Within our current naming conventions it is customary for men and women to preface their surname with a title. Men despite age or marriage status almost exclusively use ‘Mr’. It is convention that unmarried women to use the title ‘Miss’ and married women use the title ‘Mrs’. Prior to the industrial revolution it was common to refer to young women and girls as ‘Miss’ and young men and boys were referred to as ‘Master’. Older women whether married, widowed, or never married were referred to as ‘Mrs’ and older men whether married, widowed, or never married were referred to as ‘Mr’. Around the time of the industrial revolution when women began to enter the workforce alongside men presumably a method was desired to determine a woman’s sexual availability, and it became common practice to refer to married women as ‘Mrs’ and unmarried women as ‘Miss’ . In an effort to find a title that could be used when women’s marital status was unknown the title ‘Ms’ was introduced and became common in the business world of the 1950’s . The title gained popularity among feminist women in the 1970’s as method of annihilating an identity that defined them in terms of their relationships to men . This neutral term while successful in popularity has experienced the same result as the other two female titles: each contains a prejudice context. The current practice of indicating or not indicating a woman’s marital status through titles, when analyzed under the dominance model, can be seen as disadvantaging women in society by providing the opportunity for others to prejudge them based on preconceived context in which these titles are understood. The everyday language that we use to describe each other in terms of Mr, Mrs, Miss, and Ms, disadvantages women by making them powerless to control the information they share about themselves. This disadvantage happens in two ways: first the context delivered with each title allows for individuals to make negative judgements only about individual women based on their chosen title; second the demand that each individual use a title when only men have the option of a neutral-positive title, demonstrates a system that serves only exploit the contextual information contained within the titles used by women, leaving them powerless to control the information.
To analyze a particular facet of society in terms of the dominance model is to look for any disadvantage that is created by qualities or definitions inherent to societal practices and institutions that effect at least one group but not all groups. Central to issues being examined under the framework of dominance is the imbalance of power between the dominant and the submissive group. The ways that one group can dominate another can range from prejudice to outright discrimination, but need not be limited to obvious disadvantages. There are other more insidious ways of asserting dominance including common social practices, advertising imagery, and language to name a few. The former method of domination through prejudice and discrimination exist still but is less common, easier to identify, and has a framework by which they can be dealt with in our judicial system. The latter more subtle form of dominance is not immediately identifiable, pervasive, completely legal, and is effective at asserting dominance over a submissive group. Dominance is asserted not by a single instantiation but rather through the network of subtle assertions of dominance creating a system of barriers that not only is the submissive group unaware of, they are often willing participants in their continued use .
Typically debates in the field of language surround two concepts of our ability to understand and our ability to use language . Often these debates are contained within the frameworks of logic, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind. These traditional forms of debate (for the most part) ignore the meanings of words, and the effects these words have on world construction. However in feminism there is less concern for these traditional debates as the goal here is to determine in what way women are disadvantaged by the use of language. The way in which language disadvantages women is not related to the way the mind processes symbols or signs into language, neither does the syntax of a sentence particularly harm women, and nor does the relationship of reference to referent cause damage to the prospects of women. Here the context in which words are understood and aid in our world construction disadvantages women.
The context of the meaning of a particular word is not the exact meaning of the word but the background in which the word makes sense. For example if someone were to say ‘Alice is gardening’ the primary meaning of this sentence, without context, is simply that something is engaged in the activity of gardening. The context however provides a larger amount of information: given the name the listener presumes Alice is a woman; given Alice is engaged in gardening and not helping someone garden the listener can presume a certain level of autonomy about Alice even perhaps an age; the knowledge of the speaker about Alice’s current activities indicates to the listener that some kind of relationship (friendship, proximity, familiar) exists between the two such that the speaker was able to attain this information; given that the listener is aware of other common information such as the date, the season, the time of day, the current weather, it may be possible to conceive of what kind or gardening Alice may be doing, what kind of tools or clothing Alice might need, etc. The context that is delivered with the statement is neither intentionally negative nor positive; the context enriches our social experience and has been suggested by some that without the contextual meaning inferred it would be impossible to truly apprehend the narrative that makes up our social lives. It is however, precisely the contextual meaning of a word that disadvantages women. Wherein the context in which the meaning of a word is understood is prior to the utterance of the word . The titles Miss, Mrs, and Ms each have a prima facia meaning that simply indicates a marriage status or lack of indicated status. There is however a contextual meaning conveyed in each of the titles as well. That context is understood by us prior to the title being used. It is by that prior understanding that we make judgements about an individual using a particular title. Like the example with Alice in the garden, a very small amount of information given can potentially cause a very large amount of information to be inferred.
The general information being conveyed in each of the three title options used by women simply indicates a woman’s marital status, or lack of disclosure of marital status. However there are deeper contextual associations with each title. In a 1975 experiment participants were asked to read course descriptions that were to be taught by either a Mrs, Ms, or Miss, and rate the course on two characteristics, enjoyableness and intellectual stimulation . The results indicated that women who used the title ‘Ms’ were seen as more enjoyable and more intellectually stimulating than both women who used the ‘Mrs’ or ‘Miss’ titles. Women who used the ‘Mrs’ title and the ‘Miss’ title were generally seen as equally enjoyable to learn from, those women who used referred to themselves as ‘Miss’ were seen as more intellectually stimulating that women who used ‘Mrs’ . Heilman’s general conclusion is that the use of the titles ‘Mrs’ and ‘Miss’ can have negative effects on the potential for success of those women’s endeavours.
In a 1986 study participants were asked to read to paragraphs involving women in two different situations where the title used by the woman changed for different participants. In the results both men and women claimed that the women who used the title ‘Ms’ was considerably less honest than women using the ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs’ titles. Participants stated that women who used the title were seen as deliberately concealing their marital status or as having something to hide, and thus less honest .
In another study conducted in 2003 participants were asked to identify the marital status, relative age, and assign a positivity rating to each of the titles. The indication of marital status was congruent with the perceived meanings of the titles, and the relative age of each title was from youngest to oldest: ‘Miss’, ‘Ms’, and ‘Mrs’. When rated on a positivity scale the titles ‘Miss’ and ‘Ms’ were rated as less positive than ‘Mrs’, and ‘Mrs’ was seen as a more acceptable title for a married woman than ‘Ms’.
A 2007 study tested individuals “implicit stereotypes” regarding the use of titles indicative of marital status in an effort to discover what generally held beliefs were associated with each title. The participants were asked to rate a name paired with a title and then rate the name based on traits of agency and communion . The results found that women using the ‘Ms’ title were believed to have significantly more agency and be significantly less communal than women using the ‘Mrs’ title. Women using the ‘Miss’ title were seen as having significantly less agency then women using ‘Ms’ title and significantly more agency than women using the ‘Mrs’ title. However women using the ‘Miss’ title were believed to be less communal than women using the ‘Ms’ title . When the individual was given the title ‘Mr’ they were perceived as having more agency than women using the ‘Miss’ and ‘Mrs’ titles but less than women using the ‘Ms’ title. Those with the ‘Mr’ title were also seen as being comparably communal as women using the ‘Mrs’ title and significantly more communal than women using the titles ‘Miss’ or ‘Ms’.
The results of each of the studies are fairly conclusive: there is a large amount of preconceived context associated with each title. Women who use the ‘Miss’ title are seen as less intellectually stimulating, young, self-centered, and lacking the ability to make decisions. Women using the title ‘Mrs’ title are seen as less intellectually stimulating, married, older, and lacking in decision making ability due to age and marital constraints. Women using the ‘Ms’ title are seen as intellectual, goal oriented, successful, having a high degree of agency, lacking in close personal relationships , and dishonest. Men using the ‘Mr’ title were viewed positively in all areas of every study. Each title used by women has both positive and negative characteristics.
The disadvantage that is created by the continued use of titles is concerned with the sharing of information. Not just simple information but contextual information that is assumed by those who perceive the title. Contextual information is an important part of our communication practices. In almost any sentence uttered the individual is sharing extra information without directly communicating it. The extra contextual information provides background and is used to make more informed decisions. The more contextual information that can be inferred about someone, the more ‘accurately’ they can be assessed without directly questioning them. This kind of contextual judgement has likely become more important since the passing anti-discrimination laws. The law prohibits employers from asking an individual certain kinds of personal questions such as: if they are married, how old they are, what their ethnicity is, or what kind of domestic responsibilities they have, etc. Also there are questions that someone may want to ask but a difficult or near impossible to get a reliable answer, such as how intelligent are you, how are honest are you, and how well can you make decisions, etc. The usage of the titles ‘Ms’, ‘Mrs’, and ‘Miss’ allow for people to make judgements on the questions they are prohibited from asking, and questions that cannot be asked. Given the evidence shown, those are areas in which people have formed judgements related to titles. Furthermore the fact that different titles with different simple and contextual meanings, exists only for women, demonstrates that we are only concerned about such information in relation to women.
It would be less of a problem that we only concern ourselves with judging women based on their titles if a ‘no title’ option existed. However it is the case that people are forced to use a title: whether you are addressing a teacher (grades K-12), a superior, or in an atmosphere where addressing by title is considered respectful: one must be referred to as ‘Ms, Miss, Mrs, or Mr Smith’. Since the industrial revolution women have been forced to choose a title to be addressed by, while men have used exclusively ‘Mr’. The intentional systematic titling of women in order to identify them as having particular characteristics has persisted into modern times. Over time the titles have been used in successive repetitions, correlating with individuals of similar age, marital status, domestic responsibilities, and lifestyles characteristic of each title resulting in a large pool of traits ascribed to each title. Consequently a system has formed which disadvantages women, and has rendered women powerless to control the information (true or false) shared about their personal lives whenever they are asked to identify their title.
A potential objection to my argument is an adaptation of an argument advanced by Deborah Tannen in arguing against the dominance approach used to describe the power relations between men and women in linguistic strategies. Essentially her argument states that one cannot locate the intention in an utterance by analysis of language . She divides all language usage into the categories of power and solidarity: language is either used to exert power, or show solidarity and we are unable to tell the difference. Thus the usage of the titles ‘Ms’, ‘Miss’, ‘Mrs’ by women to describe themselves or the use of those titles by men to describe women – the choice to use any title cannot be said to be an exercise of men’s dominance over women as we are unable to ascertain the intention of the individual who uses the title. For example the usage of the title ‘Ms’ by a male engineer to describe a female engineer of a similar institutional power position is an ambiguous a description: it could be used either as a demonstration of power to describe a particular set of characteristics typical of this woman which are congruent with the ascribed characteristics of the title ‘Ms’ and not ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs’ and that as a woman her title is indicative of those characteristics; or it could be used as method of solidarity suggestive of equality insofar as they are both engineers and her marital status is irrelevant to her status as an engineer.
The essential problem with this objection is twofold: first it misses the important distinction in dominance between the intentional and unintentional. Dominance is about the creation of inequality in power between men and women. Titles that people use to describe themselves are used because it is expected of them to choose a title to use, and use it where necessary. While the use of the title is intentional, the information (true or false) shared about an individual woman’s life through her choice of title is unintentional. Furthermore the results of the Malcolmson and Sinclair study demonstrate that the characteristics ascribed to the titles are ascribed unconsciously – without intention. Despite this lack of intention the expected use of the various titles by women demonstrates a power difference between men and women. Therefore intention is not a necessary condition of dominance. Secondly the objection argues that in situations where men and women are equal dominance in language is ambiguous. The system of titling women for the purposes of identifying particular information about an individual woman, and the lack of a similar system for men, presumes a society that deliberately treats women as less equal than men. Therefore a situation where men and women are describing women as either ‘Ms’, ‘Miss’, or ‘Mrs’ as equals is not possible.
The language that we use every day to describe every event and every person carries a contextual understanding inferred by listeners. The contextual meaning of a word is understood by the listener prior to hearing it. The titles ‘Ms’, ‘Miss’, and ‘Mrs’ are no different. There is evidence to suggest that the context in which these titles are understood are ascribed negative characteristics associated to each title. The practice of titling women began as women entered the work force alongside men as a method to convey a woman’s marital status – in an effort to potentially identify the sexually available women. The continued use of the system created more characteristics of an individual that could be associated with their title. This information (true or false) is conveyed without the consent of the individual woman and the mandatory nature of the titles renders her powerless to control the information. The existence of a discriminatory system that only targets women demonstrates a disadvantage perpetrated against women. The current and continued practice of indicating or not indicating a woman’s marital status through titles is a method of discrimination that disadvantages women and renders them powerless.
