Names?!
When we read the book "There is No Unmarked Woman" in class, an interesting point that was brought up was how women were addressed. "Mr. carries no meaning other than the respondent is male. But woman who checks Mrs. or Miss communicates not only whether she has been married but also whether she has conservative tastes in forms of address and probably other conservative values as well"(Tannen 554). This idea and many others in this essay is flawed as its based on assumptions and generalizations that are wrong. A married woman has the option of choosing Ms. Or “Mrs.”. Older women use Mrs. because they are "old schooled", however that doesn't automatically mean they are conservative. This is a form of stereotyping and offensive to older women who are "liberal". There is actually more freedom for women, deciding whether or not they want to declare their marital status. The author doesn’t like “Dr.” either, calling it “uppity” or “overachiever”. However, men and women are both marked by their extra years in school. Tannen's disdain for the use of Dr. towards women makes me wonder how she would address her personal doctor. Would she call him/her “Overachiever"?
These minuscule details should not be debated over. Almost everybody has adopted this naming “trend". It’s part of our culture. Tannen was over thinking this concept and confused the readers instead of convincing them. Her arguments on the marking of women are really not to help women but to emphasized how unfair it is as men did not have to deal with this. There are more pressing subjects in the world than debating whether to call someone “Ms.” Or “Mrs.”.
The concept of surnames is “marked” according to Tannen. Traditionally many women, once married would change their name to that of their husband's. Tannen viewed this as losing her own identity while keeping one’s last name would leave her own personal mark. So it makes me wonder what should a woman do when it comes to something so important as a name? When a woman changes her name to that of her husband's, it sends one thing, she is married. It's a sign of unity and is constructive, not at all losing any part of her, but gaining. I think she had in details, numerous issues without any attempt of providing, or even suggesting any solutions.
I think Tannen has a valid point but the issue lies in the past and not the present. Women had much less freedom in the past - it was simply how society formed - and as they gain more freedom, the wider array of options to choose from leads to the feeling that each choice is too revealing. The feeling of being marked is probably preferable compared to worse suppression of the past, so perhaps complaints should be directed toward the past instead of the progress society is (slowly) making in the present.
ReplyDeleteYou have a very interesting opinion of this topic, I agree that women do not lose their individuality in reality when they change their last name but I believe that the notion that they have to do it at all changes other's perspective of them.
ReplyDelete