Last week at work I was referred to as "Mrs. Price" This time I didn't correct the co-worker who called me Mrs." as I usually would have. It gets tiresome, but it did get me to thinking. Being called "Mrs." didn't exactly grate on my nerves, but imagine a rock in your shoe that doesn't want to come out or someone scraping their fingernails on a chalkboard (If anyone remembers that irritating sound).
I reflected on why I was disturbed. Deep down being called "Mrs." felt like I have to belong to a man in order to matter. You don't have to know the marital status of a man when you call him "Mr." He could be single or married. Why must a woman still be classified according to her marital status?
 |
| Wangari Maathai-1st Woman-Nobel Peace Prize |
As early as the 17th century, "Ms." was used along with "Miss" and "Mrs."; all were derived from "Mistress". "Ms." was a counterpart to the non-marital specific title for men—"Mr." (Spender, 1981). However, "Ms" fell out of common usage until it was revived in the twentieth century.
Here's what troubles me—Instead of replacing "Miss" or "Mrs.", as a marital status neutral term, "Ms." has devolved into a yet third title for a woman. In current usage, "Mrs." refers to a married woman; "Miss" refers to an unmarried woman; and "Ms." refers to either, but usually to a feminist, a woman who gets the rationale behind not calling attention to a woman's marital status in terms of address. So, since the boundaries between "Ms." and "Miss" or "Mrs." appears to be quite muddy, what earthly good does it do to have the title, "Ms." in our speaking vocabularies?
 |
| Women's Lib 1970 |
A few decades ago while I was working on a masters degree, I was talking to a couple of other students in our education class about the issue of terms of address as I was writing a thesis on this subject. In discussing the use of "Ms." for a woman whether or not she is married, one of the women piped up with "I am Mrs. Smith [not her real name] and PROUD of it!" The other student and I looked at this woman in disbelief. She further stated, "Any woman who has a husband should be proud to be called "Mrs." If you aren't, there must be something wrong with you!"
My friend and I made some feeble attempts at explaining to Mrs. Smith why being called "Mrs." could be taken as a woman needing to have a man in tow or she doesn't exist, at least as a separate, independent person in her own right. It used to be that women were not even called by their first names, just their husband's first name, e.g., "Mrs. John Smith" rather than "Mrs. Mary Smith". Thankfully, that custom seems to be out of fashion nowadays.
 |
| Winnie the Welder, 1943 |
Why are titles important, anyway? The way a person is addressed, reflects the respect afforded to her or him. For example, if someone is a patron in a restaurant and calls out to a waitress, "Hey, come here, girl!", we can readily understand the lack of respect afforded this employee. In the same way, calling this same employee "Mrs. Brown", for example, could be taken as disrespect, as well. How do we know she is married? Along the same vein, calling this waitress, "Miss Brown" could, equally, be a faux-pas.
 |
| Suffragette, 1920 |
So, why not use "Ms." for all women as we use "Mr." for all men? It makes sense. It makes for unbiased language. It affords women the same respect as men already have in not having to reveal their marital status every time they are addressed.
- Spender, Dale. (1981). Man Made Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 978-0-7100-0675-2.
