I'm currently taken a Charles Dickens seminar and the course Women in Fiction. In both of these courses we are studying Victorian literature. In Women in Fiction we have been reading Pride and Prejudice and analyzing the social norms of the time period. In the very first sentence of the book, you can pick apart the obvious superiority of men and inferiority of women. The first sentence is "it is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of wife." At first, we focused on man holding power through their money to pick and choose a wife while a woman remains at home waiting for a man to choose her.
As I thought more about this concept after class and during reading more Dickens and Austen, I realized the simple titles we use to address a man and woman reinforce these Victorian ideas concerning the rights of men versus the rights of women. Men are given the title 'Mr.' regardless of their standing. If they are single, married, wealthy or poor the title 'Mr.' will come before his name. Why do men not need the same type of titles to distinguish whether or not they are married? In the case of the Victorian era, it was simply because men do the acting and women are acted upon. In our society, many women ask men out on dates and even propose to men, so why have the titles remained so prevalent into the 21st century?
For a woman, however, she is given the title 'Miss' or 'Mrs.' In doing this, it is announced to all whether or not a woman is married. If she is merely a 'Miss' she is unmarried, ready to be chosen by a man for marriage, or an "old maid" set to be a 'Miss' for the rest of her life. What was even more interesting to discover was that 'Mrs.' (followed by a woman's husband's last name) was not only a way to acknowledge that a woman is married, but also it stands for Mistress. So, when a woman is married, she officially becomes her husband's mistress in name. Whenever she is called upon by someone as Mrs. So-and-so, she is being addressed as her husband's mistress and nothing more. Although it does not necessarily have this connotation in the 21st century, it is interesting nonetheless that these titles still exist.
I too find this topic very interesting. I never really thought about the fact that men don't have any other title other than "Mr." It does seem crazy that we still use these prefixes to state whether a woman is married or not. In regards to a woman taking her husband's last name, I've never thought about it in terms of being her husband's mistress. I've always thought about my future husband's last name and how my name will sound with a new ending. I used to think it would be fun to take my husband's name, and though these points make strong arguments for submission, I think if I choose to take his name, that would be better than me being forced. Part of me thinks that by taking the last name it serves to unify and come together as a couple under the same name. Whether that is me being blind by our culture or not is still up for debate...
ReplyDeleteVery good observation, Carrie. It's funny how this honorary title given to men goes so unnoticed. Your post made me think a lot about languages and how it serves as yet another medium that reflects cultural perspectives on gender. I'm a language fanatic and I find the gendering (is that a word?) of nouns in a lot of languages -spanish, french, arabic- and there's always a connotation associated to these nouns.
ReplyDeleteThe equivalent titles in french are Monsieur, Madame, Mademoiselle. If you look at the root of the words and their exact meaning, you'll note that mon+sieur translates into "my lord," ma+dame is "my lady" and ma+demoiselle translates to "my little lady". Why "my lord"? It's as if men are some creature beyond a human ;it's as if men are gods. I know these terms originated a long, long time ago when there was a monarchy and other dominating cultural influences and institutions, but I think there really is a bizarre underlying issue to the fact that these terms stuck and people are walking around referring to men as lords and women as simple "ladies".
Like Laura and Bridget, I too find this to be an interesting observation. I agree that although these titles were definitely constructed during a time when women had little to no freedom of their own and their existence was centered around living for and providing pleasure to a man that it does not necessarily have the same connotation today. In fact, many (like myself) do not even think about nor understand the technical difference between Mr., Ms., and Mrs.. With that being said, I would argue that these titles continue to exist simply out of tradition. Like obscure laws that remain in effect despite the fact that they are no longer relevant in today's day and age, I think it follows along that "If it's not broke, don't fix it" mentality. That is, no one has risen against it or questioned it, so it has remained unchanged throughout the years.
ReplyDelete