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

[WriterofDreams]

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?

Most women would be better protected if they were married (just a legal fact) so I don't get how that makes them oppressed. It seems to me that it's the men that escape opression by not getting married.

I get why you are proud but IMO its buying into a system that has subjugated women for generations upon generations. When I get married I am going to keep my surname as well as taking my husbands to ensure I do not lose the identity I had before marraige. My children will also take my surname as well as thier fathers. Why is my name any less important. IMO women who place so much value in the "status" that comes with marraige have been indoctrinated into archaiac beliefs that we should be working to free ourselves from. My husbnd agrees with this as do many of my male friends. A name is a big part of someones identity and I will include my husband into mine but will not loose sight of the identity I had before him. Tht is also the reason my children will have both surnames, so both sides of the family are recognized as important, especially culturally in my case.

Why assume the house is always in the mans name?

usual - quite.

But then, Ripeberry seems to think that 'we women' don't really go in for any of that earning money, owning property nonsense.

LDN that is so right. I don't think I could ever feel good about assuming anothers name like that and leaving the old me nowhere.I have both my parents names and my ds has both of ours.It just feels right.

This is fascinating, my sister is ferociously anti-marriage, which I've not ever really understood, but clearly she shares many of your views. At work I disliked being labelled, and feel my marital status is irrelevant to my professional role, as is my ethnic origin ( which is a whole new area to discuss.) Unfortunately neither University or the Nursing and Midwifery council will 'process' you without being able to alot you to the correct ethnicity, (I never tried arguing about my marital status !) Despite my strong views I am very happy to be Mrs Breezey, and was very happy to leave behind my previous rather unfortunate last name

If you want it to be genuinely fair LDNmummy your dh should take your surname as well as his own

and the point about registry office weddings being "no frills" is wilfully obtuse IMO. It's the institution of marriage itself which is loaded with negativity for women. Not the cake/flowers/meringue

It is eawy to make all the legal arrangements necessary to protect both partners and tehir children without getting married. It is a complete myth that the only way to ensure your rights on death or divorce is marriage.

Anyone, regardless of marital status, who has not made proper provision for their and the children's future is playing russian roulette anyway.

I'm not anti marriage ..Its just not my choice.

Dominatrix. I can believe they can be so reckless. People live with each other to see how things go and before they know it, they've bought a sofa, then they vaguely discuss having children and before they know it, they've been together for 20 years with 3 children.
Not a judgement, just human nature. We slide into things without thinking the whole picture through. This is why I think cohabitation without firm commitment/marriage is sometimes a rubbish idea- nothing to do with morality or religion, just a recognition that as humans we slide into things.

rolandweary. Marriage is a legal arrangement; what people associate with it is in their heads only.

But, Dominatrix, a lot of unmarried women do know their rights. And a lot of married women are stupid or ignorant about their rights.

What is odd is that you're so worked up about it, and that you constantly assume that women don't earn their own money or buy their own houses.

Thinking about my co-habiting friends, I only know one couple where the woman earns less than the man (and the house is in both their names). Of the married couples, most of the women earn less than the men. So, in my experience, women are quite savvy about these things.

It is incredibly patronizing to assume that marriage is automatically advantageous for women.

claptrap marantha

marriage is a socio-legal institution with a long history which has its roots firmly in patriarchy. Its conventions and culture have been almost entirely negative for and demeaning to women. It was originally a transfer of ownership between one man and another, culturally it retains that character and many modern women understandably want nothing to do with it.

Telling people (even in bold lettering) that it is all in their heads is no way forward.

Rubbish. How is marriage advantageous for someone like me? The savings were all mine; I pay for most things; I earn slightly more.

Lots of women are like me. How is it financially good for me to be married?

rolandweary I respectfully suggest that your views are claptrap, not mine.
Look at it this way; women are still partnering up with men and having their babies married or not? Agree?
You know I will bet that a lot of these women who eschew marriage are still doing all the things associated with it-giving up work to be sahp. They may as well be married, and get some benefits.
It's a bit pathetic for a woman to say how patriarchal marriage is if she's relying on a man's wage to support her.

As for the patriarchy argument, I shall say this: marriage is designed to protect needs of women who give up work to nurture children and rely on man for money so it is in fact feminist in this respect.

or maybe they don't feel valid without the label

Saying 'on average' is very different from what you said before, and I think that's important.

I don't especially care for my automatic rights and neither does DH, they're not why we got married. But I am very proud that I am married, and I think it's really unpleasant to suggest that the best reason for being proud of marriage is that you've got yourself in a nice, legally protected situation!

that last post is so twisted and nonsensical it's difficult to formulate an answer to it

are you really suggesting some sort of double-bluff scenario in which women who are "secure" in their identities as independent women should buy into something they find culturally and socially repugnant, just to show that they aren't fazed by it?

Last time I checked, standing by one's principles wasn't a sign of insecurity

The answer to this is a new, modern form of couple contract which recognises the genders equally and has none of the negative history and associations of marriage. One system, for all couples who want their relationships recognised by the law, regardless of gender or sexuality.

Telling women they are fools for not sucking up an unsatisfactory system just because it's all there is - defeatist, obtuse and bizarre.

I imagine that a lot of women who say how patriarchal marriage is, are -or will be-relying on their partner's wage for a period. Sorry, but I cannot take them seriously as regards the patriarchal thing.
If they're wholly independent women, then fair enough.