Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

Just as Queen Bey predicted, girls are now running the world. Or at least NATO and the G8. If and when (God willing) Hillary takes the White House, it will be official: Women leaders will be in control of the most powerful Western democracies on Earth. The flinty triumvirate of Merkel, May and Clinton will sweep us into a new frontier for equality – well beyond what many of us thought possible in this lifetime.

Or should I say Mrs. Merkel, Mrs. May and Mrs. Clinton? For this is what we shall call them. They will be known, as most married women of their generation are, by their husbands' surnames, introduced with a gendered honorific denoting marital status.

In Mrs. Merkel's case, her surname doesn't even belong to the husband she is currently married to but a man she divorced in 1982. How very odd it must be for Ulrich Merkel, a retired physicist, to hear his own name relentlessly bandied about on the evening news because of a brief first marriage in his youth.

Story continues below advertisement

It's not difficult to understand why these three women (and indeed many female professionals) choose to take their husbands' names and be called "Mrs." They do so for the same reason women leaders often wear heels, pearls and skirt suits instead of, say, comfortable shoes and loose trousers. It helps to reassure people that they are women who value traditional notions of family, even if their personal and professional lives don't entirely reflect that. Taking your husband's name, for many strong and otherwise empowered women, is a bit like wearing a little sign that says, "Calm down people, I might be tough and in control here, but I'm not trying to break the whole system, okay?"

A 2000 study of recently married women across Canada found that, within the first three months of marriage, 46 per cent took their husband's name, 8 per cent chose to hyphenate and only 7 per cent chose to retain their maiden names. (The remainder were undecided, though we know that many more married women eventually take their husbands' names once children come along.) In Britain, a study by the polling group Eurobarometer found that in 1994, 94 per cent of British women took their husband's name, whereas in 2013 that proportion had fallen to 74 per cent – a significant drop but still an overwhelming majority.

Presumably because most married women still do it, public perception of women who choose not to take their husband's name is still markedly negative. According to a 2014 YouGov poll, 50 per cent of Americans still believe women should be legally required to take their husband's name and 10 per cent believe women who didn't change their name were less committed to their marriage. On the other hand, a 2010 Dutch survey found that women who did take their husbands' names were less likely to be perceived as professional, hardworking and ambitious – so the gender stereotype cuts both ways.

My question is, why pander to stereotypes at all? Did you know it's actually illegal for women to officially take their husbands' name in many countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Greece and France? This also applies in the province of Quebec. I'd take this legal precedent one step further and require that the honorific "Mrs." apply not just to married women but all women over the age of 18 regardless of marital status. That way women could, officially speaking, be on equal terms with men who are traditionally "Master" in their youth and officially graduate to "Mister" on coming of age.

The term "Ms." which is the one I use, reluctantly and on principle, has become a pejorative term because it feels politically loaded. It was invented to correct a problem it has not exactly solved, i.e., the conundrum of what to call grown women who find "Miss" juvenile and "Mrs." outdated. It bothers me that it suggests that a) I'm likely not married and b) even if I am I don't want anyone to know. The point is, women, like men, deserve an entirely neutral term, one that doesn't come loaded with unnecessary baggage.

I find it supremely ridiculous that women are routinely asked on every form and application, in countless social and professional situations, to effectively declare our marital status when ticking off our preferred honorific, whereas men are not. You might argue that these sort of semantics are not terribly important, that today's feminist activists have bigger fish to fry – rape culture, female genital mutilation and the pay gap among them – and that the issue of gendered honorifics and maiden names is not a major one facing our sex. But I disagree, mainly because when it comes to social progress, symbols are powerful. The fact that May, Merkel and Clinton choose to use their husbands' surnames sends a strong message to young women everywhere, which is essentially: "Let's just stick with the old way, ladies." But the fact is, if we did that, women would not have the right to vote or own property, let alone rule the world.

Lucy Stone, a 19th-century U.S. suffragist and abolitionist, shocked the world in the mid-1850s by signing all her official correspondence with her maiden name "Lucy Stone [only]," and waged a long, heavily publicized legal battle to be allowed to buy land without using her husband's name. When she won, her friend and fellow activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote to her, "Nothing has been done in the woman's rights movement for some time that has so rejoiced my heart as the announcement by you of a woman's right to her name. It does seem to me a proper self-respect demands that every woman may have some name by which she may be known from cradle to grave."

Story continues below advertisement

How quickly we forget the lessons of our foremothers.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies