missive

November 3, 2008 8:00 AM

I've noticed the New York Times is now using "Miss", or Ms., as the accepted honorific for a women both married and unmarried. Is this MLA, or is the New York Times in the vanguard? Is Mrs. dead?
posted by plexi to writing & language (12 comments total)

They use Mrs. occasionally.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 8:09 AM on November 3, 2008

Ms. isn't short for Miss.
posted by zsazsa at 8:18 AM on November 3, 2008 [3 favorites]

From the Talk to the Newsroom column, an Q&A with Philip B. Corbett, who oversees language issues for the newsroom, from about a year ago.

Ms., Miss and Mrs. (and Mr., Too)

Q. How does The New York Times decide whether to identify a woman as Ms. or Mrs.? For that matter, why does The Times use Mrs. at all? I find the continued use of Mrs. alongside Ms. to be baffling, given that the "Ms." option was created to avoid having to distinguish women according to their marital status as either Miss or Mrs. What is the rationale?

— Rebecca Davis

Q. I remember hearing that it took The New York Times quite some time to abandon the titles "Mrs." or "Miss" and start using the all-inclusive "Ms." in its articles. So why is it that certain women, particularly Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush, are still referred to as Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Bush in The Times? I personally think it's kind of a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton — she's one of the top candidates for president, and it shouldn't matter whether she is married or not, or to whom. It does make me wonder, though, whether some public figures have expressed to The Times that they prefer a certain title.

— Emily Liner

A. Our style is to use "Ms." unless a woman chooses to use "Mrs." or "Miss." That rule applies both to private individuals and to public figures.

Aside from these inquiries about "Ms.," I've been surprised not to get more questions about our use of courtesy titles. After all, our continued insistence on Mr., Ms., Dr., etc., is perhaps our most obvious stylistic difference from other news organizations, which generally use bare surnames for second references to people. The Times's style seems strange, at first, to every reporter or editor coming here from another paper.

I don't know whether the lack of comment in this forum reflects approval of the courtesy titles, or just familiarity or apathy. I do hear occasionally from reporters who'd like to drop them. Most recently, when we reduced the width of our pages, several people suggested eliminating courtesy titles to save space (it wouldn't really help).

Perhaps I'm tradition-bound, but this is one quirk of Times style that I would go to some lengths to defend. We strive for a tone that is literate, civil and serious: not fussy or old-fashioned, but also not chatty or self-consciously hip. It's not an easy balance, and we don't always get it right. But I think the simple use of courtesy titles — whether it's "Mr. Bush," "Mrs. Clinton" or "Ms. Rivera, a teacher from Queens" — injects a note of thoughtfulness and civility into our pages. Amid the daily cacophony, that seems a worthy effort.

In my personal opinion, there's nothing vanguardist about this, it's just reflecting that honorifics or courtesy titles need not reflect a person's marital status which for men, they don't. Women can opt to use Mrs. as their preferred title ad the Times respects that choice.
posted by jessamyn at 8:24 AM on November 3, 2008 [10 favorites]

They sometimes ask which courtesy title a person prefers. The ever helpful Language Log has much to say on this.
posted by kiltedtaco at 8:25 AM on November 3, 2008

Here's a different Q&A this time with the director of Copy Desks Merrill Perlman about the paper's philosophy

I'm sure you've heard it before but why do you continue to use Mr. and Ms. when referring to people on second reference? I think the Times just likes to be different; in this case different simply equals annoying.

Maureen (I prefer AP style) Dvorak

A. I was hoping somebody would ask about headlines, so I could do some more bragging. But first let me get rid of the explanations.

The Times is still somewhat traditional, even conservative, when it comes to language. (I'll bet some critics would laugh that we say we’re conservative about anything.) Using courtesy titles shows a certain respect to the subjects; few people would walk up to someone they did not know and just call her by her last name.

We also want to observe "proper" English usage until most authorities have accepted the latest evolution. We still preserve the distinction between running the gantlet and throwing down the gauntlet, for example.

posted by jessamyn at 8:29 AM on November 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

In the long run I think all these titles are dead.

Over the last twenty-five years they have gradually disappeared from my professional life (in the UK). When I started, all memos and messages were addressed to Mr Smith, Mr Brown, Mrs Peel, etc. Then because of uncertainty over Miss/Mrs/Ms it started to be Mr Smith, Mr Brown, Emma Peel, etc. But this was obviously not consistent, and by the eighties it was already usual to see John Smith, Tom Brown, Emma Peel, and that's now universal.

It still sounds faintly Quakerish to me, but if I tried to address something to 'Mr Brown' people would think I was being facetious. Of course, I can't do that anyway most of the time because nearly everything is electronic and the address is [e-mail] anyway.

I reckon in twenty years Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss will seem as antique as Messrs., Esq., Yeo. and all that.
posted by Phanx at 8:37 AM on November 3, 2008

Previously.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:55 AM on November 3, 2008

"Mrs." might as well be dead, because they were never using it right in the first place. Their use of "Ms." is the correct one, and always has been.

"Mrs." is only used to refer to a woman as she related to her husband, and interestingly enough is followed only by the husband's name. "Mrs. Bush" is correct, as is "Mrs. George Bush." There is no such person as "Mrs. Laura Bush," unless you're referring to a woman who married a guy named Laura Bush. The correct title for a woman, married or unmarried is "Ms."
posted by Willie0248 at 12:35 PM on November 3, 2008

Actually, Willie, the Mrs. Female Firs Name Last Name variant occur when a woman is divorced from her husband but has not changed her name back to her maiden name. This was quite common in the middle decades of the 20th century.

So, in the 1940s, 1950s, and later, a woman who was "Mrs. Laura Bush" was divorced from the Mr. Bush in question whereas "Mrs. George Bush" would refer to the Mr. Bush in question's current wife. It helped to prevent confusion among smaller social circles. I imagine with the second feminist movement in the 1960s and 1970s that began to change so that any "Mrs." could have her first name used rather than her husband's. This too was made easier as divorced women started to change their names back to their maiden names with more frequency.

As for this question, I agree that it may be a preference thing as to the subjects discussed in the Times.
posted by zizzle at 1:12 PM on November 3, 2008

These titles are still very often used in some communities. There are many offices I visit where everyone refers to each other as Mr., Mrs., or Ms. Soandso. I've actually been corrected- told that you don't use someone's first name unless you are intimates of some kind- friends, relatives, etc. I often find it offputting when I am referred to by my first name by people who don't know me. Situations like business correspondence, interactions with the police, the people at the DMV etc. ("Robert, have you been drinking tonight?" or "Please sign in the box Elaine.") They may be dying, but not as quickly as one might seem.
posted by gjc at 4:11 PM on November 3, 2008

Forgot the second most annoying over-familiarization thing. Commentators or pundits referring to political figures by their first names.
posted by gjc at 4:13 PM on November 3, 2008

I think some women feel old when called Mrs.; therefore, the term is often avoided.
posted by gawkycreature at 1:32 AM on November 5, 2008