I began my search by looking through the New York Times paper on April 26th 1970,  the day that Company opened. I found this little blurb about a congressman advocating for the use of “Ms.” as a universal form of address for women, just as “Mr.” is used for both single and married men. A defining theme of Company is marriage, with each married character always portrayed in conjunction with his/her partner, marking Bobby as the spouseless outlier. As Prof. Wolf writes, the show approaches marriage from a clear masculinist perspective, as marriage is a choice for Bobby, unlike for the female characters. This NYT article reflects the emerging feminist view that just as men need not be defined by their marital status, women ought not to be as well. Company portrays a diversity of female perspectives; whereas Joanne may be read as a woman who has grudgingly resigned herself to the “Mrs.” title, Amy may represent those who would embrace an opportunity to be a “Ms.” and not be defined by her marriage.

One Reply to “NYT: “‘Ms. Urged in Place of ‘Mrs. and ‘Miss'””

  1. Hey Yael! I absolutely loved your article, especially since it directly interacted with the growing sense of feminism that had begun to blossom around the turn into the 20th century. So I too chose a New York Times article that had to do with that very same topic, but this time in a disappointing twist: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/us/politics/trump-women-insults.html
    This article directly discusses how the current president of the United States both has a history of demeaning women, but also gets wrapped up in it, at times ignoring his responsibilities just to tweet nasty remarks about women. It’s a disappointing reveal into a social downturn opposite the emerging feminist views that the US had experienced back in the 70’s, and even worse back in 1916 with the Lost Generation in Virginia Woolf and Gertrude Stein. Even the male authors of the time, such as Fitzgerald, venerated women and the growing potency of feminism within the states. Yet now one hundred and two years after Fitzgerald declared that woman can outmatch any man in his “today’s society,” and 48 years after the Times published articles arguing how women should not be relegated to a title based off their husband, we now have a president who seems to have forgotten all of the progress that was made. Interestingly, the production of “Company” that would coincide with this article flipped the gender roles, making a “timeless” (Emily Garside) impression upon the society of today. Garside, in her article, even notes the “troubling political backdrop” that this New York Times article very well displays. With such a radical twist in form, I wonder what will come of these next few years…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *