Speaking of labels. I, too, consider myself an internalized feminist. And an internalized masculinist while I’m at it.

Now, why would a woman not want to announce her status in the workplace? Well, in some quarters there’s hiring and/or wage discrimination against married women because of a theory that women who are married already have a means of survival, through a husband, the converse was and probably still is true, that a married man /deserves/ a higher wage because he has a family to support. “Ms.” as a political construct is thus a way to eliminate the bias against using marriage as a determing factor to judge women in matters where entities might make decisions about rights and benefits based on marriage. And in a larger vein, consider that women might not want to be thought of solely in terms of their choice of partner in life, but rather on their own character and abilities.

I’m perhaps the strangest possible defender of feminism, I’ve become rather lassaiz-faire about my progressive tendencies, but I do think people have a right to try and control the contexts on which they are judged. I think I’ve internalized my feminist tendencies to a degree that it takes concentration to see them as feminist.

OK, so now I understand the history and utility of Ms., but the logic still escapes me. I can understand why unmarried women wouldn’t want anyone to make any assumptions. But isn’t the whole point of marriage to make some sort of public declaration? (To tell you the truth, I’ve never understood the point of marriage at all, but this is what I am told.) So it seems like only a miss would use the mz no? The best solution of course is to get rid of all titles.

Itzpapalotl,

What about Gunnerette?

Cindylu,

You’ll always be Cindylu in my book.

Since it’s no one’s business whether I’m married or not, I prefer Ms. But you can call me Solana