Americans have so many problems with honorifics. Back in the 70's, women had to get very firm in order to get acceptance for the term "Ms." Prior to the use of "Ms." a woman's marital status was automatically designated when an honorific was placed in front of her name. A man, of course, kept his marital status confidential because he was always called "Mr."

To this day, there are people who say "Miss" and "Mrs." but very few. There is an etiquette issue here, too, as well as a feminist one. For example, if your name is Mary and you are married to Ronald Jones, you cannot be Mrs. Mary Jones; you are Mrs. Ronald Jones (are there still women who have made themselves disappear altogether by having no name at all?). So the term "Ms." was needed for social as well as political reasons.

The U.S. Senate rollcall takes a particularly sexist angle with regard to honorifics. The only women who are referred to as "Ms." are the ones who are unmarried or have kept their family names. By calling them "Ms." and the others "Mrs.", the Senate is, in effect, practicing the same gender discrimination that was practiced with the use of "Miss" and "Mrs." but with a slight twist. I have no idea why this occurs, and even less idea why the women in the Senate put up with it. It is offensive.

Americans have the same problem with "Reverend," which is not an honorific at all. It is a title. We would not call Sandra Day O'Connor "Honorable O'Connor." She is Justice O'Connor. "The Honorable" is her title; "Justice" is her honorific. So it is Mr. Jesse Jackson and Mr. Al Sharpton. Interestingly, neither of these gentlemen ever corrects the news media for misusing his title. It is no surprise, however, that the news media always uses the title incorrectly.