AIBU to be mildy annoyed at all the christmas cards addressed to Mr and Mrs DHName?

I get Mr and Mrs dpsurname and I am not even married to him!! (and he's a Dr and so am I anyway...!) Still think the funniest was years ago when fil was introducing us all to the family and went this is 'bils financee X', this is 'sils finance Y' and this is (looong pause whilst he struggled to think of something) 'dp's friend' ;)

I got a bit bored with reading ALL the threads and apologise in advance if this has been covered in a posting ive omitted.

It is 'the old fashioned way' to put Mr & Mrs DHname or initial Smith/Whatever.

It is something that was ingrained in the generation above me (now in their 80's).

Bottom line really is .......... whats in a name? Me? I only use my surname (oh no that should be MY EX's SURNAME cos I kept his surname as well as his kids and the house when he left) when necessary. The rest of the time I dont use any surname.

What used to be my bugbear was being called DC1/2/3/4's mother ............. grrrrrr!! I do have a christian name and wanted to be known as a person in my own right.

As for addressing people as Mr & Mrs ***; and not as two different individuals ... it takes up too much space and im too lazy. Dont like it, tough. Break up a friendship cos of it ........ no loss ..... you prob werent much of a friend anyway if this is all your problem is.

Yes, it can be about that, too.

I'm sorry; but as a matter of fact marriage most definitely is sexist and patriarchal.
If it were just a case of a man and woman pledging their love in front of witnesses only, maybe not. But it involves a lot more than that. For example, denial of certain benefits and privileges that single people have are denied to the married.
The fact that a woman (and men) can claim half a person's property even if not contributed a single penny in event of divorce-usually in recognition of a wife's unpaid work of childcare.
I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing; not at all. Just the way that it is.
Marriage is inherently patriarchal. It was designed to be that way.
To look after the 'little woman' if husband ran off with someone else.

I fine it hugely irritating after 10 years marriage but don't say anything because I don't think it's worth jeopardizing friendships over. It ie even more annoying when it's my birthday and it is only me on the card and they still use the wrong name.

My mum is the odd one, she has sais to me that if she had her time again she wouldn't have changed her surname on marriage, yet instead of writing on a card myfirstname mysurname and dhfirstname dhsurname she writes myfirstname and dhfirstname dhsurname.

I am also puzzled by the amount of my friends who when signing their cards put their DH's first name before theirs, even when they are the primary friend. Is this the default? It would never even occur to me to not put my name first unless it was to a relative or old pre-me friend of DH. I do all our cards because DH has illegible handwriting BTW.

What a bizarre argument marantha.

I got married because I wanted to make a public and legal promise to spend the rest of my life with my DH, and have him promise the same to me back.

I don't see why that is sexist or patriarchal. Yes, historically marriage may have had sexist effects but that is no longer necessarily the case.

Yes, I had a white wedding with many of the trimmings. I didn't change my name. I don't see why this is inconsistent at all. We chose the traditions that we wanted. Name changing was not one of them.

Yes, I picked and chose the "best bits" as you say. What on earth is wrong with that?

Marantha - I don't think it is a reasonable assumption. As i said, only 1 out of the 3 couples I know who got married this year did change their surname.

The tradition of marriage is in many ways patriarchal I agree. However, there are still financial incentives to do so and the romantic in me sees the nicer elements of equal union. I don't see why I should give that up to avoid being erased puiblicly, men don't have to. What is the problem? Why the resistance to equality here?

For me it's not an objection to having his surname. It's when I'm addressed as Mrs [his initial and surname]. It's as ridiculous as the title 'Princess Michael of Kent'. I just hate it.

It is simple, it is rude to address someone incorrectly.

Just rude.

I can't stand it.

that is a fair point, marantha. The whole institution is sexist to start with. However, many women feel that marriage has changed these days, and it is no longer about owning a wife and having sexual rights over her, etc. Perhaps the feeling is that this issue of titles is another hurdle to be overcome to make marriage more equal.

I am married, and there are indeed practical, legal reasons that contributed to my decision. As you have said elsewhere on the thread it makes a lot of sense with regard to legal rights. However, I don't feel that in today's world women are fenced in by marriage. I think instead that a lot of women go along with marriage because they fall in love with the idea of it, love, the romance, the happy white bride, etc. They don't think about all the implications and don't consider that they might be known as Mrs DHName DHSurname until after the event.

What I really do not get is this: why women who object so strongly to being called husband's name get married in first place.
I mean, why?? Marriage IS essentially a patriarchal institution to legally protect (and, on the flip side, fence them in) women in event of spouse abandoning them ie. a wife can stand up and say, 'He made a promise to support me, here's the certificate of marriage'.
So getting upset about a perceived bit of sexist patriarchy regarding the institution of marriage makes no sense to me when the WHOLE institution is patriarchal and sexist in first place!

Apols for typos. On phone and not easy to type well.

If I got married, and it's unlikely, it would still drive me mad to be addressed as his initial and name (or even hisname). Me being married to a man does not indicate that his identity is any more important than mine. It would have done in years ago but I thought we had moved on from women being seen as lesser beings who don't merit their own title on correspondence now.

It may not be seen as a big deal by some because it is challenging to question centuries old tradition and practice. It is easier to go with the flow. But when I see people arguing in favour of women being referred to as Mr Hisinitial Hissurname it makes me more determined to fight for feminism than ever.

I would also say that it is likely that a lot of women who object so strongly to this did the white wedding thing and all its accompaniments, talk about having one's cake and eating it . Perhaps this is why people still insist on calling Hubby's name even if told otherwise.
They get peed off that, for the female spouse, feminism seems to be a matter of picking and choosing the 'best bits'.

Perhaps people could understand it more and be more amenable to the wife's request to be addressed in birth name if couple had a utilitarian basic service in a register office with no frills.

JessinAvalon, If I were cohabiting it WOULD pee me off immensely to be addressed as 'Mrs'.
How dare someone just assume that I was 'in it for life' (I might be but it's not the point) just because I was living with someone.
Marriage is different, though, as the couple have made an explicit statement that they are (in it for life)so if someone calls me 'Mrs husband's-first-name-surname' if married fairy nuff I say.

msrissotto, As a rule, the vast majority of women take their husband's name.
I understand that professional women will perhaps keep their 'working' name, but I regard making a fuss about being called 'Mrs-husband's-first-name-surname' as really OTT if not in professional setting.
I mean, who gives a ? Big bloody deal.
Someone assumes because you're married you've got your husband's name. Reasonable assumption.

It would drive me mad. To me, it assumes his identity is more important that his wife's/partner's. It's an old tradition and one that is becoming less common amongst my peers. I never assume that a friend has taken her husband's name upon marriage now.

And even if they had, to address someone as 'Mr and Mrs hisinitial hisname' is just so 1950's. It may be a small thing but it still indicates women's relative position to men in the world still - not even equal enough to warrant her own title on an envelope.

I loathe the practice and feel particularly wound up when his mother addresses cards to us like this. I feel like I've completely disappeared.

I have taken my husband's surname and I still don't like being called Mrs DH first name, our surname. I feel I gave up enough when I took his surname name. I want to keep my first name!!! I've noticed its only relatives aged 60+ that do this. My friends address me as my first name and my surname or "surname family".

I find it a huge relief. If they didn't, DH and I would have far less money. If they were letting any old person take money out of our account then we might start to worry...

TBH, I never took the cheques in - never occured to me for a second they would pay it in as, after all, it wasn't the name on the account.

Actually, I find that a bit worrying that bank staff will pay any old thing in!

In the interests of the environment, just don't send any cards at all, and this will solve the problem. I either email friends and relatives or ring them up to wish them a happy christmas, etc. More personal to actually speak to them anyway, and email can be addressed to Sue and Tom or whatever as opposed to Mr/Mrs/Ms Smith.

Funny - DH and I get all kinds of cheques paid to us under all sorts of variants of our single/married names (we are both double barrelled and I never took his name), and it has never been a problem. Maybe you need to switch banks.

I would not waste a single second on worrying about the name on a Christmas card enevelope. DH and I are addressed as Mr and Mrs DHname, Mr and MrsMyname, Dr and Dr Mixednames. Our names also lend themselves to mis-spellings. So what?

this is my first married christmas and although i've not changed my name the mr&mrs dhname cards do not bother me at all.

i consider mrs dhname to be a title, not 'my name' as it were but a label i wear a bit like 'sister' or 'aunt' or 'daughter'.

It's more old fashioned in Scotland to keep your own surname, women here traditionally didn't change theirs on marriage because kinship networks were so important.

Some of the people who send cards to Mr and Mrs DHInitial DH surname (grr. DH initial particularly irritates me and would do even if i had taken his surname) have actually written me cheques before which I have had to return as 'Beveridge DH surname' is not the name of my account. I thought this might have made it more memorable....