I wrote my conference paper a couple of weeks ago. Timed it, trimmed the word-count, timed it again. (Repeat that a few times!) And then today, something occurred to me. Not all at once, no. In stages, let’s say. To start with, it was just a question of technology: wouldn’t it be better, I mused, if I used the tablet rather than a wad of paper? On went the tablet. And (not that I noticed at first) off again. I eventually realised that it needed charging – it’s ages since I last used it. Whilst I waited for it to become functional again, I looked at my paper one last time, thinking I’d just make sure it was absolutely perfect before I looked at it on a different gadget.

And that’s when I spotted it – I could call it a major faux pas, or I could blame it on my generation.  Well, that’s a cheap excuse, isn’t it? Not acceptable. If I want to be accepted as a scholar who is still on the ball, still at the top of her game, then I can’t lamely whimper that I didn’t realise what I was doing was disrespectful …

Equality

It’s a relatively recent academic writing protocol, and one that was long overdue: men and women should be written about with equal respect. By that, I mean that if you wouldn’t refer to Elgar as Edward, then you can’t justify calling Mary Wollstonecraft, just Mary.  Elgar is Elgar, and Wollstonecraft is Wollstonecraft.  Otherwise, it’s not only disrespectful, but diminishes the woman’s standing.

Mary-Anne Smith, Rose B. Smith, Jane Sillars, Flora Woodman …

Now, in my paper, I’m not talking about big names like Elgar or Wollstonecraft.  But I realised that I’d fallen into the trap. Mary-Anne, Rose, Jane and Flora deserved better. They needed their last names.  So I got stuck in.

It’s just a bit more complex than you’d think, especially when you are not only writing about the women, but are also mentioning their menfolk. You can’t refer to three different Smiths as plain, ‘Smith’. But ‘Mr, Mrs and Miss Smith’ doesn’t work, especially when Miss Smith kept her ‘Smith’ professionally after marriage. 

Then there’s the unmarried mother who identified as ‘a widow’ in at least one official document – but married some years later. At which point her daughter’s name changed. (Had she actually got married another time before the marriage I know about, wouldn’t her daughter’s name have changed then, too? But it didn’t, so I’m taking it that ‘widow’ was being used diplomatically. We’re talking of the Edwardian era.)  In any case, her marital status is of absolutely no concern to me, but I am concerned that she and her daughter are called the right names at the right time!

Need I continue? 

And, grammatically, if two individuals with the same name get mentioned in the same sentence, then either you need to use first names as well, or rephrase for clarity. ‘Her daughter’ and ‘her mother’ are very useful substitutes!

Sometimes it’s just a question of being pragmatic. I haven’t, indeed I couldn’t excise all ‘unqualified’ first names.  But I think I’ve improved it. I’ve shown due respect to all the individuals I’ve written about – most of them women.

I do believe I’ve finished my revisions!