The honorific "Ms." began to be adopted in the English speaking world in the early 70's. Unlike the 18th century usage (which stood for "mistress"), the contemporary usage is not an abbreviation of a longer title.

The rise of "Ms." coincides with the emergence of the Feminist movement as a reaction among women activists against male domination of both the anti-war movement and the sexual revolution. What enabled the Feminist movement to enter the mainstream, however, was the massive influx of women - particularly married women - into the workforce in the 1970s and the increase in status resulting from their soaring earning power. Rising divorce rates were also an important contributing factor. (Btw, people these days don't fully appreciate just how oppressive societal norms were in the 50s and 60s for women.)

In the 60s and 70s, the institution of marriage was still an unchallenged norm in most of American society. Adopting the honorific "Ms." was a way of being more than just a man's wife. But how the worm turns. Today, in America at any rate, marriage increasingly follows class lines. Households with higher incomes and wealth tend to be inhabited by married couples; poorer households tend to be inhabited by the unmarried. Married people are more likely to be healthy, have well-behaved kids who go to "good" schools, live in a "good" neighborhood, and so on. Furthermore, it is now much harder than in the 50s and 60s for a poorer person or household to move up the economic ladder. So now, "Mrs." has some association with economic status, whereas "Ms." is at best neutral.

Both "manual" and "manufacture" derive from the latinate term for "hand."

Man comes from the German side of the language. The male side, I think one might say.

I've spent the last too-many minutes drafting a clever and polite way to say the following, but the number of subordinate clauses and linguistic hedges required is too great, so I will just speak plainly:

Being of the opinion that "traditional" or "non-inclusive" language is okay or preferable is a valid opinion to hold, as is the opposite opinion. These are matters which are, at least occasionally, worth discussing sensibly.

But the sexist stupidity and outright obtuseness displayed in some of the above exchanges is sexist, stupid, and outrightly obtuse.

I have to agree with Adam. I have never thought that this was an issue worth fighting over, but now that I've seen the attitudes behind the "old ways," I'm not so sure.

Me too neither.

The thing about inclusive language is that it is perfectly alright to use it. Gets dicey though when we start to force other people to use it and attribute to them the attitudes behind the "old ways" when they resist.

I'm not even sure what this is:

In the 60s and 70s, the institution of marriage was still an unchallenged norm in most of American society. Adopting the honorific "Ms." was a way of being more than just a man's wife. But how the worm turns. Today, in America at any rate, marriage increasingly follows class lines. Households with higher incomes and wealth tend to be inhabited by married couples; poorer households tend to be inhabited by the unmarried. Married people are more likely to be healthy, have well-behaved kids who go to "good" schools, live in a "good" neighborhood, and so on. Furthermore, it is now much harder than in the 50s and 60s for a poorer person or household to move up the economic ladder. So now, "Mrs." has some association with economic status, whereas "Ms." is at best neutral.

Now I think you're kidding.

Anyways, this has certainly been informative.

Adam,

The word "man" is, by its nature, inclusive. In the same way, the French word "femme" can mean both "woman" and "wife". To chose not to use man inclusively for reasons of rhyme, meter, or such similar creative reason would be quite just, and unassailable assuming that the doctrine were preserved. In the same manner, to argue over Holy Spirit/Ghost on theological grounds would be merely to pick an argument for the sake of picking an argument.

That said, since the conversation began by addressing what the Original Poster called "fig-leafing" texts, the assumption has been that one is trying to cover something of which one is (or should be) embarrassed, namely so-called exclusive language.

I wholeheartedly agree with you (and some others around here who have noted this) that language is both much richer and more delicate than most people acknowledge.

What do you make of my observation that alteration of original compositions by someone other than the author is hazardous?

To those who have been upset with this comment...

If an individual worsdsmith wishes to write by using so-called Inclusive language, surely one can not prevent him

perhaps you could explain the problem. "So-called" is an attempt to render "soi-disant" intelligently into English: it calls itself inclusive, and I make no attempt at this juncture to evaluate the accuracy of the language's self-description. "Wordsmith", while sometimes used perjoratively, didn't carry such a meaning in my text. "Him" is a singular pronoun which refers back to wordsmith.

How did I lose the audience?

The word "man" is, by its nature, inclusive. In the same way, the French word "femme" can mean both "woman" and "wife".

Have you noticed that some who insist on being called Ms. often have three names, or hyphenated names. Why is that? One can not be simply Mary Smith, but has to be Mary Snuffleupagus Smith, or Mary Insufferabilis-Smith. I have decided one can not be a female librarian without at least three names. It seems to work out that way, for reasons I don't understand. Are they that desperate to call attention to themselves? What a bizarre and ridiculous time in which we live.

I probably could have memorized the Offertory "Jubilate Deo" for all the time I've spent commenting. Which is sad because I didn't really add anything to this thin thread.
Doh! My bad

This has been the most ignant thread on the Forum so far, and that is saying something.

One of many reasons that women keep their maiden names together with their husband's family name has to do with professional accomplishments. If a woman has "made a name" for herself, with a following, for continuity's sake she might want to keep the last name under which her reputation stands.

On the other hand, Catherine Zeta-Jones was born with a hyphenated name. I don't know if this is library-related.

All this stuff about "Ms." and surnames, entertaining though it be, is a separate topic from the original poster's question.

I oppose changing texts of established hymns for political correctness and inclusive language. Leave them as they were composed and written. We can all figure out what the hymn writers were trying to say. Newer works, though, don't have to follow earlier conventions. They do, however, need to be understood.

I think that this is the general consensus amongst most musicians.

Yeah, Meloche has a great ring to it.
My Mr. Fantastic and Exciting Half-Argentine Dreamboat Brilliant Latin Guitarist was not given an exotic name.
William John Wilson--- what were they thinking? Seriously.

I felt I couldn't take Wilson without holding on to Carr as a middle name since I was known, at least in SD, and I'd get lost in a sea of Wilsons. So there you have it.

Well, re Chonak's observation, Spanish has rather few surnames to go around: which increases the attractiveness, in that language, of using the mother's name as well as the father's. E.g. Picasso was, strictly speaking, Ruiz y Picasso; General Franco was, strictly speaking, Franco y Bahamonde.

And let's not forget good old Cavaillé-Coll, part-Spanish by origin.