Ms, Mrs,Miss

[LookAtMeGo]

Apologies in advance, as I'm sure it has been done to death. But today I realised the truth of why I refer to myself as Mrs even though I'm divorced. My mum is divorced and told me as a child in response to me asking why she is still Mrs that it is so nobody judges her and she looks respectable (not her actual words, but that's what I got from the convo at the age of about ten)

Even as a highly educated professional, I still wanted to hold on to the title post-divorce and I feel pretty... I don't know... angry? Upset? Ashamed? I really don't know. All I know is I don't feel good, and I shall be Ms from now on.

Any thoughts? Is there something else I should be doing?

Charis1 But 'Miss' is part of a social construct - you share 'Miss' with all other unmarried females. It wasn't inherited by you neither was it chosen by or for you.

It is your title. Your name is 'first name' [middle name's] 'second name'.

Why do you consider it to be who you are? Why would you not be you if you were 'Ms' or 'Dr' or [insert other title]?

Genuinely curious and a bit perplexed.

as I said upthread, I am very happy and proud to be single, and I don't ever want to be mistaken for a wife, or for someone who wants to be vague about whether she is single or not.

I want young women to see that being single and independent is something to be proudly and publicly claimed

"Miss" is my name.

When I was sent a credit card with "Ms" on it, and refused to accept it and sent it back, I was told that I would have to send in documentation to proof my name was "Miss" - they couldn't just take my word for it!

Can I suggest "Of[father's name] for all single women of any age and "Of[dh's name] on marriage? This would suit those who are proud to define themselves by their relationships with men.....

A marvellous idea, and so much more pleasing to the ear than 'Mrs'.

And those of you who mention 'choice' so much, you're very lucky to get yours. My choice, if we must have titles, would be one that not only doesn't advertise my marital status but doesn't come with any baggage either. Because I'm a woman, I don't get one of those. I use Ms as the closest available option, but there's nothing that ticks all the boxes. Your free choice to call yourself Mrs is contributing to me not being able to enjoy mine.

It is quite clear though, going by this thread and others, that it would be far easier for the banks and other organisations, to have only one title, rather than having to insist on documentation for Miss/Mrs/Ms, especially as they seem not to be aware there isn't any actual legal designation of titles. If it were simpler, they wouldn't have to come out with some of the bollocks they do about surnames and titles. (Although they could also do some decent training.)

My bank doesn't use a title. Dear Firstname Surname in letters. Just Fristname Surname on the envelope. No title on debit or credit cards.

Muff, agree.

Bertrand, why Of father's name or husband's name?

some people don't have their father's name in the first place.

Really just title plus name of choice would make sense.

Achieve, it's from The Handmaid's Tale, where the handmaids were called after their owners - Offred, Ofgeorge etc.

The parallel is with women's surnames (and first names in the Mrs John Smith convention) changing depending on their relationship with men rather than being their names in their own right.

I think the answer is to say that we are all strong women and we will have a free choice. We are not going to be told what to do by men or by other women.

These things evolve on their own. Quite probably it will be Ms eventually. I expect that people refused to give up 'Mistress' to start with - or calling others 'thou' etc

The problem with language is that it has to evolve naturally and it never works if forced.

The title thing interests me. I am Dr, and I kept my own name on marriage. I am definitely in the minority amongst my acquaintances with PhDs, though. Most of these women who have taken their husband's name identify overtly as feminists and work in areas where they are not unaware of gender. Most don't have children. I've never dared to probe because in real life it would perhaps be seen as critical, but I am genuinely quite curious as to the logic. Can anyone enlighten me?

(I wonder if it's simply that people might be aware of gender in some areas, but not others, so don't actually know the history?? Or is that just too much of a stretch?)

That's not really an answer mehitabel. It's platitudes. Me being denied my free choice has nothing to do with how strong I am, my strength or otherwise is irrelevant to the issue. Nor does it have anything to do with people telling me what to do, either.

My free choice would be to use a title that doesn't get questioned constantly and doesn't reflect my marital status (even using Ms means a lot of people assume I'm divorced). Unfortunately because so many other women do still use Miss/Mrs I don't get my free choice.

Shove regarding namechanges, I think it's as simple as wanting to have the same name as each other and not being bothered about the sexist nature of it nearly always being just the woman whi changes. When I get quizzed about my different surname to DH I say "neither of us wanted to change", it often provokes a little bit of constructive discussion. Whereas "I didn't want to change it" provokes the response "why not?", which is hard to answer, as my feelings are "why on earth would I have changed my name just because I got married". Which could be seen as critical of those who do change, but it's not meant to be. I have no objection to anyone changing name on marriage, but would like to see it being just as often the man as the woman.

My free choice would be to use a title that doesn't get questioned constantly and doesnt have negative connotations.

shove, I'm changing my name because I want us to have the same family name, especially if / when we have DC. DP doesn't care about us having the same name, but is personally attached to his surname and doesn't want to change it. So I'm changing mine.

I don't think it platitudes.
A strong woman would make up her own mind- and not have to be told what to do by anyone.

I think I shall go out of the thread where I came in- i.e personal choice and no need to justify.

but Chartis1 why do you feel the need to advertise your single status through you title? Why is it important that everyone knows?

I am a solicitor and although I am proud of that I don't insist on all my letters after my name - just because I am proud it does not follow that I need it to announce itself along with my name.

I accept your reasoning but still don't really understand why.

Of course it's platitudes. Meaningless, empty platitudes and completely irrelevant, presumably to avoid addressing the actual point about the impact of your choices on other women. Being strong or weak has nothing to do with the fact that I don't get my free choice. If attitudes do change sufficiently in my lifetime that I get to enjoy the same privilege of personal choice you do mehitabel, it won't be because of anyone's strength levels. It will be, at least in part, because of women refraining from doing as you do and insisting on a title that denotes marriage. Until that happens, no amount of go grrrling will be pertinent.

Here's what I can't get past: we are all 'thrown' into history. We don't come into a fresh new world when we are born, but into a place where there are all kinds of existing power structures and relations that shape us as people. The choices we make in our lives inevitably relate to those structures, and those structures are inevitably historical.

Historically, women have only been considered legal entities for about 150 years! Before that, we were passed from being property of a father to property of a husband. Most married women had no ability to make contracts, to divorce, to own property in their own right - it was colossally oppressive and the cause of very, very real misery. The name change is the symbol of all that: it signifies male ownership of women.

Why on earth would I want to retain that in any way, shape, or form? Why would I want to bring into my marriage something that is so obviously a reference to such awful unhappiness and inequality? I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would want to do that just at an emotional level. It's like having a wedding at Auschwitz if you are Jewish, or on a slave ship if you have that heritage in the States - why on earth would you want to have something that is a symbol of such awfulness and negativity at the heart of what should be a happy, equal partnership?

I get that others MUST see this very differently, but I Do. Not. Comprehend! (I am a feminist historian of the nineteenth century by training though so this is possibly relevant).

herethereandeverywhere - I'm not going to speak for Charis but I found her point very interesting.

I'm also very proud of being single - I use Ms though because of the whole "don't denote marital status" thing - but I feel as if being single in this generation is seen as something terrible. I am 39, I know single women in their 60s who agree it was not stigmatised when they were single but rather that they were respected for being happy to be alone. Now I feel there is an attitude that a single woman is a tragedy, so I do talk a lot about how much I enjoy it.

even then, I get people saying "you just enjoy life, you don't specifically enjoy being single." Not true. I really love being single and it's shocking to me that it is seen as a rather invalid life choice.

Thanks to the person who explained about Handmaid's Tale by the way.

I am increasingly keen on "Comrade" for all. Friendly but keeps a distance

Great post shovetheholly and exactly how I feel. (And I'm not as specialist in that area at all, so you don't need to be to see it!)

One of my theories is that with men and women, the genuine attraction between them (for many people) and also the deeply ingrained message that romantic love and marriage are something women want and a huge validation for them, muddy the waters. You can't just leave misogyny behind in the way you can leave auschwitz or slavery behind (even with them, the prejudice and persecution that lay behind them live on, but they can be clearly opposed). Misogyny is at the heart of the traditions of marriage, but the traditions of marriage are deeply attractive to many people. And many people have internalised so deeply that women are less worthy of respect than men, they find it hard to see the inequality right in front of them, that they are buying into every day.

For me it's a work in progress too. I accept there are aspects of it I've not yet become fully aware of, because I'm always noticing new examples.

That's why my acid test as a feminist is not "well a woman made that choice so therefore we mustn't question it because it means she's a strong woman" - but "is it fair, is it the same for men?" If the same rules don't apply to men – whether we're talking about titles, burqas, name-changing or workplace expectations or anything else – then I'm suspicious.

You see where I differ is that I chose to marry my DH as an independent woman. I chose a good and decent man and even hundreds of years ago he would have treated his wife and all those around him well. I chose a good man in whom I had confidence and therefore I had no hesitation in being in a partnership with him, adopting his name and becoming Mrs. I don't believe all women were badly treated throughout time and chose to look upon history more kindly but perhaps because I'm not an historian or an academic. I do understand your argument though.

shovetheholly, I didn't see your post before mine.

Brilliantly explained.

I think there's a difference between overtly "badly treated" (i.e. being banned from voting, beaten, underpaid, legally raped within marriage etc.) - which definitely was more common historically and these things still are normal in some places –and being unequally treated in a way that isn't obviously unpleasant, but is unfair. I think a lot of people in western society still accept that.

A woman can have a happy relationship with a man who is not a criminally nasty woman-hater, but still somehow find that it's her career that suffers from having kids, that she does the lion's share of night wakings and housework, that she deals with birthday presents for her family and his family, etc. A lot of relationships work because both the woman and the man accept and expect that inequality and run with it.

IMO then worse cases of misogyny, such as domestic violence and EA, fit into that framework because deep down the man sees himself as having more rights and being more important. If he happens to have a violent side, be an alcoholic etc. then he will find it acceptable to punish his female partner.

For me things like becoming Mrs Hisname go hand in hand with that acceptance and that's why I resist them.

Shove re what you said earlier about academics, I had a lovely neighbour a few years ago who was an academic in women's studies/gender politics in international relations. How much more aware can you get? When I asked what she did I thought it was fascinating and that she'd be a kindred spirit.

Then I realised she had taken her husband's name as a double-barrel (Dr Hername-Hisname) – but he hadn't taken hers at all.

How, just how? I do respect that it's her choice but I can't fathom someone who studies inequality doing something so blatantly unequal.