To hate being addressed by my husband's name

[StandingLampTassles]

I know I've whinged about weddings before, but as I said, I've been to far too many this summer, and have just received an invite for another today.

The bride is a university friend of mine, I know her parents well enough, they have never met my DH, yet the invite is addressed to Mr and Mrs Jonathan Tassles. I am not Jonathan!!

Yes I took DH's surname (mainly because I was sick of being saddled with a surname that sounds like a rude word for 30 years!) but I didn't become him.

I had a very traditional wedding but refused to address my friends by their husbands names. It's ridiculous, outdated and more than a little insulting. Am I being unreasonable or would y

It's traditional, innit. I'm married, and had a very traditional church wedding, and took my husband's name. I really can't find it in myself to get het up if I'm referred to as Mr and Mrs Shake and Vac.
It doesn't suddenly mean I'm only part of someone else. That's all a pile of poo. I'm me. I don't 'belong' to anyone just because I took someone else's name.
That's just taking it a tad TOO literally.

I will saying it doesn't stop you being a feminist now. Not much feminist about taking a man's name at the time though. I can't see how people dispute that?

Captain will be back to tell us no doubt, as well as another reminder of 'correct etiquette'

I didn't cease to exist as a person in my own right.

Nobody said you did cease to exist. Neither did they. They're just observing the old customs and letter writing etiquette.

So again, why is it acceptable to address a man and woman married couple one way but not acceptable to do so for two female married partners???

^^

This! Agree completely.

People who abide slavishly to this outdated convention don't tend to exchange that much correspondence with gay or lesbian couples!

well Ms woodcock, (guess) I agree, my mum insists on sending me mail addressed to mrs (husbands name, surname) when I made it perfectly clear when I married him that i was KEEPING my own name and would be a ms if I had to have a title. she does not get it, nor does my brother.

nutcracker the simple answer to your question is that it is traditional to address a couple as Mr and Mrs John Smith, or whatever name applies.

Up until very recently there was no possibilty of a lesbian couple being married therefore nothing conventional about how they should be addressed.

No, Captain can't be bothered. You've pissed me right off my suggesting I need 'enlightening' from someone you consider a feminist because they frequently post on the feminism board of MN.

And squoosh what I want I say in reply to your comment would probably get deleted. How narrow minded.

If you think that someone that subjugates women is ok because it's traditional and 'correct' etiquette, despite many explaining why it's not - you are not a feminist! Just from this one thread alone, you've proven that.

something not someone

And just posting on the feminist board of MN doesn't necessarily make you a feminist. Where did i say this? What you say, however gives a clear indication.

You make some rather bizarre inferences.

YANBU
I'm happy to have my husbands surname (my maiden name is very easy to misspell) and I come from a very traditional get married, stay married family as does DH.

BUT I still HATE being called Mrs DH's First name!

I've a perfectly nice name of my own and it's shorter to write!

'subjugates women'

I'm not subjugated, ta v. much. Surely you should be saying 'some women may feel subjugated'.

Yes sigmund you are right.

Some women

damn well surely that's not right with your argument.

Women are either subjacated by using their husbands name or not.

You can't pick and chose and say that some women are subjacated and some aren't. How does that work?

Some women may feel... that's what I read..

Feel subjugated bowlers.

Ah, that makes more sense.

sub·ju·gate (sbj-gt)
tr.v. sub·ju·gat·ed, sub·ju·gat·ing, sub·ju·gates

1. To bring under control; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat.
2. To make subservient; enslave.

So taking my DH's names means this^^ applies to me. Don't think so. Patently untrue, ask my DH. In fact, he'd argue that me taking his name subjugated HIM!

'LRD it is that simple. Them's the rules. Like not splitting infinitives.'

Eh? Bollocks is it. Splitting infinitives is a daft rule too.

But you're simply wrong. I didn't take DH's name, and would that it stopped people calling me 'Mrs DH's name'.

Why can't people just be polite?

To take a less emotive example - if you've got a name whose proper, standard form can be abbreviated easily (eg., Elizabeth to Beth or Liz), and you happen to prefer Elizabeth, you surely accept that some other women might go by one or other of the nicknames, or might even use one as their full name.

Most normal people would accept that this is a matter where it's simply polite to accept what you like best may not be what others choose, right?

So why can't women who want to be Mrs Hisname be Mrs Hisname and women who want to be Ms Hername or Mrs Hername or Dr, Rev, or Our Glorious Leader Hername be that?

lrd because when you're arm is aching at the mere thought of addressing a hundred wedding invitations it is far easier to address people in the traditional manner than faffing about enquiring individually as to what they would like to be called.

Particularly if the bride and her parents are traditionalists.

No, but seriously.

Bowlers but then that's not about etiquette then is it, that's just doing what you want to be because you like to be traditional, rather than worrying about being polite.

In fact, it's the opposite of etiquette/manners - that's just doing what you want for an easy life and sod what everybody else thinks.

i dont think it requires too much extra energy to simply put Mr & Mrs.

I refer to myself as a Ms. and although married and took DHs name, have realised some 20 years later, that i like my name so i started using it