(no subject)
May. 12th, 2010 03:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drcuriosityThe following is a list of titles that I discovered recently in a drop-down box for an academic conference registration. Verily, someone is Trying Too Hard, and needs to put in an "Other (please specify)" form field.
Mr., Ms., Mrs., Miss, Dr., 1sgt., 1st Lt., 2nd Lt., Adm., AIM, Baron, Baroness, Bishop, Brig. Gen., Brother, Cantor, Capt., Cardinal, Cmdr., Cmst., Col., Count, Countess, Cpl., Cpo., Dean, DM, Duchess, Duke, Elder, Ens., Father, Fleet Adm., General, Governor, Gysgt., Hon., Imam, Judge, Lady, Lcpl., Lord, Lt., Lt. Cmdr., Lt. Col., Lt. Gen., Lt. Jg., Ma., Major, Major Gen., Mcpo., Mgysgt., Minister, Monsignor, Most Rev., Mother, Msgt., Mstr., Pastor, Petty Off., Pfc., Po1, Po2, Po3, President, Prince, Prof., Pvt., Rabbi, Rear Adm., Rev., Right Rev., Scpo., Senator, Sfc., Sgt., Sgtmaj., Sir, Sister, Smn., Smn1, Smst., Sp4, Sp5, Sp6, Sr., Sra., Srta., Ssgt., Swami, Tech Sgt., The Rev., The Rev. Dr., Very Rev., Vice Adm.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 05:11 am (UTC)You're right, this is crazy.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 06:29 am (UTC)However, there are SO MANY titles around, that going into this kind of detail but still not getting them all seems self-defeating and only highlights the fact that it was probably just done to appease the masses, rather than out of any real sense of inclusiveness.
On a related matter:
Dear Almost Any Kind of Official Letter Writers,
STOP FUCKING CALLING ME 'MS'!!!!!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 07:22 am (UTC)But isn't that kind of the point of professional or rank-related titles?
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 07:29 am (UTC)My point was that listing a few options and then lumping every other possibiity into 'Other' can make those who don't fit the few listed options feel disregarded/unimportant/homogenized.
Also, I probably wasn't clear in my original comment but I was applying this to all instances where you have to state who/what you are, rather than just professional/rank-related titles (e.g. gender, education, occupation, ethnicity etc).
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 07:34 am (UTC)I think in the case of titles, if you're going to have titles at all, you _have_ to include some and then give "other"s an option for the rest. But since most people actually can use a non-rank title as well as their "official" title (so a priest can go by "Mr" as well as "Father"), that should cover most people, surely? And if people really want to insist on being called Admiral, then the whole point is to set themselves apart from everyone else; to "other" themselves, surely?
When it comes to stuff like gender and so on, sure, it's a bit more complicated, although I'm not sure there's a perfect solution; after all, some people identify as "other" rather than as cis-male, cis-female, trans-male, trans-female, or ungendered. And lots of other people don't know what those words mean.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 07:44 am (UTC)But that's sort of what I was saying in my original comment; I like having Other as an option for those who don't identify specifically or simply don't want to share their choice publically. BUT the general use of very few recognized options and then Other for everything else goes beyond a drop down list and into the way many people still perceive the available options (of any kind) to be.
I agree that there isn't any perfect solution and, as I said in my original comment, in many cases, all you're going to do is end up highlighting the options you missed, anyway.
I was really just thinking out loud about it. :)
I stand fast on the irritation with being addressed as Ms, though. Probably because it has specific connotations for me, that really don't apply to me. This is a perfect example of what you said - why don't they just address things to me by name?
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 07:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 08:03 am (UTC)I just don't like it to be used for me in particular because, when I was growing up, it was a title used in many cases by married women who thought they could somehow magically regain the power/independence they felt they'd lost by getting married. As if the name change was the problem.
It also got used for a long while by really rabid femenists and lesbians (and I'm referring here to those who are violent and abusive to those who don't agree with their every word, on the matters of equality, sexuality etc; a very specific but definitely existing group).
As someone who tends to opt for 'other' in many cases (as a result of almost never fitting clearly into the named options that are provided), the presence of Ms. as an option certainly doesn't bother me but there are many times when the individuals using it to refer to me do have access to information regarding my marital status, age etc, so it's not a case of them worrying about whether they're going to get that right or not.
I can only assume that it's a pre-emptive defense against the possibility that I'll go ballistic at them if they don't choose the 'correct' term - i.e. my preferred term, regardless of my status. which brings me back to my other point; why don't they just refer to me by name?
There's absolutely nothing disresepctful or even informal about referring to a person by full name.
And, okay, doing it once I understand. But there are some of them that I have to communicate with on an ongoing basis and have requested that they stop referring to me as Ms. and it just gets ignored, so clearly they don't really give that much of a damn after all.
In an amusing sidenote, I now live in a country where women don't take their husband's names when they marry, which complicates things further. :D
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 08:16 am (UTC)I guess to me, it's a bit of a shame that it's seen in that way by some people, or that it's become a title specifically for divorced women. To me, it's always simply been the female equivalent of "Mr"; it is gender specific but carries no information about marital status, so it's what I've always used.
I do think that refusing the use the title or name you've specific is rude, although I think in some cases companies have a specific policy of using, say, title and surname rather than a first name. It's a tricky one, because while you would far rather be called by name, my father becomes incandescent with rage if a stranger addresses him by his first name rather than title and surname. There isn't really a universal rule on acceptable behaviour, which, to me, makes it all the more important to go with what each individual asks to be called!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 08:27 am (UTC)I can understand them going with what they hope is an 'inoffensive' default, to begin with. But ignoring what someone has specifically asked you to do is just rude.
They usually put Ms. and my full name as well, which is why I don't see any reason that they can't just use my full name - other official bodies/companies manage it! Some of them just can't get their heads around it, though.
Honorifics
Date: 2010-05-12 09:03 am (UTC)On the honorific front my normal approach is to attempt to have none. This sometimes leads to interesting results, of which the "leading space" on the official correspondence from my university was one of the more amusing. (It was very definitely there all the time, as they printed the addresses in a fixed pitch font, and the name line didn't align with the rest of the address by exactly one character width.)
Still typically I'm happy when they don't "correct" my surname to their own idea of how it should be capitalised. (Free hint software writers: if the name has both upper and lower case letters as entered, the person entering it probably knows about upper and lower case and entered the right combination. Just saying.)
Ewen
no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 11:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 11:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 07:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-12 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 07:49 am (UTC)University of Otago's list of titles for online registration is impressively long but not quite as detailed as that one. OU's was based on the titles that people had actually used for registration in the past.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-15 08:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-09 12:19 am (UTC)wonder where they lifted that list from ... (or perhaps it came standard in whatever package they were using to generate their website?)
Re: Honorifics
Date: 2010-07-09 12:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-09 12:26 am (UTC)i'm male.
2/3 of the audience turned their back on me when i came out to speak.
let the good times roll ...
no subject
Date: 2010-07-09 04:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-10 03:20 am (UTC)but i still remember how it felt to be standing up on stage. alone. talking to the back of 200 heads.
i love public speaking - but the first few minutes of any talk/lecture/etc is still agony.