Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
scottishmummy · 03/02/2011 10:15

as i said nok has no legal standing.can chose whomever you wish as nok. obviously it helps if they have capacity and are responsible,and can articulate your preferences,pov

StuffingGoldBrass · 03/02/2011 10:16

The other thing WRT people who insist on telling you they are married. It;s a bit like people who insist on telling you they're Christians when you didn;t know and don't care.
You don't know from that first conversation whether 'I'm Mrs... not Ms' measn 'I am a silly fluffy bitch who genuinely does think women's destiny is to be a man's property and that unmarried women must have something wrong with them', or whether it means 'I am really happy to be married to the man I love.' Same as the person who says 'I'm a Christian' doesn't automatically clarify whether they are a misogynistic homophobic creationist rightwing arsehole, or a well-meaning vaguely left-wing woolly ANglican.

EldritchCleavage · 03/02/2011 13:41

The term "nigger" is a good example - it used to be a highly offensive term used by white people to put black people down, but now it's often used by black people as a friendly term - it's been claimed by them and it's lost its power to offend

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: White people, please do not try out this friendly and newly inoffensive term in RL. It will end in tears.

Sorry, that's now an old post, but I had to say it.

kmac80 · 03/02/2011 13:54

Hmmm. OP I think you need to lose your defensiveness and think about the bigger things in life other than a title.

"I do see it as an achievement in the sense that I have put in time and effort into making a home with someone, making a family with them and I value that more than any other thing I've done in my life."

So those who are not married can't achieve this too????

WriterofDreams · 03/02/2011 14:30

This thread has turned out far more interesting than I expected Grin Sorry for disappearing, baby duties, and I've only just caught up.

I've addressed this issue before, but it's come up again, so I'm going to address it one more time. I find it quite sad and bit depressing that people seem to think that having pride in something means that you feel you are better than other people, or that you think they are somehow incapable of achieving the same thing. That's not how I see pride at all. For example, if I win a race and express pride in my achievement, I am doing so not because I feel I'm better than everyone else, but because I'm happy in myself and what I've been able to do. It's a big feature of our culture I feel that people tend to be quick to put themselves and others down but are very wary of and in fact hostile towards a positivity about oneself and others. We're very fast to criticise and very slow to praise. Kmac, how does my pride imply that I feel non-married people can't achieve what I've achieved? My feelings about myself are not about other people at all. If other people feel I'm judging them, that's their issue not mine.

As for creating something other than marriage that'll give people legal rights, why not change the term from marriage to civil partnership? CP is essentially the same thing, is more accurate a term and would mean that hetero and homosexual partnerships would be on an equal footing. Beyond that it would be up to the individual people whether they were called Mrs or Ms or Sir or Booby or whatever.

OP posts:
TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 03/02/2011 14:30

Good to see you're still fighting the power Cleavage! I enjoyed Soul On Ice btw. Grin

SpeedyGonzalez · 03/02/2011 14:45

Frosty: yes, that is interesting. I'd heard that before. Do you know whether such studies have incorporated cohabiting couples? I wonder whether the problem may be in part that single men generally find isolation harder to deal with - it's a common observation that women are better at keeping up their social networks. And as for the problems facing married women, I presume that's related to the inequality in the way male/ female partnerships still operate . So it would also be interesting to compare male and female gay couples with hetero marrieds and cohabitees, though it's possible that some of them may take on 'dominant/ less dominant' roles as well, leading to higher rates if depression among the less dominant partners.

Fothering - ah, yes, that makes sense.

Marantha, some people were saying marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. I compared this with saying that having children is nothing more than genetic procreation. You can, of course, have children without having any involvement in their lives post-shag. You can also get married without showing any commitment to your partner post-wedding bells. But we don't usually define concepts by examples of where they operate at their worst, do we? Hence why it was necessary to counter the reductionist arguments with a positive statement about what good marriage is. Also it should be noted that I am talking about being married, not just getting married, whereas the 'piece of paper' arguments appear to only relate to 'getting married' bit.

There are plenty of excellent reasons for co-habiting, not least of which that it offers freedom of choice for people who want to consider a range of commitment options which may or may not include marriage.

I've found it interesting to observe on many occasions that former cohabitees have said that being married changes the way they feel about their relationship (for good or ill). And of course, the statistics showing different separation rates among marrieds/ cohabitees support the idea that getting married changes something about the way the couple approach their relationship . So the decision to get married, the beliefs one has about marriage, the community aspect of the marriage commitment (the Quakers make this bit particularly significant), the legal element, the way one behaves in a marriage - all of these factors are what make a marriage whatever it is. In other words reducing the concept of marriage to just a piece of paper is inadequate.

And btw, nowhere have I said or implied that cohabiting couples cannot have a commitment to each other. Anyone who thinks that's what I'm saying is adding their own assumptions to my words.

EldritchCleavage · 03/02/2011 14:50

Glad you liked it, Tonde. I also had published an extended interview with Alex Haley done when I was in exile in Algeria-you should read that too, man.

(So glad when people get my name!)

SpeedyGonzalez · 03/02/2011 16:59

Eldritch and Tonde - I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone here...what a surreal interlude! You sure you're on the right thread? Grin

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 03/02/2011 21:12

Ah. Nothing kills a wifeys vs wannabes thread like a Black Panther reference.

RIP stoopid thread.

StuffingGoldBrass · 03/02/2011 22:56

Oh I got it too. But wasn't the real Eldritch just another wife-beating, woman-hating arsehole? Wasn't it him who suggested that raping the wives of The Man was a good revolutionary strategy?

fizzpops · 04/02/2011 07:31

"You don't know from that first conversation whether 'I'm Mrs... not Ms' measn 'I am a silly fluffy bitch who genuinely does think women's destiny is to be a man's property and that unmarried women must have something wrong with them', or whether it means 'I am really happy to be married to the man I love.'."

There have been similar threads along the same lines as this thread from women who feel as strongly about being called 'Ms'. We don't know whether they see it as a point of equality, are divorced and feel this is a more appropriate option or that they are unmarried and feel that 'Miss brings negative connotations of spinsterhood.

The whole point of the thread should not be a married vs not married debate and whether you should be called Ms or Mrs etc but what your own choice is and that people should respect that. As I said in my previous post if someone asks me (on an official form for example) if I would prefer to be called Mrs or Ms I expect them to listen to my preference and nto default to Ms which I personally do not like.

EldritchCleavage · 04/02/2011 13:05

Difficult one SGB. He and his ilk said some things I would never defend. They also got smeared with the rapist tag (in some deeply dodgy trials and the like).

StuffingGoldBrass · 04/02/2011 22:55

EC: I am not by any means an expert on 60s counterculture and not even sure it was the original EC who came up with that particular comment about rape as a revolutionary tactic (might have been Abbie Hoffman or Malcolm X, I simply can't remember - it's something I read in Robin Morgan's work). There were certainly a lot of absolute pigs active on the revolutionary left, which was one of the inspirations for much of the feminist activism in the 1960s. Even now (according to my very lefty mate) sexism is a huge problem among leftwing activist groups.

Spirita · 05/02/2011 00:30

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Takeresponsibility · 05/02/2011 01:40

How on earth did we get onto rape, feminism and race relations.

Mrs WriterofDreams is her legal name and reflects her marital status, she has every right to expect to be addressed by it. If you choose to be known as Ms Father's name rather than Mrs Husband's name that's your business and you have every right to expect to be addressed by it. Whatever you personally feel about her status and whether it should be acknowledged it utterly irrelevant.

I don't think that someone who has a peerage because they were born to a particulatr family or gave a large bung to aparticular political party deserves their status but again that is irrelevant so one addresses them by their legal title.

ScroobiousPip · 05/02/2011 02:01

My twopennorth (to kill the thread no doubt).

Agree everyone has right to be called what they want to be. (Screaming Lord Sutch??)

But men and women should both have option to treat their marital status as a personal or public issue (personally, I don't give two hoots whether you are married or not). It's the inequality that seems to give rise to so much debate.

Funnily enough, there don't seem to be any men out there clamouring for an alternative to Mr so they can proclaim their marital status,(MMr - married Mr?; SMr - single Mr?).

Law as it stands is unequal in that it is much harder for men to change their names on marriage than women. What's needed is a change in the law so men and women can each change their name on marriage or civil partnership, making it a real choice. The party that puts that on their books gets my vote.

Takeresponsibility · 05/02/2011 11:57

Scroob

"Law as it stands is unequal in that it is much harder for men to change their names on marriage than women"

It is not hard for anyone to change their name. In fact you don't even need a deed poll, you nare entitles under English law to call yourself whatever you like as long as there is no fraudulent intent.

There is no legal barrier to a husband taking his wife's name on marriage or a wife keeping her maiden name, or either of them choosing a name together at any stage of their relationship.

spongebobsquareknickers · 05/02/2011 20:39

A man can change his name to his wifes without deedpoll, he just needs to produce the marriage cert, same as a woman would. It doesnt say anywhere on the cert what name will be used from then on

In fact I remember sorting out the paperwork for a man who had done this just before I went on maternity leave.

ScroobiousPip · 06/02/2011 03:50

Sorry Spongebob, I'm not sure that's right. While anyone can change their name informally at any time (I can decide tomorrow that I want to world to call me Britney Spears), the marriage certificate is only good as proof of a change of name legally for the woman. If a man want to change his name on his passport, bank account, tax records, electoral roll etc (anything that matters) then he needs to change it by deed poll. The marriage certificate isn't enough.

See, eg, www.reading.gov.uk/communityandliving/registrar/General.asp?id=SX9452-A783D393

If I've got this wrong, very happy to be corrected of course!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page