At the highest levels of government, for work and during daytime ceremonial occasions, American ladies in official positions are now routinely wearing trouser suits.

(Well, at least senators, representatives and the ranking ladies who live or work in the White House are. You can never tell about those stylish justices.)

Miss Manners considers this an overdue triumph for decorum. The gentlemen are no longer subject to becoming overexcited by catching a glimpse of exposed ankle.

It is not often that she finds a sensible trend in the world of feminine fashion. Other such news -- heralding the return of what Miss Manners actually wears, such as hats, gloves and evening dresses with trains, rather than what she countenances in others, as she does the trouser suit -- typically amounts to nothing more than regularly repeated false alarms.

When the female equivalent of the male suit first began to be widely worn, it provoked outrage. Restaurateurs with fancy establishments declared that they would bar the door to ladies with the audacity to show up wearing pants. And that was in the first miniskirt era, when the same people had managed to accept the rapid retreat of hemlines -- apparently only with the proviso that that trend not be reversed.

At the time, Miss Manners refused to become aghast. The prescience of denouncing ladies' tailored trouser suits struck her as an invitation to join members of the French Academy, who had barred the Impressionists; and the first-night audience at Stravinsky's "Rites of Spring," whose musical sensitivity led them to tear up the theater. One does not recover from such reputations. And surely there is enough nasty business around to keep the discriminating busy without having to scorn what will soon come to be considered conventional, if not classic.

The grand restaurateurs' understanding of the gender factor in fashion did not improve after this defeat. When the law forced them to abandon their policy of hiring only males to wait on tables (with the notion that waitresses were better suited to simpler restaurants, where they could carry heavier trays for lighter tips), they dressed their waitresses in male formal dress, complete with bowties.

What this says symbolically is: We still have male service, but some of it is performed by male impersonators.

The difference between that and the female business suit, whether it has a skirt or trousers, is that the suit is an adaptation rather than an imitation. While benefiting from such advantages as freedom from worry of exposing various parts of the body to view and criticism and compatibility with low-heeled shoes, the suit retains feminine access to the full color spectrum and (with the addition of jewelry and scarves, and the addition or total subtraction of blouses) individualization.

More significantly, it provides that recognizably professional look that gentlemen have always been able to summon. In contrast, ladies were presumed to be present on official occasions only in a social capacity, and their prescribed wardrobes -- floaty dresses with whimsical hats for the most formal daytime occasions -- reflected this. Even now, there is an oddly reactionary tendency among young ladies to wear clothes to work that are amazingly, ah, social in original intent.

The trouser suit, in contrast, symbolizes seriousness. So do the skirted suit and the coatdress, if they are of decent length, and Miss Manners will personally stick with them -- despite that pesky problem of the provocatively exposed ankles.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have been noticing more and more at various dinner parties that the place settings are being done in a manner that appears odd to me. Over many years I have always placed the knife with the sharp edge of the blade toward the plate.

Now in many cases I see that sharp edge pointed away from the plate. Is this the correct new place setting arrangement, or not?

GENTLE READER: What are you thinking? That the Etiquette Council met one fine day and issued a proclamation that from then on, everyone was required to reverse all knives?

Not likely. What Miss Manners finds all too likely is that fewer and fewer people know or care how to do things properly.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I'm afraid I've been rude, and I'm looking for forgiveness.

As a professional woman, I've had to put up with years of people assuming I must be the secretary, asking me to get them coffee and asking to speak to "someone with authority," as if that couldn't possibly be me.

Today, it happened one too many times. A company representative making a cold call to sell his products to my firm was referred to me. I answered my phone "Mary Smith," as I always do, and he proceeded: "Mary, this is Mr. Jones with the ABC Company, I'd like to speak to someone..."

Seething, I kept my voice level, but could not resist making my point -- that, as a salesman, it might be wise not to address someone by their first name and refer to himself with a title. I'm sure he had no idea what I was talking about, but I know I was rude. My question is, who was more rude?

GENTLE READER: Let's call it a tie. You both violated basic etiquette, and, as a result, you both missed your objectives. Miss Manners will attempt to smother a feeling of smugness that rudeness was its own punishment.

Had the salesman addressed you respectfully, he presumably would have obtained a hearing. Had you made your point without the rudeness of reprimanding him -- instead saying civilly, "I am the person in authority, and I prefer to be addressed as Ms. Smith" -- he might have understood.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My mother, who was just in a car accident, is much better now, thank God, but will be in the hospital another month. My wedding is in one week, and she is very upset and disappointed that she won't be able to come.

Would it be tacky to, after the ceremony, quickly drive to the hospital with my new husband in all our finery and show my mother just what we looked like and tell her all about it right then?

I'd like to show her our outfits, give her the flowers that decorated the church as well as my bouquet, and then give her the video taken of the ceremony. The guests can go to the house for the reception and start lunch, with my dad making a quick announcement about our delay. We would be gone about an hour tops.

Is it always tacky to leave your reception, even in this circumstance? What would Miss Manners do?

GENTLE READER: Make sure everyone got a glass of champagne and the explanation, along with an apology, and get them started on lunch -- just as you suggest.

The problem is not what Miss Manners would do if she were you, but what she will do now as herself. Having granted you an exception to the rule because of the unusual and emotionally compelling circumstances, she expects to watch helplessly as other bridal couples take this as license to keep their guests standing around doing nothing while they go off to have photographs taken and then make a grand entrance.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: For the second time this year, I have had a curious thing happen to me: after asking young ladies out on dates -- to which each said yes (apparently with sincerity) and chose an evening -- they then came to me a few days later (but before the date) to say that they had changed their minds and would not go out with me.

In the first case, the young lady changed her mind so that she could go out with a friend of mine, who had asked her out after she'd already agreed to go out with me!

Now, it's said that "a woman's prerogative is to change her mind," yet I feel as if once a woman has agreed to go out and we've chosen an evening and a place, she should at least go through with it, and if she doesn't like me, to decline a second date. But changing her mind seems rude.

Am I wrong about this? And how should I behave toward these ladies? I've been courteous, but after such mind-changing, I certainly don't feel friendly toward them.

GENTLE READER: It is a lady's prerogative to change her mind after agreeing to marry you. It is a lady's prerogative to run back and change her shoes after you have agreed that it is time to go. But it is not a lady's prerogative to accept a social engagement, potentially romantic or not, and change her mind about going.

Besides, we are closer to having equal rights these days (although not so close that a gentleman may change his shoes). Miss Manners asks you to consider how one of these ladies would have reacted had you announced, after setting up the date, that you had found someone with whom you preferred to spend that evening.

She is not, however, endorsing your behaving that way, which would be no more gentlemanly than their behavior was ladylike. The polite reaction to a snub is to refrain from intruding your acquaintanceship on someone who has rejected it.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My unmarried niece gave birth to a little girl last month. Earlier in her pregnancy, her family sent out invitations for a baby shower. Since she lives several states away, I sent a monetary gift and received a lovely thank-you note in return.

I was later quite surprised to learn that the baby was given up for adoption. Is it appropriate to have a shower when the baby is to be given up for adoption? If this was a last-minute decision, should I not have been sent a note of explanation? I do not wish my gift returned, I just feel as if I should have been informed.

GENTLE READER: As a matter of family news, Miss Manners agrees that you should have been informed, but you seem to relate this courtesy to your contribution to the shower. That is a mistake: the baby was born, you gave her a present and you were graciously thanked.

Now -- could we not look too closely into the question of whether there should have been a shower? The decision about adopting might have been made subsequently, as you realize. But even if not, perhaps your niece simply craved this small ritual and wanted to send the child off with things from her family. Miss Manners is not able to begrudge her that.

: