Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: M'lady vs. Ms., etc.
Message-ID: <3953@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Apr-84 03:20:32 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3953
Posted: Wed Apr 18 03:20:32 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Apr-84 06:23:15 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 25

I have to disagree that titles are unimportant.  I think that they are
quite important, in at least a couple of ways.

1st, a name is a very personal thing.  Isn't it just simple respect to follow
someone's wishes on how they wish to be named?

To not follow their wishes is to show a lack of respect, or insensitivity.
Or worse.  Titles are used to indicate social status-- often to indicate
a level within a hierarchy (Father X, Bishop X, Archbishop X, ...).  If
someone is happy to be strongly identified with a particular group of
people or social status, that's fine-- they can use the appropriate title
to enforce the association.  Calling someone Father Jones doesn't make him
more of a priest, but it makes it an important part of his identity.  But
to use an unwanted title is to mess with someone's identity-- possibly a
conscious or unconscious attempt at coercion to conform to the stereotypes
of a particular class or social status or to denigrate someone by associating
them with a negative image (racial slurs, for example).

The "liberty" in life, liberty, etc. surely includes the freedom to define
one's own identity, and to create a new title if necessary to express that
identity (language is, after all, meant to serve us, not vice-versa).  To
slap a title on someone without their consent is to infringe on their
liberty, in no small way (apart from being just plain rude).

peter rowley