Miss Manners: Belated reciprocal valentine a bad idea

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My son received a gift from a girl for Valentine’s Day (chocolate-covered strawberries and a stuffed bear). He likes her, but had no idea she was planning on getting him a gift.

Should he now buy her a Valentine gift, even if it is after Valentine’s Day? Or just say “thank you very much” and move on? My son is 15 years old and a freshman in high school.

GENTLE READER: And indeed, he may well move on. Or may she. But a catch-up present is not flattering.

Miss Manners would counsel him to wait and see if the mutual liking lasts until Easter, at which time he could surprise her with a chocolate bunny.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Over the years, I have become concerned and annoyed with the behavior of charities. I want to support organizations doing public good, both in the United States and around the world, but their activities in three areas are starting to make me reconsider my commitment.

First, almost all of them now send you “free” stuff you do not need or want, and then harass you into paying for it. For instance, I received 22 calendars last year and was inundated with greeting cards and wrapping paper. I try to redistribute this stuff to other folks, but most of it ended up in the recycle bin. I have adopted a new strategy of blacking out my address and marking the package “return to sender.”

Second, the requests for donations have become constant. There is no pause in the “emergency” requests for funds. Even thank-you acknowledgments contain additional requests for funds. Similarly, everything is now phrased in hyperbolic language, indicating that some form of disaster is imminent if my donation is not sent immediately. These multiple appeals have also been personalized, apparently to make you feel guilty if you do not donate.

Finally, there is a proliferation of “charitable” organizations. It seems that everyone wants their own charity. Rather than working to strengthen a current group, they form another niche charity with the accompanying administrators and fundraisers. As a consequence, we have a rapidly increasing number of organizations chasing the same pool of donors. I am afraid this overall pattern of activities threatens the viability of the entire system.

Nonetheless, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that there are many well-run charities that do not engage in these practices, three of which I support.

GENTLE READER: Why charities believe that badgering people is effective, Miss Manners has never understood. Maybe because it sometimes is. Annoyance and embarrassment apparently prompt some people to buy their way out.

But she would have thought that those who run charities would be the very people to abhor making things unpleasant for others.

Instead, they commonly harbor the belief that the virtue of working to help those in need cancels the virtue of showing consideration to those who could also help. “But it’s for a good cause,” they argue, when taxed with rudeness.

By no means does Miss Manners wish to discourage charitable contributions. But she dearly hopes that others, like you, choose organizations that do not waste time and money annoying potential contributors.