Before feminism, women were referred to based on their marital status. Single women were “Miss;” married women were “Mrs.” Feminists invented the term “Ms.” to refer to a woman independent of her marital status – much like “Mr.”

I recently picked up George Orwell’s 1984 again, and came across a particularly insightful quote. I had to put the book down for quite some time after reading it; it had such an effect on me. This is when Winston visits his neighbor, goes to call her “Mrs.,” but then remembers:

“’Mrs.’ was a word somewhat discountenanced by the Party – you were supposed to call everyone ‘comrade’ – but with some women one used it instinctively.”

How can one not compare the feminist agenda of eliminating “Mrs.” in favor of the generic “Ms.,” with the Orwellian society, which also wanted to ban “Mrs.,” in favor of the equally generic “comrade”?

I don’t think I need to remind you that Orwell wrote about a society that sought to break men’s souls, control men’s minds, and submit men to the Party. They did not want “doctors” or “Mrs.es,” or any title that personalized any individual being: the Party wanted comrades. Everyone was to be the same – all united in identity-less brotherhood. Eliminating “Mrs.,” especially, i.e. respectable women who held up the family structure at home, was one step in that.

Similarly, feminists seek to turn women into identity-less, androgynous beings. The generic term Ms. takes away something personal to women: their feminine sexuality.

When we used to use Miss and Mrs., it emphasized the fact that a woman was a woman. When single women were called “Miss,” it highlighted their femininity. They were feminine, single, and available. When married women were called “Mrs.,” it highlighted their mature womanhood. It denoted a very respectable and strong matronly figure.

If you addressed women by “Miss,” men would be alerted that they could pursue the single maiden. If you called women “Mrs.,” it would alert men that she was taken, and to respect the institution of marriage.

“Ms.” changes that. Indeed, is “Ms.” not the most cold, sexless word you’ve ever heard in your life? Kind of like “comrade”?

Feminists argue that the only way for women to gain independence is to be treated like men. Hence, they wanted to be called “Ms.,” the way men are called “Mr.” The terms Miss and Mrs. define a woman based on her relationship to a man, and we can’t have that!

But what does one’s marital status have to do with female independence? What does it matter if people are aware of the fact that a woman is single or married? Is this, really, holding a woman back from actualizing on her full potential as a human being?

Feminists’ goal becomes increasingly clear. They do not want to create strong women, but to de-sexualize women, i.e. create women uninterested in and unattractive to men. I have argued before that the sole purpose of feminism was to confuse male and female (hetero)sexuality. This is further proof. Using Ms. versus Miss and Mrs. has nothing to do with a woman “retaining her identity.” It does, however, have to do with de-sexualizing women and destroying the family structure.

Think of the difference of calling me “Miss Pawlik” versus “Ms. Pawlik.” The first is alluring, the second – sexless. Do you really think if I were “Miss Pawlik,” that I wouldn’t be respected by my peers? Using “Ms.” doesn’t help a woman make her way in the work world, but using the title does put a big warning sign up to men: “I am unavailable and not interested.”

Or, try imagining a world where married women weren’t called “Mrs.” “Mrs.es” are, of course, wives and mothers. If women can’t be “Mrs.es,” it means they can’t retain this part of their feminine identity – an identity of which feminists, of course, hate.

“Ms.” is a sexless term – thuggish and cold. Some have told me they wouldn’t mind using “Ms.” to refer to an older or divorced woman. This, first of all, may serve as an insult to older and divorced women, many of whom still consider themselves feminine, attractive, and looking. But, if it is true that an older woman has become sexless and is no longer interested in men, it furthers my case that Ms. is simply sexless, and only to be used on old maids not interested in men.

Some want to know why a woman changes her name upon marriage, and not men. I propose it is because a woman does enter a job when she gets married. There is very little reason to get married other than to start a family. It is the sole purpose of marriage. Hence, as a woman gets married, she is entering a role, of which she is expected to perform certain duties. Like a doctor becomes a “Dr.,” she becomes a “Mrs.”

Indeed, there will always be a difference between how single women and married women are referred to. Even feminists admit: the only thing emphasizing Ms. has done is replace Miss with Ms (which defeats feminists’ whole purpose of using “Ms.”). And Ms. is nothing except a thuggish replacement for the more feminine Miss. No one has stopped calling married women “Mrs.” Indeed, if they ever did want to fully implement their agenda of eliminating “Mrs.,” they would have to do it by force. Can you imagine calling married women “Ms.”? A free society simply would not tolerate this. Only people watched daily by telesets and who were “vaporized” for thought crimes would make active attempts to stop using “Mrs.”

Using “Ms.,” like “comrade,” is nothing more than thought control. Feminists’ goal is exactly the same as the Party’s in George Orwell’s 1984: destroy the family structure and turn everyone over to the collective, i.e. turn them into comrades. They seek to control thought by controlling language. In 1984, the Party used newspeak, a language in which words were always being eliminated, as to control thought. If you couldn’t say it, you couldn’t think it. Similarly, by eliminating Miss and Mrs., people are limited in their thought. By eliminating the word, they eliminate knowledge. Indeed, the entire purpose of using “Ms.” was to eliminate certain knowledge through language, in this case – knowledge of if a woman was single or married.

The only thing separating feminists from the Orwellian society is at least feminists allow differentiation between women and men by using “Ms.” versus “Mr.” People aren’t all the androgynous “comrade.” The reason for this is because, as of now, feminists currently do not accept men. Hence they need their own gender specific reference. “Ms.” can be considered the female-only version of “comrade.”

But, you wonder what is next. A friend of mine, Dan Lynch, has recently read on brainwashing techniques in communist China. To make a very long story short, they work group by group. First they brainwash the women, and they don’t allow the women to date men, as men might poison their thinking. (And this certainly is a valid concern of theirs, considering most women, when they get married, become Republican). But, as soon as they can brainwash the men (and there is evidence of this, i.e. men-only groups developing victim status and becoming socialist – the real ultimate goal), then they allow the two groups to re-integrate.

And then we’ll be told there aren’t any differences between the sexes, as they have preached for quite some time. Ms. and Mr. will be abolished (more thought control through language). Then we will all be comrades. And they’ll tell us it’s all in the name of individualism.

This is a cultural battle. Some libertarian groups might argue to pick whatever title you want, avoiding the debate. But, there is a problem in that. When you go to call a stranger a name, you don’t know what they want to be called. You have to make a decision. There has to be some standard to guide people.

Most people don’t even know the difference among Ms., Miss, and Mrs. One study found over 60% of people did not know the difference. People will just do what you tell them. This battle is one of intellectual leaders trying to impose their agenda upon society. Using Ms., versus Miss and Mrs., carries with it much baggage about the role of women.

Personally, I do not believe that using “Miss” and “Mrs.” will set women back, i.e. the fear that women won’t be able to command respect in the business world (instead everyone looking at them in a sexual manner). However, if there was any such concern over that, there is no reason to refer to women at work one way and women outside of work, another.

But, of course, it is not how women at work are referred to that feminists care about. It is about how they are referred to socially. The only real thing eliminating Miss and Mrs. does is de-sexualize women and negate what relationship they have to men, which is the feminist agenda. They want to turn women into womyn.

Leftists don’t really like being reminded that Orwell’s critiques were against communism. They usually like to claim the book to be in their camp, and try to show how Orwell was talking about conservative movements. But it is a fact that Orwell was critiquing the communists. Insights like the one he provided regarding being called “Mrs.” further aides in that proof.

Mrs. and Miss are not oppressive titles. As Orwell pointed out, when Winston was at his neighbor’s house, he was supposed to refrain from calling her “Mrs.,” but he did anyway. Not because he thought less of her, but because the woman herself commanded his respect. Feminists serve to take this kind of respect away from women.

Ayn Rand obviously used Miss and Mrs. in her writings. In The Fountainhead, Dominique is referred to as “Miss Francon” throughout. And, in the very end, when someone asks her who she is, she proudly says:

“Mrs. Howard Roark.”

I will tell you now, casually, you can do the politically incorrect thing and call me Miss. I am definitely single, available, and looking, and certainly have no problem with people having access to that knowledge. And when I am married — given I will be proud to be married and of my husband — there will be no hyphenated names for me (which has to be the most impractical and stupid practice ever). In my personal life, I will embrace the role demanded of me fully. Socially, you can call me: “Mrs. (his full name).”