Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
While I understand the caller's dilemma about how to introduce his new wife, I was EXTREMELY disturbed by a disparaging link to E.R.A. "Ms." does have a political connection to the term, but the motive for its introduction circa 1972 was the recognition that, while a man may choose to reveal (or not) his marital status, a woman is immediately marked (whether or not the marital status has changed through divorce or death of a spouse). The caller's assumption seemed to be that ONLY divorced women might choose to use this title; the host's -- that it was a major political statement. How times have changed! The good thing the discussion revealed is that we apparently no longer recall the time when women had no status in society outside of marriage, but the suggestion that there is something "school-marmish" about it, or that it threatens a man's legal control over his spouse, was particularly offensive. While I am often loathe to put on airs by using the title my Ph.D entitles me to, there HAVE been points at which I realize how much an academic title provides me with a line of defense against speculation about my socio-sexual identity!
I feel I need to respond to your response to the rerun of AWWW that you heard today, because I think you did not hear what you thought you heard. First, Grant mentioned the ERA thing as a reference to those who actually think equal- opportunity, treatment, and rights were a product of those "uppity" feminists of the 60s and 70s. "Ms." was a serious idea of the feminist movement because the title "Mr." remained the same for a man irrespective of his status, yet the title of a woman changed depending upon whether she was married or not, in which case "Mrs." came to denote attachment to a man (nevermind that women probably kept their maiden names even less frequently at that time). The idea was that a woman's marital status should not dictate her title in business, society, or life in general, just as a man's title does not. If she is a doctor, then Dr. is always appropriate, just like it would be with a man (other titles apply as well: Judge, Professor, any military rank), but, otherwise, why should the woman's title change with her status of "attachment" to a man? This was an idea of the feminist movement, which, of course, included those who pushed the failed ERA. Many talk-radio personalities include the title "Ms." in their rants against the changing America, and hold it up as a divergence from their nostalgiac, never-been America.
The second point is simpler: you apparently misunderstood or did not comprehend the show, Professor. Grant did not say that an unmarried woman was "school-marmish" — he said the name "Crumpacker" was "school-marmish", like something out of Dickens or what-have-you.
I hope your Ph.D. dissertation involved more thorough research than your post.
Just as another, not-snarky note, "Ms." is an incredibly useful title, and it's the one I almost always use in documents. Unless my research has led to the finding that the woman is a doctor, professor, judge, etc., I always use "Ms." on second reference, just like I always use "Mr." in second reference for men.
As an interesting (to me) side note, the only other titles that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court uses when referring to those in the gallery he's addressing are "Judge" and "Dean", and "Dean" was only recently added ("Solicitor General" is probably also an exception). He (or, I hope, eventually, she) does not even call a doctor "Doctor" or a professor "Professor". But that formality is for actual address to the persons before the Court; a doctor referred to in the record would still likely be called "Doctor", but the Justices do not generally call the persons before the Court by name, except before argument when the Court admits attorneys to its bar.
tunawrites said:
Just as another, not-snarky note, "Ms." is an incredibly useful title, and it's the one I almost always use in documents. Unless my research has led to the finding that the woman is a doctor, professor, judge, etc., I always use "Ms." on second reference, just like I always use "Mr." in second reference for men.
As an interesting (to me) side note, the only other titles that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court uses when referring to those in the gallery he's addressing are "Judge" and "Dean", and "Dean" was only recently added ("Solicitor General" is probably also an exception). He (or, I hope, eventually, she) does not even call a doctor "Doctor" or a professor "Professor". But that formality is for actual address to the persons before the Court; a doctor referred to in the record would still likely be called "Doctor", but the Justices do not generally call the persons before the Court by name, except before argument when the Court admits attorneys to its bar.
I am more confused than ever, because I THOUGHT I was saying something similar to what "tunawrites" says in her/his response. I LIVED through the years that he/she believes I did not "research." Therefore, the discussion evoked an emotional, rather than scholarly, response. I apologize if it sounded "snarky."
In fact, I had just recently shared a memory with a colleague about an incident that occurred when I was a guest at a Rotary Club meeting in 1993 and was introduced first as a "teacher" at the university. A man at the table began to tell of having met a visiting foreign couple in my field and his having said to the husband (in jest,I assume): "You better watch out, because your wife is so cute, I might just drag her off into the bedroom." I did NOT react emotionally at that point, but told the member who had invited me to please use my formal title when he introduced me to the entire group in attendance, as I suspected there might be a bit of latent sexism in the company. When he introduced me later as a "professor," the "gentleman" I mentioned, nearly lost his lunch. "A professor! You didn't tell she was a PROFESSOR!"
I hope this explains my sensitivity to the discussion of forms of address. At the age of 58, I tend to view my own experiences in a broader historical context — and this includes the memory (albeit not my OWN research) that mid-19th century women could not have property in their own name, and at the beginning of the 20th century, women teachers who married had to resign from their teaching posts. More recently, a female colleague in the university business school told me that, in 1985, as she was divorcing her husband and taking up residence in a new city where she wished to join a country club to entertain business people, the country club had to change their by-laws to admit her. They had no women members whose husbands were not the club's primary member!
The hosts weren't necessarily snarky, but they were certainly dismissive of both Ms. Crumpacker's name and her decision, and gave, IMO, the worst answer I've ever heard them give on the air!
Furthermore, if the hosts had done a quick Google search, they'd have found comprehensive info on the use of the term "Ms." that predates the ERA era by close to 70 years!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/magazine/25FOB-onlanguage-t.html
The reason that this honorific was created in the first place is that it's respectful, feminine, and idiot-proof (or nearly so). "Ms." makes life easier for everyone!
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)