Miss/Mrs./Ms.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:06:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Miss/Mrs./Ms.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Poll
Question: Which is the appropriate form of address for a woman?
#1
Miss for unmarried women/Mrs. for married women (unless they prefer otherwise)
 
#2
Ms. for all women unless they prefer otherwise
 
#3
other
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 53

Author Topic: Miss/Mrs./Ms.  (Read 8717 times)
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: October 18, 2005, 06:10:35 PM »

Hey i'm kinda educated and i didn't put a stupid hyphen in my name.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: October 18, 2005, 06:12:28 PM »


And most women who do keep their names are well-educated. The only reason these misogynistic traditions last so long is due to lack of education.

Most well-educated women that keep their maiden name do so in a professional manner only.  Outside of their careers, they use their married name.

As far as taking the husbands name, it is the woman's choice.  It's not because of possession or oppression.  Additionally, what last name would you give the kids after generations of multi-named families?  Are we going to have Jimmy Smith-Jones-Abbott-Richardsons running around?

Really, a woman taking a mans last name is no big deal.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: October 18, 2005, 06:17:02 PM »

Many women do it simply for convenience.  To have a different last name just creates another confusion and complication in life that you don't need.  This is especially true after kids are born.

At some point, a choice must be made on whether to use a man's or woman's name.  A woman keeping her own name just delays that choice, but doesn't eliminate it.

The idea of hyphenating names is completely impractical because it means everybody's last name doubles in length each generation.

The tradition of children taking their father's name was begun to give me a concrete connection to their children so as to encourage them to support them.  It doesn't necessarily imply ownership, nor does a woman taking her husband's name imply ownership.  People who believe that would have to believe that the institution of marriage itself implies ownership, which is no longer the case.
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: October 18, 2005, 06:23:38 PM »

What about those rich Manhattan socialite women who take the full names of their respective husbands after marriage?

E.g. "Great Performances has been brought to you by contributions from Pew Charitable trusts, Mr. and Mrs. George Westinghouse, and *condescendingly* viewers like you"
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: October 18, 2005, 06:40:44 PM »

What about those rich Manhattan socialite women who take the full names of their respective husbands after marriage?

E.g. "Great Performances has been brought to you by contributions from Pew Charitable trusts, Mr. and Mrs. George Westinghouse, and *condescendingly* viewers like you"


That's an old tradition that I think is followed less and less.  Still, I don't see anything wrong with it if a woman wants to do that.  There will always be certain inequalities and differences between the sexes, and women do not always come up on the short end.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2005, 07:00:21 PM »

Because keeping one's name is a gesture of equality.

Wrong.  some of the most oppressive, mysogynistic societies in the world (most of them, in fact!) are societies in which a woman does not change her sirname upon marriage.  And those that I know who live in anglophone countries who keep their sirnames upon marriage do it because they've already published lots of articles, or had contacts in a business community in which you're advised not even to leave out your middle initial if that's the way you introduced yourself.  Seriously, for most women, both inside and outside Anglophone countries, the custom has nothing to do with "equality" or "feminism"  That you are ignorant isn't offensive, because folks can and will learn, if they have open minds and sufficient intellectual curiosity.  That you are brainwashed by the feminazis and bulldykes to whom you pray is a little bizarre.  Well, I hope you're at least getting some good pussy out of this deal.  Anyone who sports a NOW logo in a signature is asking for a load of grief, but if you're doing it to get laid, at least I can appreciate that.
Logged
Blerpiez
blerpiez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,017


Political Matrix
E: -0.65, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 18, 2005, 07:17:46 PM »

Usually Ms., but Mrs. when referring to the mothers of people my age.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: October 18, 2005, 07:21:30 PM »

more feministic bullsh**t?  it never ends!
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: October 18, 2005, 07:42:13 PM »

more feministic bullsh**t?  it never ends!

well, I had a friend in grad school who actually wanted his girlfriend to change her sirname to his when they got married, oddly enough.  And he was regular guy.  Well, a regular MIT graduate making big bucks sort of guy.  Burly, big belly, tall, into sports and such.  Now, the woman he married was a Sarah Lawrence graduate who'd grown up in Cambridge of all places.  Fairly leftist and a self-admitted supporter of ACLU and NOW.  And, this woman actually wanted to change her sirname upon marriage.  So if you're referring to that little sideline, then obviously you see that, as usual, nclib is misguided.

If you're referring to the original topic, how to address people, then you are probably wondering, as I am, whether this would ever even come up, because if you're in a formal enough setting when you'd be expected to call someone Title+Sirname, then both the title and sirname would have been supplied to you upon introduction.  No decisions necessary.  In most other situations, first names will do.  This is less about "feminism" and more about:  Get a life, pal. 
Logged
Everett
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,552


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: October 18, 2005, 08:45:49 PM »

Because keeping one's name is a gesture of equality and feminism. Marriage is a partnership between two individuals. A woman taking a man's name implies that the man is the head of the household. In same-sex marriage, neither partner takes the other one's name, therefore there is no need for straight people to do so either.

And most women who do keep their names are well-educated. The only reason these misogynistic traditions last so long is due to lack of education.
Yeah, I'm sure that you know so much about marriage that you can shamelessly preach your empty-headed feminist agenda yadda yadda yadda, as though you are absolutely certain of the primary function of marriage. You're quite the expert on marriage here, eh? Oh dear, maybe I shouldn't get married because I will *GASP* suddenly become property and have no equality whatsoever and my husband will become the head of the household! Shocked Shocked Shocked

I have nothing against women who change their surnames. I don't believe that they are doing so because they are becoming property or whatever paranoid bullsh**t the feminist movement has cooked up regarding that topic. It's not due to lack of education. My mother is a very highly educated woman, and she changed her surname after getting married. She also decided to stay at home and raise the kids. Oh, wait. Such women cannot possibly be more educated than sleazy feminist shrews who act as though they are above everything and everyone and flaunt themselves endlessly, eh? I also have nothing against women who prefer to be addressed as "Mrs" as opposed to "Ms", which in my opinion is quite a gross word. Yuck. "Miz."

Should I start calling you Ms. too? Would you be offended if I called you "Mr. ", because it would be implying that you are the head of a household or the main breadwinner or the beacon of male superiority? Roll Eyes
Logged
The Constitarian
Rookie
**
Posts: 229


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: October 18, 2005, 08:51:03 PM »

    I go with option two for simplicity, but I believe anyone who has problems with titles should just go by their first name.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: October 18, 2005, 11:10:18 PM »

The tradition of children taking their father's name was begun to give me a concrete connection to their children so as to encourage them to support them.

If anything, children should have their mother's last name since mothers generally do more than half of the child rearing.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2005, 05:05:51 AM »

Because keeping one's name is a gesture of equality.

Wrong.  some of the most oppressive, mysogynistic societies in the world (most of them, in fact!) are societies in which a woman does not change her sirname upon marriage.

What does that have to do with anything?  We're talking about this culture.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think the meaning would be if you took someone else's name upon marriage, angus?  Clearly an ownership is implied.  Try to look past your misogyny and see the functional effect of the traditional practice.  If you like women being a subject class, that is fine, but don't pretend it isn't the case.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: October 19, 2005, 07:01:07 AM »

The tradition of children taking their father's name was begun to give me a concrete connection to their children so as to encourage them to support them.

If anything, children should have their mother's last name since mothers generally do more than half of the child rearing.

Do they provide more than half the financial support to make that child-rearing possible?  Let me give you a hint -- only in poverty-stricken segments of society.  What does that tell you?

Why are you so self-hating that you are bootlicking for man-haters who completely dismiss the role of fathers, and men in general?  I can't understand a man who thinks that way.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2005, 10:59:05 AM »

The tradition of children taking their father's name was begun to give me a concrete connection to their children so as to encourage them to support them.

If anything, children should have their mother's last name since mothers generally do more than half of the child rearing.

Do they provide more than half the financial support to make that child-rearing possible?  Let me give you a hint -- only in poverty-stricken segments of society.  What does that tell you?

Why are you so self-hating that you are bootlicking for man-haters who completely dismiss the role of fathers, and men in general?  I can't understand a man who thinks that way.

nclib is being very even-handed and fair on this issue, dazzleman.  Why are you so misogynistic?
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: October 19, 2005, 11:06:50 AM »

Because keeping one's name is a gesture of equality.

Wrong.  some of the most oppressive, mysogynistic societies in the world (most of them, in fact!) are societies in which a woman does not change her sirname upon marriage.

What does that have to do with anything?  We're talking about this culture.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think the meaning would be if you took someone else's name upon marriage, angus?  Clearly an ownership is implied.  Try to look past your misogyny and see the functional effect of the traditional practice.  If you like women being a subject class, that is fine, but don't pretend it isn't the case.

I won't pretend it isn't the case, since to pretend is to give a false appearance of being.  Since it isn't the case, my refusal to acknowledge your misguided view isn't a pretense.  If it were the custom in my family to take someone else's name I would.  I'd view it as custom, much like the custom of eating noodles with a fork when I'm in an italian restaurant and eating them with sticks when I'm in a vietnamese restaurant.  Of course, I could take the uptight position, and make a stink about the italian restaurant not having sticks.  Call it ethnic discrimination of something.  Which is exactly as silly as what you're doing here.  There may be some advantage in keeping one's name or changing one's name.  I had a japanese girlfriend for years who was convinced that when she got married she would marry a Westerner.  She was into white guys I suppose.  And she was convinced that she'd adopt the western practice of changing her name.  (I, too, find it an odd custom, and rather liked the idea of a woman who wouldn't steal my name, so I figured if she and I ever married we'd fight about this.)  Anyway, she claimed that if she was going to live in a European language-speaking country, such as the USA or Canada, then it would cause less confusion if mommy, daddy, and the children had the same name and that moreover, she liked the idea of having the same name as her spouse and child.  In fact, based on conversations with a number of Japanese folks, it's a commonly held position.  The idea of having the same name as your child and your spouse holds some appeal to many. 

To answer your question, I am not the sort who likes to steal other people's names.  I'm not the sort who'd want to change my name.  Nor am I the sort who'd want someone to use my name.  But if it were the custom to change my name, or if in some way I thought it would make my life easier, or if I didn't like the sirname I grew up with (all these, and more, are stated reasons for why women change their names upon marriage), then I'd change my name.  If, on the other hand, it were not my custom, or if I had already published papers in my own sirname, or if I was quite pleased with my own native sirname or at least liked it better than what was on offer (and all these are stated reasons for why women keep their names), then I'd keep my name.

This has nothing to do with mysogyny.  The fact that you think it does is simply part of your own larger elitist view.  And you calling dazzleman mysogynistic is sort of ironic, don't you think?  You are about as mysogynistic as anyone who posts here, and it is precisely out of your mysogyny (which is really just another manifestation of your elitism), that your mind is in the gutter in the first place, and you come to bizzare conclusions about "ownership" and "superiority"  If you'd actually had a conversation with a number intelligent woman whom you regard as an equal about the subject then you'd see that the views that you assign them are not held by them.  Unfortunately, you do not see them as equals in the first place, and will continue to assign to them whatever views suit your current diatribe.  This is greater mysogyny even than nclib's brand of misogyny.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: October 19, 2005, 11:17:41 AM »

This has nothing to do with mysogyny.  The fact that you think it does is simply part of your own larger elitist view.  And you calling dazzleman mysogynistic is sort of ironic, don't you think?

No, I don't.  dazzleman is quite a bit more misgynistic than I, though I redily admit that I am moderately misogynistic.  With me it is sort of a love/hate relationship. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, this has nothing to do with the sex act, if that is what you mean by 'in the gutter'.  It has to do with political and economic power.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What on earth does it matter what the victim's views are on the subject of their victimhood?  That's like saying to a fellow who just got mugged 'do you mind?', and if he didn't letting the mugger off.  Many victims are so immersed in their subjugated condition that they don't realize what is happening to them - for example some blacks and most white-working class.   I don't consider it misogynistic at all to say that many women are the biggest perpetrators of their own subjugation.  This sort of political masochism, the ebrace of the slave-role is commonplace.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: October 19, 2005, 11:22:47 AM »

The tradition of children taking their father's name was begun to give me a concrete connection to their children so as to encourage them to support them.

If anything, children should have their mother's last name since mothers generally do more than half of the child rearing.

Do they provide more than half the financial support to make that child-rearing possible?  Let me give you a hint -- only in poverty-stricken segments of society.  What does that tell you?

Why are you so self-hating that you are bootlicking for man-haters who completely dismiss the role of fathers, and men in general?  I can't understand a man who thinks that way.

nclib is being very even-handed and fair on this issue, dazzleman.  Why are you so misogynistic?

Even-handed?  All I've seen him imply is that women do all the work, and are treated like property.  That doesn't sound even-handed to me, unless of course you believe those things are true.
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: October 19, 2005, 12:09:58 PM »

^^^^
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: October 19, 2005, 12:51:28 PM »

If anything, children should have their mother's last name since mothers generally do more than half of the child rearing.

Do they provide more than half the financial support to make that child-rearing possible?  Let me give you a hint -- only in poverty-stricken segments of society. What does that tell you?

Not really true nowadays - in an educated family it can go either way. Even when my dad was alive, my mom brought home more money - she was a programmer, he was a car mechanic/appliance repairman, and so she earned more. Nothing wrong with either job, just the simple fact is that one paid more than the other.

Still, we have to pick one or the other name for the surname, and there's nothing harmful about picking the father's surname. Also, it's not like the mother's maiden name isn't included - usually that's what a person's middle name is.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: October 19, 2005, 01:59:50 PM »




What on earth does it matter what the victim's views are on the subject of their victimhood?  That's like saying to a fellow who just got mugged 'do you mind?', and if he didn't letting the mugger off.  Many victims are so immersed in their subjugated condition that they don't realize what is happening to them - for example some blacks and most white-working class.   I don't consider it misogynistic at all to say that many women are the biggest perpetrators of their own subjugation.  This sort of political masochism, the ebrace of the slave-role is commonplace.


(no, gutter is a metaphor and I used it in the usual sense.  low-brow thinking on your part.  nothing to do with sexual activity here, specifically.)

too many analogies floating around by now.  I don't think the mugger analogy is really apt, since it is up to the mugged to decide whether to press charges, isn't it?  If I'm unwilling, for whatever reason, to finger you, the DA really hasn't got a case.  And I'll stipulate that all sorts of second-class citizens ranging from slaves to indentured servants to ethnic minorities become desentized to conditions to the point of stoicism.  But that really wasn't the counterpoint.  I'm saying that in a world in which someone is free to change his or her name at will, simply by filling out the appropriate documents at the county courthouse, you can't use this "ownership" argument.  If I change my name it's because I want to, if don't then it's because I don't want to.  I am quite certain that some women want to change their names when they marry.  Many of these women are much more highly educated and intelligent than you and many are deep into the business world in so the change brings on hassle.  But they accept that hassle because to them the advantages of having the same name as your progeny outweigh the disadvantages.  I don't offer to speak for them, I only repeat snippets of conversation here.  What you and nclib do, however, is exactly akin to trying to speak for them.  Presumably nclib is soo deep into masculinism that he feels he needs to provide time and money to an organization since women are apparently too weak to do so for themselves.  You, on the other hand, only profess to speak for them, but do not give them time or money, so I'd regard you as a tad less misogynistic than he.  Dazzleman strikes me as egalitarian in this regard.  That was a minor point, though.  My main point is still on topic:  If you are introduced as Spinmeister Sam, I'll call you Spinmeister Sam.  If you're introduced as Lieutenant Popcorn, I'll call you Lieutenant Popcorn.  And if you're introduced as Miss Manners, I'll call you Miss Manners.  I can't imagine why anyone would need to brood over what to call someone when the answer is obvious:  call them what they tell you call them.  And usually that's a given name or nickname, not a Title+Sirname.  So the question becomes merely academic.  And I'll stick to "other" since most of the folks I hang around with have titles other than Ms., Mr., Miss, or Mrs. in the first place.
Logged
Hitchabrut
republicanjew18
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674


Political Matrix
E: 8.38, S: 7.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: October 19, 2005, 02:00:32 PM »

Miss UMMrs. M
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: October 19, 2005, 03:38:44 PM »

I don't think the mugger analogy is really apt, since it is up to the mugged to decide whether to press charges, isn't it?

Actually I don't know, but there must be some right for the State to prosecute without input from the victim, or murders could not be tried.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly there is always choice - the worker can choose to starve rather than participate in his own expoitation, the woman can choose to buck society's pressure and keep her name, etc.  The point is of course that there is a history of women being property, and the name thing is a symbol of this.  The fact that women still do this is telling, I think.  Perhaps they're still more subjugated than you think. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rather subjective, but I doubt it Smiley

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all - I'm merely describing a societal condition - engaging in armchair sociology.  They can choose to be servile or whatever they like, but if they do, I'll call 'em like I see 'em.  Just like I call a worker dumb for voting Republican.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't give anyone a damn thing, but I'll speak about anyone powerful or powerless, from black woman to WASP owning class ivy leaguer.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like that Lieutenant Popcorn!  But I'm not brooding over what to call people - in fact I hardly ever call anyone anything other than something in Thai (pe kap), or 'excuse me', or a first name.  What I am brooding over is the structure off the social heirarchy that governs our lives.  It is interesting!
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: October 19, 2005, 03:54:19 PM »

fair enough.  most of these poll threads posted by the reds are normative propositions anyway which don't have a "correct" answer.  I suppose the blues and yellows are just as bad about doing that sort of thing.  You do take abuse very well and in good spirit on this forum, I must say.  I don't think we're in disagreement on the original topic, only on this side issue, and I think perceptions are just different on this side issue, but I'm quite certain of what I know to be true of the women with whom I've discussed this topic, which is that they change their names, or not, based on considerations other than attempting to prolong, or overthrow, some perceived male dominance.  And I'm tired of arguing. 
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: October 19, 2005, 10:45:24 PM »

The tradition of children taking their father's name was begun to give me a concrete connection to their children so as to encourage them to support them.

If anything, children should have their mother's last name since mothers generally do more than half of the child rearing.

Do they provide more than half the financial support to make that child-rearing possible?  Let me give you a hint -- only in poverty-stricken segments of society.  What does that tell you?

Even in families where both parents earn around the same amount, the mother is still expected to do over half the child-rearing.

Why are you so self-hating that you are bootlicking for man-haters who completely dismiss the role of fathers, and men in general?  I can't understand a man who thinks that way.

Of course, fathers play an important role in families. I was only advocating fairness in relationships. It's fine to give a child the father's last name, just that it shouldn't be taken for granted.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.