DEAR MISS MANNERS: We recently buried my mother-in-law. I was not involved with the funeral arrangements or the writing of her obituary or biography. However, reading the obituary and bio, it was clear to see that it was written to show how the deceased felt about certain family members.

The authors of my mother-in-law's obituary chose to list devoted in-laws and undevoted ones. I was listed as one of the undevoted in-laws. Needless to say, I was offended.

What is the proper etiquette for listing family members in an obituary and a biography? Also, how can I bring this proper etiquette to the author's attention without being as rude as the author?

GENTLE READER: Now, now. It didn't really say the lady was survived by her undevoted son-in-law, did it? It merely applied that conventional adjective unevenly, and it happened to be omitted before your name.

Not having mandated the description of survivors' emotions in the first place, etiquette has nothing to say about this -- except that public declarations of devotion have a peculiar way of suggesting opposing feelings.

Miss Manners hopes she can comfort you by pointing out that if you were devoted to your mother-in-law, it is unlikely that the lady countenanced a posthumous expression of antipathy toward you. Wills, not obituaries, are the place of choice for that.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I work for a large independent day school whose constituency is wealthy, generous, but busy with their many activities. When we send out invitations to a group of parents or alumni for an event such as a luncheon, we ask for RSVPs so that we can plan for food, room size, etc.

After the deadline for RSVPs has past, it has become our modus operandi to call on the people that have not responded to make sure they received the invitation and ask if they plan on attending.

I believe this is a waste of time. I believe that if they planned on attending, they would let us know. Granted, the courtesy of replying to an invitation is a lost art, but do we really need to follow up with these people, especially given their social status?

The responses I get to my follow-up phone inquiries border on rude, as if I am pressuring them to attend. (Did I mention I work in the fund-raising office?)

GENTLE READER: It is worth mentioning. Invitations that imply that the guests should attend accompanied by their checkbooks, no matter how sanitized or glamorized the event, are not in the same category as invitations for their company alone.

Heaven forbid that Miss Manners should offer the slightest shelter to those who fail to answer invitations. It is unconscionable to keep in suspense those kindly people who only want to shower hospitality.

But while it is undeniably inconvenient for those planning charitable or business events when their invitations are ignored, they cannot expect everyone they choose to put on their mailing lists to be as diligent. If people had to respond to all the fund-raising "opportunities" being offered these days, they would have no time available to help the needy.

So Miss Manners agrees with you that calling these people is unnecessary. Alas, that is only what private hosts must do when their offers of no-strings-attached hospitality is rudely ignored.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Last year, my ex-husband was waiting in line at a supermarket checkout when someone cut in front of him. Words were exchanged and this led to one punch being thrown. The punch put my ex on the floor with massive head injuries, from which he died the next day. All over a place in line at the supermarket!

My son's anger at the loss of his father was subdued somewhat when he saw the store's security tape and it showed his dad had said the first impolite words. Still, two lives are lost, one to death and one behind bars charged with involuntary manslaughter. At least part of his sentence is anger management classes. Maybe we all need to look inward for anger management in today's world and practice more etiquette toward each other.

GENTLE READER: Indeed. When people dismiss etiquette as trivial, they forget how easily feelings over minor offenses turn lethal. Miss Manners offers her sympathy that your family had to learn this so tragically.

Such fights, if not deaths, happen with enough frequency -- not only to etiquette vigilantes such as your ex-husband, but on the part of street thugs who are quick to feel that they have been shown disrespect -- as to suggest that rudeness has become dangerous. This should give pause to those who believe that rudeness is best cured by punitive rudeness, when that only escalates the antagonism.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A friend recently invited me to a non-hosted dinner at one of our city's finest restaurants in honor of her birthday. I had to work that evening, and so declined her invitation gracefully (I hope), with a promise of taking her to lunch at a more, shall we say, proletarian eating establishment.

However, she knows my work schedule is somewhat flexible, and seems hurt that I haven't made arrangements to be there.

The truth is, an evening at that restaurant would simply cost far too much without me making a spectacle of myself by ordering a starter salad and glass of water (tap), and saying, "No, really, I'm not that hungry." Most of us in our group of friends are on limited budgets, and I know others who genuinely like this person and are attending somewhat grudgingly.

Is there any way to politely inform her that we would enjoy celebrating her birthday in a manner that doesn't require a month's grocery budget?

GENTLE READER: You did, and she didn't take it well. Miss Manners finds it a bit of a stretch for a non-host to be offended when a non-guest declines a non-invitation. Besides, you were gracious enough to indicate an interest in celebrating her birthday another way. We can only hope that your friend will mature enough to figure out the problem before next year.

:

For decades now, Miss Manners has been telling people to stop putting such a ridiculous emphasis on gender in connection with forming wedding parties.

A bride reared by a single mother will typically bypass her and subpoena some gentleman who never had any jurisdiction over her that he could surrender, for the sole reason that she feels she must have a male "give her away." A bridegroom will often be told to produce a certain number of gentlemen as groomsmen, whether or not this corresponds to the number of his real friends, to match the number of bridesmaids.

For goodness sake, Miss Manners has always protested, you're supposed to be gathering people who are important to you, not casting roles in a play.

If the father or stepfather traditionally gives away the bride, it was because traditionally she had been under his protection; widows were expected to perform that ceremony for their daughters. (Never mind that the entire gesture is something of an anachronism now. Miss Manners only objects when the symbolism is creepy, as when a bride has her son give her away, thus symbolically surrendering his claim on her.)

If brides are traditionally attended by bridesmaids and bridegrooms by groomsmen, it is because it used to be assumed that friendships only existed within the same genders -- any mixing of the two being considered too exciting for simple friendship.

The point was always the relationship, not the gender.

But things have changed. Childbirth deaths, which had left more single fathers than mothers, declined, while divorce and births outside of marriage, which leave more single mothers than fathers, soared. The disappearance of chaperonage and parietal rules demonstrated that the young were not as indiscriminately stimulated as had been assumed, and that real friendships (as opposed to the courtship kiss-of-death known as "Let's just be friends") are indeed possible.

Yet even those who now recognize this in making up their wedding parties do so self-consciously, as if they were violating the rules. Miss Manners has been bombarded with silly etiquette questions: What should a gentleman who attended the bride as her friend, or the lady who attended the bridegroom as his friend, be called? How should they dress?

Oh, stop it, is her reply. Having recognized that gender is not the deciding factor, why would anyone then imagine that these people needed to cross-dress or assume laughably inaccurate nomenclature?

Miss Manners admits that at the time she began carrying on like this, it did not occur to her to apply it to the bridal couple themselves.

But it fits. If there are ceremonies featuring two brides or two bridegrooms, they should not be play-acting to appear to be one of each. Their parents and friends should take whatever supportive positions their ties dictate, without aping divisions based on her-side/his-side.

As for financial support -- and Miss Manners knows that is always prominent in bridal minds -- that should always be privately set by the willingness and ability of those concerned to pay. The notion that a bride's family owes her the wedding of her dreams, or that a bridegroom's family may be assessed by those dictating the expenses, is outrageous enough without doing this by assigning a gender division where there is none.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What do you do when you have been having a perfectly respectable conversation about airport security with your seatmate during a flight, but he begins to volunteer information about the way he was abused as a child out of the blue? How can one express sympathy without seeming to wish to hear more? I felt very uncomfortable listening to these confidences from a complete stranger.

GENTLE READER: Then reply, "I'm very sorry to hear that. But to get back to what you were saying, don't you think there is any way they can speed things up without compromising security?"

You will note that this is minimal sympathy, second only perhaps to "You're kidding! But is that drinks cart ever going to get to us?" Perhaps you will accuse Miss Manners of callousness.

However, if people are going to make small talk of their most personal confessions, they should expect to have these treated as small talk. Any serious show of sympathy would be acceptance of the serious job of confessor and consoler.

: