better way to announce a birth anyway, and makes it easy to mention that the baby is yours and your late husband's. In no type of birth announcement is it proper to deal with the conception, so please omit the part about the frozen embryo.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is it just me, or is there a trend out there wherein young (age 20 to 40), single, professional women host their own birthday parties at fashionable restaurants and then expect the invitees to pay for her (the birthday girl's) meal?

I have two female friends who have done this recently and upon further research and reflection I realize that they have both done this in recent years past. I thought -- silly me -- that you were supposed to wait for someone to ask you out to lunch or dinner on your birthday, not the other way around.

I have never known a man to do this.

This practice of a woman asking out her friends (both male and female) with the tacit or not-so-tacit assumption that she deserves to be treated at the end of the meal strikes me and a few of my friends as a bit tacky. I am tempted to politely decline the next time I am invited to a similar birthday dinner.

GENTLE READER: There certainly has been a trend toward blatant greed, with an emphasis on planning treats for oneself and demanding that others pay for them. If you have particularly noticed it among unmarried ladies, perhaps it is because they feel cheated of the opportunity to follow this unattractive practice by demanding wedding and baby showers.

By all means decline such non-invitations. Barring a revival of modesty and reticence, which Miss Manners believes to be unfortunately unlikely, the only thing that will stop this is a polite refusal to submit.

:

(EDITORS Please be advised that the third paragraph of this column contains the word “sluts.” We apologize for any inconvenience.)

Mindful of etiquette's injunction to please others, nice people have trouble saying no. This is a good way to get a bad reputation.

Miss Manners knows, because she has one. Not personally, of course, because she says "No, thank you" so touchingly that petitioners pity her for being unable to comply with their demands. It is etiquette itself that has a bad reputation, stemming from the mistaken belief that it requires a perpetual sacrifice of one's own wishes and judgment in favor of others'. As the naive invariably put it, "Isn't etiquette always a matter of making other people feel comfortable?"

This would make politeness an activity exclusively for suckers and wimps. And, of course, sluts.

In fact, etiquette has no such requirement. The mistake arises from the fact that etiquette does recognize that one has duties toward others, which is why it will not put up with such duty-dodging attempts as "Why should I thank Grandma for the check just because she wants me to?" And it does require being polite to others, even when they are not role models themselves.

But that is a far cry from declaring that courtesy means taking everybody else's orders. And orders are being issued constantly, now that reticence and modesty are no longer considered the virtues they once were. From the selfish and the philanthropic alike, we are bombarded with requests to do, donate, attend, volunteer, eat, drink and buy.

With the strongest of wills, the biggest of purses, and the freest of schedules, one could never fulfill all these orders. And much as Miss Manners appreciates any inhibitions at all that are inspired by courtesy, she hopes that people will make these important choices with more discrimination than is involved in surrendering whenever they happen to be cornered.

This is why the ability to say no politely is an essential social skill. All that is really needed is the ability to repeat "No, thank you," interspersed with such small politenesses as "I'm so sorry" and "You're kind to ask" and "I wish you luck."

Elaborating is what gets people into trouble. Excuses that are false are traps one sets for oneself, but even true excuses encourage the audacious to argue: "Can't you do that another night?" "One little piece of cake isn't going to kill you." "But this helps more people."

Yet most people can't help blabbing on to soften the "no," which is apt to be so softened as to give way. So here is a small supply of supplementary sentences:

"I'm afraid I'm not taking on anything else right now."

"Sorry, I never discuss my finances."

"I'm sure it's wonderful, but I'm not going to have any."

"We never go to balls, but we'd love to see you privately."

"I'm so sorry, but that's not something I can help you with."

"If you care to send me some written material, I'll get in touch if I find it interests me."

"I didn't realize what this involved, and I think I'd better bow out."

And the ultimately correct, no-excuses refusal:

"Dr. Peony Wiley

regrets that she is unable to accept

the exceedingly kind invitation of

Mr. and Mrs. Popinjay

for Saturday, the first of June"

DEAR MISS MANNERS: How does one deal with an ex? When I see him in public, he feels the need to come up to me and give me a hug. I do not wish to shake his hand much less hug him.

What should one do when placed in such a situation? I feel it inappropriate to pretend that I want to continue a friendship with this person. How does one convey that message without being hurtful?

GENTLE READER: There is no way around the fact that it is hurtful to be rejected as a friend -- especially by someone who knows you only too well yet refers to you as "this person."

So Miss Manners suggests you refrain from adding public humiliation to the rejection. If you can't bring yourself to shake his hand or offer a non-touching air kiss to avoid the appearance of being enemies, ask him in private to offer you a more restrained greeting.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Why do we have to eat at almost every meeting, most functions and many classes? How does one politely decline to bring food without being ostracized and bringing attention to oneself?

With super-sizing our bodies and obesity being a concern, how can we turn this "must eat before and while functioning" (or rather "must eat constantly") mentality around?

What finally brought these questions to the surface was a call to bring a "dish to share" to the voting place for fellow workers, with an ending note that said "don't forget to bring food for yourself during the long day" -- food plus food!

I didn't volunteer to work in order to eat, nor to feed others. If I wanted to feed others I would volunteer, and I do on holidays and other days, to work in a soup kitchen.

Volunteer for a nonprofit organization or committee and the first things of business are "what kind of pizza do we order and what dish will you bring?" and then we need to decide where we will dine (paid for by the nonprofit organization) to celebrate the wonderful job our committee will do! It makes a lot more sense to me for each committee member to donate the monies that they would spend on the unneeded food to the organization and to save the nonprofit organization funds by foregoing the dining.

Sign up and pay for a night class of any kind (even diet or weight loss) and first thing, even before attendance is taken, the instructor says, "It has been suggested (and it is never disclosed by whom) that we all bring food for everyone to snack on before, during and after class; also we need to decide where we will eat at on the last night."

The airlines are finally (thanks to cost-cutting) getting away from the era of "fasten your seat belt, open your mouth, food's coming." Two breakfasts, lunch, dinner and snacks in between on a flight to attend a power breakfast is a little much even for Jack Spratt.

GENTLE READER: Well, sure, because Jack Spratt couldn't scarf the potato chips and the cheese dip. He ate no fat, remember?

Although Miss Manners shares your reaction, she would like to believe that the emphasis on constant snacking has to do with the spread of the hospitable impulse. She is, however, afraid it is more likely connected with the highly regrettable demise of proper meals.

You will not be able to reform this practice, but you can refrain from participating. As plans are made, you should say, without rancor, "Count me out, I won't be eating." Miss Manners is sure she does not have to remind you that after that, it is no fair snacking.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I gave my girlfriend diamond earrings for Christmas and she dumped me a week ago. She admitted she was thinking about breaking up before Christmas. Should I expect them back?

GENTLE READER: Not likely. Just a guess, but a lady who disobeys the etiquette rule against accepting valuable jewelry from a gentleman to whom she is not related -- and to the extent of accepting this from a gentleman she is thinking of dropping -- does not strike Miss Manners as someone devoted to the rule about returning love tokens from a defunct romance.

: