To be angry HR made this (relatively minor) assumption?

[SpaceCadet4000]

My DH and I got married last August. I made the decision to keep my surname and continue to use the title Ms. I don't mind if other people choose to change their name, but I personally am uncomfortable with the historical and gendered connotations of name changing. This have never been an issue- I just select the Ms box when filling in forms, and I don't shout about it to other people.

However, I have recently started a new job. On my second day I went for my induction with HR where they collected details about my next of kin (mentioned it was my husband as they needed the relationship stated), whether I wanted a pension, my NI number etc. All fairly innocuous, and actually very little form filling on my part, and certainly no disclosure of my title.

As I joined close to payday I received my pay check late through the post- it's addressed to Mrs Space Cadet. This suggests that the HR advisor has clearly assumed I'm a Mrs based on our conversation.

It's minor, and I assume fairly quick to rectify, but I feel really angry that someone else has made this decision about me. I'm no special snowflake, but I'm dismayed that my identity has been so casually undermined. The office culture is fairly conservative, so I also feel like I'll be judged as an SJW for asking for it to be changed.

AIBU to just email them and ask for it to be changed?

Miss, Mrs and Ms are all abbreviations of the same title--which is Mistress.

Just ask them to call you Mistress all the time and there will be no further confusion.

Just ask for it to be changed, simple. I don't know why you are so angry about it. I doubt very much that they did it deliberately to annoy you. There are more important things in life to worry about.

seneca is right : the Quakers (my birth faith) do not use titles at all, ever

Some do, actually. I mentioned that all titles seem bonkers to me, and that's why - same faith origins - but there's actually some dispute amongst Quakers on the topic. Some do still use them.

Personally it always jolts me a bit, because it sounds so... odd. And status-obsessed in all sorts of ways. I think life would be a lot easier without them.

You can stay together without marriage, you can also get all the legal protection afforded by marriage by visiting a solicitor and drawing up documents pertaining to wills etc. I can't however understand why you'd consider the name change part of marriage out dated but not the ACTUAL marriage?

NO YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN'T. Not in the UK anyway, with the exception of a few very longstanding unions in Scotland but that door is now closed. There is no way to obtain all the legal and financial ramifications of marriage without getting married. I know this has been pointed out already, but it merits saying again because this is such a dangerous and yet widely held belief. Please don't keep perpetrating it.

It's also a really silly argument even if you were right about the legal protections. Marriage has existed for eons, long before humans even had surnames, and is practiced in many cultures where the wife doesn't take the husband's name. Name changing isn't some innate, necessary part of marriage. It's just something that some people have tacked onto a much more ancient tradition relatively recently. Those people don't own the institution, or get to define it. The idea that you should refrain from a very old human custom because you don't like what some people have done with it relatively recently is a touch bizarre.

If anyone's interested, there is a discussion on Quaker attitudes to honorifics here.

I was brought up to regard them with suspicion... but I still used them for the teachers at my school. Which was a Quaker one. (The one I hope to send my son to doesn't use them, though. Again, it varies.)

Really good (and important, IMO) post, Harlot.

You will have taken up 20 minutes of my day, possibly upset a member of my team, marked your card and meant something more urgent was delayed.

This says rather more about you and your particular brand of rank hypocrisy than anything else beaufortbelle. Fortunately, not all HR people suffer from your failing.

Harlot I have not been personally rude to you. You, however, have gone out of your way to pick out selective parts of posts I have made and to be exceptionally rude both to and about me. I am sorry that you appear unable to respect views that may differ from your own.

You will have taken up 20 minutes of my day, possibly upset a member of my team, marked your card and meant something more urgent was delayed.

I'm glad that the HR people in my workplace are not like this.

I will stick my neck out and say those who aren't using Ms are letting the side down and perpetuating the view that a woman's marital status should be announced to the world on paperwork. There, I said it.

Much, much worse than what Beaufort is being vilified for.

What are your thoughts on that statement from a 'Ms' earlier in the thread?

I find it very odd that people still use Miss (reminds me of a little miss, like you're somehow not grown up, in my opinion shouldn't be used past 20) and Mrs meaning you belong to someone and now need to be taken more seriously as you're a proper grown up. Ridiculous. I am and always will be a Ms and think hopefully one day they will drop those archaic titles for all our sakes.

Yes, and I said that's what would happen if the OP made a complaint about the admin error. Not if she sent a polite email.

BeaufortBelle my apologies - I see that you would have been outwardly polite and understanding, so actually I have no idea if my HR people are secretly thinking "what a waste of time, your card is marked".

You are assuming though that an error made by (you assume) "a low-paid administrator" is a meaningless one-off, and not a reflection of the company's attitudes.

Thank you for this post OP as it prompted me to talk about the issue with family. After looking at both sides, and going through all the Mrs & Miss & Mr teachers at school, she has decided she wants to be Ms from now on.

OP filled in the form giving Ms, she is not "angry" but "dismayed". It appears that it was the "discussion" part of the induction, where the "assumptions" were made and OP's title changed. She has only suggested that she was thinking of emailing them to correct the mistake.

Just wanted to clarify that.

*sorry DD has decided to use Ms.
Thanks OP

Harlot I have not been personally rude to you. You, however, have gone out of your way to pick out selective parts of posts I have made and to be exceptionally rude both to and about me. I am sorry that you appear unable to respect views that may differ from your own.

I'm judging you by what you write beaufortbelle. Nothing has been taken out of context. If you don't want to be called out on it, stop being obnoxious. I note with interest that you don't bother to address any criticisms, merely resort to passive aggressivism, but I'm afraid any moral high ground evaporated with the starving children comments. Unbelievably revolting.

Float you must have a different OP than me. The OP states that she usually selects Ms but on this occasion the info was requested verbally and she wasn't asked. She'd given her marital status as married when asked and then received her pay slip with the title Mrs - no-one "changed" her prefered title. The OP didn't select one (she wasn't given the opportunity) and didn't say to HR at the time as it presumably never cam up in conversation.

She also states in the OP that she was angry.

As a lawyer I sometimes receive correspondence from US lawyers addressed to "Jessie McJessie Esquire". It's not a mistake or an assumption that I am male (I have a unisex first name IRL). It is standard unisex address for all lawyers in the United States. I love it.

Oh yes Magnum you're right - OP "usually" puts the title and whilst she was "dismayed" she was also "really angry". I must have been 'projecting' . I commented on this thread last night, somewhat cathartically, and whilst I might not completely share OP's reasoning I do share her "dismay". I'm of the view that people should be called by the title they choose to be called, but it does happen that assumptions are made in regards to title. For me, the past decade and a half, the main assumption has been that I am a Mrs, because ds has my name. It does get a bit irritating.

YANBU OP

I try not to use any title where possible. I think we should be getting beyond all that pomp and circumstance as a society. I have an additional title (ie not Mrs/Ms/Miss) I don't use - my name should be good enough really, prefer people to call me Niggle ^^. If they are talking about me they can call me Niggle Naggle. Don't see the need for anything else.

No problem float I had to go back and check as I did wonder if I'd done the same. If OP had stated her title and they had changed it deliberately then I could understand both the dismay and anger. It seems to me that there were assumptions made on both sides. HR assumed that as OP had said she was married that she was a Mrs and OP perhaps assumed (or didn't think about it at all until the pay slip arrived) that a title wasn't required and hence didn't make it clear that she preferred Ms.

imo it wasn't worth getting angry about, it's nothing that a quick email asking if they could please update their records as the title Ms is preferred.

Harlot your post only holds true for the rich. If you are poor and have no inheritance tax to pay, provided you have an appropriate will, there is no need or any point in marrying.

If you are poor and have no inheritance tax to pay, provided you have an appropriate will, there is no need or any point in marrying.

I thought that there was a tax thing where married couples could transfer part of their tax allowance from one to the other? That's specifically for couples where one is a basic rate tax payer and the other earns below the tax allowance (or nothing).

www.gov.uk/marriage-allowance-guide/how-it-works