to be really surprised that the school assumed these things?

[JessieMcJessie]

I emailed a local school to ask about visiting because we are thinking of sending our son there. My email didn’t state my title and referred to “we” and “our son” but didn’t say explicitly that his other parent was male, or that we were married.

The email came back “Dear Mrs McJessie” and asked me to give my husband’s full name if he was joining me on the visit.

AIBU to be very surprised that they just assumed that I (a) went by “Mrs” (b) was married and (c) was heterosexual? In actual fact they were correct on all three counts, but that’s not the point- I thought that people were a bit more careful to assume nothing in this day and age.

What is wrong with referring to a married gay woman as Mrs, I dont see how using Mrs assumes any sexuality.
I know quite a lot of people use Mrs to refer to a woman who has a child, (irrelevant of their marital status) but I guess some people are 'traditionalists' who prefer historical usages of words rather than the way people use them in the real world.

But when talking about serious matters you used first names then, right?

WalkingDeadFanGirl The assumptions about going by Mrs and being straight were two separate things. I know she assumed I was straight because she asked me for my husband’s name. She also assumed I called myself “Mrs”. Two separate things, each of which could have been right or wrong, in isolation from the other.

My lesbian friend and her wife go by Mrs and Mrs.

"I know quite a lot of people use Mrs to refer to a woman who has a child, "
Why on earth would you do that-unless you think that having a child if you are unmarried is sow thing to hide?

But when talking about serious matters you used first names then, right? Of course but I don't see what that has to do with the price of fish.

Referring to the wife of a married woman as "Mr" is certainly making some incorrect assumptions.

You might know people who use "Mrs" to the to any woman who had a child, but that doesn't mean it's not a pretty rude thing to do, and generally gives the impression of someone who disapproves of the woman's unmarried status. It's pretty similar to people who continue to call a woman Miss Maidenname when they disapprove of her husband. Or my friend whose in-laws refuse to address her as Dr Own surname rather than Mrs Husband's surname.

Derxa because of your post at 9.35 this morning!

You quoted me when I said:

I am pretty sure that school staff only refer to each other as “Miss X”, Mr Y” etc in front of the children and parents, not amongst themselves.

and said

You'd be completely wrong there.

The implication was that you, as a teacher, were saying that I was wrong to think this as teachers do not, when interacting professionally in the school outside the earshot of pupils, call each other by their first names. It was obvious that I wasn’t talking about jokey interactions when I made the point that you shot down so definitively.

I am pretty sure that school staff only refer to each other as “Miss X”, Mr Y” etc in front of the children and parents, not amongst themselves.
And I disagreed with you using anecdotal evidence.

Sorry, you’re being deliberately obtuse there derxa. You told me I was wrong, using anecdotal evidence related to a context that I clearly wasn’t referring to.

It’s like people are desperate to find things to be offended by

What people greyhorses? How many times do I have to say I wasn’t offended? I wasn’t even saying that anyone else might be offended. I was saying that it must be tough for those who do not conform to the assumptions made to have to continually have to go back and correct them, yet it is very easy to communicate in a way that doesn’t require any assumptions.

"It’s like people are desperate to find things to be offended by hmm"

Just wondering if you've read the thread at all?

Just popped by to see how you're getting on over here Jessie Bertrand
Oh.. No change! Same old same old.

@Shriekinbanshee What change did you expect to find? OP said yesterday she wasn't prepared to voice her opinion/challenge the school, as she doesn't want to look like a 'disproportionate crazy person'. So what change will happen? None I'm guessing.

Jessie, what makes you think the school assumed? Maybe they knew you were Mrs. and had a husband.

It does seem a sloppy and old fashioned approach by the school administrator.

Some people in this thread need to come into the 21st century. I've only ever been called Mrs in communications by people who definitely know my marital status.

Well said BroomstickOfLove. Who could argue with that?

it's because people like you that Kleenex are changing their mansize tissues name, whatl be next Mothercare changing to person care?? this world is changing into a load of snowflakes just looking for something to be offended by, you specifically didn't mention a title they had to assume there not mind readers

Dionethediabolist the school don’t know me or my husband. I don’t have any public social media presence other than my Linked In profile, which doesn’t mention my marital status.

I agree with OP! Also I’d see it as rather a worrying sign that school would assume I am a stay-at-home mum and up for a great deal of extra time activities. All that said, I’d go along and see what it’s like - could have been a temp/aged retainer on email. And don’t take all these raving snowflake comments seriously. ✊🏼 With you!

The problem with this sort of debate is that, ultimately, there’s no way to keep everyone happy. Everyone has their own “normal”, their own particular sensitivities and their own view of how things should be expressed. Bertrand argues quite eloquently for one way of communicating; I can take her point, but I’d certainly find it irritating to be addressed like a schoolchild by a teacher (“Hello, I’m Mrs X”) when I’m a grown adult. I’d find that infantilising and alienating. You can’t please everyone when dealing with people in general and I’d argue that, on that level, it really isn’t that important - what is important is how you deal with people individually and specifically.

You have to accept that the vast majority of parents looking at a primary school will be heterosexual. No value judgement there at all; just a fact. So it’s not a vastly unreasonable assumption; on any probability weighted basis, AN other woman off the street asking to look round will be. If you’re looking at the population as a whole, it’s not odds on that you’d be married as a prospective parent, but maybe the majority of people at that school are. So, again, no judgement- just a probability based guess.

For those who say we shouldn’t operate like that, I’d say wider society operates on this basis all the time. If I’m in the queue for the loo, I assume the person behind me is able bodied and without some sort of hidden disability unless they tell me so. I don’t ask if she wants to go first under normal circumstances. If I need to speak to a member of staff in a shop, I assume he speaks fluent English and that he isn’t deaf unless something leads me to think otherwise. If I see a small child with a woman aged 35, I will assume she is his mother until I’m told otherwise. It’s almost impossible not to assume.

Don’t get me wrong - obviously it’s very wrong if people feel they are stigmatised for having a different set up from others/for their sexuality/marital status or whatever. But it’s the specific instances that should be addressed. Someone assumes you have a husband and you say that you have a wife? If their reply is “I’ve noted that for future reference and we look forward to meeting her”, is there really a problem with that interaction? Legislating for specific actions is practical; trying to consider every possible permutation of a situation ultimately is not.

Honestly? It's really fucking tiring if every time you meet someone new you have to either divulge fairly intimate personal details about your life and then in all likelihood spend several minutes making polite chit chat about that personal stuff with people who aren't all that polite in return or watch them look flustered and embarrassed OR not talk about your personal life and spout a random load of deflecting fibs or evasions instead. Every time. Like those awkward and intrusive questions people ask you when you are pregnant, only without an end date.

"I’d certainly find it irritating to be addressed like a schoolchild by a teacher (“Hello, I’m Mrs X”)"

Yes, so would I. Why would a more inclusive way of addressing people make this happen?

But it's not just the naming. In the OP's example it was the assumption that the person going in the visit with her was a man and her husband. In our school, there is a very good chance that the accompanying person will be an aunt, or a mother or a sister. Or a step father. And many of our parents are very detached from the education system anyway. Can you not see that the assumption of a husband would be further alienating and/or intimidating?

She applied to a private school in her neighbourhood and they got it right. Maybe they know their client base, maybe they aim for that client base, maybe they did a reverse phone number look up and found out.