Mrs, Wife and Actress: Why exactly are feminists rooting against honorifics and gender-peculiar descriptions?

Feminists continually challenge use of words like Mrs., Wife or actress.

On April 23, 2018, Pulse reported how renowned Nigerian writer and feminist, Ngozi Chimamanda-Adichie pressed Hilary Clinton for first describing herself as ‘wife’ on her Twitter bio. She felt the former American Senator and Presidential aspirant was describing herself as a function of her husband.

Feminism is necessary. Though we won’t always agree with feminists, we must strive to understand their perspective. Feminists can sometimes seem outrageous, but at the root of their shouts lies a need to make women matter to a greater degree in ‘a man’s world.’

It then seems imperative to strip down all forms of words that underlines historical derogation on women, that they want to break free from. Words like the honorific, ‘Mrs.’, the gender-peculiar descriptives; ‘Wife’ or ‘Actress’ seem words that drove proliferation of gender that promoted the narrative and enclave of women as the lesser gender, even though nothing about the words have derogation attached.

What is an honorific?

This a gender-peculiar description that seeks to create derivatives of certain words based on gender. An example is; Mr. and Mrs.

 

It’s almost like when nothing about ‘Vulcanizer’ or ‘Mechanic’ suggests any derogatory thing in normal parlance, but due to contemporary examples — in the Nigerian context — the picture in one’s head is of a man in dirty work clothes, probably uneducated. Most Nigerian fathers would take exception to them if their daughters brought men home who had those job descriptions.

 

Words like ‘Mrs.’, ‘Actress’ and ‘Wife’ suffer from ingrained interpretation that promote defaulted interpretation of a woman. In the normal world, women get the unfair treatment. Thus, the need for feminists to root against the words as fundamental description — personal or professional — is understandable.

 

On her YouTube channel, Canada-based Nigerian designer, YouTuber and feminist, Eniola Hundeyin, while vehemently stating her rejection of the word, ‘Mrs.’ for ‘Ms.’ says she has a problem with the word because it underlines the problems of submission.

In an interview with Pulse, she says, "Language is super important. We see lexicon as something objective but it is very much defined by the zeitgeist. The zeitgeist of the world (in most of recorded history) is insanely sexist, so everything that comes out from it would be."

She continues, "I don’t see the problem with the word “actress”. But as usual, the patriarchy does. Ask the average Nigerian what they think of when they hear the word “actress” and you’ll hear all sorts of negative connotations e.g. runs girls, loose women, etc. Not the same for actors. “Mrs.” on the other hand, would be nice to disappear forever."

Though those words do not seem overly different, they connote different things — therein lies the problem; connotation. Every about humanity is connotation, even the meanings — actual and implied — we attach to words were created by us. Those words didn’t drop from heaven with meanings.

 

Asides that, around 1967, Sheila Michaels promoted the word, ‘Ms.’ — though existent since 1901 pronounced as ‘Mizz’ to get the derogation out the words ‘Miss’ and ‘Mrs.’ which seem problematic and sexist. She sought to promote a singular honorific for all women, without a need for hierarchy or importance.

ALSO READ: The four waves of feminism

The conversation has only just started and those honorifics/gender-peculiar descriptions will fade away

Sali Tagliamonte, a University of Toronto linguist feels the clamour will only increase as gender equality and identity conversations increase as LGBTQ+ also plays a role.

Author and language expert Patricia T. O’Conner agrees with Tagliamonte, “My personal feeling is that eventually the category of honorifics that identify people merely by sex or domestic circumstances … will fall away in ordinary writing and only last names will be used.”

She however thinks they will live long in direct address.

ALSO READ: An introduction to feminism

Those words portray womanhood — the concept of humanity, feminists hope to preserve and make a treasure

One problem however is that those words promote womanhood, which feminists hope to elevate to equity and fairness it deserves. Thus, why then try to create a word that portrays so much identity? Why not strive to elevate their meanings, and connotations which will require as much energy as eradicating them?

The problem is that women are angry and enraged. The connotation of those words have long been to promote the perception of women as a lesser gender — at least, by impliedly promoting those concepts.

The objections though, are understandable; men and women are not the same, we are different by several metrics and we will never be the same — equality is not the conversation here. Thus, it might only be natural to create words to address our differences while we all try to elevate the meanings of our honorifics and gender–peculiar description.

However, time has gone and women have been embroiled in the battle against derogation for far too long, the odds are by default stacked against them, so fairness is out of it. In consequence, their quest is thus, at least understandable.

Canvassing a theory

Forgetting both metaphysical and scientific theories of human existence for another time, through evolution, honorifics and gender descriptions have always been a model of variation for gender peculiarities — man, woman, hermaphrodite. However, with the advent of evolution came further descriptions like transsexual and whatnot.

Tagliamonte feels that, “Nowadays some people say ‘I don’t want to be identified as a he or a she — I don’t want the language to typecast me” and that has warped the need for these descriptions."

There is an unhealthy dose of entrenched patriarchy engulfing the world, but the average man questions the utter rejection of what is female gender description when no condescension is involved.

 

Jordan B. Peterson notes that, while social justice is a positive movement, housing the fundamentals of critical theory of conventional human practices, it’s become authoritarian and a recycling of lazy conjectures in the name of activism. We now peddle unnecessary criticisms to sound like activists — things that will fail against metrics of actual rationality.

That is reasonable as the actual derogation based on these descriptions and cannot be quantified. At best, they are thought-up and implied from the vices stacked against women based on toxic masculinity. No woman can easily outline that a man automatically thinks a woman is lower when he says words like ‘Mrs.’, ‘Actress’ or ‘Wife’.

Arguments are only based of the perceived subconscious truths of toxic masculinity — at best, you are saying those words, ‘could mean’ something and that is not definite. In the quest for social justice, contemporary proponents become naturally sentimental and that is natural, that is why asking women to be objective is a hard sell and a tough ask.

It is easy for a man to say the lines have been severely blurred by transsexuals, and these honorifics and gender-peculiar descriptions because a woman has peculiar features, setting her apart from a man — with capabilities that men don’t and can never have. Why should a woman reject the notion of being called an “actress” or a “female Emcee” when I’m not saying it to derogate upon ability and excellence of craft across both fields?

To women, these words underline a continuance of the debilitating patriarchy in the world; tone and language are then metrics for measuring whether a rejection is necessary. To the average man though, even when it matters, the virus itself — insensitive patriarchy should be addressed, not the symptoms — gender peculiar description.

It is easy to say womanhood should be appreciated and effectively attempting to blot out descriptions that point to it for erroneously perceived notions of condescension is the problem, but women know why they are rooting against these words. The worst we can do is hear them out.

They must however understand the rudiments of their clamour — if they don’t, and cannot provide compelling arguments to this end because they just want to have movements, they would be the problem. Rooting against norms and conventions is hard enough, against conservatives, you will play into their hands when you cannot back it up.

If women don’t appreciate concepts of womanhood, nobody will.

On September 4, 2018, a Nigerian Twitter user; Ruby Kay (tweets @Aruby_k) created an informative thread that starts with this tweet;