[stillonaroll]

Yeah? I’m actually not bothered by it. Seems like a safe, neutral title if marital status is not known or relevant, though of course if known and preferred, Miss or Mrs. would be in order. (I know the Times will use ‘Dr.’ for PhD recipients if requested, so I imagine they would use either Mrs. or Gov. if she so requested.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

Usage of "Ms." bugs me because it's a liberal, PC, femi-nazi preference. It's news to me that titles must be "requested." I was taught that it was standard that men are "Mr.," unmarried women are "Miss," and married women are "Mrs."

"Ms." was invented by the femi-nazis in the 1970's, eagerly adopted by the liberal MSM and used by them since then.

Of course, the correct title in this instance is "Governor," as it is standard to refer to a former office holder by the title of their most recent office. Of course, the New York Slimes won't give her that courtesy.

[9YearLurker]

I think if you check out other NYTimes political articles you’ll see their style is to use Mr. or Ms., after a one-time use or reference to the current or past title, for all office holders.

And professional equality for women, such as in pay and opportunity, is to me only fair and decent. They used to be wholly and unequally defined (and limited) by marital status.

“First wave” feminism was pretty basic.

[9YearLurker]

Oh, and of course your doubt and suspicion re: the Times are entirely merited—there is almost no bounds to their snarkiness and unfairness re: Gov. Palin.