Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be proud of being and wife and to want to be acknowledged as such?

945 replies

WriterofDreams · 01/02/2011 12:41

I've read quite a few posts on MN from people who are annoyed, and quite rightly so, at being called "Mrs" when they're actually a Ms or Dr or some other title. I've actually found I have the opposite problem, where companies send me correspondence with the title "Ms" even though I put Mrs on any forms or letters I send. It also quite annoys me when I introduce my DH as my husband and people persist in calling him my partner. I chose to get married and being a wife is an important part of my identity that I would like to have acknowledged. I like being "Mrs DH's name" although I do draw the line at being called "Mrs Dh's first name Dh's second name," as I haven't actually changed my first name at all.

AIBU to expect companies and professionals to use the title I've actually selected rather than the PC catch-all one?

OP posts:
JaneS · 02/02/2011 17:24

LeQueen - it's way back in the thread now, but very nice that we were agreeing! Smile

marantha, don't you think the phrase 'your failure to marry' is a bit rude?!

Dominatrix · 02/02/2011 17:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

fotheringhay · 02/02/2011 17:26

OP- sorry I think I jumped the gun earlier, I think YANBU to expect a company to use the title you gave them when they ask. Like someone else said, it makes you wonder what else they might ignore/get wrong.

Still see no problem with Ms until they know, or the point of titles at all, really.

Another thought, wouldn't it be good if there was an easy legal arrangement that cohabiting couples could make that covers property and children, etc, if they split up?

I think there's room for this as well as full-on marriage (but I suspect others might not).

marantha · 02/02/2011 17:27

LittleRedDragon OK, then decision not to marry.

marantha · 02/02/2011 17:29

fotheringhay but there is such a legal arrangement, it's called 'marriage'. Why reinvent the wheel?
Marriage is only really a legal arrangement. Everything else is what people attach to it (nothing wrong with attaching other things to it all the same).

Dominatrix · 02/02/2011 17:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

usualsuspect · 02/02/2011 17:36

Well I will stick to my no commitment relationship of 33 years thanks all the same

usualsuspect · 02/02/2011 17:38

oh and both my dps parents are dead so unless the drs use a medium no chance of them being next of kin

rolandweary · 02/02/2011 17:38

I think many long-term cohabitees would like there to be a new, modern form of legal contract which would confer the rights and recognition of marriage but without the baggage of oppression, ownership and the submersion of the woman's identity that marriage carries with it and has done for centuries

is that so difficult to understand?

Dominatrix · 02/02/2011 17:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JaneS · 02/02/2011 17:40

Dominatrix, you come across as rather sheltered - are you very young?

Most people do realize that marriage has legal ramifications. Some don't. That's very foolish. But it's absurd to imagine (as you seem to) that unmarried couples spend all their time 'banging on' about their relationships and never understand their legal situation.

Your way of describing them - 'they should shut the fuck up' is really disturbing. Why are you so offended by a group of people, the vast majority of whom you've never met?

Incidentally, it's perfectly possible for the woman to be the partner who loses out as a result of being married when a relationship breaks down. If DH and I divorced and disagreed about what should happen to our money, I'd end up worse off than if we we weren't married.

Do you conclude then that it was stupid of me to marry?

QuickLookBusy · 02/02/2011 17:40

Agree with last few posts Dominatrix, but the posters who disagree with being a Mrs will ignore you, because you are right.

Dominatrix · 02/02/2011 17:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Catnao · 02/02/2011 17:40

I don't want to get married. We have sorted our legal position so that we DO have the same rights re our child etc.

The only thing that depresses me is when I am in town and get charity mugged or energy company mugged. When I was younger they used to say "Miss who?" automatically. Now they always ask "Miss/Mrs/Ms". So now I know I am old, despite what I tell myself.

marantha · 02/02/2011 17:41

usualsuspect. I wouldn't say that a 33 year old relationship lacked committment, I would say that you are legally just sharing a home with your partner and just being in a relationship without marriage means nothing in the eyes of the law. (Of course, any explicit plans you've drawn up between you legally will hold sway e.g explicitly laid out joint mortgage)
I think what I say here is reasonable and not meant to offend.

fotheringhay · 02/02/2011 17:42

(I said nothing about being oppressed/piece of paper)

The fact is that many people don't want to get married because of the meaning that has been attached to it, but they might like to make a legal arrangement that's presented as just a practical thing.

It would protect them and their children, but it would have to be seen in a "no frills" way for it to be appealing.

Oh I've just seem that rolandweary said the same thing. Ignore this then!

usualsuspect · 02/02/2011 17:43

Meaningless? what utter bollocks you talk

I'm not defined by my fucking relationship

fotheringhay · 02/02/2011 17:44

I don't mean like Tesco value no frills, I mean matter of fact iyswim.

Dominatrix · 02/02/2011 17:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

marantha · 02/02/2011 17:48

Your relationship is meaningless in the eyes of the law, usualsuspect, that's not a value judgement, that's the way it is.
And why shouldn't it be? I wouldn't want the law telling Me I was somehow married because I lived with someone.

JaneS · 02/02/2011 17:48

Yes, you did sound rather scarily angry, Dominatrix. I really doubt most women are doing anything 'blindly' and it is rude of you to assume they're automatically less intelligent than you just because you disagree.

If DH and I divorced, I'd be worse off. So (atm), it is not a positive thing (in the rather selfish sense) for me to be married. By your logic, that seems to be all that matters, so do you think I should have told DH we weren't getting married in case he then divorced me and ran off with half my stuff?

marantha · 02/02/2011 17:52

fotheringhay, but there is a readily available legal arrangment for people to formalise their relationship now i.e. marriage.
Nobody seriously thinks that love and marriage automatically go hand in hand and that cohabitees don't love one another, everybody accepts that it is possible to have children in a loving relationship in or out of marriage, marriage really has one function -to legally tie a couple together.
And as for 'no frills', a couple can get married in register office for &103.50 in their jeans. Don't even need a wedding ring.

usualsuspect · 02/02/2011 17:54

marantha I can see where you are coming from,and agree with your last post

Ripeberry · 02/02/2011 17:54

Dominatrix is the only one who talks sense. By co-habiting we women are the ones who lose out in the end.
But then why should they be tied down to a piece of paper? They don't need the big white wedding...only a bit of paper to legaly protect themselves and their children.
Think about it, what would happen if your partner left all of a sudden or even died?
Unless you are named on the deeds of the house you are out on your ear!

usualsuspect · 02/02/2011 17:55

last but one post Grin

Swipe left for the next trending thread