From my previous post: It seems all too often women will say they for many of the things feminists stand for, but state categorically that they aren't a feminist because the term is so misunderstood and often demonized. Obviously I meant, "It seems all to often that women will say that they are for many of the things feminists stand for..." And in the last line I most certainly meant their, not there
Thank you for the enlightening poll, Ataahua...
[In reply to]
It's indeed interesting to 'hear' some of the points-of-view of the ladies here (and that's another interesting study in *femine* psychology!), and as usual the responses are well thought-out by the remarkable Ladies of TORn. Speaking from the (albeit atypical) male point of view it's my practice to initially address anyone, male or female by the honorific I guess to be appropriate (sometimes settings can give a clue) and if I am wrong I apologise and use whatever one the lady wishes. The discussion here has me rethinking "Miss and Mrs" because I considered them as antiquated as some of the traditions they represent. I've occasionally wondered what the general reaction would be if an honorific were invented and encouraged among men who were unmarried. But the closes I've actually come to considering the honorific issue was in something related - last names. There has been lively discussion in many forums about whether to take a last name in marriage, to hyphenate, which order for hyphenation, or simply to keep the "maiden" name. My solution was (and remains) that a woman should not only keep her maiden name (or if this is to be implemented correctly the furthest back MOTHER'S maiden name as she can trace) and all female children should bear her last name, while male children continue the tradition of carrying their father's name. To me that puts a daughter's pride in her lineage where it belongs - with her grandmothers and lessens the idea that women are property to a marriage. But I digress. Thank you all again for the food for thought.