DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a middle-aged man dating a middle-aged woman. She is a mother of three and is under the impression that I should buy her a gift on Mother's Day.

I don't want to sound cheap, but aren't gifts only for your actual mother (whom I always buy gifts for)? Is there precedent for my significant other's feelings, or do you think she just really likes unwrapping things?

GENTLE READER: If she is still pouting that the Easter Bunny didn't come across and throwing around reminders about Memorial Day, yes.

Yes, anyway, come to think of it. People who feel obliged to spread the idea that they deserve more presents than would be spontaneously offered are not doing so out of a disinterested devotion to propriety.

The idea behind the 19th-century invention of Mother's Day was for children to honor their mothers. By extension, this has moved some to honor others who have acted toward them in a motherly capacity. In addition, fathers sometimes use it to show their gratitude that they did not actually have to bear the children -- and besides, they have to take the children shopping, anyway.

That you should be moved to celebrate the fact that someone you are dating had children by someone else before you met strikes Miss Manners as somewhat far-fetched.

But perhaps she is being uncharitable. Perhaps the lady is saying that rather than dating you, what she really wants is to adopt you.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have never used my cherished pool of close friends or family (or for that matter even acquaintances) for purposes of school fundraising, my own charitable interests, or the dreaded home party opportunity. I am aware that these options present seemingly no dilemma to a significant portion of today's gentle society.

As my child now approaches the age of graduation celebration, I am becoming increasingly perplexed regarding the issue of graduation announcement. I have always been gracious (generous) in my response to parental joy of close friends and family, but would rather announce my own child's accomplishment with all the joy and none of the material expectation.

If you might suggest a delicate way of accomplishing this desire, it will be appreciated and so tendered. If not, I am sure my dear husband and child will only expect further displays of obstinacy (if not superiority, eeh gad!) on my part, which has never been my intention. Thoughts?

GENTLE READER: A formal announcement is not a bill, Miss Manners keeps trying to point out. All that polite recipients have to offer in response are congratulations.

But when announcements are sent around indiscriminately, it is easy to see why some of the recipients cynically ask themselves why they are being informed of something in which they have minimal interest.

This is not the effect you want to achieve. The chief way to guard against it is to confine your list to people who have demonstrated an interest in your child. Another is not to feel that the availability of formal announcements requires you to use them. Acquaintances who may be suspicious of receiving these may react more warmly if you merely slip your son's achievement into your conversation.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have a habit of shortening peoples names down when I meet them. If I meet an Anthony, it's not long before I call them Tony. Christian to Chris, Thomas to Tom, et. al. I think you get the idea.

I've done this all my life, I think, but my wife has picked up on this and told me it's rude. She even has my 10-year-old daughter jumping on her wagon. I feel I'm just being friendly with people and mean no harm. Am I wrong?

GENTLE READER: Deeply wrong. You are not these people's friends -- nor are you likely to become so if you persist in this presumptuous and irritating habit.

You have no idea what people you meet are customarily called, nor what they like to be called. Anthony may be called Junior. Christian may be called Everett, because it is his middle name. Thomas may be called Buster.

Nicknames are bestowed by parents, friends and even enemies. Even so, many people try desperately to escape theirs. Miss Manners assures you that if you continue to address them with your cheeky assumptions, they will be trying even more desperately to escape you.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I received an e-mail from a friend announcing her wedding plans as follows:

"Well-Some of you may have heard, but we wanted to be sure, so here's an e-mail announcement -- I am engaged and getting married soon! We wanted to do it this summer but couldn't get a date when my kids, the minister and a place were all available. Everything fell into place for the 5th.

"I am very happy and am grateful to have found Jonathan and get this 2nd chance. Thank you all for your love and support. And if you think you want to come, we would love to have you!"

In fact, I had not heard and am not sure how to respond, as this is not an invitation. I cannot imagine that she would be having a wedding and posing this question to all of her friends and family, which leads me to believe that I am not on the "A-List." This person is (or was, I thought) an old friend, and this would be a second marriage. Should I accept my role as being a second-status friend, and what should this role entail?

GENTLE READER: Is it possible that your friend does not subscribe to the current notion that every marriage must begin with an all-out spectacle of a wedding?

If this letter heralded a formal wedding, Miss Manners would advise you to send a stiff note wishing the lady happiness and ignoring the possibility of attending. But it does not sound as if your friend spent a year selecting theme colors. It may be a low-key, informal occasion, or what we used to call a tasteful second wedding, and she may not want friends who went through a major wedding with her once to feel obligated to do it again. Why don't you call her with your best wishes so you can get a sense whether this is the case? If so, and you want to go, you should.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I understand that a registry should only be taken as a suggestion and that anyone who chooses to give a gift is under no obligation to purchase from a set list. I often use registries when I am stuck for ideas or don't feel I have a good grasp on what the person or couple in question would like.

However, I have a friend I have known for years who, upon discovering she was pregnant with her first child, a girl, I knew I wanted to give her baby clothes. I chose everyday cotton outfits that were for babies, but not newborns so that they'd not be too small, in a pattern and style I felt my friend would find pleasing that would reflect the season her baby would be old/big enough to fit into said outfits. It was a true joy to buy these things and I felt very satisfied with the selections.

In the past, she has returned many gifts that were not on her wedding registry and then purchased things on the registry with the money or credit.

I wanted her to have something from me personally. I did not send a gift receipt. I chose a store that had an exchange policy, hence she could choose a larger size if she wanted, but not use my gift to buy something she preselected. I'm not trying to thumb my nose at her wishes so much as I am trying to make sure the gift remains a gift, whether she uses it or not, and not a revenue generator for her wish list.

I have been told I am being selfish and unkind and ignoring what gift-giving is about. I'm told I'm making the present about me instead of about her. I'm told I'm trying to make her angry. I've been told that not to buy off a registry on purpose is the same as implying I don't care what my friend wants. (These critiques are not coming from my friend, who as of yet has not received the gift.)

I do want her to be happy, I just hate feeling like a personal shopper. I'm not going to keep tabs on if she uses my present. I just don't like feeling obligated in these ways, or used. I'm now feeling conflicted.

GENTLE READER: Well, what is gift giving about? Good question.

According to the system of your friend (and countless other people nowadays, of whom you seem to know more than your share), it is a purely practical method of coercing other people into buying her what she wants.

But is it so practical? Doesn't that mean that you can, in turn, order her to buy you things that you want? The only way to come out ahead would be to outdo all one's donors in producing babies or weddings, but doing so would entail other financial burdens.

And here you want to inject thoughtfulness and sentiment into this system. This makes you a throwback to when the system of exchanging presents did have a point: symbolically expressing thoughtfulness and sentiment.

Miss Manners congratulates you. If enough people refused to be bilked by gimme lists, perhaps the meaning of the custom will return to justify it.

: