The American public has grown too cynical to believe that a politician whose wife gazes at him with rapt adoration in public must be a nice fellow. They figure cannily that the wife has surely heard it all before, so she's faking to make him look good, and they are not to be fooled into thinking this means anything. Or she's just been programmed.

Of course, she can't look bored, either, thus proving once again that being a politician's wife is a no-win situation. (Politicians' husbands are not used in this way, because it would be assumed that they are the brains of the outfit and their wives have been programmed to be out front.)

What this sophisticated public now demands is that politicians make public declarations of love for their wives. Only then can they be deemed nice. And so they do.

"I'm lucky enough to be married to the most wonderful woman in the world!" the politician shouts to the crowd. Wild applause. Then comes a joke or two about how she's really the brains of the outfit. Wild applause. "We've been married for X years!" Wild applause. "Honey, I love you!" he shouts to her. They blow kisses at each other.

As soon as they can reunite, they hug and kiss to wild applause. And they cannot take a step together without locking hands like high-schoolers.

Surely Miss Manners cannot be the only person who finds this in dreadful taste. But maybe she is, judging from all that applause.

She understands that in a society where divorce is common, it is considered an achievement, if not a miracle of selflessness, to keep a marriage going. Also, much as we love gossip, it is a relief to have evidence that there is not yet another scandal brewing.

She approves of the overdue acknowledgement that spouses are often major behind-the-scenes factors in the success of a political career. Unless the marriage is a farce, there are bound to have been numerous professional contributions, as well as personal support.

So why does she object to public declarations of marital affection?

Because they are icky.

Exactly because we do believe in the bond of marriage, extolling one's spouse is nearly as gauche as bragging about oneself. The "nearly" is in there because one can modestly admit to being proud when others praise the spouse. To praise one's own spouse to others is a play for reflected glory: "Notice that this wonderful person chose me."

The "We can't keep our hands off each other" demonstration is another form of marital bragging: "You may have settled down, but we are spending decades in a honeymoon fever."

Some leeway is allowed to those actually in the first stages of romantic love, but even they are supposed to exercise some control. Expressing affection in front of others has the unflattering implication of "We wish you weren't here so we could really go at it."

Finally, it doesn't prove anything except an absence of manners. We all know that lack of character is not incompatible with being adored -- even by someone who does have character, more's the pity. And we have seen enough handholding couples split for good to suspect that at least some of them let go as soon as we stop watching and applauding.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Here is a conundrum faced frequently by would-be gentlemen who travel:

A woman in front of you in the boarding line is towing onto the plane a totally unreasonable amount of carry-on luggage. When she reaches her seat, she discovers, to nobody's surprise, that she can't even lift her suitcase off the floor. What course of action (or inaction) would you suggest for the gentlemen in such a situation?

GENTLE READER: It depends on whether the gentleman wishes to help the lady with her suitcase or to punish her for having brought it aboard. Miss Manners gathers you favor the latter, and is at least grateful that you wish to do it in a gentlemanly way.

In that case, you should spring up and say soothingly, "Here, let me help; that's much too heavy for you." As the lady smiles gratefully, you may add, "I'll get a flight attendant who can check it for you."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the world of business, is it ever appropriate to use rude language if a charming dunce is getting the best of you?

I lack what some call the "royal jelly." I am not particularly good-looking, and I do not possess the natural grace that sometimes enables others to persuade without the need for logic, reason or fact. I am intelligent, however, and I believe in my work. I am not content to allow my ideas to go unheard in the midst of a charm offensive.

I sometimes wonder if a well-placed insult might cut through the nonsense I sometimes hear from my colleagues. I know that an elegantly phrased barb can avoid the tint of rudeness, but when it comes from me, it usually flies over disinterested heads. But profanity will get people's attention, and hopefully will be forgiven after a well-reasoned argument.

I have always thought that etiquette and rhetoric were designed to help people overcome their natural limitations, but today's image-obsessed world seems oblivious to these arts, responding instead to a firm jaw and a steady gaze, or some such phrenology. I hope you can tell me I am wrong.

GENTLE READER: You are not good at being charming, so you are asking if being rude works just as well?

Well, no, actually it doesn't. As you were hoping, Miss Manners can tell you equivocally that you are wrong.

The reason that she can't tell you that unequivocally is that in the short run, the shock factor of rudeness does work. If you startle and intimidate your colleagues at meetings, and don't mind not having anyone with whom to go to lunch, you may, for a while, carry the day.

But then two things are bound to happen: You will be vilified and you will be copied. And when your colleagues are in the habit of using profanity, too, you will not only lose what advantage you had, but will retain the reputation for having lowered the tone.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I hope you can help me with what should be a simple question about addressing wedding envelopes. My mother, as do I, finds addressing women as "Mrs. Husband's Name" demeaning, as if the woman you are addressing has no value outside of her husband. You do an excellent job of updating etiquette with the times and I'd appreciate your advice on this issue. Is addressing all the envelopes "Mr. Husband and Ms. Wife Last Name" appropriate?

GENTLE READER: If you are interested in the dignity of women, you will kindly address them as they prefer to be addressed, and not remove the choice by superimposing yours on them in such a highly personal matter.

Miss Manners does indeed realize that etiquette must be updated to meet legitimate changes. She would not dream of addressing a lady as Mrs. with her husband's name if the lady had kept her original surname or preferred the title of Ms. But neither would she dream of mis-addressing as Ms. one who prefers the traditional form. And if nobody in either family knows the guests well enough to be able to find out which they prefer, what are they doing on the guest list?

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: For three generations, my husband's family owned a chain of department stores. At the height of their success, there were approximately 30 stores in three states. The stores were sold to another family-owned chain of stores about 10 years ago.

Since then, in an effort to preserve some family memorabilia for my daughter, who doesn't remember this part of the family history, I have collected several promotional and advertising items with the store name and logo on them. Many of the items are from the 1940s and '50s. Rather than store them away in a closet, I would like to display them in a tasteful and meaningful way. Most of the items are small -- paper fans and calendars, for example.

I know there are ways of displaying collectibles that reflect a person's interests and hobbies, but does having one's last name on the collectibles prohibit the display of this precious memorabilia?

GENTLE READER: There is a difference between a hobby collection and personal memorabilia, and what you have is in the latter category.

If you collected, say, seashells or Rembrandts, you could display them anywhere in the house. (Miss Manners is assuming that you are not a member of the Rembrandt or mollusk family.)

However, by the strictest standards -- meaning ones that are commonly flouted -- personal memorabilia, including family photographs, belong in rooms seen only by intimates of the residents, such as a library, study, bedroom or family sitting room.

Your case offers a particularly apt illustration of why. While your good friends presumably know something of your family history, other acquaintances whom you entertain may not. If they were unaware that your family no longer owned the chain, they might assume that you were advertising the goods. Or worse, that you were giving out logo-laden souvenirs.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: All I want for my birthday is dinner out with my life partner. I do not want all kinds of e-mails and talk about it from my co-workers. I work at a Fortune 500 company that views such things as important for employee bonding. Even though I requested that my birthday not be celebrated publicly, word has gotten around and I am getting unwanted attention. Is there any way I can respond to curb this? Or do I need to just put on a good face and get through the day?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is afraid so. Much as she sympathizes with your distaste for this kindergarten practice among working adults, you cannot tell people to buzz off while they are wishing you a happy birthday. And if that were all, it wouldn't be so bad. It's the cakes and collections for presents that create a burden for those who must participate and can hardly make the guest of honor feel beloved, as he surely knows he doesn't pony up for others because he loves them.

If you can find others who also consider the idea that they will work harder if colleagues are required to pretend to be their buddies patronizing, perhaps you can kill the practice in your office.

: