Trivialising everyday sexism adds to the bigger problem.

[Whatdoyouthinkof]

I’ve starting thinking about how society encourages younger women/girls to romanticise sexist behaviour in men until they end up in real day to day life with adult responsibilities of children and a job and realise that perhaps allowing a man to call the shots or letting them believe their identity/wants were more superior has created a situation with women making more sacrifices in their lives?

The behaviour I think of is..women changing their maiden names and not really questioning that tradition, Disney films focusing on romantic relationships with men and girls being saved..can’t think of a single show aimed at boys focusing on their romances with women. Women waiting for men to decide to marry them when the time is right for them. Men’s names first on Christmas cards Obviously there are the huge problems of gender pay etc. but I’m thinking of the mindset which is created in smaller acts.

Am I unreasonable to think not worrying about the smaller problems/mindset and calling them trivial add to the big problems?

Also, it's not about your husband "being ok with you keeping your own name". It's not for him to "be OK with it" or not.

I think this is just the start of it though and the fact that women accept this a normal just proves how we are conditioned that men always come first.

Wherever it's traditionally accepted for a man's name to appear first I always reverse it and put a woman's name first. It's a small act but feels significant to me.

I was shocked and disgusted when I got married (in 1993) that was required to give details of my father and his occupation on the marriage certificate, but not those of my mother. As if mothers don't matter and are the lesser parent.
A marriage certificate is a legal and historic document, 50% of parents should not be erased from it.

*This has changed now thankfully (in England and Wales... I think Scotland changed it a while back) ... but only 2 years ago!!!

I agree with your overall point OP, and all the examples you give.

My first thought when a see some dismissive posts on here along the lines of ‘you’re overthinking things, you’re lucky if that’s all you’ve got to worry about” is to think “No - you’re underthinking things”.

A marriage certificate is a legal and historic document, 50% of parents should not be erased from it.

I meant excluded, not erased.

It’s so engrained in our everyday speech as well to see women only in relation to a man. My mind was blown at uni when we studied linguistics from a feminist perspective and the lecturer pointed out that we sometimes use the phrase “the neighbour’s wife” to describe a woman who lives next door with her husband, but it would be odd to say ‘my neighbour’s husband” about a man who lived next door with his wife. Hopefully this usage is changing over time.

That also makes me very angry. DH actually works 4 days per week while I work full time. He works in a client facing, traditionally not very flexible role. His employer grumbled a bit but everyone is now used to it. I think a lot of men don't think they can ask, and this in turn perpetuates the stereotype. (Of course salary disparities and how they encourage women to drop hours rather than men is another matter...)

I forgot to say: I really hope DH being part-time and successful does encourage some of the younger women and men he works with to challenge assumptions.

we sometimes use the phrase “the neighbour’s wife” to describe a woman who lives next door with her husband, but it would be odd to say ‘my neighbour’s husband” about a man who lived next door with his wife.

I agree with your points on the whole, but I'm not sure I know a woman who would use the above phraseology. Certainly I'd call the woman next door "the woman next door" or just "my neighbour". I don't regard the man as the true neighbour.

But it is.
No matter what the married folks want to insist.
It’s part (a big one) of the problem.

I would like you to explain what you think is patriarchal about my marriage specifically.

I completely agree with you.

I had much back and forth with the council over the fact they put my partner's name first on the bill but I had set up the account, the bills came to my email address, etc. Took about 3 years to get them to change it.

Absolutely! As to the "haven't you got bigger things to worry about" crowd - the more we question and tackle the little things, the easier it is to tackle the big things.

I support you completely! This has happened to us too and irked me to no end (see my post above).

One of my friends and her partner were at an appointment, I can't remember if it was the school or the doctor, however they kept asking her questions about her DD and the DP, DD's dad, would answer.
A few days later she had a follow-up call, asking loads of questions about their relationship and if she was being abused and controlled. They had been reported because her DP was "controlling, talked over her and wouldn't let her answer questions about their daughter." This was apparently a red flag for abuse.
She works full-time and he is the SAHP, he is the main carer and so knew their DD better. She was waiting for him to answer because he spent more time with their DD.
This was less than 10 years ago.

Men - Sir
Women - Love

Now that was a fun thread, so many people genuinely can't see why language like that is so damaging. Men and their time is simply deemed more worthy of respect than women and their time.

Are these things (not the sir/love, that’s just gross) more about ego, rather than sexism?

Whose ego? In the examples in the OP, if they're about ego presumably they're about protecting the man's. Why is it an ego issue that prevents a man changing his name on marriage, but not an ego issue for a woman to change it?

No.

I meant more in that first collecting status symbols and once the damage is already done, acting like husband’s name coming first is some kind of injustice.
It just seems a bit silly when looking at the big picture.

Marriage itself isn’t patriarchal at all, as at its core it is a partnership.

Patriarchy manifests in terms of differing womens rights for married women down through the ages and in different cultures. All that is the impact of patriarchy on marriage- from little things like name changes to big things like property, inheritance or divorce rights . Marriage itself isn’t inherently patriarchal.

Because that is a false equivalence.
men= mate
women= love

men = sir
women = madam

So much this ^

It's silly when people insist that marriage is sexist and patriarchal because of how it was in 1805 (or whenever).
Marriage has evolved and moved with the times, and is legally and socially a partnership of equals. Heck, they even let two women get married these days. How is that patriarchal?

How do you argue that one marriage is an institution deep rooted in patriarchy. The coming together for partnership reasons is pretty knew historically, even my Mum and Dad in their mid 70s had to marry at 21 for it to be acceptable to sleep together, who made those rules, the patriarchy. I married for romantic reasons but also for power and financial security that due to having children I could only get from the institution of marriage.

Arguably though having power and money in life is a feminist position.