Who are you calling “Miss”?

Time's Nancy Gibbs argues that not caring which title we use is real proof of women's liberation

Topics: Feminism, Broadsheet,

Some of second-wave feminists’ greatest lasting victories were linguistic: They made it more acceptable for women to keep their birth names after marriage, for instance, and popularized the use of “Ms.” But if their efforts were so successful, why is Time’s Nancy Gibbs stumped when a form asks her to circle one title: “Ms.,” ”Mrs.” or “Miss”? Her revelation, after exploring the history of all three terms and pointing out some bizarre examples of the New York Times’ failure to adequately mediate between them, is that she can’t decide not because her title means so much, but because it barely means anything. She concludes that “it’s become O.K. not to care” how we’re addressed:

Whether my children’s friends call me Ms. Gibbs or Mrs. May or any combination of the two, I view it as a sign of respect and don’t worry about the particulars. My husband never remotely suggested that he was bothered by my not taking his name; in fact, he’s accustomed to occasionally answering to Mr. Gibbs. My late father, a fine writer, thrilled to see that name in the pages of this magazine. All these identities are me: Ms. when I’m out slaying dragons, Mrs. when I’m in the company of those I love most, Miss when I want to stay home under the covers and daydream. Feminists a generation ago fought for the title and dreamed of Freedom and Choice and Opportunity; maybe the surest sign that they’ve won is not which title we pick, but that we can have them all at once.

Gibbs’ is a charismatic argument for “having it all,” and she does get at what’s singularly attractive about each title. When someone calls her “Mrs. May,” they’re uniting her with her husband and children; Miss Nancy is childlike and free; and Ms. Gibbs is everything our ’70s foremothers dreamed she would be: smart, efficient, high achieving.

But Gibbs doesn’t delve into what’s particularly bothersome about each term. As a (potentially permanently) unmarried woman, I’m not a good candidate for “Mrs.” And even if I were, the title’s connotations — that I was someone’s counterpart, that I had taken my husband’s name — would get to me. The problems with “Miss” are the same as its advantages: Just as it conveys youth and freedom, it also suggests inexperience. On a very basic level, it feels diminutive. It’s hard to answer to “Miss” without feeling like you’re being condescended to. 

So how about “Ms.”? Isn’t it, according to Ms. magazine’s editors (as quoted by Gibbs), “a standard form of address by women who want to be recognized as individuals, rather than being identified by their relationship with a man”? Didn’t it solve all of our title-related problems? As it turns out, not entirely. “Ms.” was supposed to be our equivalent of “Mr.” But I imagine the “Ms.” staff didn’t anticipate those other forms of address sticking around once their term made it into common usage. It didn’t occur to them that, in 2009, Nancy Gibbs would be puzzling over whether to circle ”Mrs.,” ”Ms.” or “Mrs.” on  a government form. By then, they must have assumed, she would automatically be “Ms.” Those other little circles just wouldn’t exist.

As long as we still have “Mrs.” and “Miss,” then “Ms.”will never be the same as “Mr.” Instead, we’ll have to keep defining it in opposition to those other terms: ”Ms.” is the married woman who has kept her name, or the single 20-something who wants to be taken seriously. She is, at least to some extent, a feminist. For those of us who just want our name to be our name, and not an automatic indicator of our social or political agenda, this can be frustrating.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m grateful for “Ms.” And when faced with the kind of form Gibbs describes, I’ll circle it every time. But mostly, I just feel lucky that I’ve spent most of my life in informal settings, where titles aren’t necessary. At home, at school and in the workplace, I’ve always just been “Judy” — and that’s also all I’ve ever wanted to be. 

Judy Berman is a writer and editor in Brooklyn. She is a regular contributor to Salon's Broadsheet.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 11
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails
    Burger King Japan

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Burger King's black cheeseburger: Made with squid ink and bamboo charcoal, arguably a symbol of meat's destructive effect on the planet. Only available in Japan.

    Elite Daily/Twitter

    2014's fast food atrocities

    McDonald's Black Burger: Because the laws of competition say that once Burger King introduces a black cheeseburger, it's only a matter of time before McDonald's follows suit. You still don't have to eat it.


    2014's fast food atrocities

    Domino's Specialty Chicken: It's like regular pizza, except instead of a crust, there's fried chicken. The company's marketing officer calls it "one of the most creative, innovative menu items we have ever had” -- brain power put to good use.


    2014's fast food atrocities

    Arby's Meat Mountain: The viral off-menu product containing eight different types of meat that, on second read, was probably engineered by Arby's all along. Horrific, regardless.


    2014's fast food atrocities

    KFC'S ZINGER DOUBLE DOWN KING: A sandwich made by adding a burger patty to the infamous chicken-instead-of-buns creation can only be described using all caps. NO BUN ALL MEAT. Only available in South Korea.

    Taco Bell

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Taco Bell's Waffle Taco: It took two years for Taco Bell to develop this waffle folded in the shape of a taco, the stand-out star of its new breakfast menu.

    Michele Parente/Twitter

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Krispy Kreme Triple Cheeseburger: Only attendees at the San Diego County Fair were given the opportunity to taste the official version of this donut-hamburger-heart attack combo. The rest of America has reasonable odds of not dropping dead tomorrow.

    Taco Bell

    2014's fast food atrocities

    Taco Bell's Quesarito: A burrito wrapped in a quesadilla inside an enigma. Quarantined to one store in Oklahoma City.


    2014's fast food atrocities

    Boston Pizza's Pizza Cake: The people's choice winner of a Canadian pizza chain's contest whose real aim, we'd imagine, is to prove that there's no such thing as "too far." Currently in development.


    2014's fast food atrocities

    7-Eleven's Doritos Loaded: "For something decadent and artificial by design," wrote one impassioned reviewer, "it only tasted of the latter."

  • Recent Slide Shows



Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>