DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a 30-year-old single woman without children. Two days ago, I received a "Happy Mother's Day" e-card from an older couple who attends my church. I am the prayer coordinator at my church, so, this couple frequently e-mails me with their prayer requests, but I have never met them in person.

The fact that I am 30, unmarried and childless is a very sensitive issue for me because I do not foresee myself getting married anytime soon, and I couldn't have children if I wanted to.

How can people whom I've never even met just assume that I am married with children when this isn't the case? Although I am highly offended, I would like to respond in a way that doesn't offend these insensitive people. How should I proceed?

GENTLE READER: When a chummy salesman once had the cheek to address Miss Manners' own dear mamma as "Mother" ("Now, Mother, wouldn't you like this?") she gave him a sweet smile.

"I'm afraid you have made a ghastly mistake," she said kindly. "If I were your mother, I am quite sure I would remember you."

You are welcome to use a version of this, returning the card to the senders with a note saying that you hope that their mother was not disappointed when this was misdirected to you.

But Miss Manners has observed that over the last decade or so, Mother's Day has been transformed into a sort of general Ladies' Day. The original idea was to honor one's own mother -- as if one shouldn't properly do that every day of the year -- but now the obligation seems also to fall on husbands, grandparents -- anyone with a mother in the family.

Or not. These were strangers, making a blind guess and then faking intimacy and sentiment. No doubt they felt virtuous in doing so, as if it would make your day to be "remembered" by those you have never met.

Nevertheless, you should not take this intrusiveness personally. People who do not respect personal boundaries are not likely to be targeting you alone. With their scattershot approach, they could well hit not only non-mothers but mothers who are bereaved or estranged from their children.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I insist on having my own dishwashing gloves (separate from my wife's). A few years ago, we were in couples counseling, and at one session both the therapist and my wife said they thought that was weird. Recently the subject came up with a good friend of mine, and he thought it was weird, too.

I have my own personal items like a toothbrush, comb, razor and nail clippers, and I don't think it's weird to have my own gloves. What do you think?

GENTLE READER: That you should put on your gloves and do the dishes instead of polling people. We are all entitled to our little harmless habits, Miss Manners believes, but we are not entitled to demand approval for them.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My wife and I are casual and infrequent entertainers. As we plan an evening's meal, we invariably have a rather pointed discussion on the role of hors d'oeuvres.

My wife wants to dispense with them altogether and seat guests at the dinner table five to 10 minutes after they arrive. If we serve drinks and appetizers, she claims, people just fill up on snacks and don't have room for the main meal. She claims that this senseless custom just encourages overeating.

On the other hand, I say that inviting guests to sit in the comfort of our living room for half an hour allows them to transition from their hectic day and road travel into a relaxing dinner. Besides, having this little gathering before being seated for dinner is what people expect, given that it seems to be the norm when we are guests at others' homes. It feels awkward to not offer guests anything while we put the finishing touches on dinner.

What is the protocol for pre-dinner drinks and appetizers?

GENTLE READER: Wait -- your dinner guests all arrive on time? Miss Manners congratulates you.

For most hosts, serving drinks and hors d'oeuvres is essential, so as not to inflict undue hardship on polite guests while waiting for tardy ones. It is also a time to introduce guests to one another, and to rethink the seating arrangements when you notice who turns out to have had bad romances with whom. All very useful.

However, it needn't go on and on. Nor need the food be filling. Throw them a thin carrot stick or a bit of celery with something on it, and most people will be relieved not to succumb to more fattening fare while anticipating a satisfying meal.

Neither should your disagreement have gone on and on. If your wife concedes 10 minutes after the last arrival (not the first) and you argue for 30, surely you could split the difference.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I grew up with the rule that a wedding invitation requires a gift, even if the invitee does not attend the wedding. But friends have been telling me that rule is obsolete.

I've been invited to the wedding of a first cousin twice removed, whom I haven't seen since she was 5. Her parents and I are in touch only through Christmas cards.

I have no idea why I was invited and have no intention of going to the wedding, which will not be in my town. It would involve an expensive overnight hotel stay. Must I send a gift?

GENTLE READER: Those among whom you grew up were generous but misinformed. If you find this disillusioning, Miss Manners notes that at least it will save you money.

Getting married does not grant people license to distribute bills to those who are minding their business. A wedding invitation is merely an offer of hospitality. As such, it must be answered, one way or the other, and it should also prompt a letter wishing the couple happiness. There is nothing wrong with also sending a present, but that is certainly not required.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A board that I am a part of is having a heated discussion on the usage of "Mrs. John Smith." Some participants have not changed their last names and thus are not happy to be called Mrs. John Smith since they are Mrs. Jane Doe.

Others who have taken their husbands' last name do not like Mrs. John Doe, as they feel it obscures their own identity and they did not change their first name to John -- they prefer Mrs. Jane Smith.

The third group says that Mrs. means "wife of," and the only formal way to address a married woman is Mrs. John Smith, although they do concede that if the woman didn't change her name, Mrs. Jane Doe is acceptable.

Does it change things if the woman in question has expressed her preference for Mrs. Jane Smith?

GENTLE READER: Will it change things if Miss Manners pleads how weary she is of this debate and begs all sides to get rid of those emotional analyses that fuel it?

Probably not. The pressure to standardize female life -- not just nomenclature but whether mothers should have jobs, what constitutes good mothering and so on -- is relentless.

We do not now have a standard form of address for wives. The traditional form, Mrs. John Smith, is impractical for professional use, so an even older form, Ms. Jane Doe (from the once-respectable honorific Mistress, from which Mrs. and Miss both derive) was revived. Mrs. Jane Doe is a form that, however common, was never sanctioned by etiquette.

But the mere prospect of change let loose a torrent on ideas of marriage. Ever since, it has been impossible to address an envelope without having to consider everyone's tedious ideas of the symbolism being imposed.

Ladies, these are conventions. Some people are attached to the old one; some see the value of the revived one. Miss Manners appreciates both.

What she fails to understand is why, when there is no agreed-upon standard, people should not be addressed in the way they choose to be addressed.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: With the bread-and-butter plate on the left, it is difficult to avoid getting one's sleeve into the gravy and mashed potatoes. (It's less of a problem for ladies in sleeveless gowns, of course.)

Why on earth were they put there in the first place if diners are expected to hold their knives in their right hands?

GENTLE READER: Eeew. Miss Manners thanks you for that picture of ladies in sleeveless dresses not minding that their forearms are in the mashed potatoes because it will be easier to wash up than to visit the dry cleaner's. Or perhaps because they figure they can lick themselves clean....

Let us stop right there. The problem does not actually exist, because no one should be leaning across the dinner plate to butter the bread. Bread is properly broken into small pieces, with the left hand holding it while the right hand spreads the butter.

: