When did The Washington Post change its style for referring to married women from “Mrs. [husband’s full name]” to the woman’s actual name, such as “Aurora Poston” instead of “Mrs. Philander Poston”? (This is a real example from the 1920s.)
— Robert Oshel, Silver Spring
Most large organizations employing copious amounts of words have rules governing precisely how to use those words. These are called stylebooks and they evolve along with customs and language. (A recent change at The Washington Post: The capital of Ukraine is now “Kyiv,” not “Kiev.”)
Thanks to the late Bill Walsh, an acclaimed Post copy editor who wrote about usage and grammar and collected books about language, our newsroom has copies of Post stylebooks dating to 1963.
The 1963 stylebook decrees: “ ‘Mrs.’ is never used with the Christian name of a woman. It is Mrs. Walter C. Louchheim; Mrs. Louchheim; Katie Louchheim — NOT Mrs. Katie Louchheim.’”
Advertisement
Things had improved a bit by 1969. The Post stylebook from that year stipulates: “In first reference to women, ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs.’ is omitted as a prefix to a given name: ‘Muriel Humphrey.’ But use ‘Mrs.’ when her name is used in conjunction with her husband’s name: ‘Mrs. Hubert H. Humphrey.’ ”
The 1969 stylebook continues: “Except on the editorial page, omit ‘Mr.’ in reference to men except in the construction ‘Mr. and Mrs. James Smith,’ which may be used instead of ‘James Smith and his wife.’ ”
Answer Man takes that to mean that in 1969 women were starting to be viewed as their own people — they get to use their first name on occasion — but that the husband’s name still takes precedence.
Answer Man found plenty of examples in The Post in the early 1970s of married women who seemed not to have first names. This was especially common with the wives of well-known men. It took a while for “Mrs. Martin Luther King Jr.” to become “Coretta Scott King.”
Advertisement
The most egregious recommendation, at least in hindsight, found by Answer Man was in the 1971 edition “The Art of Editing” by Floyd K. Baskette and Jack Z. Sissors. The textbook decreed: “A married woman or a widow, if addressed as ‘Mrs.,’ is referred to by her husband’s Christian name, not by hers. It is ‘Mrs. John Smith.’ If he dies, it is still ‘Mrs. John Smith.’ If they are divorced, it is ‘Mrs. Helen Smith.’ ”
Only divorce, it seemed, could free a woman from the tyranny of her husband’s first name.
Things had advanced by the time the 1989 Post stylebook was published. Married women were to be referred to by their first names and surnames without “Mrs.” It included as an example: “Helen Black,” not “Mrs. John Black.”
But there was a caveat: If only the husband’s first name was known, it was acceptable to revert to the old style, thusly: “ ‘Police identified the victims as Mr. and Mrs. John Black. They said Mrs. Black was not wearing a seat belt.’”
Advertisement
What Answer takes from this — besides that one should always wear a seat belt — is that no one thought to just ask what the wife’s name was.
Some of the push to lose “Mrs.” was led by members of the Washington Press Club, formed in 1919 by women when the National Press Club did not allow female members.
In her 1988 book, “A Place in the News: From the Women’s Pages to the Front Page,” author Kay Mills wrote that eliminating courtesy titles was one of the female press club’s goals.
Although the National Press Club began admitting women in 1971, the Washington Press Club continued until 1985. In 1984, its members pointed out that it didn’t make sense to refer on second reference to vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro as either “Miss Ferraro” or “Mrs. Zaccaro,” her husband’s name. (Thank you to veteran journalist Richard Prince for directing Answer Man to this reference.)
Advertisement
Today, The Post doesn’t use honorifics, except in its obituaries. The New York Times continues to use them: calling someone “Ms. Jones” on second reference when The Post would just write “Jones.”
The Times held on to “Mrs. [husband’s first and last name]” longer than most papers, if only in a unique situation, spelled out in its 1999 style manual: “In an exceptional case, typically on the society pages, a woman may wish to be known by her husband’s name: ‘Mrs. Morgan Berenich,’ and then ‘Mrs. Berenich.’”
The collision between style and preference is most obvious in a 1932 letter that hangs in a hallway at the Times. It is from aviator Amelia Earhart and expresses her irritation at being referred to in news columns as “Mrs. Putnam” after her marriage to George P. Putnam.
Wrote Earhart: “I admit I have no principle to uphold in asking that I be called by my professional name in print. However, it is for many reasons more convenient ... to be simply ‘Amelia Earhart.’ ”
Advertisement
In an email to Answer Man, Merrill Perlman, former director of the Times copy desks, wrote: “The letter got it changed — for her.”
It would be decades before the style applied to more earthbound women in U.S. newspapers.
Helping Hand
Have you donated yet to The Washington Post Helping Hand, our annual fundraising drive for three nonprofit groups? To learn more about Bright Beginnings, So Others Might Eat and N Street Village — and make an online contribution — visit posthelpinghand.com.
Twitter: @johnkelly
For previous columns, visit washingtonpost.com/john-kelly.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLmwr8ClZqyskafBqrrGZqCnZaSdsm59mHBnrGWnpLqmutJmnaKqo6l6r63Mnqpmr5Wnsm61zZyjrpyVmXqquoyppqysXaeyp7HRnqWcnaNkf3F9mGhoamdiaHx4f8OcaJ6aYmJ9pYGYZmhqnZFir6WFw2aab2pom7F1hMFsmGmXo6m8s8WNoaumpA%3D%3D