Now is the season to think of those more fortunate than ourselves.

At least so it appears from the flood of solicitations that are made toward the end of the year, requesting donations of money from those who are deemed to be such. Hardly anyone seems to be considered below the financial cutoff line for being importuned by friends, relatives, colleagues and strangers alike, through the mail, e-mail, the telephone and both door-to-door and desk-to-desk visits.

Collecting for charity is such a widespread activity that there are entire income brackets who depend upon it for a meal. Miss Manners is not referring to the poor, who can hardly consider such largesse dependable. She means that segment of the rich who give lavishly, but who expect something in return: not only a tax deduction, but a social life, complete with gift bags.

Miss Manners heartily supports charity, and, as in Victorian times, she expects good behavior in return. The difference is that the Victorians expected the objects of their charity to behave well. At best, this led to a lot of showy shuffling and at worst, it ruled out some of the needy on the basis of their neediness.

The good behavior Miss Manners expects is from those who collect for charity. She expects them to observe social decencies toward potential and repeat donors, and to not try to claim that violating etiquette is permitted "because it's for a good cause."

As they know, pity and shame are basic to the disposition to donate money. Pity for the plight of others and shame if one remains selfish. But what many charities prefer are the implied threat of social embarrassment and the enticement of social aggrandizement.

That people give to charity to get their names and reputations around is an occasionally amusing sport that Miss Manners considers unobjectionable. There are worse reputations for which to strive than that of philanthropist. There may be none better, although the difference between acquiring it through others' noticing one's deeds and through trumpeting it oneself is not a small one.

That people also give because they are embarrassed to say no to the particular person who asks is also effective, Miss Manners is aware. This is why charities send friends, neighbors, colleagues and children to do the asking. The onus then is on the prospective donor to weigh the factor of pleasing the importuner along with his interest in the cause and assessment of what he can spare.

It is invaluable to know that there is nothing rude about saying pleasantly, "Thank you, I'll pass on this." Really. Deciding where and how much to give is a serious responsibility of the giver, which should not be abandoned.

But the agents of charity often try -- indeed, are often instructed to try -- to engineer deeper embarrassment. Using such insidious techniques as familiarity with the income and possessions of the prospective donor to extract or raise the donation is a common -- and rude -- practice. Using a venue where cooperative behavior is expected, such as the workplace (especially when a higher-ranking person, or worse yet, a high-ranking person's child, does it) or a social occasion that the guests were not warned was for fund-raising are also rude.

What is fair, and more effective in the long run, is working up an impassioned speech about the goodness of the cause and the good that donations will do: wrenching the heart, rather than tweaking the ego.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What are chocolate spoons? Are they for stirring hot chocolate (as teaspoons are for tea), or are they for eating chocolate desserts such as mousse or pots de creme? I have a chance to buy some in my pattern, but I am unsure as to their proper use. I even asked a good friend who is a former White House social secretary, and she's not sure.

GENTLE READER: Then she could not have worked for an 18th century administration, which was when chocolate became such a prized drink that it developed its own spoons, pots and cups. However, your other guess has some validity, as the hot chocolate of that time was so thick that it might well be mistaken for a pudding.

Chocolate spoons are short and round-bowled, but the pots and cups are tall and lack the bellies of coffee and teapots and cups. Miss Manners is afraid that the same cannot be said of people who (understandably in her view) prefer chocolate to coffee and tea.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: An uncomfortable situation arose prior to my sister-in-law's marriage a few months ago. To be polite as I can, her mother, my mother-in law, is an extremely pushy, insensitive woman who usually does and says whatever she wants.

While making the guest list for the shower, she informed me she was going to invite my mother. My mother does not like this woman for many obvious reasons (her insensitivity would make your hair stand on end). I knew this was going to be a problem. Also, my mother's health has been deteriorating over the past few years and she is unable to sit or stand for long periods of time.

When I informed my mother of the impending invitation, she told me to convey to my mother-in-law that she would not attend because of her health, so please do not send her an invitation. I repeated this back to my mother-in-law, stressing how ill my mother was, and the response I received was "I'm sending her one anyway"! And she did just that!

When my mother got the invitation, she was furious and threw it in the trash. My mother-in-law then kept badgering me about whether or not my mother got the invitation and if she was going to RSVP soon so she could get a head count! My mom said to tell her she never received the invitation, so I ended up lying.

Obviously, my mother-in-law was wrong, but the behavior on both sides left me in the middle and I'm upset. What should have been done?

GENTLE READER: Not having the pleasure of being acquainted with either of these ladies, Miss Manners is able to pass judgment without prejudice.

Your mother-in-law has done nothing wrong.

Wait -- you are prepared to testify that she has done wrongs that would make Miss Manners' hair stand on end, and that may be the case. But it is inadmissible evidence here.

Issuing an invitation is not a rude act, even if it is known that that person will not be able to attend. Refusing to answer an invitation is a rude act.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When preparing Christmas cards, or other holiday cards for that matter, when should one stop listing recipients' children?

If the child is grown and moved out of the home, I would expect that they would no longer be listed. What if the child is grown (over 18), attending college and living at home? Are they adults and therefore not listed on the card, or are they still members of the household and listed as always?

GENTLE READER: What exactly is the reasoning here? Why should you cease to consider children members of the household they inhabit because they are grown up, and why should you want to stop greeting them if you were previously in the habit of doing so? Unless you meant to ask whether they should be sent separate cards, which you could do although it hardly seems necessary, Miss Manners sees no reason to strike them from your greetings on the grounds of age.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband of 14 years and I, with our young children, participate in many social activities, and worship services, regularly throughout the year.

But, at Christmastime, my husband refuses to attend either of these. He explains that he is a real friend/congregant, and to go during Christmastime belittles the experiences for him; Christmas parties and services are for "amateurs," and therefore to be avoided.

In the past, I have either stayed home during these (to me) important events, or gone with my children without him. I do not wish to deprive my children of these experiences, or give the impression that Mama is nicer/holier than Dad.

Neither seems correct. Either way, I am the one left making excuses -- either why we were unable to attend, or where on earth my husband is. I once told the questioner to ask my husband when next they met, but, to my horror, he gave them the whole unvarnished truth as to his reasons, leaving them with the impression that he thought they were one of the said "amateurs"!

I now much prefer to make my own excuses, but what should they be, and should I stay or should I go?

GENTLE READER: Is there no freedom of religion at your house? And why do you think that going to Christmas festivities would make you appear holier than your husband, whose purism is what you find objectionable?

Miss Manners fails to see why you and your husband cannot disagree about Christmas celebrations. Why can't you each attend what you find meaningful? And why can't the children hear that there are two points of view here?

Miss Manners agrees that you should not have to make his excuses, and the solution of directing those who inquire to him would be fine if you can extract from him a slightly more polite explanation. A complicated theological one would be best, as it would lead to either a mutually respectful discussion or a hasty exit.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Each year my husband and I host a Christmas party at our home for business associates and friends and family. I receive quite a few hostess gifts, but I am so busy greeting everyone, getting drinks and so on that I usually just set aside the gifts and open them at a later time.

Should I be taking the time to open the gift immediately and acknowledge it, or should I simply thank them and do as I usually do and set them aside to open later? I do feel rude doing this, but I am just so busy being the hostess with the mostest.

GENTLE READER: The little present you most need is a felt-tipped pen. Put it on a small table near the door where you can stash the presents, and as soon as you have thanked the new arrivals and sped them toward the drinks, scribble their names on the package. That way, you can send them charming little notes after the party. Miss Manners assures you that you need not feel wrong not to open the presents at the time, which might be embarrassing to those who did not bring anything.

: