Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
From: seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Miss/Mrs/Ms
Message-ID: <605@ihuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Sep-83 11:13:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxl.605
Posted: Thu Sep 22 11:13:22 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Sep-83 01:29:13 EDT
Organization: BTL Naperville, Il.
Lines: 27

Ah yes, the question of Miss/Mrs/Ms.  Let us examine why 'Ms'
came into being.  Apparently many women object to reveiling
their marital status via Miss/Mrs. Thus 'Ms' came into being.
Yes, yes, very businesslike, very impersonal, it says, "my
marital status and any other personal information is strictly
off limits."  But why is this desirable? Is it to keep things
cold and impersonal, at a distance?  Is it to prevent discrimination
based on marital status?

	If the purpose is to keep things cold and impersonal, I
suggest that the world is cold and impersonal enough already,
let's not add to it.  If the purpose is to prevent discrimination
based on marital status, why not attack the problem at its source?
The complaint is sometimes heard, "but men don't have to reveil
*their* marital status, 'Ms' is equivalent to 'Mr'."  Rather than
reducing information by using 'Ms', why not increase information
by inventing a married/unmarried pair for males. Perhaps
Mister/Master could be used.

	*** disclaimer ***
This may sound like 'Ms' is a favorite pet peeve of mine.
Its not.  I *prefer* Miss/Mrs, but am not upset by Ms.
Rational discussion invited.


			Dave Seifert (single)
			ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert