The Subtle Sexism of Miss & Missus
Photo credit to Shutterstock
I’ve recently begun debating whether or not I want to get married someday, not because I don’t laud the inherent value of long term commitment, but because I’m not quite certain marriage has escaped its sexist roots. As a constitution, marriage is veritably outdated, such that its etymology can be traced back to the 13th century and long lasting partnerships between men and women even earlier. Yet, despite a modern spin on marriage that tends to emphasize romantic love – at least in the western world, one cannot overlook the fact that holy matrimony came into existence primarily for two reasons: child-rearing and merging assets to ensure survival. Of course, both are legitimate reasons for establishing a fortifiable partnership, as one would expect pooling responsibilities and resources to have considerable benefits. However, controversy arises when we begin to analyze how traditionally – and across the globe, the institution of marriage favors men.
Though I do concede that marriage has not always been confined to relationships between male and female partners, I also contend that an unjust power dynamic has always been at play, one in which the more masculine partner calls the shots and receives the greatest benefits. Even in ancient Greece, where sexuality was not defined by gender, but by the role one played in sex (either as the penetrator or the penetrated), women were at a disadvantage. Biologically unable to fulfill the role of penetrator, they possessed no alternative to adopting the submissive position.
However, female submissiveness in relationships has social origins as well. Apart from men’s dominant sexual status, women have historically been excluded from both education and employment, a practice which forced them to rely on male family members and husbands for basic needs. As a result, daughters were often regarded as burdens to their fathers, consuming resources without renewing them. Fathers sought to marry them off young and would pay dowries to their future husbands. Dowries were given in the form of property, goods, or money and delivered a pretty universal message: Thanks for taking her off my hands, or Tradesies, now we're friends.
As wives, women were expected to provide sexual satisfaction, clean the house, cook, and bear children, ideally males. In fact, they had so little agency to deny men these services that after the wedding ceremony, women would take their husband’s last name – a tradition which made the transfer of property from father to husband official. The women, and all of their belongings, belonged to their spouses.
Image via Pinterest
It’s common knowledge that a wedding ring represents a relationship with no end; marriage though, seems much less romantic when considering the harsh reality women have faced in years gone by: probable and repeated rape, physical abuse, potentially unwanted pregnancies, the nonexistence of accessible contraception, abortions, and divorce, and certain dependency. In fact, things become even more grim given the fact that for many women, this reality still is.
Even in 2019, I do not believe true equality in marriage has been achieved anywhere just yet. In both hemispheres, many traditions followed both in courtship and in marriage still defer to men’s interests. Overall, women are still expected to play passive and submissive roles in relationships, defer agency to their male partners, and honor hyper-masculine traits. For example, it’s still customary for men to make the first move – to ask a woman out, call her back after a date, or lean in for a kiss. Women can do these things, but the ability doesn’t come with the same power. Allow me to provide some perspective.
There are double standards. Although the modern lady can make the first move, a stigma still exists that females are desperate for the company of men. This derives most likely from the fact that it was once necessary for women to find husbands to assure basic needs were met. Thus, when women make the first move, their tenacity is often misconstrued. Labels like “needy” and “desperate” are eager to mock, yet when men demonstrate similar resolve in pursuit of a relationship, they are characterized as “persistent” and “strong willed.” In short, men get the more favorable adjectives when it comes to taking charge.
Moreover, many guys haven’t learned to appreciate a forthright woman. If Jane asks John out on a date, he may feel like his agency has been diminished and the blow to his masculinity may make Jane seem less attractive. It’s not completely John’s fault; he’s been raised in a world which often typecasts men as strong, powerful, decision makers and women as delicate damsels in distress. However, it does accurately represent one of many barriers ladies face when attempting to break the glass ceiling. If women adopt some of the more assertive behaviors traditionally reserved for men, they run the risk of being perceived as less attractive or as domineering. Not to mention that when men are intimidated by a woman’s agency, those negative feelings often eventually come out through physical or emotional violence.
Worse, traditional weddings in the west continue to symbolically reinforce less than ideal gender roles. Women are expected to wait idly for a man to propose, a cycle which gives him all the emotional and operational leverage, fathers still “give” away their daughters like mules, husbands accept consent from a third party priest to kiss the bride, and women still wear white. But women have agency, aren’t livestock, have the ability to give consent, and are definitely allowed to have more than one lover before tying the knot in 2019.
Photo via lifealth.com
Nonetheless, married women tend to be the ones who put their careers on hold to start a family, bear the responsibility of childcare and domestic work, and forfeit their identities by taking their husband’s last names. Which brings me back to my original point: marriage still favors men. It favors men in regards to control, freedom and success career wise, the burden of childcare, responsibilities in the home, and even names.
In fact, considering the ways in which marriage has been changing to accommodate both partners, why do women continue to change their names? I’ve personally questioned the name-changing tradition ever since I had a crush in preschool whose name rhymed with piñata. I mean, I can see how sharing a name can emphasize familial bonds and I can definitely understand wanting to escape a dreadful last name – there was a teacher in my high school named Ms. Kummer. I just don’t see why name changing is still expected in the 21st century and why people are offended when the tradition is rejected. I have two university degrees and four books published in my name. I can’t imagine giving my title up for anyone.
Moreover, why are women still labeled like items in a garage sale: sold or unsold? What’s the deal with “Miss” and “Missus?” Both carry very different connotations and can affect the ways in which a woman is perceived. For example, “Missus” (or Mrs., deriving from “mistress”) is often associated with respect and status, probably stemming from the fact that, years ago, women with capital were called “Mrs.,” regardless of marital status. “Miss,” however, originally referred only to female children. It wasn’t until the 18th century that adult women began to adopt the title “Miss” and not until the 19th century that “Missus” came to stand for a married woman. “Missus” is thus a very loaded title, one which once provided prestige because it implied a woman had capital and which now provides prestige because it implies a woman has a man.
Nowadays, less attention is given to whether or not a woman has property and more attention is given to whether or not she is married. Married women are revered as “catches,” whereas single women are often equated with the underdogs who get picked last in gym class. “Miss” doesn’t yield the respect of “Missus” because well, why isn’t she married? Doesn’t someone want her? It’s odd, but if a woman remains single beyond her twenties, people begin to create arbitrary reasons why she wasn’t “chosen.” Often, a “Miss” isn’t pretty enough, must not be “capable” around the house, or is too “controlling” (i.e. assertive).
Friends and family will even begin to say things like, “Don’t worry, you’ll find someone,” and “I’m sure there’s a guy out there for you,” which are just age old sexist ideals disguised as kind words that suggest a woman isn’t complete without a man (and certainly can’t be happy or fulfilled). Actually, due to the strong associations that developed around “Miss” and “Missus” relating to marriage, “Ms.,” on the other hand, seems to only garner respect when used in professional, business settings where delineation of marital status is simply removed.
Image via thisonevsthatone.com
In fact, it’s important to note that although they are pronounced the same, “Miss” and “Ms.” have very distinct historical connotations and have only recently begun to be used somewhat interchangeably. “Ms.” came about in the 1900's as a title for women comparable to “Mr.” for men. The idea was to create a title that avoided the problem of “Miss” and “Missus” – the nagging “Is She Married or Not?” debate that unnecessarily labeled women based on their relationship status. When you look at it that way, it’s kind of ironic that “Ms.” still carries a negative connotation. Perhaps it’s because the old “Miss” and the new “Ms.” sound exactly the same, which seems like a pretty big oversight for early feminists. I’m not even sure why we’re still using such archaic titles (Miss, Ms., and Mrs.) considering they’ve all, at one point or another, been associated with prostitution.
Truthfully though, I can’t say I’m surprised. The decision to identify sexual availability via title for just females speaks lengths about society’s historical regard for women. We’ve always been identified and owned by marriage. We’ve been beaten down, silenced, and made second class citizens in our own relationships. Though I see progress in creating equality for both partners in modern day, I am reluctant to believe the constitution itself will ever fully decry its history. In the 2017 edition of Psychology Today, Neel Burton in his article “A Feminist Critique of Marriage” delivers a one liner that really sticks with me. He writes, “To partake in the institution of marriage in the 21st century is also to condone the historical abuses perpetrated in its name.” And for me, that’s a truly unsettling thought.