[/quote] My Great-Aunt (the manners police in my family) always stressed that the most important principle of manners and etiquette was to never use manners and etiquette as a club or a weapon to embarrass or belittle others. Manners and etiquette are supposed to serve as a social lubricant to pave the way for genuine interaction between people who may not know each other well by setting a structure for that interaction to start and progress. [/quote]


I like this.

Now for my 2+cents worth.

I am a mid 50s something. As a child I was raised to use Mr., Miss, & Mrs. for adults and those in authority. We taught our children to do the same, even though our neighbors felt otherwise. We were teaching them respect. For little ones I encounter at church, many parents refer to me as Mrs. in front of their children. I respect what their parents are teaching them, but likewise, I do not get miffed if a younger person calls me by my first name. Life is too short to get bent out of shape over it. To some of the youngest who find my name difficult to pronounce, I will tell them that it is a hard name, and I am a granny, so they can feel free to call me Granny if they like.

If being given a title, I prefer Mrs. over Ms. I actually hate that one. In my humble opinion, society has become way too politically correct. I am married. (almost 30 years) I am happy to be so, and I don't care who knows it.

Judybug, this is a great topic.

I'll never get used to being called Mr. Hoffman. That was my Dad, and he has been dead for over 35 years. When he was my Scoutmaster, even I had to call him Mr. Hoffman at scouting functions.

While my wife is certainly entitled to be Mrs. Hoffman, Mrs. Hoffman is actually my mother.

Times change and language changes and modes of address change. You can see it as more or less formal, but it is just a change.

The rule, as mentioned in previous posts, is do what you can to make people feel comfortable. Social lubrication is a great concept.

Andy

I don't know if I qualify as younger or not, being of the Johnny Depp, Breafast Club [the movie] generation, but I would not assume one was a widow if I read Mrs. Judy Landry. After reading through all the replies, I've found myself agreeing with you that dropping the titles altogether may be best. And as for titles, could one answer a question for me. I've noticed that people have titles under the picture where their avatar is - for many it is something like rare, medium rare, etc.. Is there some propriety to this? Help please. I put professor down, being that that's technically my title, but I fear I'm violating some FPN code of etiquette without my knowing it.

Again, thanks for all the help

Evening Professor -

The notations you see under most avatars are automatically assigned and upgraded by the FPN Board software and they reflect the number of posts by the member.

The software also allows members to override these volumetric notations by entering their own "custom member title," as you did by entering "Professor."

Have fun.

Heh. And I consider "Ms." offensive.

It's also true that at times in writing to someone I do not KNOW the correct title. I guess the full name is better than 'Hey, you!' or "Whateveryouare."

Thanks for the clarification Ray.

When i got married i chose to keep my own last name.
So, my question is...what title do i get?
If i use Mrs. with my last name, Jones, it implies that i'm married to Mr. Jones...which is incorrect.
If i use Ms., it implies that i'm not married...doesn't it?

What really irks me is to be addressed as Mrs. John Smith...
where am i in that?!

~Jas

Don't know that Ms. implies you are not married as Ms., as
I recall, was meant to be nonspecific as far as marital status.

Yes, the Mrs. John Doe is antiquated IMHO, but proper.

As I have stated previously, I've always used Ms.; single, married, divorced,
and now re-married.

My understanding and usage of "Ms." is that it does not imply marital status. So Ms. is kind of the no-fault honorific for women. Sometimes one can't tell if the addressee is male or female, as in "Chris Jones." We should have an honorific that does not imply marital status nor gender. I mean, without resorting to "Comrade."

Doug

I was taught, in the late 50s/early 60s, in southern Illinois, that "Mrs. Mary Jones" would indicate a divorced woman, whereas "Mrs. Robert Jones" would indicate a married or widowed woman. I frequently get (mostly junk) mail addressed to "Ms Donnie Winn", much to my grown sons' amusement. I have no idea what is contained therein. If it was important, the sender would know I am not a Ms, Miss, or Mrs., lacking the correct gender for any of those.

donnie

It's kind of like when I get a phone call and the person asks to speak to "Mrs. Laundry." I say they must have the wrong number since there is no Mrs. Laundry living here. I figure if it was important, they would know my name is Landry and not Laundry. Bad enough I have to DO the laundry without being called "Mrs. Laundry."

Judybug

I use formal titles like that even when sending thank-you notes to family and friends ("Mrs. Smith, Mr. Jones, Ms. Simpson," etc). And I'm older than 20 but younger than 35.

But I think I was born in the wrong century.

Hi Judy (or should I say, "Mrs. Landry ). Well, my mother taught me a lot about letter etiquette (she's a Baby Boomer) and there's no denying that my mom is old-fashioned about certain things. That being said, I learned from her that using Mrs. [Wife's first name] ][Husband's surname] could indicate either divorce or widowhood. If I see "Mrs. [Wife First Name] [Husband Last Name]" do I automatically wonder about the bereavement/divorce? Not necessarily. All I know is that now I can refer to that person as "Mrs. [Husband Last Name]" without getting my head bit off***

***Qualifiers: 1. I am female. 2: I love equal rights. 3: However people want to name themselves for stuff like this is up to them-- keep your surname, take your spouse's surname, blend a new surname, hyphenate, whatever. It's all good. But if I make a slip-up, don't jump down my throat. I don't jump down your throat for misspelling my surname and it's extremely easy to spell properly. That's why my parents picked it out of a phonebook after they got married. And I won't jump down your throat for whatever name choices you make.

So to get back to Judybug: I think I'm just weird

I've been re-reading this thread, and we all seem to be suffering from a lot of angst about titles (tongue in cheek). I think maybe I've come up with a title that will not offend anyone. How about if we address each other as "Earthling"? How should we abbreviate that?

Judybug

Nahhh..........I'll stick with Nib Fellow. Sounds very Academian.

John

For my money the main purpose of the name and address on the envelope is to ensure that the letter gets to the correct recipient.
If you are writing to someone you know well, they probably don't worry too much about Mr, Mrs or Ms, etc....although they might like the postman to know that they are 'Doctor', or 'The Reverend'

If they are very 'high-up', eg the Queen or The President, they won't be opening their own envelopes, but you don't want your letter to be binned by a secretary, due to 'lack of appropriate respect'.

It's a minefield, which is why I s'pose we have, and possibly should adhere-to, 'rules & conventions'.

I tend, if in doubt, either to look-up the rules, or, more likely, to put myself in the position of the recipient and ask "How would I prefer to be addressed?"

I just think that there are far more important things in life to be concerned about....if you try to treat others with courtesy & respect you cannot go far wrong.

In my relatively limited experience of interacting with 'aristocrats' and Royals, I have found that the majority are quick to put you at your ease and don't appear too concerned about minor faux pas.
( I understand that some, like The Queen's late sister, are/were exceptions to this : ( )

I try to avoid titles; as others have said, it's too easy to offend with the wrong title.

Also, I'm in an awkward place title-wise. I had my son rather young, just a year after I married. Since I divorced, I am left with Miss or Ms. -- people tend to assume that I had an unplanned pregnancy while still in school, because I'm not married now. Avoiding titles seems to keep nosy people from getting rude about my personal life as often; the presumptuous ones seem to presume that I'm married, rather than that I didn't want a kid and was too dumb or irresponsible to use birth control. Divorce sucks -- and is something I consider a private matter -- the fewer strangers who try to drag me into the details of it, the better.

--HedgeMage

I have enjoyed this thread more than most, and while I tend to agree more with Yachtsilverswan , I try very hard to understand the other points of view.

Titles are marks of respect. As far as I know there is no law that requires any of us to use any form of address to any person( with the exception of the armed forces and I am not sure about our members from countries other than the US of A.) We either do or do not use titles based on our individual beliefs or the circumstances. We either say 'yes sir' or 'no ma'am' or we do not. A simple yes or no is not by itself disrespectful, but a 'yes sir' or 'no ma'am' is by its' nature respectful. Whether we do or not may depend on where and by whom we were raised.

As for the proper address for females, if you are writing a person and you are not sure, and you have no way to find out what they prefer, and you don't want to come on as seeming to familiar, what better is there than Ms? Or, is it proper to simply address all females as 'first name' 'last name'?

An aside--is it proper to address a waitress as Miss, or Ma'am? Or is 'waitress' the only correct term??

Judy-great question. Tom

This thread has a lot of humor in it, and I am enjoying it. I used to be self-employed and now I'm retired so there's a lot I don't know about the corporate world and the world of academia. I really feel like I've learned a lot by discussing this.

But there is a serious side to this, too; and I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say there's a tragic side. The tragedy, in my opinion, is that we used to have ways to express respect to each other by the use of titles. But today, a title is as likely to convey disrespect as it is to convey respect - because we no longer have unity and agreement about the use of titles. I think it's sad. But alas! the "genie of title confusion" is out of the bottle, and I don't think there's any way to stuff him back in.

When all else fails, I resort to what is practical. I think my method now will be to not use a title at all unless the person I'm writing/speaking to gives me some indication of what title they like.

Judybug

I feel that this 'respect' idea is totally a matter of opinion.

I do not see titles as marks of respect at all...to me, they are 'formalities'. Also, titles fall under the 'labeling' umbrella. Men are seen as individuals with the one title of 'Mr.' Women, on the other hand, get a title depending on whether or not they're attached to a man. Luckily, the title Ms. came along. Anyway, it's hard to see how 'respect' is involved when, especially for women, they've always been seen as objects of attachment rather than individuals.

The whole 'yes sir', 'yes ma'am' thing has nothing to do with respect IMO. Instead, it has everything to do with control, and making sure that there's an understanding of who's in the 'up' position and who's in the 'down' position (consider that its use is more prevalent in the South where there is a history of slavery...a definite one up, one down situation). It's one of those subtle things that works against true connection between people.

It's always been important to me (thanks to the way i was raised) to really examine the validity of 'the way things are'. Just because something is 'in place' in our society does not make it inherently right. To embrace things without questioning or examination does little to foster 'growth'.

Just my 2 cents.

~Jas

"Yes, sir" and "Yes, ma'am" may have been used by slaves when addressing the master or overseer. However, these terms were not exclusive to the institution of slavery, and did not originate with slavery. These terms - since time out of mind - have been used among people of the same race; for example, when children use them to address older members of their family. Today some children in the South - both black and white - still address their elders with these terms.

Judybug

You are stating how things were, and are...i don't disagree with with you. I was attempting to examine the practice in terms of 'respect'.
~Jas

Dear Jasper - This thread is remarkable for its diverse points of view, and I make no attempt to judge any one point of view as better or worse than the others. But I would like to comment on the "respect" issue. I was born shortly after WWII ended. I don't think my generation ever looked at titles as being a reflection of a person's character. A title was a way of expressing respect for the person's age or their position. I think it was always understood that a person with a title could be of a character far inferior to some who didn't have a title. And the person saying "Yes, ma'am" or "Yes, Sir" may well be of a superior character when compared to the person they are addressing as "ma'am" or "sir."

I believe that - in general - we are all more self-centered and egocentric than people used to be. Today we all seem to have the "what's in it for me?" attitude to some degree. We are lacking in the virtue of humility and can't bear the thought of any sort of hierarchy. I recognize that there have been unjust hierarchies that needed to be overthrown. But not all hierarchy is bad and a certain amount of hierarchy is inescapable whether that hierarchy is acknowledged by titles or not. At any rate, there's no point in my suggesting a return to titles of respect. Titles simply won't work with the contemporary mind-set. It appears to me that they are primarily used today in situations where not using a title would put one's job in jeopardy.

Judybug

Hi Judybug...
I don't think we're on the same page...
and that's OK.
~Jas

Well, the courtesy of calling those who are perceived as 'senior' in age or rank, "Sir" or "Ma'am" has nothing, IMO, to do with a 'tradition of slave-owning', because it exists in countries where there is no such 'tradition'.

It is more about the fact that in virtually every country & race there are those who are perceived as 'senior', for one reason or other, and are treated with respect/deference by others.

I say 'Sir' or 'Madam' sometimes, just because I don't know the people but feel that most of us like to be treated with a modicum of respect...it costs me nothing and, hopefully, adds a little something to their day
It certainly doesn't make me feel that I am inferior, or that they have some sort of 'power' over me.
If I did, it would, IMO, say more about my own insecurity than about their 'status'.

Not at all. In fact I was never aware that such a distinction even existed, ever. I've heard "widow" and "widower" used. (I'm seventeen, by the way.)

Addressing people as "Sir" or "Ma'am" is a sign of respect, and of humbling the self before others.

I like.

Ummm...we weren't discussing the use of the word 'Sir' or 'Madam' or 'Ma'am' (i will use these on occasion, myself, when i don't know the person and i want to get their attention, or something)

We were discussing the response of 'yes sir' and 'no ma'am' in contrast to a simple yes or no. My purpose in bringing up the history of slavery had to do with a difference i was pointing out between the northern states of the U.S. and the southern states, and how there is a more prevalent use of 'yes ma'am' and 'no sir' in the southern states (especially with kids toward their parents and other adults).

~Jas

You are ever so right about that. I hope through this sort of discussion we can invent ways of being gracious and expressing humility that do not require dependence on outmoded forms of social hierarchy. I'm okay with the trend for all people to be treated as social peers. My friend makes his 17-year old son address me as "Uncle Doug" which is pretty dumb to me -- I'm okay with just plain "Doug." I'm also okay with counter people handing me my receipt and credit card with a "Thanks Doug" rather than "Would you like some help with the bags Mr. ________?"

Although it doesn't seem that way much of the time, each of us has an influence on the culture of our times -- at least to a small degree. Just by writing a letter to someone we are defining our world! Can we handle such weighty responsibility?

Doug

I think that the idea of 'respect' being expressed in a title of address is one of training/teaching. I was taught/trained that good manners demanded that I call an adult by Mr./Miss/Mrs. unless and until given permission to call him/her by a "given name". That is the way people were brought up where and when I grew up (1950s in southern Illinois, in a very southern culture). If one was not trained/taught that way, then it very well might convey something else.



This statement ascribes motive, and assumes attitudes which have at best a 50/50 chance of accuracy. But, again, upbringing has a lot to do with how one sees life.



It may have originated as control; however, at least in the South, it was just considered good manners. I was taught to call all adults by Mr/Mrs/Miss, regardless of skin color or national origin, in a very Southern culture. There was always as much of an up/down in the North as in the South, as soon as industrialization happened. The factory worker would never have though of calling his/her boss "Bill" if he/she wanted to keep his/her job. As long as there are employers and employees, there will be a difference of power and authority. Employees who deny or defy the authority generally do not remain employees. I personally have difficulty with the idea that showing respect for another person works against true connection between people. It seems to me that showing disrespect for another person would do more to work against a true connection.



'Growth' implies an improvement. If ceasing to show respect is an improvement, I will pass on the 'growth'. Questioning everything 'just because' seems to me to indicate a resistance to authority, which is a whole different subject.

Donnie

Sorry, I could, of course be wrong, but I think you are making something out of nothing here, Jas.

I hold to everything i said.
And what i wrote has nothing to do with 'ceasing to show respect'.
We can just agree to disagree.
~Jas

rogerb,
To me, this is just part of deeply examining something. I made the above comments to you because, all of a sudden, we weren't comparing apples to apples and i wanted to get back on track. It's hard enough to dialog on a topic in this format (especially when it's a little heated)...it helps if we can stay on the 'same page'. That would mean responding to what someone has actually written...that's all.

But, enough said...
i'm going to say 'over and out', on this topic.
~Jas

Well, Judy, you actually asked what the 'common practice' is today, and after reading the entire thread again, I think it is safe to say it is just as it has always been- there is no common practice. I will continue to use what I like and I suspect others will do the same.

Great discussion. Tom

While we're on the subject of Titles of Address, I have always been curious about the only example I know where the proper form of address is: First Name, then Title, then Last Name.

Catholic Cardinals are properly addressed in this sequence (at least in the US).

For example, Roger Cardinal Mahoney is correct. Cardinal Mahoney is also correct. But Cardinal Roger Mahoney is incorrect.

Does anyone have insight on this bizarre address sequence and its history and meaning?

Well, there was Mary, Queen of Scots

"Roger!", Jas!
(Although, actually "Over and Out" is incorrect radio procedure:
"Over" means "It's your turn to speak" and "Out" means "I'm going off the air now"....
so "Over & Out" means "Speak if you like but you'll be talkin' to yourself" )
(But maybe I am )

A fascinating discussion. It's particularly interesting to hear about the geographically specific practices and how they have evolved.

Slightly off the main topic now, but relevant to the discussion about language used to denote hierarchical relationships: in Australia, where we like to think of ourselves as an egalitarian lot, the Prime Minister is much more likely to be directly addressed by one of his constituents as 'mate' than 'sir'. In fact, our recent past Prime Minister was so enamoured of the Aussie concept of 'mateship' that he wanted to enshrine it in our constitution.

I do think this use of language says something about the culture: egalitarianism and a certain degree of larrikinism (in fact, specifically a lack of respect for authority) are values our society holds dear.

The truth is more complicated of course. We're not really as egalitarian as we like to think we are. Many women feel excluded by the 'mateship' terminology, which is traditionally the language of men, especially soldiers and working class men (see, there's that whole hierarchy thing we can't get away from, rearing it's head).

I agree with Jas' general point (as I read it, anyway) that language has to be understood in its social context and vice versa: it may also reveal something about the social context. A response of 'yes sir' or 'yes ma'am' might be a simple marker of respect in one context or a symbol of oppression in another.

On defining our world through the language we use: responsibility indeed! I rather like 'mate' myself, speaking as a young(ish) woman. Though I note that a few pages back someone was a bit affronted at being addressed in that way by a younger shop assistant. Oh dear. I wonder whether the shop assistant was Australian?

Thanks for an interesting thread.

Good point Roger.

And there are other royals for whom First Name, then Title is correct. For example, Charles, Prince of Wales. But, as with most royals, the Windsor family name does not follow his title.

In the example of Roger Cardinal Mahoney, it's First Name, then Title, then Last Name. I don't know another example of this sequence, and I was curious about the origin, symbolism, and meaning of the usage.

Any Catholic historians in our midst?

Just address my letters to "Judy Nib Fellow Landry."

Judybug

Here's another interesting regional distinction. I just looked up "Mrs." on Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Two pronounciations are given. First is "mi-ses." The next prounciation is designated "Southern." It's "mi-zez." Sure 'nuff - that's how we say it here in my part of the sunny South - "mi-zez." Just a bit of 'title trivia' to lighten this topic.

Judybug

Hi Callida
It was I.. and he was definitely not Australian, but English.
It was strange, as it's never happened before nor since...I usually couldn't care less, but on this occasion it just seemed inappropriate.

(But, on reflection and after reading Doug's earlier comment, I realise that I am not 'comfortable' with being addressed with such familiarity by people with whom my only dealings have been my buying something from them. And it would be different, I think, if someone in the street said, for example, "Give me a hand here, please, Mate!"....no problem there.
Food for thought...I had never really considered it.)

My brief impression of Australia was that there is an underlying 'authoritarian' attitude among some 'officials' which contrasts with the laid-back "She'll be right, Mate!" attitude of the general populace.

It's rather like what we Poms calls a 'Jobsworth'...as in (with sharp intake of breath) " Oh, no, SIR, it'd be more than my job's worth to let you do that!"

Oh dear, the petty bureaucrat. They exist worldwide, I think! Let me guess: Department of Immigration?

I haven't heard the Jobsworth expression before. I like it. Language and its evolution is such a fascinating thing.

No, Dept of 'Aggroculture' ! ...he wanted to 'fumigate' us to ensure we weren't bringing any Pom bugs into Godzone

Being raised in the southern United States, I was taught as a child, by a very formal set of grandmothers, that it is proper to, informally, address an adult as Mr. or Ms. -insert first name-. This is not far apart from the Spanish tradition(possibly only hispanic)that I have witnessed in my South American journeys of attaching Don or Dona to a first name when addressing an adult.
The issue of first vs. last name being the question here, not the use of Mr., Ms., or Mrs., I would have to say that it varies widely depending on the traditions of the area in which one is in.

Do I need to read all the posts before comment? I hope not. I am not retired but I know very few if any acronyms used in emails, such as the one for "In My Humble Opinion." So, were you being humorous when writing IMHO in the first line and then discounting messages that use shorthand? Fortunately, I was able to google and find out what it meant. And here is the rub about how names are written on letters or any other form of communication. We make assumptions and they may be wrong. The only way to find out is to query the person on the other end of the communication. When I write to one of my children, I will not use a salutation. They are lucky if I don't write Benny instead of Ben or Sammy instead of Sam.

If I am writing a pen pal, which I have yet to do, I would do so in order to celebrate the fountainpen and handwritten communication. I don't want to pass up the opportunity to make the M in the salutation a notable character.

You are correct about sudents not making a mistake with male professors. After all, except for the title, Dr., there aren't too many choices left, are there? Actually, I usually walk up to people and just start talking to them without any salutation at all. They would be lucky if I even remember their name.

Maybe I should stop logging in during my lunch break. I am usually wired from the stress of work in the AM and may be taking it out on my fellow fountain pen network contributors. However, I am compelled to respond to your comment. What good is respect if it is artificial? When I hear an adult instruct their child to address me a Mr so-and-so, and that is the only reason for them doing so, it's not respect. I will determine whether the child respects me by the conversation I have with them, not the way they address me.

Having said that, most of my children's friends address me with Mr. but, unfortunately, it reinforces the separation that exists between me as an adult and the child.

Well said!

I do this a fair bit for important correspondence, because it's the only thing people pay attention to nowadays. Weird but true: email has caused handwritten notes to actually be READ. A faster method, much as I hate fax, is the faxed handwritten note. It also gets attention.

Colleagues often come in in the morning (I'm a late to show up / late to leave person) to handwritten notes taped to their computer monitors. They tease me about it, but it works.