Anne Kornblut writes in Sunday's New York Times about which Congresswomen go by "Mrs." and which choose to be identified as "Ms."
It calls to mind sociolinguist Deborah Tannen's 1993 op-ed piece on the linguistic concept of "markedness" (which explains that endings like -ette or -elle, for example, mark a word as feminine), and how that theory can explain other aspects of women's lives.
Women can't even fill out a form without telling stories about themselves. Most forms give four titles to choose from. "Mr." carries no meaning other than that the respondent is male. But a woman who checks "Mrs." or "Miss" communicates not only whether she has been married but also whether she has conservative tastes in forms of address -- and probably other conservative values as well. Checking "Ms." declines to let on about marriage (checking "Mr." declines nothing since nothing was asked), but it also marks her as either liberated or rebellious, depending on the observer's attitudes and assumptions.
But if Congresswomen are any indication, that doesn't necessarily hold true. Some of the more liberal Senators and Representatives-- Carolyn Maloney, Hillary Clinton-- go by "Mrs." while Republicans Katherine Harris and Olympia Snowe prefer "Ms." And "liberated" or "rebellious" are pretty much the last two words I'd use to describe Harris.
Can women avoid being marked by using the title "Dr."? That's the route Condoleezza Rice has taken, after all. But, as Tannen points out, the Dr. label isn't unmarked, either.
I sometimes try to duck these variously marked choices by giving my title as "Dr." -- and in so doing risk marking myself as either uppity (hence sarcastic responses like "Excuse me!") or an overachiever (hence reactions of congratulatory surprise like "Good for you!").
Tannen points that women are marked in other ways, too. Most notably by our appearance. We're marked if we wear a short skirt (floozy!), or if we wear a power suit (ballbuster!), if we wear our hair cropped short (dyke!) or if we get a giant perm (stupid secretary!). She notes that men can be marked by their clothing choices or titles, too. The difference is they have the option of going unmarked. That's a choice women never have.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Misters miss the mark.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3580
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
The rather striking implicit assumption here and in the NYT article is that Republicans can't be feminists, equating the political label "liberal" with the feminist label "liberated." The benefits of feminism have accrued to most American women, not just those who hold the same opinion as we do on abortion. Supporting reproductive choice is a defining issue to those on the left, but it's not viewed that way on the right. I thought of myself as a feminist and a liberated woman long before I became pro-choice and moved my economic opinions left.
While I think a lot of the linguistic politics going on today can get petty, Deborah Tannen's piece is very interesting and informative (to a man who may not otherwise notice these things).
One "unmarking" solution I tend toward is not checking *any* of the titles on the stupid forms. In face to face interactions, if someone presses for a title (or assumes I'm Mrs. or Miss), that's when I whip out the Dr. I figure it's not uppity if I don't raise it first -- if someone else insists on knowing my title, s/he ought at least to use the right one.
Tannen points that women are marked in other ways, too. Most notably by our appearance. We're marked if we wear a short skirt (floozy!), or if we wear a power suit (ballbuster!), if we wear our hair cropped short (dyke!) or if we get a giant perm (stupid secretary!). She notes that men can be marked by their clothing choices or titles, too. The difference is they have the option of going unmarked.
I don't think men really have the option of going unmarked. They have fewer options, so the choices they make reveal less, but they still must choose. For example, on a form, they sometimes need to choose between "Mr." or "Dr."; while "Dr." is less charged for men than for women, it is nonetheless not completely neutral, and may carry negative connotations in certain circles (e.g. some business circles).
For another example, neither gender has unmarked clothing. At Yearly Kos, the men who wore black coats and ties conveyed one message about themselves. Those who wore fade collar shirts and jackets conveyed another. Those who wore T-shirts and jeans conveyed yet another. These are of course far less politically and socially charged than women's clothes, and in some environments collar shirts and jeans are pretty close to socially neutral for men, but the difference is still mostly one of degree.
It doesn't really bother me that I am revealing anything about myself when I tick 'Ms' on forms.
Things that do annoy me:
1) When people needlessly address me using titles. I've noticed that whenever people do this, without fail, they call me 'Mrs' or 'Miss'. At which, I pointedly correct them.
2) Being called 'Ma'am'. Of course, that only happens in the US, or on the phone to people in the US. I know, it's meant to be polite, but the rest of the English speaking world manages without. I find it unnecessarily gender specific and unnecessarily patronising. But that could be just because I'm a grumpy Brit!
3) Getting letters addressed to 'Mr'. Just because that's the default if the person sending it does not know my gender, I presume.
Does anyone have any views on gender neutral pronouns (Hir etc)? Do we really need our titles to identify us as male or female in the first place?!
I used to love coming up with some on-the-fly smartassery when a "dumb as a bag of rocks" telemarketer would call MY home and ask if "Mr. Hansen" was in. Can't remember offhand, but the idiot on the other end would get a great story, as long as I could take up their valuable time. Sometimes I'd just use the direct approach and ask, "even if I WAS married, why the fuck would I give up my awesome last name?" I have no pity, since you would have to be an absolute cretin to call someone and just assume there's a "Mister Last Name" in the house (just because someone has declared harassing people a "job" doesn't mean I have to respect the occupation).
Now that I disconnected my land line, I no longer have to deal with such inconveniences.
Being called 'Ma'am'. Of course, that only happens in the US, or on the phone to people in the US. I know, it's meant to be polite, but the rest of the English speaking world manages without.
Why, what title is used in the rest of the English-speaking world - "madam"?
Does anyone have any views on gender neutral pronouns (Hir etc)? Do we really need our titles to identify us as male or female in the first place?!
Language-wise, I think it's good for a language to have gender-neutral pronouns, largely for reasons of accuracy and my own personal esthetics. Personally I like the Chinese pronoun ta, but ultimately I don't care which gender-neutral word gets used at the end.
Gender-wise, I don't think it'll increase women's status. Relatively non-sexist countries like Sweden and Germany have gendered pronouns; relatively sexist ones like China and (I think) Iran don't.
Why, what title is used in the rest of the English-speaking world - "madam"?
Sometimes yes, but it does sound out of place these days. This could be because 'madam' and 'sir' were satired in a comedy show 'The Fast Show'.
I have tremendous distaste for Katherine Harris' politics, and especially what she did in 2000, but I get the feeling that in terms of how she thinks of herself, it isn't that surprising that she calls herself "Ms.".
There have been some very strange incidents with her, such as where she has worn outfits and adjusted her posture such that people can get a better view of her breasts on television and at public events, and also when she got very, VERY uncomfortably close to a male reporter that was interviewing her. Also, although she sells herself to voters as a conservative Christian, she is apparently into all sorts of what might be called "new age" spiritual beliefs.
My bet is that she is basically committed to the institution of the Republican Party, and like many Republican politicians, will pander to the religious right in any way she sees necessary. But that "Ms.", along with many other things we hear about her in the news, is a clue that she is probably a very typical, ambitious, assertive female who is confident (perhaps too confident) about her sexuality and who strives to succeed.
The point being that it is very unfortunate that female politicians can only do this if they espouse conservative positions on issues (think Elizabeth Dole as well), whereas if you are a liberal, you have to prove that you are comfortable "baking cookies" or being a "mom in tennis shoes".
Why, what title is used in the rest of the English-speaking world - "madam"?
Oddly enough, given the stereotype, we're not polite(?) enough to address anyone using 'sir' or 'madam' or 'ma'am' or whatever. It seems unfathomably formal to English ears.
So how do you address people whose names you don't know? "Excuse me, person?" or do people in England respond to "Hey you!"?
So how do you address people whose names you don't know? "Excuse me, person?" or do people in England respond to "Hey you!"?
They don't refer to you at all normally. I guess they say "excuse me, can I help you?" and that's it.
Yep, chem_fem has it right. In a relatively formal situation, 'excuse me' works. On the phone, 'can I have your name please?' or 'who is it I'm speaking to', if it hasn't been volunteered, and then by name.
"Hey", rather than "hey you". Or "excuse me" or just say what you want to say, I suppose.
Just talking to someone generally does give the impression that it's them you want to address.