Hacker News Reader

Comment by piaste | Hacker News Reader

> In Paris I once saw an original print of Marie Curie's book on radioactivity, where her name is given as "Mme Pierre Curie". This probably shows how difficult it was even then to get something published under your own name as a woman

Nothing to do with publishing difficulties at all. It was simply the way a married French woman would be addressed at the time - as "Madame [husband's full name]", eg Michelle Obama would be "Mme Barack Obama". (It's still in use in more formal / old-fashioned contexts.) The reader would understand that the author of the book was Pierre Curie's wife, rather than him.

View on HN

It was simply the way a married French woman would be addressed at the time

Not just in France, and not just in centuries past. I've met women in the United States, England, and Austria who refer to themselves as Mrs. husbands_first_name husbands_last_name.

It's formal. It's not insulting. You can see it commonly in 19th- and early 20th-century literature.

Several of the Christmas cards my wife received this year were addressed that way, plus "and family."

> It's not insulting.

It is unfortunate that you do not consider such blatant, ham-fisted patriarchy as insulting.

In American movies, I'll sometimes you'll hear "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" when introducing a couple at an extremely formal event where everyone wears tuxedos and such. I've never been to such an event before, so I don't know how accurate that is. But it's definitely something odd I've noticed in movies.

My first wife was an M.D. (and did not change her last name), and we occasionally received wedding invitations addressed to “Mr. and Dr. Aaron Harnly”, which I found hilarious. The endurance of the patriarchy and its subversion, all in one line.

> It's formal. It's not insulting.

It can be both. Many do consider it insulting.

It can be both. Many do consider it insulting.

Personally insulting, or are these people who feel insulted for other people?

The reason I ask is that the women I know who use this convention are not shrinking violets. This is not being imposed upon them by some male-dominated relationship. They are all strong-willed individuals. One is a C-level at a global company.

I know more than one person who would take it very, very personally.

I’m not sure I understand. What kind of a person is offended by how someone else chooses to write their name?

That's the whole point. Their name is /not/ "Mrs. [husband's first and last name]"

There are definitely people I know that would be okay with being addressed this way. There are many I also know who have expressed that this makes them feel less like an individual human and more like an accessory to their husband.

It's not about how. I don't think anyone would mind an honest spelling mistake for example. The issue is what you're saying about them. If you call them by their partner's name it may mean you either don't care about them more than "they belong to Mr X" or that person's life is defined by the existence of their partner. Those kind of views are decades old and some people will actively fight them.

Your comment only seems to reinforce the point that

> This probably shows how difficult it was even then to get something published under your own name as a woman

Or are you suggesting that it was not difficult for a woman to publish under her name, only that it was not customary to do so? Can you point to some supporting examples of this, if so?

> (It's still in use in more formal / old-fashioned contexts.)

formal / old-fashioned / misogynistic contexts.

They said it wasnt an example of it without suggesting anything

You dont need to have an opinion or dissertation on the topic of dis/enfranchisement to make this observation

They said it wasn't an example of it, but then presented a historical account which only seemingly reinforces the original claim they were claiming it was not.

> only reinforces the original claim

It didn't though, the "Mme" part stands for mademoiselle, indicating it is a woman. Therefore they weren't pretending to be a man for the purpose of getting a paper published.

> It didn't though, the "Mme" part stands for mademoiselle, indicating it is a woman. Therefore they weren't pretending to be a man for the purpose of getting a paper published.

The specific claim I was addressing is not that one had to pretend to be a man to get something published, the original claim is, once again, that it was difficult to publish under your own name as a woman, as quoted several times now:

> This probably shows how difficult it was even then to get something published under your own name as a woman

The comment that it was customary to use a husband's name preceded by Mme. thus does not negate this original claim, if anything it reinforces it.

> The comment that it was customary to use a husband's name preceded by Mme. thus does not negate this original claim, if anything it reinforces it.

We don't have anything to support or negate the idea of whether a French women could have published in her own name if she was single, or if she was married and addressed herself in a non-customary way.

We just don't and the conversation never went that direction. This is in your interest to understand alone but in a conversation where nobody has provided anything. As such it will be impossible for anyone to prove or disprove your assertions, and may have to be your own area of research, alone.

"Mme" is "Madame", indicating a married woman. "Mmelle" stands for "Mademoiselle", which means an unmarried woman, and in that case it would have her own name (as there is no husband).

In a pedantic sense it is her own name in the sense that it was a name by which she was referred, though obviously it’s a misogynistic custom which is thankfully uncommon now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com