I got an email last week from Abby (not her real name):
I work in a Feminist Center on my campus and we have recently welcomed a new director to our center. Upon meeting her I used her first name not even thinking about it, and was corrected by a different person who told me she would prefer me to address her as Dr. so and so.
As we work in a feminist center that focuses on outreach and education about feminist issues and ideals to students, I found her request to be addressed as Dr. to be anti-feminist and pompous. Incredibly pompous. I wouldn’t be so bothered if I worked in a center that didn’t focus on feminist ideals. It creates a very clear hierarchy, and thus who’s opinions and views are valued more – hers. It clearly has nothing to do with formality, as she is not going around calling us student workers Ms. and Mr. so and so. It has everything to do with her need for people to toot her horn. I understand she worked hard for a Ph.D, but if she really needs anyone and everyone to keep congratulating her on it by way of calling her Dr., that’s plainly arrogant.
What it says to me is: I’m a better feminist than you because I have a Ph.D. And I have a Ph.D because I had the money and the means to get one. I find all of if very reflective of her feminist philosophies. It may seem harsh, but I really question whether I can consider her a feminist because of it. It just goes against so many feminist principles.
There are a pair of conflicting ideals that appear in response to Abby’s note.
On the one hand, we live in a world where the Ph.D. (and other terminal degrees) are important markers of accomplishment. Some people feel that it’s vitally important for members of groups who have not traditionally earned such degrees (meaning anyone other than white men) to display them proudly in order to send an inspirational message. Abby’s director may believe that young women not only need to see older women with Ph.Ds, they need to see those women addressed with the kind of respect that was once reserved only for men.
And of course Ph.D.s take money. They also take sacrifice, often the sacrifice of a larger community (like spouses and parents). To refuse to use the title, some folks think, is to discount the sacrifices others made so that one member of the family could earn a Ph.D. It’s one thing to be falsely modest on your behalf, another thing altogether to be falsely modest on behalf of those who helped you along the way. Parents have long bragged about their “son, the doctor”. Isn’t it important that they be able to brag about their “daughter, the doctor” as well?
I’ve written before of my personal disdain for the title “doctor”, and my refusal to hang my diplomas on the wall. But I come from an academic family; both my parents, as well as my brother, have doctorates. My paternal grandmother earned her Ph.D. at the University of Vienna in the 1920s. We were raised to see diplomas on the wall or an insistence on titles as vulgar ostentation, evidence of “trying too hard” or “showing off.” But that’s a position of privilege rather than a universal truth, and I freely acknowledge the distinction. Those who are the first in their families to earn something — and those who are particularly mindful about setting an example to those they teach or mentor — may find that using or displaying those titles are essential ways of honoring one generation and inspiring another.
In an academic setting, where the professor has the gradebook and the student doesn’t, the use of first names may suggest a false equality. It may even strike some people as a disingenuous attempt to cover up the power differential. Using the term “doctor” may seem more honest under such circumstances. Of course, the term “professor” (which, used generally, can encompass those with and without Ph.Ds) solves this problem neatly.
But Abby has a point about the danger of hierarchies. Feminism at its best is more than just giving women an opportunity to compete in traditionally male spaces by traditionally male rules. It’s about changing those rules and reimagining those spaces. Most of us know the oft-quoted line from Audre Lorde: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” An insistence on titles certainly smacks of the “master’s tools.” It does privilege one kind of knowledge (the sort that comes from writing a dissertation and having the money for grad school) over other kinds of knowledge. Trust me, I have many colleagues who don’t have a Ph.D. who’ve taught me far more about the business of teaching than my fellow holders of the doctorate.
While it might be fine to use titles as a sign of respect for a particular kind of sacrifice, insisting that the title “doctor” be used for Ph.D. holders strikes me as it strikes Abby: incompatible with a feminist commitment to the kind of egalitarian values one might expect in a campus women’s center. A female professor who wishes to be addressed as “doctor” in a classroom setting is one thing; to expect that in an explicitly feminist space like the Women’s Resource Center is something altogether different. A Women’s Resource Center should be a place where traditional campus hierarchies are called into question, where the focus is as much on nurturing the spirit as it is on disciplining the mind. There’s no inconsistency in being “Jane” when one is in the campus WRC, and asking to be called “Dr. Doe” in a more explicitly academic setting. And if I were able to speak to Abby’s campus director, that’s the advice I’d give.
It’s a dangerous thing to be too enchanted with the master’s tools.
In an academic setting, where the professor has the gradebook and the student doesn’t, the use of first names may suggest a false equality. It may even strike some people as a disingenuous attempt to cover up the power differential. Using the term “doctor†may seem more honest under such circumstances. Of course, the term “professor†(which, used generally, can encompass those with and without Ph.Ds) solves this problem neatly.
This is my view exactly. I prefer for my students to call me “Professor Danielson,” and I accept “Dr. Danielson,” because the fact is we are in unequal positions as reflected by those titles. But in any other context (aside perhaps from writing to my Senators about an environmental issue, since that’s the field my degree is in), the fact that I hold a PhD is irrelevant.
Hmm. I can see why being told to refer to someone as “Doctor” (especially when “Professor” is both more practical and accurate) can be seen as pompous. But I always do a mental *headdesk* whenever I see the equally as self-righteous and pompous “It may seem harsh, but I really question whether I can consider her a feminist because of it. It just goes against so many feminist principles.”-type of argument.
No, I don’t think it would be appropriate to just decide your Women’s Studies professor is not a feminist, especially based primarily on her desire to have her hard work, dedication, and sacrifice be recognized in an area where she probably has to fight hard for recognition, by requesting her students call her Dr. Sheesh. There would be about 3 feminists left in the world if we all got to decide who gets to stay and who gets kicked out.
I’m surprised that Abby called the director by her first name “not even thinking about it.” In an academic or professional setting, even an explicitly feminist one, I would think one would always start out by calling someone – at least – Ms. Last-Name, until/unless they say, “please, call me FirstName.” Especially a new director, who, like it or not, does have more authority than a student worker.
I think the right to be addressed how you want to be addressed is one of the “big things” in feminism. Names are powerful!
For example, I want to be addressed using my original last name, even though I’m married. A friend of mine would prefer not to be addressed by her given name because it’s a masculine name, and she prefers feminine pronouns and names.
The director of Abby’s center wants to be addressed using her professional title, and I think it’s presumptuous to call the director’s feminist credentials into questions because of her preference.
I used to work in a chiropractic office doing warm up massages on his clients before he adjusted them. I was amused when I realized that I was the only one that addressed the doctor by his first name. When I thought about it I figured that I didn’t require him to refer to me as Massage Therapist Brodhi every time he needed to talk to me I saw no need for me to do the same to him. I spent 8 1/2 years in the military. The military is a place where anyone that has one more stripe than you can be your boss. So you can easily find yourself surrounded by people that are above you. So after coming out of the military I found myself being more sensitive to titles… especially when while I was in so many people who outranked me behaved in a way that warranted the respect they demanded.
So I would too would think someone to be pompous, elitist, egocentric, separatist and insecure if they insisted upon being referred to by a title.
I found her request to be addressed as Dr. to be anti-feminist and pompous. Incredibly pompous.
Instead of judging her as pompous, maybe consider why she’s so insistent on being called with her full title. Chances are it comes from sexism often denying women their titles. My parents are both PhD’ed and tenured professors, but when people called our house when I was growing up, they’d often refer to my dad as Dr. Siu and to my mom as Mrs. Siu, even though she has just as much right to be called Dr. Siu (he’s not a medical doctor—they’re both PhDs).
Would that be the Master’s tools, or the Doctor’s?
The college I went to appointed an ombudsperson, who was a woman with a doctorate. But she came from a Quaker background, and they don’t like titles of any kind on the grounds that they set some people above others. So she requested that if people didn’t know her well enough to call her by her first name, they should address her by her first and last names together. That’s a bit odd if you aren’t used to it, but it solves some problems.
I don’t know if she called people ‘thou’. It would be pleasant.
While insisting to be addressed with a very specific title certainly seems a little odd, I can’t help but think that she might have done that to put a little more distance between herself and Abby after Abby used the professors first name.
If someone uses my first name in conversation (No, the Internet doesn’t count) it implies that we know and are on good terms with each other. I don’t know how you feel about it, but I don’t want complete strangers implying these things, no matter if the person has feminist creds or not.
I’m most interested in this part:
“Feminism at its best is more than just giving women an opportunity to compete in traditionally male spaces by traditionally male rules. It’s about changing those rules and reimagining those spaces.”
It seems as though the basic assumption is: Hierarchies exist in patriarchal systems, ergo imagining a non-patriarchal space should involve imagining a space without hierarchies.
Yet this seems to suggest the two are inextricable, that hierarchy implies patriarchy as much as patriarchy implies hierarchy.
In terms of formal logic this would not follow, just because A causes B does not mean B proves the existence of A.
Looked at differently, historically patriarchal spaces have often used the color red in their banners/decorations/seals/symbols/etc. (whether it’s the seal of various feudal families or the banner of institutions like Harvard and Stanford) Yet few would argue that we must do without the color red as part of imagining a none-patriarchal space.
What makes hierarchy different? How do we know it’s more than just window dressing?
So what did all the students you slept with call you? Did any of them keep calling you professor after you slept with them? Or while you slept with them?
Had to ask.
Mike, just as all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles all squares, patriarchy is hierarchical, but not all hierarchies are patriarchy. Hence, some people prefer “kyriarchy” because it refers to intersecting forms of oppression and hierarchies, including race, class, and other factors.
So yes, leaving patriarchy behind does mean working towards leaving all of the hierarchies of power and oppression behind.
The problem I have with Abby’s account is that she takes a single incident – a simple request by a new director to be called by her title – and runs straight off the cliff with it. IMHO, immediately writing the woman off as arrogant, pompous and elitist is a pretty extreme response to a very minor incident. Sure it may be a bellwether, but this isn’t clear at the moment.
Feminist space or not, being the new person can be an intimidating experience. Using a title can be a way of claiming some personal space and sense of control – particularly when meeting someone who (they feel) may be coming on too strong.
In addition, as you point out, in an academic setting, the use of first names may suggest a false equality. In her complaint, Abby refers to “us students” – which strongly suggests she is one. If the new director also has teaching duties, she may be in a position of grading Abby someday – in which case, her desire to be addressed by her title is even more understandable.
If, after several weeks of working side-by-side, the director still insists on being called “Dr.”, then Abby can – and should – discuss her feelings on the matter. If she’s rebuffed, then I’ll happily concede her point. But right now, I see no reason to judge the director harshly, particularly since her side of the story hasn’t been heard.
Who was the female senator who insisted on being called “senator” because she “earned it”?
How does that fit?
Comrade Svilova, thanks for your response.
I completely agree that, as you said, “leaving patriarchy behind does mean working towards leaving all of the hierarchies of power and oppression behind.”
I’m just confused because the topic at hand is an *earned* degree.
If the new director had asked to be called a title because she was a particular ethnicity, or caste, or gender, or land owner, etc. I would completely agree that it is uncalled for and detrimental to achieving true equality.
But she wasn’t asking for that. She was asking for recognition of a merit that she had (presumably) worked very hard to earn. In response, Hugo (among others) states that leaving patriarchy means leaving this kind of hierarchy, a meritocratic one, behind. Yet I do not understand how meritocracy is inherently oppressive.
This is not to say that American society today is perfectly meritocratic (clearly it is not), but rather is the idea of meritocracy truly incompatible with equality.
Richard Aubrey, the female senator wanted to be called “senator” because ALL the male senators get called that by default. Thanks though, for being this thread’s token disingenuous knuckledragger.
Would that be the Master’s tools, or the Doctor’s?
Now, now, they’re one and the same — pomposity, arrogance and self-satisfaction are clearly stamped MALE PROPERTY ONLY, and no grubby little girls are allowed to try them on, much less come by them naturally the same way boys do. Women who think the full range of human flaws and foibles are their natural birthright are to be slapped down to their proper place with smug Audre Lorde quotations by male professors — lord knows that’s what she would have wanted.
O<h yeah, and Abby:
was corrected by a different person who told me she would prefer me to address her as Dr. so and so.
So! This mean old Ph.D. DIDN’T EVEN OBJECT to being called by her first name. We all caught this, yes?
Abby, some people would say that giving wide-eyed credence to third-hand workplace note-passing and constructing a whole fantasy about someone’s personality around it is stereotypically feminine in the worst, most shallow, gossipy way, and thus, it is you who do not deserve to be called a feminist. Horrors!
I do not understand how meritocracy is inherently oppressive.
I think the issue is that even when earned titles and other markers of hierarchies whether meritocratic or not presume that one person is “better than” or “more worthy” than another. Maybe in an ideal world those value judgements wouldn’t be attached to titles, but in our world, they certainly are. I wonder if we could ever truly get away from that kind of thinking.
That said, I am in favor of people being addressed however they prefer, and I certainly respect female senators who want to be called “senator” and female Ph.Ds who want to be called “Dr.”
Oh, hey, are we allowed to pull people’s feminist cards? Awesome. Abby, I’m pulling yours, because you’re such a fucking idiot that you’re making the club look bad. That sound fair?
Okay, that was a little mean. I’m really just going to put Abby’s card on probationary status because she made the demeaning, sexist mistake of assuming that professional women don’t deserve titles, don’t deserve respect, and can properly be called by their first names because, duh, we don’t call women by manly titles like “Doctor”. We’re all girls here!
I’m with Rita, who said: I’m surprised that Abby called the director by her first name “not even thinking about it.†In an academic or professional setting, even an explicitly feminist one, I would think one would always start out by calling someone – at least – Ms. Last-Name, until/unless they say, “please, call me FirstName.†Especially a new director, who, like it or not, does have more authority than a student worker.
My observations–
That does seem very odd; feminist space or not, she is a colleague in authority, presumably much older and not a peer, so I would call her Ms. Lastname.
I teach graduate students in a large lecture class and in a small seminar. The large seminar students are first years. I call them by their last names: Mr. Lastname; Ms. Lastname.
In the small seminar I call them by their first names, within the context of a more intimate group of students.
It creates a very clear hierarchy, and thus who’s opinions and views are valued more – hers.
I’ve got some unpleasant news for Abby…the Director’s opinions and views are valued more than those of Abby and her fellow student workers…
@Carlos CS
UR A DOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCHE-CANOE
Some people regard jumping right to someone’s first name as a mark of disrespect, or at least belittlement. I suppose it’s a question of maintaining a social distance with strangers is a sign of respect of disrespect. Though if Abby feels it’s a sign of disrespect why doesn’t she go all the way and call the director “sweetheart”?
Some might say the right of a woman to determine whom she wants to be on intimate terms with is an essential part of feminism.
And if mythago and I are saying different things, I agree with her too: the solution to getting a doctorate being seen as male is to allow women to get doctorates and acknowledge when they do so, not to downplay the importance of a doctorate (which is not to say that someone who lacks the opportunity to get a doctorate for other reasons should be considered unimportant).
‘I think the issue is that even when earned titles and other markers of hierarchies whether meritocratic or not presume that one person is “better than†or “more worthy†than another.”
So the real issue is reductionism. A person can be “better at” this or that, many are better at this or that than me for instance, without somehow being better than me overall. What would one person being better than another even look like. How long after we get out of diapers are we allowed the fantasy that the world is composed of “good people” and “bad people”?
The other reductionism going on in this example is the idea that a person has one and only one identity to be mared by a name or tile. That’s just really restricting. Maybe it’s emotionally comforting to some and so they put up with it. It seems pretty easy to me for the new director to have said “Look people; in here we’re all equal. But this is an island of normality in a sea of oppression, so when we are talking to anyone form outside, we use all the titles and all that camouflage just to get treated appropriately. Got it?” Special Forces guys are known for this kind of thing – when they deploy they routinely put senior officer rank on sergeants because these sergeants have to work with senior foreign officers, and then back in the unit they all call each other by nicknames regardless of pay grade. Rank is just an organizational tool after all. (And that goes for the senator too, so she was right to insist on that title). It shocks the conventional guys, but that’s part of the pay-off too.
Identity is a delusion.