Miss/Mrs./Ms. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 30, 2024, 12:07:32 PM
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. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
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 9019 times)
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,304
United States


« on: October 17, 2005, 08:12:52 PM »

Option 2 for me.

First of all it is politically correct (since Mr. and Mrs. imply that men are the head of the household).

Secondly, it is simpler to address all women the same way because sometimes marital status may be unknown.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,304
United States


« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2005, 08:32:13 PM »

Option 1, but only in a formal situation. Otherwise I'm with patrick - get to know them on a first name basis if it's informal.

I agree about first names. The point of this poll was just to indicate what to use in a formal situation.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,304
United States


« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2005, 07:48:42 AM »

Also it is disturbing that women still take the husband's name in many marriages.

I agree that it's disturbing.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,304
United States


« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2005, 04:58:44 PM »

Also it is disturbing that women still take the husband's name in many marriages.

I agree that it's disturbing.

What is so disturbing about it?  Why should it matter to you?

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 BTW, it's about 90%, and has increased in the past decade.

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.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,304
United States


« Reply #4 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
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,304
United States


« Reply #5 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
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,304
United States


« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2005, 05:26:22 PM »
« Edited: October 20, 2005, 05:57:29 PM by nclib »

To anyone who advocates keeping the titles Miss and Mrs. for traditional reasons, imagine if the discrimination had been against blacks instead of women. In his article on political correctness, Douglas Hofstadter writes that our society would be much more repulsed if we called unemployed blacks "Niss" and employed blacks "Nrs.", when all whites were called Master. (even if that was the tradition)

Here's the excerpt where Hofstadter brings up the terms "Niss" and "Nrs.":

"Nrs. Delilah Buford has urged that we drop the useful distinction between "Niss" and "Nrs." (which, as everybody knows, is pronounced "Nissiz," the reason for which nobody knows!). Bler argument is that there is no need for the public to know whether a black is employed or not. Need is, of course, not the point. Ble conveniently sidesteps the fact that there is a tradition in our society of calling unemployed blacks "Niss" and employed blacks "Nrs." Most blacks-in fact, the vast ma jority-prefer it that way. They want the world to know what their employment status is, and for good reason. Unemployed blacks want prospective employers to know they are available, without having to ask embarrassing questions. Likewise, employed blacks are proud of having found a job, and wish to let the world know they are employed. This distinction provides a sense of security to all involved, in that everyone knows where ble fits into the scheme of things."

Here's the entire article.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,304
United States


« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2005, 02:30:39 PM »

A woman taking a man's name implies that the man is the head of the household.

Which he almost always is

How are you defining 'head of the household'?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.034 seconds with 14 queries.