Miss Manners: A Call for Returning to Cheerful Professionalism

Gentle Readers: This is probably not the year to celebrate Valentine’s Day at the office.

There never was a time that even innocent romance belonged in the workplace. If it ends badly, there will be suspicions of retaliation. If it ends happily, there will be suspicions of favoritism.

But when a show of affection is condoned as ordinary office behavior, abuse becomes easy. Miss Manners was shocked to read of a prominent feminist who, discussing harassment, was quoted first about hating “when that dude hugs me” — then, when a “no touching at work” rule was proposed, said, “I think that’s crazy.” She then talked about how she always hugs her colleagues.

What if some dude hates it when she does that?

It is not Miss Manners’ job to discipline outlaws. Dealing with sex crimes and misdemeanors is the responsibility of the legal system, with its severe punishments, although it has been noticeably slow to do so.

Etiquette is intended to regulate human behavior in the communal interest, but it is a voluntary system, which does not deter those who are determined to behave badly and feel no shame. It lacks weapons other than social disapproval and exclusion — and these have been in short supply in the era of instant pop therapy and re-entry.

But as we have now seen, social pressure is essential in motivating those who do have power to enforce obedience. Unfortunately, it does not always operate for the good. That it long discouraged victims of harassment from seeking redress has now been thoroughly exposed.

That has been publicly acknowledged. But — and here is where Miss Manners expects an argument — well-meaning people continue to foster a dangerous environment. That includes the adorable-sounding fantasies about colleagues all being friends, if not one big family; jobs providing opportunities for leisure as well as work; and those unsolicited hugs being welcome and beneficial to all.

Thus professional manners were abandoned in favor of social manners: first names, casual clothes, birthday celebrations.

There was an excellent reason for opposing the old rules: All the respect and leeway they provided was accorded only to the male hierarchy. They were addressed by titles and surnames, but called any female, minority or low-level employees by their given names. Whatever socializing there was on office time, such as lunches or golfing breaks, was strictly for them. Their suits and ties — not jeans and hoodies — constituted the status look.

But when a need to modernize is recognized, it never seems to be done by applying the higher standard to all. And revisions in office behavior occurred at a time when the sweet idea was wafting around that personal friends are happier and more productive than mere colleagues.

Of course, that means that you don’t get to choose your personal friends; the boss chooses them for you. They may also be your rivals. And if you spend nonworking time with them, you must subtract that from time to spend with people you did choose.

So it does not seem to be a great sacrifice to expect cheerful but professional manners at work, so that those who are so moved can distribute their hugs on their own time.

Dear Miss Manners: I have been given grief for wearing peep-toe shoes in February. It’s warm enough here, and they match the outfit. Is there a faux pas for wearing open-toed shoes before spring?

Gentle Reader: The faux pas is giving people grief for any decent choices of costume. But while it may be warm enough for you, Miss Manners imagines that the sight of your toes makes others shiver.

Gentle Readers: Now that sexual harassment has been more clearly identified, it would be well to define legitimate courtship.

The very term seems old-fashioned, although there is plenty of evidence that the old pattern is firmly fixed in the imagination. Just look at the stories couples present in their accounts and videos about getting together, now a routine fixture of weddings.

These stories often begin with love at first sight, although the actual first sight may have been while flipping through staged photographs of multiple strangers, probably before reading their other attributes. There is the surprise proposal, with the gentleman down on his knees proffering a diamond ring while the lady is beside herself with astonishment, although the question of marriage has likely been long debated in their mutual household. And there is the declaration of how eager they are to begin their new lives together — although not before they have spent months, if not years, planning a showy festival while they go on with their joint lives, possibly even to the extent of having children.

Miss Manners has no wish to strip away such romantic notions. On the contrary: She is hoping to encourage romance at the earlier stages.

This is not a subtle or a patient age. But the idea that courtship begins with a frank show of desire, when no personal preliminaries have been mutually established, is the harasser’s excuse. And that has been unfortunately bolstered by the belief that love can be handled efficiently.

At the same time that social manners invaded the workplace, businesslike methods were introduced into courtship: classified advertisements, resumes, short interviews, quick decisions.

This speed eliminates the delightfully inefficient and noncommittal stage known as flirting — the charged glances, the ambiguous overtures, the budding sense of compatibility — from which love can grow, but also, because it is ambiguous, from which either party can retreat at any point with honor.

Is this a waste of time? Perhaps, but those who have tried it will tell you that there is hardly a more pleasant way to waste time. And most of all, it provides a clear signal, without the awkwardness of asking outright, about whether or not further intimacy will be welcome.

Lunging is no more a courtship technique than hugging is a businesslike one.

Dear Miss Manners: My fiance and I were dining at a small pub last night, seated in what were, at the time, the only two bar stools available. We placed our orders and relaxed to enjoy the atmosphere.

Soon after, the seat to my immediate left and the seat to my fiance’s immediate right became available. It was only minutes before two young men raced into our area to ask that my fiance and I slide down a spot (specifically, they asked me) to give the men two seats next to each other.

We complied, but I was a little irritated. We had already chosen our spots, we were expecting food, and yes, childishly, we were their elders and were there first.

Was what these two young men asked rude? Should my fiance and I have foreseen the situation and just moved anyway, once we saw that we could make a pair of seats available? What is the protocol?

Gentle Reader: Sitting at a bar is less formal than seating at a table, and etiquette does expect some understanding for the jostling that necessarily ensues. This means, for example, making room for the customer who needs access to the bartender to order a drink or pay a bill. But it also requires that customer to choose the access point wisely.

The request you describe did not require you to duck drinks or change, and Miss Manners believes that the gracious course of action was to comply. She might reconsider if the relocation required more than sliding a plate 18 inches to the side — if, for example, the pub were located in a major airport and your European-bound luggage had been painstakingly balanced around the barstools.

Miss Manners is written by Judith Martin, her son, Nicholas Ivor Martin, and her daughter, Jacobina Martin. You are invited to email your etiquette questions from www.missmanners.com.