Community Discussions
Explore the latest discussions and community conversations related to this domain.
Mrs. vs Ms. rules
Main Post:
First of all I want to be clear that this not about how anyone should be called in real life. Intentionally using the wrong honorific is rude and relying on the pedantic nature of language to claim a particular honorific would be accurate does not make it okay to use if it’s not welcome. I’m asking about the historical and linguistic usage.
With that out of the way, I understand the basics of Mrs. Vs. Ms. But there’s a specific circumstance I don’t quite know, when a woman marries but does not change her last name, is “Mrs.” Still appropriate?
I understand this is already a dated concept but it was fairly common to refer to a woman as Mrs. husband’s-full-name (Such as Mrs John Smith) but is that only true if she changes her name?
If, for example, Marry Jane Watson married Peter Parker she could choose to be called Mrs. Parker but if she keeps her maiden Name is she now Mrs. Watson? Or would it be more appropriate to keep calling her Ms. Watson even though she’s now married? Is it simply a matter of personal taste?
The only example I can think of for this was part of a joke in a Terry Pratchett book where Ms. Ogg became Mrs. Ogg
I Apologize if this isn’t the right forum for this, or if it’s been answered before.
Top Comment: This is really not a grammar question. Strictly grammatically speaking, it would be correct to use any honorific title with any name. You are asking about etiquette and social history. And the etiquette rules about this have changed dramatically in a relatively short time. Traditionally, "Mrs" was used for married women who adopted their husband's surname, and because almost all married women did use their husband's name, the question of using the title for a married woman with her "maiden" name rarely arose. But consider the example of Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, who married in 1920. Mary Pickford was a stage name, which the star retained after marriage, and in the media of the day, she continued to be referred to most often as "Miss Pickford" - not "Mrs Pickford". However, journalists writing about social events that the couple attended together would sometimes refer to her as "Mrs Fairbanks", as a way of emphasizing the relationship. This was not typical for non-famous women, but there are other examples among celebrity women who, before "Ms" was coined, kept a stage, pen, or professional name after marriage. Generally they were titled "Miss" when referred to by that professional name, but could alternatively be referred to as "Mrs Hisname" when marital identity was relevant. Interestingly there's a contrary situation where unmarried women were traditionally titled "Mrs" because of their position of professional authority. A chief housekeeper or head cook would usually be called "Mrs" regardless of marital status because they were in fact a "mistress" of the estate or household. But otherwise, "Mrs Herfirst Lastname" (as opposed to "Mrs Hisfirst Lastname") traditionally meant she was a widow. Then, with the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, it became less and less common to use the title "Mrs" with the husband's full first and last name when addressing only the wife. (As a kid in the 1970s, I read a book in which a character introduced herself to a neighbor child as "Mrs Robert Jones"; I found it strange and amusing that a woman would have the name "Robert" - and then was very confused when another adult character called her "Betty"! I'd never encountered that naming convention before except in the context of mail addressed to "Mr & Mrs Hisfirst Theirlast".) More married women began to prefer not to give up their first names in addition to their surnames, at the same time as more brides were choosing not to change their surnames, and more women professionals were choosing to use "Ms" regardless of marital status, especially in a career or public context. So, "Mrs" came to be understood as simply indicating, all by itself, a married woman, especially in social usage (as by the late 1980s marital status was no longer as relevant for legal or business purposes), no matter what given or last names came after the title. And now there are plenty of women who do not share a surname with their spouse but still prefer to use the title "Mrs" for at least some purposes - or at any rate aren't bothered by it on an invitation, even if they actually prefer Ms - or Mx, Dr, or something else. Bottom line, since at least the 1990s (when I and a great many of my friends were getting married and having vigorous debates about choosing surnames and addressing wedding invitations!), modern etiquette grants women the right to use whatever combination of courtesy title and name they prefer, with "Ms Herfirst Herlegallastname" as the polite default when her specific preference is unknown. If you want to use the title Mrs with your birth surname, you may get a certain amount of side-eye from younger women about the Mrs, and from older ones about the surname. But no one will be particularly confused by it.
Mrs - Reviews and Discussions
Main Post:
Discuss about Mrs in this thread
Hide or remove spoilers before posting comments
Directed by Aarti Kadav
Cast: Sanya Malhotra, Kanwaljit Singh, Nishant Dahiya
A trained dance teacher navigates through the challenges of marriage as she tries to follow her own path, find her voice, and express herself freely amidst societal expectations
Top Comment: I watched the movie today. At some point, my father sat down with me, watching quietly for a while before getting up to leave. I could tell he was paying attention, so I asked him to stay, to watch it with me. He refused. I kept insisting, kept asking why. I even tried telling him—someday, there will be another daughter in this house too. He should watch it for her. But he still wouldn’t. Finally, he said, ‘I can’t watch it because of you.’ He told me he saw her as me. And it was just... too much. Too depressing to think that, no matter what, I’d have to deal with some version of this. Maybe not to that extent, but we live where we do, and something will happen. Eventually. And that just made me wonder—if the man I love and trust the most, my father, refuses to fully see what women go through, even if it’s out of guilt or pain, then how do I even begin to talk about it to someone else? A stranger, a friend, a partner? If my own father can’t bear to look, will the person I choose to share my life with be any different? Will he actually listen—really listen—or will he just hear it from one ear and dismiss it as some feminist BS from the other?
“MRS. MOVIE IS PROPAGANDA” 🗣️🤡
Main Post:
I see a lot of people (particularly men) saying that the Sanya Malhotra movie Mrs., which has gathered a lot of attention, is toxic feminist propaganda, saying that they made the simple act of cooking and cleaning into a full blown out overreaction. They also said that when the family has the money to buy two cars, why can’t they just buy a washing machine? And I found that to be quite blatantly ignorant.
The whole point of the movie is that Richa’s husband Diwakar just simply does not care. When Richa tells him about the leaking pipe, he keeps saying he will call over a plumber soon, a promise that never takes flight. He can afford it, but he just doesn’t care. They have a grinder/mixer but Diwakar’s father gets irritated when his wife/DIL uses it, because he wants it to be made on stone in the “traditional” way. He just doesn't care about the intense labor he makes the women around him go through. Now do you think if Richa asked Diwakar for a washing machine, he’d buy it for her? No! He’d probably say something along the lines like “why do you need a washing machine? Just wash them by hand. What other work do you have anyways?” And blah blah BLAH.
So that’s the thing: it’s not money, it’s not “propaganda”, folks, it’s just that the men DON’T CARE. They could, but they won’t. That is the whole purpose of this movie. I also get insanely angry when people on social media (again, the “propaganda” people) start yapping about oh, but it’s just cooking, it’s not a big deal, really? Is that all you saw in the movie? Did you not see how the family restricted Richa from getting a job? From pursuing her passion? Crushing her dreams, telling her to burn her passions? Stopping her from being what she could have been? (She did reach her potential at the end of the movie, but only when she left the marriage at the end) Did you not see how Diwakar hurt her, and did not care about his wife’s desires? Yes, he is tired after working all day, but that doesn’t excuse him from being a shit husband. The least he could do is make sure his wife is equally content as he is. Instead, he expected her to serve him. Like she owed him sex. Do women owe their husbands sex, my propaganda loves? Is sex really just a man’s pleasure? An act of reproduction? Is a woman a whore for wanting enjoyment, for seeking joy through the cracks of depression?
All these “propaganda” people are getting on my last nerve, because I just can’t fathom how they saw the movie and chose to see only the COOKING part! It was never about cooking. On the first day of marriage, Richa cooks with love. She enjoys cooking. But as the way her own family treats her becomes worse, she starts becoming depressed and loses the joy and spark of cooking.
So NO, Mrs. is NOT a “cooking propaganda feminist” film or whatever. It showcases the struggles of many women around our country. I also feel like nobody is talking about how wonderfully the taboo of menstruation was shown. The fact that the maid was also on her period proved that the whole superstition was BS. I loved this movie, not just because it was a reality check to some brainwashed audience, but because it is so beautifully made: with details carefully curated like how Richa’s wedding gifts were all kitchen supplies, how the young girl dealt with conditioning at a young age with the “only women with good luck wear bindis” and the prime number theory, to the very end, with the metaphor about the phulka. Hats off to the team who made this movie!
Also, I don’t know why people are mad at the fact that it is a remake of the Great Indian kitchen. I watched the movie around the time it was released only, as I absolutely love Malayalam cinema. And nobody talked about it then? The movie isn’t an exact remake, I would say it’s only about 90% similar. But hey, the only thing this did was spread awareness (more people speak Hindi than people speak Malayalam) and I thought it was good? I don’t know why people are mad, lmao. We really turn everything into North vs South wars instead of focusing on the main issue. The original film is good too, and I thought that the lead actress in the original was very pretty. (Not that Sanya Malhotra isn’t, she’s a literal goddess).
Okay. Thank you, Redditor, for attending my Ted Talk. That’s the end. exhales.
Top Comment: Because these men are guilty of this same behaviour. Accepting the issues shown in Mrs means accepting their own entitled behaviour. And it easy to blame something as feminist propaganda rather than accept one’s fault isnt it? Also supporting this movie means they have to improve their behaviour. Be better. Why be that when they can sit and order around people.
Mrs Movie analysis - what angry men in the comment missed about the movie
Main Post:
Mrs Movie accurately captures the nuances of being a 'housewife' in upper middle-class India.
I have read a lot of comments calling out Mrs as a feminazi propaganda movie. I am livid.
Household chores are a given when the other partner contributes 100% financially. Mrs is not against the amount of work that a housewife has to do. IT IS NOT AGAINST HOUSEWIVES HAVING TO DO HOUSEWORK.
It is about the small insults, lack of appreciation, unrealistic expectations, lack of mutual consent, utter disregard for needs, lack of freedom to pursue one's dreams, casual sexism, misogyny and so much more.
It is not about having to use the silvatta - it is about having to use it every single meal when clearly, there is an easier, faster, and less painful method (mixie grinder) available.
It is not about having to cook a lot - it is about being appreciated and thanked for the effort put in. It is about gratitude.
It is not about having to do basic tasks for the husband. It is about the learned incompetence - if a guy earns money, that somehow means he cannot take his own undies and clothes out after a bath?
It is not about helping the husband - it is about the degradation - the sasurji could have got the servant to take out his footwear, no? Instead of his wife.
It is not about Diwakar being bad in bed - it is about caring about foreplay and aftercare, caring whether your wife finished or not, caring for consent, caring for enjoyment and not calling her a "sex expert".
It is not about Diwakar yelling at Richa when she accuses him of things - it is about him getting offended when she tries to communicate what she finds wrong. The reply to "I also have desires" should have been "Okay, I will take your desires into account next time onwards" and NOT "Shakal dekhi hai apni? The reply to Richa's comment on her being a "free ki maid aur cook" should have been understanding WHY she said such a thing in the first place, not trampling all over her at the friend's house and then giving her the silent treatment and then forcing a sorry and sex out of her.
It is not about making good or bad shikanji - it is the entitlement of Diwakar's brother. Order a random woman for shikanji, start drinking whiskey and refuse it, drink it out of pity and then make SEVERAL comments about how bad it is.
It is not about Richa being asked to not work - it is about discarding her passion as a "hobby", sasurji asking a grown woman not to go for an interview and ignoring her as she stands in the corner waiting to be ALLOWED to go.
It is not about Diwakar wanting those videos removed - it is about him crushing her passion, her life's work, fuelling his insecurities about his wife "dancing" and the tone - he could have made her understand why her videos made him feel uncomfortable (which is still shitty but okay) instead of giving her an ultimatum - "If you want to live in this house, you have to follow its rules".
It is not about dealing with that grumpy witch of an aunt - it is about her irritation just because Richa is a new-generation bahu. It is about her singing praises of karwa-chauth at the expense of her own health, secretly showing Richa's dance videos to sasurji and making that rude-ass comment about Richa tasting food while cooking which could have been communicated in a much-nicer, non-bitchfaced way.
It is not about opposing karwa chauth - it is about the scene where sasurji praises karwa chauth tradition for its healing properties while HOGGING on food that the women have prepared. Dont fasts have healing effects on men too?
It is not about giving feedback - it is the constant backhanded comments that Diwakar and sasurji make about her cooking, Diwakar asking his MIL (Richa's mom) if she had taught her daughter how to make halwa, Sasurji eating all the biriyani and then saying "Namak kam hai".
It is not about eating breakfast together - it is about the inherent, ingrained, internalized sexism - women eating food off their husband's dirty plates, women getting to eat AFTER their husbands have eaten because they do not "go to clinic".
It is not about Diwakar being late in calling a plumber - it is about him using "being a busy doctor" as a facade to ignore ANY household responsibility. At least tell her where to call a plumber from in this locality? It is about him being blind to her having to put her hand into dirty dish water and scoop out gunk.
It is not about Diwakar skipping lunch one time - it is about his manchild behaviour because lunch was late ONE TIME. He ate fried food from outside, he goes out to parties - but that one day, he could not have eaten a salad or something "healthy" and despite being a doctor, survived on "6 cups of coffee". Incompetent manchild.
It is not about giving Richa rest during periods - it is about him being a doctor and believing that a woman should not enter kitchen during periods. So what? I am on my period so I cannot make myself a yummy sandwich? How is that giving me any rest? It is not about rest, IT IS NEVER ABOUT REST IT IS ABOUT POLLUTING PERIOD BLOOD.
People have simplified the movie's criticism as -
Housewife did not want to do house work so she got divorce
Housewife has everything she wants but still expects more from hardworking doctor husband
women do not want to do housework anymore they don't make em like that anymore.
This movie is a warning for all those girls who think marriage is the be-all-end-all of their lives, neglecting their career, passion, freedom and happiness in the process.
Top Comment: In short, it's not about the chores. It's all about not valuing your partner as a human. You're not even ready to acknowledge that your partner is a human being with the same needs and desires as yourself. Just because she's a housewife doesn't mean that she's nothing. Men who don't view their partner as a human being with emotions, needs and desires need to be condemned. Also the women who enable such men.
Why this controversy with Mrs. Movie ?
Main Post:
When Animal released, most of the defenders said "it's just a movie , move on" for the outrage on all sexism and misogynism in it
But when Mrs. Is now released, minority of men are calling it "feminist propaganda", "shows men in bad light " and all
Like why these double standards in audience? When a man does sexist and insane s*** , y'all don't have a word in audiences, but when a movie shows the struggles of a women , mos tof y'all lose it ?
Top Comment: Rules Reminder u/Skk_3068 Please follow posting rules.Make Clear Post title, with names of people in Image. All Posting Rules are on Sidebar Don’t delete your post due to pressure in comments. Tag Gossip-Luv2 if you need mod to look at comments For Commentators - Don’t abuse OP and read Sub Disruption and Meta Rule. There are instant and permanent Bans for Meta comments. Report rule breaking topic, do not engage with rule breaking topic. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
any site where i can watch Mrs for free?
Main Post:
title
Top Comment: After marriage
One scene that showcases how bad we treat our women in South Asia! Mrs. Streaming now! An okay remake but a fabulous job done by Sanya Malhotra!
Main Post: One scene that showcases how bad we treat our women in South Asia! Mrs. Streaming now! An okay remake but a fabulous job done by Sanya Malhotra!
Top Comment: Buddhe ko silwate ki chutney chaiye
Why are women across the world okay with being called Mrs after getting married when there is no other title change for men?
Main Post:
I have been married for 2 years and I'm still not okay with it. Why do I need to show if I'm married everywhere with a Mrs, when men don't have to change anything?
Top Comment: When I was really young I presumed that 'Mr' meant married and 'Master' meant unmarried for men. When I was corrected I asked why marriage changes a woman's title but not a man's, and got treated like it was a stupid question... Even 'Ms', which is meant to provide a solution, carries social connotations which Mr never will.
Sucharita’s blatant elitism in her Mrs. review.
Main Post:
I have always valued and relied on Sucharita’s reviews. She is opinionated, and her ideology aligns with mine - she speaks for feminism and intersectionality. Yet, when a film that authentically represents the daily struggles of North Indian women is made, it is dismissed outright, labeled unnecessary simply because it comes from Bollywood.
This isn’t a review of Mrs., but rather an observation of how quickly people in cinema reveal their elitism. The moment a film leans toward mainstream storytelling, it’s written off as not cinema, not art. But who was cinema meant for, if not the general audience? And when a film like Mrs. speaks directly to the middle class, why is it so easy for some to disregard its artistic value?
This attitude reeks of privilege. It assumes that art should only exist in niche, intellectual spaces, catering to those who live in their carefully curated bubbles. The truth is, films like Mrs. are necessary. They resonate with a large section of society, offering a mirror to their everyday realities.
This isn’t to discredit The Great Indian Kitchen, which was a powerful film in its own right. But it’s important to acknowledge that relatability plays a role in how a film is received. For many in the Hindi-speaking belt, Mrs. hit closer to home. In contrast, TGIK, set in a South Indian household, could be viewed through a lens of detachment, leading some North Indian viewers to reject it by labeling that culture as regressive while perceiving their own as more progressive.
Mrs. dismantles this illusion by exposing the deeply ingrained sexism that exists even in ‘normal,’ seemingly progressive middle class Indian homes. It highlights how patriarchy is sustained; not through outright oppression, but through convenience, disguised as culture. And that is precisely why its existence matters.
Art isn’t just what challenges the elite or experiments with form, it’s also what speaks to people. And if a film can spark recognition, reflection, and conversation among those it represents, then dismissing it simply because it doesn’t fit an arbitrary standard of artistic cinema is nothing but gatekeeping.
Top Comment: I agree with a remake being necessary. However, the rawness and subtlety of the original is not just for “art”, it serves a purpose. If you make the male characters more obviously evil, a lot of men can say”thank god I’m not like that”. Also the kitchen scenes are way more disgusting in the original. It’ll make men squirm. There’s a reason why the original is more hard hitting. And I LOVED the remake. Art house choices are not just “elitist”. They actually improve storytelling.
[deleted by user]
Main Post: [deleted by user]
Top Comment: I think it's High time now I should do an Ama I have been in her shoes for close to 4 months