What Does ‘Ms.’ Abbreviate?

When we look carefully at the English language’s standard honorifics, a curious asymmetry presents itself. “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” and “Miss” all have reasonably straightforward etymological explanations based on the words they abbreviate. But what about “Ms.”? This honorific is something of an outlier, less common than its linguistic cousins and subject to more debate in many style guides. The King’s English Society went so far as to criticize “Ms.” as a “linguistic misfit” and “an abbreviation that is not short for anything.” This criticism is, in one sense, entirely correct — and in another sense, a little unfair. Here’s the full story of “Ms.” and how it earned its place in the English language.

The more standard English titles come from the same small family of words. We can start with Mr., an alteration of “Master,” which was a title of genuine authority, often indicating a man who had mastered a trade, commanded a household, or held social rank. Since the 17th century, it has been the customary prefix to the name of any man below the rank of knight. Over time, its use as an honorific broadened and softened, with “Mister” becoming the default polite address for any adult man — and “Mr.” being adopted as its common abbreviated spelling. 

Mrs., meanwhile, is short for “Mistress” — it originally carried no implication of marriage whatsoever. In Shakespeare’s time, for example, “Mistress” was commonly used for businesswomen and women of authority, more akin to a direct female counterpart of “Master.” “Miss” is also an abbreviation of “Mistress.” By the 19th century, both feminine titles had come to be associated with marital status, “Mrs.” for married women and “Miss” for unmarried women — a narrowing that largely stripped the title of “Mistress” of its original sense of authority and replaced it with a declaration (in honorific form) about a woman’s relationship to a man.

So, what about “Ms.”? Perhaps the most honest answer to the question “What does ‘Ms.’ abbreviate?” is: nothing. “Ms” (without the dot) was sometimes, but not often, used as an abbreviation of “Mistress” as far back as the 17th century — but it wasn’t the same as the honorific “Ms.” we use today, which is not an abbreviation in the same way that “Mr.” abbreviates “Mister.”

An early reference to the modern use of “Ms.” appeared in the Springfield Sunday Republican in Massachusetts in 1901. Here, an unnamed writer highlighted the “void in the English language” created by the new use of “Mrs.” and “Miss” to indicate a woman’s marital status. The writer argued that this usage left no honorific available to refer to a woman whose marital status was unknown to the speaker. This was simply impractical and could lead to an embarrassing social situation. 

What was needed, the writer proposed, was “a more comprehensive term which does homage to the sex without expressing any views as to their domestic situation.” Their solution was “Ms.” (pronounced “Mizz”) — a combination of “Miss” and “Mrs.,” not as an abbreviation but rather as a hybrid. It was simple, easy to write, and provided an option when a woman’s marital status was unknown.

It was a strong argument for “Ms.,” but the idea lay largely dormant, save for a few murmurings, until the early 1960s. Then came a turning point. While collecting her mail, feminist Sheila Michaels noticed a left-wing magazine addressed to her roommate as “Ms. Mary Hamilton.” It was a eureka moment — she had finally found an honorific that could be used for a woman who, as she put it, “did not ‘belong’ to a man.” 

In 1969, Michaels brought up “Ms.” during a conversation about feminism on New York radio station WBAI. People took note of the idea, and within a year “Ms.” had become something of a feminist catchword — or at least the honorific equivalent of one. Then, in 1972, the feminist magazine Ms. — its name inspired by the Sheila Michaels interview — debuted on newsstands. The magazine gained a lot of publicity, helping to popularize “Ms.,” at least in certain circles. 

By 1986, the title had gained enough traction to be formally adopted by The New York Times. When it first appeared on the paper’s front page, an editor’s note explained: “Until now ‘Ms’ had not been used because of the belief that it had not passed sufficiently into the language to be accepted as common usage. The Times now believe [sic] that ‘Ms’ has become part of the language and is changing its policy.” 

After decades in the linguistic wilderness, “Ms.” had finally gained mainstream acceptance. And while technically it doesn’t abbreviate anything, it’s a very practical solution to an otherwise messy linguistic problem.