Pet hate - being asked for a title

moneyistooshorttomention

robin_banks wrote: »

Isn't the whole title thing superfluous? I mean were in the 21st Century here.

Name. Gender. That's it really.

A previous poster stated they didn't like being called by their first name by people they don't know. I know what they mean.

Actually it's superfluous to be concerned with someone's gender. What does it matter? Hence why I dont understand why anyone would want to know whether I am Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms or something else anyway. I'm a person....end of...

If firms keep up this ridiculous wanting a title prefix then they are going to find themselves issuing a huge long list of possibilities soon I foresee. I think Mx is the latest title - and believe it means "My gender is irrelevant" doesnt it?

When one considers the number of variants there are (or that have become public) in the last few years - with transexual, gender-fluid, etc, etc. I saw a list of all names used to cover gender recently and had to look up what half of them were - as I hadnt the foggiest idea.

I think there is even a name for people with a female (or male) body that were born with a body that sex and are okay about it. I've forgotten what it is - but just remember thinking "Oh that's what I am I suppose then - ie born with a female body/heterosexual and couldnt care less what sex my body is basically (except I have to ask/pay men to do heavy lifting type stuff for me - as my body is literally that of the "weaker sex").

EDIT; Just googled "mx" to see whether I should use that instead if people insist on a title. Darn - doesnt look like I can - as it currently seems to imply someone is transgender. Nowt wrong with being transgender = each to their own. But that's not an appropriate title for a woman who is okay about being a woman iyswim.

I rather think we need to resolve this title issue rather quickly now - in view of some women being forcibly treated as women (rather than as people) in our multicultural society. To get the message home that "All people are people first and whatever sex their body happens to be is no concern of anyone else".

Mojisola

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

Perhaps we should just skip Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms and go to M for everyone (unless they've gained another title through some mechanism)? Then we don't have to worry about gender either and we can get on with life.

This would make life even simpler than using Mr or Ms. :T

burnoutbabe

Peter333 wrote: »

I can imagine a woman who is single/divorced and over 35, getting a bit annoyed by it. It's like everyone assuming you must have children.

even when married one may not want to be a mrs ? I don't agree with a woman's title denoting her marital status. I'll be Ms when married, same as I have been since 18 or so.

Mojisola

burnoutbabe wrote: »

I don't agree with a woman's title denoting her marital status.

Back in the 70s, I used to have to take customers' names and addresses when they gave me an order. It seems ridiculous that I had to ask women whether they were married or single so that they could buy something so I started using Ms for all women.

If any of them said that they preferred Miss or Mrs, I would change it - that was their choice to give me their marital status, not mine to ask it.

gettingtheresometime

Mojisola wrote: »

You're not treating people equally unless you also ask the men whether they are married or not - that's what you're doing when you ask women if it's Mrs or Miss.

Mr - adult male.
Ms - adult female.
Simple.

Well unless I've missed something there isn't a title for a single man! And for any male under 18 they get cards addressed to master (just in case anyone was wondering!)

As I said I only ask because if I need to address them again then I consider more polite to say Mrs X rather hello Jean .

Personally I hate being called sweetheart or love by men....but don't get my knickers in a knot about it.

Hemera

Frankly I don't mind specifying that I'm a "Miss" when asked at this stage, but possibly it's because I am still relatively young, so I don't think there is an expectation that I should be married... yet :rotfl:
I suppose I would find it slightly annoying if I was in my 40s and divorced/not married. Yes it's a petty thing, but I do find it sexist that women are expected to disclose their marital status.

I think the best thing to do would be to use "Mr" and "Ms" by default, and give people the chance to change it to something else if they prefer.

When I'll be married (or older and uncomfortable with the title "Miss") I'll definitely be "Ms" in my everyday life anyway - the professional title that I'm hopefully getting at some point will be reserved for professional and formal situations.

Callie22

It doesn't annoy me to be asked for a title, but I do find it annoying that adult men are just 'Mr', irrespective of whether they're married, single, divorced etc etc. I don't like the way that, as an adult woman, if I'm asked for a title I'm still obliged to define myself by my relationship to a man - not married and a spinster, oh dear, you're a 'Miss', safely married, phew that's ok, you're 'Mrs', angry feminist, that's terrible and you're a 'Ms'.

However that doesn't wind me up nearly as much as when I'm speaking to utility companies and they ask me if I have my husband's permission to do something - I'm surprised at how many times it's happened. Firstly, they shouldn't assume that I'm married and secondly, why on earth should I need my 'husband's' permission to pay a utility bill or change something on the account? I wouldn't mind so much if they phrased it as 'do you have the other account holder's permission?', but they don't - they see a male and a female name and assume that you're married (and that as a woman, I'm clearly just defying the patriarchy and paying the gas bill as an act of feminist rebellion ...)

Pollycat

Person_one wrote: »

Its lovely that you are happy to be dismissive of this little example of everyday sexism, but little things add up and I do think it matters that women are still expected to define themselves by their marital status in this way when men aren't.

Starting work 46 years ago in a job that paid men and women on the same grade the same money and gave women the same opportunities for career advancement that men had, I've clearly not got the same attitude to sexual discrimination that some women in different circumstances have.

It matters to you (and obviously the OP) that women are still expected to define themselves by their marital status in this way when men aren't - but it doesn't matter at all to me, to the extent that I don't even notice if someone asks me to define my marital status.

Person_one

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

Well unless I've missed something there isn't a title for a single man!

I think its 'Mr'.

The title for a married man is also 'Mr'.

If you want to address a divorced or widowed man you should use 'Mr'.

Its almost as if marital status isn't important...

Person_one

Hemera wrote: »

I suppose I would find it slightly annoying if I was in my 40s and divorced/not married.

It might also be annoying if you were in your 40s (or any age) and were married. Not all married women use Mrs, and not all women who use Mrs appreciate the assumption anyway.