The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent
In the New Yorker...
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on September 05, 2019, 11:40:11 pm ---Of course I care, otherwise I would have sent a private message. Sorry for compressing the info too much.
--- End quote ---
Nah, it was just too good an opportunity to tease you to pass up. ;D
serious crayons:
Oh, I just noticed a couple of posts I'd missed before writing this. Oh well -- here it is.
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on September 05, 2019, 02:00:42 pm --- :laugh:
Indeed. Does the Times even use "Ms."?
--- End quote ---
It's the default. I would have thought it's the standard, but apparently in many cases they let women choose their honorific:
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/ms-or-mrs-its-up-to-you-as-for-me-just-call-me-spayd/
But regarding Cher et al, it's more complicated than we thought. As of 2018, they no longer use honorifics for pop stars, unless it's an investigative piece and various other conditions. They do, however, retain their use for high arts -- classical music, dance, etc. That seems even more, and needlessly, complicated. What about someone like Dame Maggie Smith? Is she Smith?
https://observer.com/2018/10/new-york-times-drops-pop-culture-honorifics/
Personally, I'm with this guy, who thinks the Times should dump the whole system:
http://www.matthewdicks.com/matthewdicksblog/2015/12/19/the-new-york-times-use-of-honorifics
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on September 05, 2019, 03:41:38 pm ---In the August 26 issue, I'd be interested in what you, Katherine, thought of "The Looking Glass" about Margaret Mead, the Boas school of anthropologists, and the supposed end of the nature-nurture debate. The article doesn't really answer the question, IMO, although maybe the book it is critiquing might.
--- End quote ---
Oh, I didn't see that! Thank you for mentioning it. I'll go find it!
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on September 05, 2019, 06:32:11 pm ---So you don't care what I thought of it? ;D
--- End quote ---
I suspect FRiend Lee addressed me because she knows I have read and written and have strong opinions about the nature/nurture debate.
The Franz Boas era is interesting. They were hugely progressive for their time. And although this quote by the early 20th century psychologist John B. Watson, who was inspired by Boas, now seems ridiculous, at the time it was progressive to say that race did not determine success, etc.:
"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take anyone at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years." —John B. Watson, "Behaviorism," 1925
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on September 06, 2019, 08:43:44 am ---Oh, I just noticed a couple of posts I'd missed before writing this. Oh well -- here it is.
It's the default. I would have thought it's the standard, but apparently in many cases they let women choose their honorific:
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/ms-or-mrs-its-up-to-you-as-for-me-just-call-me-spayd/
--- End quote ---
Did I miss something here? What do they do with women who are not married, women who are married but keep their own names for professional reasons, and women who are married to other women? Are they stuck with Ms. whether they like it or not?
--- Quote ---But regarding Cher et al, it's more complicated than we thought. As of 2018, they no longer use honorifics for pop stars, unless it's an investigative piece and various other conditions. They do, however, retain their use for high arts -- classical music, dance, etc. That seems even more, and needlessly, complicated. What about someone like Dame Maggie Smith? Is she Smith?
https://observer.com/2018/10/new-york-times-drops-pop-culture-honorifics/
--- End quote ---
I guess traditionally she would/should be Dame Maggie, Dame being the traditional title for a woman granted a knighthood, but I guess that raises issues itself. Since I never see these things, seriously, what are they doing with Sir Elton John?
--- Quote ---Personally, I'm with this guy, who thinks the Times should dump the whole system:
http://www.matthewdicks.com/matthewdicksblog/2015/12/19/the-new-york-times-use-of-honorifics
--- End quote ---
I guess I still have mixed feelings. I think Mr. and Mrs. should be dispensed with, but I have no problem with titles like Sen. (senator), Sec. (secretary, as in cabinet secretary), and Dr. (though a Ph.D. in the humanities who wants to be called Dr. is just being pretentious [except for Indiana Jones ;D ]). You can call me--what?--because I still incline to military titles (Col., Gen., Adm.)--but I'm not sure what I would do about an officer of a lower rank.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on September 06, 2019, 10:44:02 am ---Did I miss something here? What do they do with women who are not married, women who are married but keep their own names for professional reasons, and women who are married to other women? Are they stuck with Ms. whether they like it or not?
--- End quote ---
No, the way I read it they let them pick. I'm saying Ms. should be the default, not that it is. So under their system, an unmarried woman would get either Ms. or Miss, depending on her preference. A married woman keeping her own name for whatever reasons (professional or otherwise) would be Ms. or Miss. So they wouldn't call her Mrs. Taylor when she was married to Richard Burton. As for women married to other women, again I suppose they'd offer them a choice. But I would think it would be Ms. DeGeneres or possibly Miss DeGeneres, not Mrs. de Rossi (or vice versa in Portia's case).
--- Quote ---I guess traditionally she would/should be Dame Maggie, Dame being the traditional title for a woman granted a knighthood, but I guess that raises issues itself. Since I never see these things, seriously, what are they doing with Sir Elton John?
--- End quote ---
Good question. They must have written about Sir Elton at some point before switching to not using pop stars' titles. But otherwise, would second reference be Dame Smith and Sir John?
--- Quote ---I guess I still have mixed feelings. I think Mr. and Mrs. should be dispensed with, but I have no problem with titles like Sen. (senator), Sec. (secretary, as in cabinet secretary), and Dr. (though a Ph.D. in the humanities who wants to be called Dr. is just being pretentious [except for Indiana Jones ;D ]). You can call me--what?--because I still incline to military titles (Col., Gen., Adm.)--but I'm not sure what I would do about an officer of a lower rank.
--- End quote ---
Maybe I didn't read that blog post closely enough, but I thought the guy was just referring to Mr., Mrs., etc. But all newspapers use Sen., Sec. and Dr. (the last only for MDs, however -- sorry, Indiana!). The point of those is to identify who they are, not to be extra polite. They don't want readers saying, "Wait, who is this McConnell guy and what does he have to do with anything?" But I suppose the NYT would use Sen. McConnell on second reference, whereas other papers would say Sen. on first reference then switch to just McConnell.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version