In the New Yorker...

[Jeff Wrangler]

Of course I care, otherwise I would have sent a private message. Sorry for compressing the info too much.

Nah, it was just too good an opportunity to tease you to pass up. 

[serious crayons]

Oh, I just noticed a couple of posts I'd missed before writing this. Oh well -- here it is.

Indeed. Does the Times even use "Ms."?

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]

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.

Oh, I didn't see that! Thank you for mentioning it. I'll go find it!

So you don't care what I thought of it?   

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]

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/

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?

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/

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?

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

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  ]). 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]

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?

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).

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?

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?

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  ]). 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.

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.

 

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

Going forward, then, do you suppose they would ask Hillary Clinton what she would prefer (Sen.? Sec.?--or Mrs.?)? Otherwise they would have a double standard on their hands, and I'm sure that wouldn't go over very well.

[Front-Ranger]

I just finished the piece about Prince. Strange that he selected a guy who had never authored a book to help him write his autobiography. The guy, Dan Piepenbring, must have really aced the essay question about his relationship to Prince's music.

He has written mostly reviews for TNY. A piece in June examined the cynical politics of Donald Duck:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-book-that-exposed-the-cynical-politics-of-donald-duck

[serious crayons]

Going forward, then, do you suppose they would ask Hillary Clinton what she would prefer (Sen.? Sec.?--or Mrs.?)? Otherwise they would have a double standard on their hands, and I'm sure that wouldn't go over very well.

Well, there's one good reason why they should drop it -- statuses of women change and they'd have to worry about keeping up. And obviously the whole custom of designated women's status by their title, but men not, has sexist foundations.

Don't people have enough to worry about today just with pronouns? What do non-binary people choose as their preferred honorific? Don't make this more difficult than it was to be, NYT!

[Front-Ranger]

Often I think the fashion issue will not contain much that I find interesting but the September 9 issue had several good articles by excellent writers. An example is "The Gay Genealogist" by Rebecca Mead, an excellent writer, about Matthew Lopez, also an excellent writer. Lopez has written an update of the E.M. Forster novel Howard's End that is bound for Broadway, and I was struck by Forster's heroine's motto "Only connect." It seems to me that I read somewhere else recently of a person whose motto was "Always connect." I'll have to look up the coincidence. I'm starting to collect coincidences.

[serious crayons]

I've heard of "only," but not of "always."