1932: NYT publisher asked by Amelia Earheart not to address her by husband's name

[steve2470]

Link to tweet

Thought this was interesting.

[Sneederbunk]

1. Yea, and look what happened to her.

[steve2470]

2. ?

Explain please.

[More_Cowbell]

3. Just a joke, I assume

Because she disappeared. Anyway, it made *me* laugh!

[Warpy]

4. Yes, instead of disappearing into some damn man's name

she has retained her own fame under her own name.

When people ask where all the famous female authors and composers through history are, they're out there, just listed under the name of the talentless oaf they were married off to.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

6. See my post below, which I meant as a reply to you.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

5. I've been researching my family genealogy, and while I do have principles to uphold

on the matter, I am also entirely frustrated by the ramifications for family history researchers. So many times in documents a married woman is referred to only as Mrs. John Doe. This is particularly irritating when it's on a form where Mr. John Doe is asked to indicate who his wife is and he puts, Mrs. John Doe. Um, yeah, buddy, we could have figured that much without you!

Also annoying--the first time I saw this I was just floored--on gravestones, there will be one inscribed, John Doe 1875- 1958 and next to it one inscribed, His Wife 1882-1976.

I'm not talking about the ones where it's John Doe 1875- 1958 on the one and His Wife, Elizabeth, 1882-1976 on the other. Although the lack of the maiden name disappoints, at least she gets a first name! I mean I have seen some where His Wife is not named.

And, speaking of genealogy, don't get me started on the "Slave Schedules" and related ramifications! But I digress. Good for Amelia. So sad we lost her.