Ad­dress­ing boys and girls dif­fer­ently in (Vic­to­rian?) English schools












10















In Jane Eyre by Char­lotte Brontë I read:




“Burns” (such it seems was her name: the girls here were all called
by their sur­names, as boys are else­where
)...




So my ques­tion is: were there (or are there) dif­fer­ent rules for ad­dress­ing
boys and girls in English schools? And if so, how were the girls usu­ally
called if not by their sur­name?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Hi, welcome to ELU! Are you wondering specifically about schools in England in Charlotte Brontë's time (Jane Eyre was published in the mid-1800s), or were you also asking about schools in other English-speaking locales and/or in the current era?

    – 1006a
    Dec 29 '18 at 10:37











  • @1006a I was surprised to learn about such custom in England at that time, and it would certainly be interesting to know if there still is such custom of different addressing nowadays in England or other countries.

    – v_2e
    Dec 29 '18 at 11:11
















10















In Jane Eyre by Char­lotte Brontë I read:




“Burns” (such it seems was her name: the girls here were all called
by their sur­names, as boys are else­where
)...




So my ques­tion is: were there (or are there) dif­fer­ent rules for ad­dress­ing
boys and girls in English schools? And if so, how were the girls usu­ally
called if not by their sur­name?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Hi, welcome to ELU! Are you wondering specifically about schools in England in Charlotte Brontë's time (Jane Eyre was published in the mid-1800s), or were you also asking about schools in other English-speaking locales and/or in the current era?

    – 1006a
    Dec 29 '18 at 10:37











  • @1006a I was surprised to learn about such custom in England at that time, and it would certainly be interesting to know if there still is such custom of different addressing nowadays in England or other countries.

    – v_2e
    Dec 29 '18 at 11:11














10












10








10


1






In Jane Eyre by Char­lotte Brontë I read:




“Burns” (such it seems was her name: the girls here were all called
by their sur­names, as boys are else­where
)...




So my ques­tion is: were there (or are there) dif­fer­ent rules for ad­dress­ing
boys and girls in English schools? And if so, how were the girls usu­ally
called if not by their sur­name?










share|improve this question
















In Jane Eyre by Char­lotte Brontë I read:




“Burns” (such it seems was her name: the girls here were all called
by their sur­names, as boys are else­where
)...




So my ques­tion is: were there (or are there) dif­fer­ent rules for ad­dress­ing
boys and girls in English schools? And if so, how were the girls usu­ally
called if not by their sur­name?







honorifics vocatives forms-of-address victorian-english






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 29 '18 at 19:12









tchrist

109k30294472




109k30294472










asked Dec 29 '18 at 9:40









v_2ev_2e

1514




1514








  • 1





    Hi, welcome to ELU! Are you wondering specifically about schools in England in Charlotte Brontë's time (Jane Eyre was published in the mid-1800s), or were you also asking about schools in other English-speaking locales and/or in the current era?

    – 1006a
    Dec 29 '18 at 10:37











  • @1006a I was surprised to learn about such custom in England at that time, and it would certainly be interesting to know if there still is such custom of different addressing nowadays in England or other countries.

    – v_2e
    Dec 29 '18 at 11:11














  • 1





    Hi, welcome to ELU! Are you wondering specifically about schools in England in Charlotte Brontë's time (Jane Eyre was published in the mid-1800s), or were you also asking about schools in other English-speaking locales and/or in the current era?

    – 1006a
    Dec 29 '18 at 10:37











  • @1006a I was surprised to learn about such custom in England at that time, and it would certainly be interesting to know if there still is such custom of different addressing nowadays in England or other countries.

    – v_2e
    Dec 29 '18 at 11:11








1




1





Hi, welcome to ELU! Are you wondering specifically about schools in England in Charlotte Brontë's time (Jane Eyre was published in the mid-1800s), or were you also asking about schools in other English-speaking locales and/or in the current era?

– 1006a
Dec 29 '18 at 10:37





Hi, welcome to ELU! Are you wondering specifically about schools in England in Charlotte Brontë's time (Jane Eyre was published in the mid-1800s), or were you also asking about schools in other English-speaking locales and/or in the current era?

– 1006a
Dec 29 '18 at 10:37













@1006a I was surprised to learn about such custom in England at that time, and it would certainly be interesting to know if there still is such custom of different addressing nowadays in England or other countries.

– v_2e
Dec 29 '18 at 11:11





@1006a I was surprised to learn about such custom in England at that time, and it would certainly be interesting to know if there still is such custom of different addressing nowadays in England or other countries.

– v_2e
Dec 29 '18 at 11:11










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















14














British schoolboys were traditionally addressed by their surnames (if two brothers attended the same school they would be 'Jones major' and 'Jones minor'). I went to a girls' school in the 1960s, but I attended some classes at a mixed school where boys were called by surnames and girls by their first names. I don't know if this custom is still observed; I guess probably not, and it's first names all round.



Jane Eyre evidently found it surprising that the girls at Lowood School were not called by their Christian names. I believe Charlotte Brontë based the school on one she attended in real life.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    It was certainly the practice in Victorian and Edwardian Britain to address women in a softer tone than men, and as you rightly say that was the custom in schools in our time (mine being the 1950s). At Wimbledon, women players are still addressed as Miss or Mrs by the umpires, whilst men simply receive surname treatment. Wimbledon has never recognised Ms as a form of address. Serena Williams, who is married, but hasn't taken her husband's surname is described as Mrs Williams. And in the 1970s, "Advantage Miss Goolagong" must have been enough to strike terror into any opponent.

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:20








  • 2





    However on becoming the first mother to win the Ladies singles, Yvonne was happy to accept "Game, set and match to Mrs Cawley".

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:31











  • I was "Harvey" at Alleyn's School in the 1960s. I sometimes got accused of not turning up for Dave Harvey's detentions if the awarding teacher's writing was poor. When I met my best pal's dad, it became clear that he thought Harvey was my first name.

    – Michael Harvey
    Dec 29 '18 at 13:09






  • 5





    There were twins in my form with the surname Hope. One was twenty minutes older than the other, and to begin with they were designated Hope major, and Hope minor. However, when it became clear to the form master that they had an older brother in the school, "major" became "minor" and "minor", initially became "minimus". However the last was subsequently changed to "tertius".

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 15:18











  • I was at a boys school so I don't know how girls were addressed, but in the 1960s it was still surname-only for boys. You didn't want people to know you had a first name, it was almost as embarrassing as admitting you had a mother. And of course adult men would also refer to each other by surname: "Smith" was less formal and more "familiar" than "Mr. Smith".

    – Michael Kay
    Dec 29 '18 at 17:12



















3














(Disclaimer - There are already some great answers and I know my answer is anecdotal and therefore low quality, but I think it has some information and context to impart that many native british-english speakers would take for granted and therefore not think to explain)



Just adding my two cents: This is the norm in Australia too. Although in public schools (government - not private) boys and girls are called by their first names, boys and men are still often referred too by their surnames, especially in sports, or male-heavy activities/locations such as at the pub. It's kind of a 'blokey', camaraderie-inducing thing to do - funnily enough, since you might think it would be more formal, and therefore impersonal and distancing but it is in fact the opposite. It doesn't depersonalise because it's essentially a practical thing: in a class with 15 students named John, calling them by their last name actually individualises them.



(I can imagine there are some female sports coaches that also refer to players by surname, but outside of sport it is practically unheard of. It wouldn't be insulting, necessarily, just very jarring and unexpected (and in the case of a common surname, it would not even cross a woman's mind that she was being referred to / addressed))



In fact I was very chuffed, and really felt 'part of the team' when my first boss (quite a blokey, sports-loving guy) called me by my surname, like he did all the other employees (who were all men). I work in a male dominated field (computing) and am a woman, and this (calling the men by their surname but not the women) is the kind of subtle thing, often stemming from nothing but politeness, that can make you feel like an outsider. So I was very pleased and smiled inwardly every time he used my surname. It has never happened again before or since, in my life - professionally or personally.



A very exaggerated patriarchal reading is that men are the extensions/representative of their family line, and the things they do, good or bad, reflect on more than just themselves. As well as inheriting their name, they will also inherit reputation, property and perhaps even titles. Using their surname (their 'father's name') reminds them of this weight, and also privilege, encouraging them to act more maturely.

Rather than diminishing their power, it instead represents that they are expected to effect change on the world around them, and their name will be attached to that, therefore implying (thus granting) more agency and power.



Whereas women just need to look pretty in a sitting room and won't ever be known outside their own home, let alone change or contribute to the wider world, so you can basically call them anything; and they only have their father's name until they are married, so what's the point in emphasising it?



In a nutshell: mens' names indicated representation, womens' names indicated ownership.



So a school that calls the girls by their surnames would possibly have more of an ethos of raising well rounded, educated, capable citizens of the world, rather than preparing, polishing, and baby-sitting obedient and inoffensive girls until they're married off.






share|improve this answer
























  • Very good answer. Although I thought "chuffed" must mean "insulted" or "annoyed" or something...

    – Shawn V. Wilson
    Dec 30 '18 at 6:54











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f478986%2fad-dress-ing-boys-and-girls-dif-fer-ently-in-vic-to-rian-english-schools%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









14














British schoolboys were traditionally addressed by their surnames (if two brothers attended the same school they would be 'Jones major' and 'Jones minor'). I went to a girls' school in the 1960s, but I attended some classes at a mixed school where boys were called by surnames and girls by their first names. I don't know if this custom is still observed; I guess probably not, and it's first names all round.



Jane Eyre evidently found it surprising that the girls at Lowood School were not called by their Christian names. I believe Charlotte Brontë based the school on one she attended in real life.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    It was certainly the practice in Victorian and Edwardian Britain to address women in a softer tone than men, and as you rightly say that was the custom in schools in our time (mine being the 1950s). At Wimbledon, women players are still addressed as Miss or Mrs by the umpires, whilst men simply receive surname treatment. Wimbledon has never recognised Ms as a form of address. Serena Williams, who is married, but hasn't taken her husband's surname is described as Mrs Williams. And in the 1970s, "Advantage Miss Goolagong" must have been enough to strike terror into any opponent.

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:20








  • 2





    However on becoming the first mother to win the Ladies singles, Yvonne was happy to accept "Game, set and match to Mrs Cawley".

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:31











  • I was "Harvey" at Alleyn's School in the 1960s. I sometimes got accused of not turning up for Dave Harvey's detentions if the awarding teacher's writing was poor. When I met my best pal's dad, it became clear that he thought Harvey was my first name.

    – Michael Harvey
    Dec 29 '18 at 13:09






  • 5





    There were twins in my form with the surname Hope. One was twenty minutes older than the other, and to begin with they were designated Hope major, and Hope minor. However, when it became clear to the form master that they had an older brother in the school, "major" became "minor" and "minor", initially became "minimus". However the last was subsequently changed to "tertius".

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 15:18











  • I was at a boys school so I don't know how girls were addressed, but in the 1960s it was still surname-only for boys. You didn't want people to know you had a first name, it was almost as embarrassing as admitting you had a mother. And of course adult men would also refer to each other by surname: "Smith" was less formal and more "familiar" than "Mr. Smith".

    – Michael Kay
    Dec 29 '18 at 17:12
















14














British schoolboys were traditionally addressed by their surnames (if two brothers attended the same school they would be 'Jones major' and 'Jones minor'). I went to a girls' school in the 1960s, but I attended some classes at a mixed school where boys were called by surnames and girls by their first names. I don't know if this custom is still observed; I guess probably not, and it's first names all round.



Jane Eyre evidently found it surprising that the girls at Lowood School were not called by their Christian names. I believe Charlotte Brontë based the school on one she attended in real life.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    It was certainly the practice in Victorian and Edwardian Britain to address women in a softer tone than men, and as you rightly say that was the custom in schools in our time (mine being the 1950s). At Wimbledon, women players are still addressed as Miss or Mrs by the umpires, whilst men simply receive surname treatment. Wimbledon has never recognised Ms as a form of address. Serena Williams, who is married, but hasn't taken her husband's surname is described as Mrs Williams. And in the 1970s, "Advantage Miss Goolagong" must have been enough to strike terror into any opponent.

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:20








  • 2





    However on becoming the first mother to win the Ladies singles, Yvonne was happy to accept "Game, set and match to Mrs Cawley".

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:31











  • I was "Harvey" at Alleyn's School in the 1960s. I sometimes got accused of not turning up for Dave Harvey's detentions if the awarding teacher's writing was poor. When I met my best pal's dad, it became clear that he thought Harvey was my first name.

    – Michael Harvey
    Dec 29 '18 at 13:09






  • 5





    There were twins in my form with the surname Hope. One was twenty minutes older than the other, and to begin with they were designated Hope major, and Hope minor. However, when it became clear to the form master that they had an older brother in the school, "major" became "minor" and "minor", initially became "minimus". However the last was subsequently changed to "tertius".

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 15:18











  • I was at a boys school so I don't know how girls were addressed, but in the 1960s it was still surname-only for boys. You didn't want people to know you had a first name, it was almost as embarrassing as admitting you had a mother. And of course adult men would also refer to each other by surname: "Smith" was less formal and more "familiar" than "Mr. Smith".

    – Michael Kay
    Dec 29 '18 at 17:12














14












14








14







British schoolboys were traditionally addressed by their surnames (if two brothers attended the same school they would be 'Jones major' and 'Jones minor'). I went to a girls' school in the 1960s, but I attended some classes at a mixed school where boys were called by surnames and girls by their first names. I don't know if this custom is still observed; I guess probably not, and it's first names all round.



Jane Eyre evidently found it surprising that the girls at Lowood School were not called by their Christian names. I believe Charlotte Brontë based the school on one she attended in real life.






share|improve this answer













British schoolboys were traditionally addressed by their surnames (if two brothers attended the same school they would be 'Jones major' and 'Jones minor'). I went to a girls' school in the 1960s, but I attended some classes at a mixed school where boys were called by surnames and girls by their first names. I don't know if this custom is still observed; I guess probably not, and it's first names all round.



Jane Eyre evidently found it surprising that the girls at Lowood School were not called by their Christian names. I believe Charlotte Brontë based the school on one she attended in real life.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Dec 29 '18 at 10:06









Kate BuntingKate Bunting

6,43031518




6,43031518








  • 1





    It was certainly the practice in Victorian and Edwardian Britain to address women in a softer tone than men, and as you rightly say that was the custom in schools in our time (mine being the 1950s). At Wimbledon, women players are still addressed as Miss or Mrs by the umpires, whilst men simply receive surname treatment. Wimbledon has never recognised Ms as a form of address. Serena Williams, who is married, but hasn't taken her husband's surname is described as Mrs Williams. And in the 1970s, "Advantage Miss Goolagong" must have been enough to strike terror into any opponent.

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:20








  • 2





    However on becoming the first mother to win the Ladies singles, Yvonne was happy to accept "Game, set and match to Mrs Cawley".

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:31











  • I was "Harvey" at Alleyn's School in the 1960s. I sometimes got accused of not turning up for Dave Harvey's detentions if the awarding teacher's writing was poor. When I met my best pal's dad, it became clear that he thought Harvey was my first name.

    – Michael Harvey
    Dec 29 '18 at 13:09






  • 5





    There were twins in my form with the surname Hope. One was twenty minutes older than the other, and to begin with they were designated Hope major, and Hope minor. However, when it became clear to the form master that they had an older brother in the school, "major" became "minor" and "minor", initially became "minimus". However the last was subsequently changed to "tertius".

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 15:18











  • I was at a boys school so I don't know how girls were addressed, but in the 1960s it was still surname-only for boys. You didn't want people to know you had a first name, it was almost as embarrassing as admitting you had a mother. And of course adult men would also refer to each other by surname: "Smith" was less formal and more "familiar" than "Mr. Smith".

    – Michael Kay
    Dec 29 '18 at 17:12














  • 1





    It was certainly the practice in Victorian and Edwardian Britain to address women in a softer tone than men, and as you rightly say that was the custom in schools in our time (mine being the 1950s). At Wimbledon, women players are still addressed as Miss or Mrs by the umpires, whilst men simply receive surname treatment. Wimbledon has never recognised Ms as a form of address. Serena Williams, who is married, but hasn't taken her husband's surname is described as Mrs Williams. And in the 1970s, "Advantage Miss Goolagong" must have been enough to strike terror into any opponent.

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:20








  • 2





    However on becoming the first mother to win the Ladies singles, Yvonne was happy to accept "Game, set and match to Mrs Cawley".

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:31











  • I was "Harvey" at Alleyn's School in the 1960s. I sometimes got accused of not turning up for Dave Harvey's detentions if the awarding teacher's writing was poor. When I met my best pal's dad, it became clear that he thought Harvey was my first name.

    – Michael Harvey
    Dec 29 '18 at 13:09






  • 5





    There were twins in my form with the surname Hope. One was twenty minutes older than the other, and to begin with they were designated Hope major, and Hope minor. However, when it became clear to the form master that they had an older brother in the school, "major" became "minor" and "minor", initially became "minimus". However the last was subsequently changed to "tertius".

    – WS2
    Dec 29 '18 at 15:18











  • I was at a boys school so I don't know how girls were addressed, but in the 1960s it was still surname-only for boys. You didn't want people to know you had a first name, it was almost as embarrassing as admitting you had a mother. And of course adult men would also refer to each other by surname: "Smith" was less formal and more "familiar" than "Mr. Smith".

    – Michael Kay
    Dec 29 '18 at 17:12








1




1





It was certainly the practice in Victorian and Edwardian Britain to address women in a softer tone than men, and as you rightly say that was the custom in schools in our time (mine being the 1950s). At Wimbledon, women players are still addressed as Miss or Mrs by the umpires, whilst men simply receive surname treatment. Wimbledon has never recognised Ms as a form of address. Serena Williams, who is married, but hasn't taken her husband's surname is described as Mrs Williams. And in the 1970s, "Advantage Miss Goolagong" must have been enough to strike terror into any opponent.

– WS2
Dec 29 '18 at 12:20







It was certainly the practice in Victorian and Edwardian Britain to address women in a softer tone than men, and as you rightly say that was the custom in schools in our time (mine being the 1950s). At Wimbledon, women players are still addressed as Miss or Mrs by the umpires, whilst men simply receive surname treatment. Wimbledon has never recognised Ms as a form of address. Serena Williams, who is married, but hasn't taken her husband's surname is described as Mrs Williams. And in the 1970s, "Advantage Miss Goolagong" must have been enough to strike terror into any opponent.

– WS2
Dec 29 '18 at 12:20






2




2





However on becoming the first mother to win the Ladies singles, Yvonne was happy to accept "Game, set and match to Mrs Cawley".

– WS2
Dec 29 '18 at 12:31





However on becoming the first mother to win the Ladies singles, Yvonne was happy to accept "Game, set and match to Mrs Cawley".

– WS2
Dec 29 '18 at 12:31













I was "Harvey" at Alleyn's School in the 1960s. I sometimes got accused of not turning up for Dave Harvey's detentions if the awarding teacher's writing was poor. When I met my best pal's dad, it became clear that he thought Harvey was my first name.

– Michael Harvey
Dec 29 '18 at 13:09





I was "Harvey" at Alleyn's School in the 1960s. I sometimes got accused of not turning up for Dave Harvey's detentions if the awarding teacher's writing was poor. When I met my best pal's dad, it became clear that he thought Harvey was my first name.

– Michael Harvey
Dec 29 '18 at 13:09




5




5





There were twins in my form with the surname Hope. One was twenty minutes older than the other, and to begin with they were designated Hope major, and Hope minor. However, when it became clear to the form master that they had an older brother in the school, "major" became "minor" and "minor", initially became "minimus". However the last was subsequently changed to "tertius".

– WS2
Dec 29 '18 at 15:18





There were twins in my form with the surname Hope. One was twenty minutes older than the other, and to begin with they were designated Hope major, and Hope minor. However, when it became clear to the form master that they had an older brother in the school, "major" became "minor" and "minor", initially became "minimus". However the last was subsequently changed to "tertius".

– WS2
Dec 29 '18 at 15:18













I was at a boys school so I don't know how girls were addressed, but in the 1960s it was still surname-only for boys. You didn't want people to know you had a first name, it was almost as embarrassing as admitting you had a mother. And of course adult men would also refer to each other by surname: "Smith" was less formal and more "familiar" than "Mr. Smith".

– Michael Kay
Dec 29 '18 at 17:12





I was at a boys school so I don't know how girls were addressed, but in the 1960s it was still surname-only for boys. You didn't want people to know you had a first name, it was almost as embarrassing as admitting you had a mother. And of course adult men would also refer to each other by surname: "Smith" was less formal and more "familiar" than "Mr. Smith".

– Michael Kay
Dec 29 '18 at 17:12













3














(Disclaimer - There are already some great answers and I know my answer is anecdotal and therefore low quality, but I think it has some information and context to impart that many native british-english speakers would take for granted and therefore not think to explain)



Just adding my two cents: This is the norm in Australia too. Although in public schools (government - not private) boys and girls are called by their first names, boys and men are still often referred too by their surnames, especially in sports, or male-heavy activities/locations such as at the pub. It's kind of a 'blokey', camaraderie-inducing thing to do - funnily enough, since you might think it would be more formal, and therefore impersonal and distancing but it is in fact the opposite. It doesn't depersonalise because it's essentially a practical thing: in a class with 15 students named John, calling them by their last name actually individualises them.



(I can imagine there are some female sports coaches that also refer to players by surname, but outside of sport it is practically unheard of. It wouldn't be insulting, necessarily, just very jarring and unexpected (and in the case of a common surname, it would not even cross a woman's mind that she was being referred to / addressed))



In fact I was very chuffed, and really felt 'part of the team' when my first boss (quite a blokey, sports-loving guy) called me by my surname, like he did all the other employees (who were all men). I work in a male dominated field (computing) and am a woman, and this (calling the men by their surname but not the women) is the kind of subtle thing, often stemming from nothing but politeness, that can make you feel like an outsider. So I was very pleased and smiled inwardly every time he used my surname. It has never happened again before or since, in my life - professionally or personally.



A very exaggerated patriarchal reading is that men are the extensions/representative of their family line, and the things they do, good or bad, reflect on more than just themselves. As well as inheriting their name, they will also inherit reputation, property and perhaps even titles. Using their surname (their 'father's name') reminds them of this weight, and also privilege, encouraging them to act more maturely.

Rather than diminishing their power, it instead represents that they are expected to effect change on the world around them, and their name will be attached to that, therefore implying (thus granting) more agency and power.



Whereas women just need to look pretty in a sitting room and won't ever be known outside their own home, let alone change or contribute to the wider world, so you can basically call them anything; and they only have their father's name until they are married, so what's the point in emphasising it?



In a nutshell: mens' names indicated representation, womens' names indicated ownership.



So a school that calls the girls by their surnames would possibly have more of an ethos of raising well rounded, educated, capable citizens of the world, rather than preparing, polishing, and baby-sitting obedient and inoffensive girls until they're married off.






share|improve this answer
























  • Very good answer. Although I thought "chuffed" must mean "insulted" or "annoyed" or something...

    – Shawn V. Wilson
    Dec 30 '18 at 6:54
















3














(Disclaimer - There are already some great answers and I know my answer is anecdotal and therefore low quality, but I think it has some information and context to impart that many native british-english speakers would take for granted and therefore not think to explain)



Just adding my two cents: This is the norm in Australia too. Although in public schools (government - not private) boys and girls are called by their first names, boys and men are still often referred too by their surnames, especially in sports, or male-heavy activities/locations such as at the pub. It's kind of a 'blokey', camaraderie-inducing thing to do - funnily enough, since you might think it would be more formal, and therefore impersonal and distancing but it is in fact the opposite. It doesn't depersonalise because it's essentially a practical thing: in a class with 15 students named John, calling them by their last name actually individualises them.



(I can imagine there are some female sports coaches that also refer to players by surname, but outside of sport it is practically unheard of. It wouldn't be insulting, necessarily, just very jarring and unexpected (and in the case of a common surname, it would not even cross a woman's mind that she was being referred to / addressed))



In fact I was very chuffed, and really felt 'part of the team' when my first boss (quite a blokey, sports-loving guy) called me by my surname, like he did all the other employees (who were all men). I work in a male dominated field (computing) and am a woman, and this (calling the men by their surname but not the women) is the kind of subtle thing, often stemming from nothing but politeness, that can make you feel like an outsider. So I was very pleased and smiled inwardly every time he used my surname. It has never happened again before or since, in my life - professionally or personally.



A very exaggerated patriarchal reading is that men are the extensions/representative of their family line, and the things they do, good or bad, reflect on more than just themselves. As well as inheriting their name, they will also inherit reputation, property and perhaps even titles. Using their surname (their 'father's name') reminds them of this weight, and also privilege, encouraging them to act more maturely.

Rather than diminishing their power, it instead represents that they are expected to effect change on the world around them, and their name will be attached to that, therefore implying (thus granting) more agency and power.



Whereas women just need to look pretty in a sitting room and won't ever be known outside their own home, let alone change or contribute to the wider world, so you can basically call them anything; and they only have their father's name until they are married, so what's the point in emphasising it?



In a nutshell: mens' names indicated representation, womens' names indicated ownership.



So a school that calls the girls by their surnames would possibly have more of an ethos of raising well rounded, educated, capable citizens of the world, rather than preparing, polishing, and baby-sitting obedient and inoffensive girls until they're married off.






share|improve this answer
























  • Very good answer. Although I thought "chuffed" must mean "insulted" or "annoyed" or something...

    – Shawn V. Wilson
    Dec 30 '18 at 6:54














3












3








3







(Disclaimer - There are already some great answers and I know my answer is anecdotal and therefore low quality, but I think it has some information and context to impart that many native british-english speakers would take for granted and therefore not think to explain)



Just adding my two cents: This is the norm in Australia too. Although in public schools (government - not private) boys and girls are called by their first names, boys and men are still often referred too by their surnames, especially in sports, or male-heavy activities/locations such as at the pub. It's kind of a 'blokey', camaraderie-inducing thing to do - funnily enough, since you might think it would be more formal, and therefore impersonal and distancing but it is in fact the opposite. It doesn't depersonalise because it's essentially a practical thing: in a class with 15 students named John, calling them by their last name actually individualises them.



(I can imagine there are some female sports coaches that also refer to players by surname, but outside of sport it is practically unheard of. It wouldn't be insulting, necessarily, just very jarring and unexpected (and in the case of a common surname, it would not even cross a woman's mind that she was being referred to / addressed))



In fact I was very chuffed, and really felt 'part of the team' when my first boss (quite a blokey, sports-loving guy) called me by my surname, like he did all the other employees (who were all men). I work in a male dominated field (computing) and am a woman, and this (calling the men by their surname but not the women) is the kind of subtle thing, often stemming from nothing but politeness, that can make you feel like an outsider. So I was very pleased and smiled inwardly every time he used my surname. It has never happened again before or since, in my life - professionally or personally.



A very exaggerated patriarchal reading is that men are the extensions/representative of their family line, and the things they do, good or bad, reflect on more than just themselves. As well as inheriting their name, they will also inherit reputation, property and perhaps even titles. Using their surname (their 'father's name') reminds them of this weight, and also privilege, encouraging them to act more maturely.

Rather than diminishing their power, it instead represents that they are expected to effect change on the world around them, and their name will be attached to that, therefore implying (thus granting) more agency and power.



Whereas women just need to look pretty in a sitting room and won't ever be known outside their own home, let alone change or contribute to the wider world, so you can basically call them anything; and they only have their father's name until they are married, so what's the point in emphasising it?



In a nutshell: mens' names indicated representation, womens' names indicated ownership.



So a school that calls the girls by their surnames would possibly have more of an ethos of raising well rounded, educated, capable citizens of the world, rather than preparing, polishing, and baby-sitting obedient and inoffensive girls until they're married off.






share|improve this answer













(Disclaimer - There are already some great answers and I know my answer is anecdotal and therefore low quality, but I think it has some information and context to impart that many native british-english speakers would take for granted and therefore not think to explain)



Just adding my two cents: This is the norm in Australia too. Although in public schools (government - not private) boys and girls are called by their first names, boys and men are still often referred too by their surnames, especially in sports, or male-heavy activities/locations such as at the pub. It's kind of a 'blokey', camaraderie-inducing thing to do - funnily enough, since you might think it would be more formal, and therefore impersonal and distancing but it is in fact the opposite. It doesn't depersonalise because it's essentially a practical thing: in a class with 15 students named John, calling them by their last name actually individualises them.



(I can imagine there are some female sports coaches that also refer to players by surname, but outside of sport it is practically unheard of. It wouldn't be insulting, necessarily, just very jarring and unexpected (and in the case of a common surname, it would not even cross a woman's mind that she was being referred to / addressed))



In fact I was very chuffed, and really felt 'part of the team' when my first boss (quite a blokey, sports-loving guy) called me by my surname, like he did all the other employees (who were all men). I work in a male dominated field (computing) and am a woman, and this (calling the men by their surname but not the women) is the kind of subtle thing, often stemming from nothing but politeness, that can make you feel like an outsider. So I was very pleased and smiled inwardly every time he used my surname. It has never happened again before or since, in my life - professionally or personally.



A very exaggerated patriarchal reading is that men are the extensions/representative of their family line, and the things they do, good or bad, reflect on more than just themselves. As well as inheriting their name, they will also inherit reputation, property and perhaps even titles. Using their surname (their 'father's name') reminds them of this weight, and also privilege, encouraging them to act more maturely.

Rather than diminishing their power, it instead represents that they are expected to effect change on the world around them, and their name will be attached to that, therefore implying (thus granting) more agency and power.



Whereas women just need to look pretty in a sitting room and won't ever be known outside their own home, let alone change or contribute to the wider world, so you can basically call them anything; and they only have their father's name until they are married, so what's the point in emphasising it?



In a nutshell: mens' names indicated representation, womens' names indicated ownership.



So a school that calls the girls by their surnames would possibly have more of an ethos of raising well rounded, educated, capable citizens of the world, rather than preparing, polishing, and baby-sitting obedient and inoffensive girls until they're married off.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Dec 30 '18 at 0:19









EscoEsco

68146




68146













  • Very good answer. Although I thought "chuffed" must mean "insulted" or "annoyed" or something...

    – Shawn V. Wilson
    Dec 30 '18 at 6:54



















  • Very good answer. Although I thought "chuffed" must mean "insulted" or "annoyed" or something...

    – Shawn V. Wilson
    Dec 30 '18 at 6:54

















Very good answer. Although I thought "chuffed" must mean "insulted" or "annoyed" or something...

– Shawn V. Wilson
Dec 30 '18 at 6:54





Very good answer. Although I thought "chuffed" must mean "insulted" or "annoyed" or something...

– Shawn V. Wilson
Dec 30 '18 at 6:54


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f478986%2fad-dress-ing-boys-and-girls-dif-fer-ently-in-vic-to-rian-english-schools%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Wiesbaden

Marschland

Dieringhausen