Being called Mrs *-*

[LorlieS]

I'm married and a Ms My Last Name - His Last Name (hubby also double-barrelled when we married).
So why do so many people insist on addressing me as a Mrs?! AIBU to be annoyed by this?

@OneMoreTime23 You're sooooooooo right!!
I honestly cannot believe the sheer number of adults who still believe, in 2024, your title automatically changes upon marriage!
And exactly to the "proud" comment; so women have to change their title to show they're "proud be married"; does that mean their husband's aren't?!!
And - @SabreIsMyFave - I hope you're sitting down for this - I also kept my family name!!!

Same. DH answers to “Mr Myname” (I booked our honeymoon 🤭) but I never, ever answer to Mrs Hisname.

Several cheques had to be rewritten when we got married because the only Mrs Hisname was his mother and he didn’t have a joint bank account with her. (We actually didn’t have a joint bank account either - and still don’t.)

<listens to hear Sabrel explode>

That isn’t where mrs/miss comes from.

That is my point. The replies saying well I kept Miss or Ms after marriage are missing the point I was trying to make. I’m astounded actually that so many women cannot see the issue?

Even if you love being called Mrs or Miss or Ms you should still be able to acknowledge the mysogyny and why it can stick in the craw of a lot of women. It’s infuriated me since I was a young teenager back in the 70s.

You really miss the point.

It was tradition for centuries and it’s only been a handful of decades since it stopped being the norm. It’ll take several more, I think, for the people to whom it was always the norm to (literally) die out, and it become customary to ask rather than assume.

I think it's still the norm though. 5 women I know who got married in the last 2 years have all taken their husband's name and use Mrs. 4 are in their 20's, one her 40's.

@willWillSmithsmith I’m astounded actually that so many women cannot see the issue?

I think the fact so many women can’t see the issue shows how deeply ingrained gender norms are. I have to say that being mis-titled doesn’t bother me (and as a teacher it happens a lot!), but being mis-surnamed really does - and I just cannot get into the mindset of someone who gets married and sees becoming Mrs Hislastname as a privilege to be excited about and proud of rather than as something that is so obviously unfair: I totally understand that there are many reasons for doing this, but I just don’t understand not being able to see the injustice of it.

How is it unfair if that's what they've chosen?

Because they’re giving up something that their husband isn’t purely because he has a Y chromosome and they don’t. I think it’s entirely possible to do something by choice and still acknowledge that it’s unfair.

It’s different when someone hates their surname or wants to rid themselves of any association with their own family, but a) as previous posters have pointed out, you don’t need to wait for marriage to change your name and b) that’s not usually the angle the “proud to be/can’t wait to be Mrs Him” crowd are coming from.

Maybe “unequal” is a better word. Surely no-one can deny that if one person gives up their surname and the other doesn’t just because of their sex, that’s still unequal even when everyone’s totally thrilled with the arrangement?

Like hell it is.

I've been a Ms since around 1990, a good ten years before Mumsnet was started.

I would not be acknowledging anyone as a Ms. I would sound like a fucking wasp.

So you would refuse to use someone's chosen title? How very disrespectful. If I was unfortunate enough to have dealings with you in real life, I would refer to you as Ms Fave constantly. I'm sure you would be fine with someone not acknowledging your chosen title in response.

If he's called Bloggs and you're called Biggs and you have the option to keep Biggs but you choose to go with Bloggs how on earth is that unfair? If he wanted to call himself Biggs, he could. If you both wanted to go by BiggsBloggs or BoggsBiggs that's also fine and if you want to go by a whole new name that's fine.
The only thing that was ever unfair was when there wasn't a choice. Just because someone happens to choose the one that they would have been assumed to take it doesn't make it any less fair.
The youngest married woman that I know is in her mid 20s, she took his name. No one forced her. She's very much an independent woman earning more than her husband etc but that's what's she's chosen.

@Itloggedmeoutagain Because if you give up
your Biggs and he keeps his Bloggs then he gives up something you don’t and nine times out of ten you are doing this because that’s what the convention states (otherwise we’d have equal amounts of couple’s with the wife’s surname, couples with both surnames, and couples with the husband’s surname - and we don’t). As I said, something can still be technically unfair even if all the parties are happy with it: it’s a convention that (inexplicably to me) most women are happy with, but the fact that most women are happy with it doesn’t stop it being unfair.

If the convention was that generally the shorter person in a marriage gave up their surname and the taller person got to keep theirs I suspect lots of people would go “but that’s not fair!” and few people would go along with it, but we’re all so used to women giving stuff up while men don’t that the actual convention raises few objections.

(he gives up something you don’t I meant that you give up something he doesn’t!)

@Notlikeamother you can't just say that and not tell us where it does come from?! If it's not that, and not steeped in patriarchy, I'll be quite happy!

Actually, that’s not true. The law is that women can use his name by virtue of the marriage cert. A man changing name has to go through deed poll. Which means less of them do it.

There is an interesting article explaining it posted on the page before this.

Mrs/Miss come from ‘mistress’ circa C15th, and were used for all higher born women whether they were married or not.

@Justkeepingplatesspinning "you can't just say that and not tell us where it does come from?! If it's not that, and not steeped in patriarchy, I'll be quite happy!"

It's not that. It's short for Mistress- which was generally used for a woman in charge of something, or a middle class woman (working class/servant class women didn't have titles at all) until I think around the beginning of the 19th century when it began to be exclusively for married women. So it actually became increasingly patriarchal as time went on!

I am not convinced that's true. I think a marriage certificate works both ways for changing or double barrelling a name.

This is based on a friend, who's husband changed his name after marriage to hers. It was a wee while ago, but she said it was exactly the same process regardless of who changed their name.

People like this are the reason I insist on 'Dr' in all walks of life, not just professional.

This is where the sexism really hits home. The fact that total strangers expect a justification of my sexual status I order that I can complete a mundane, prosaic transaction.

No one has been more surprised by this than me. Unless you've known me years, you'd be unaware whether the family name I use is mine or DH's, and care less, I would imagine. Not so. People have been extremely defensive and rude. Most recently was my car dealership, who refuse to address me by the title I specify despite numerous polite requests, which for some reason have been badly received and, needless to say, ignored.

Other than this, it's 'computer says no'.

I can't imagine why a simple assertion of an independent identity on the part of one woman should cause such gratuitous offence in other women. And yes, it is always women. Men as a rule don't give a stuff.

This isn't a new issue. I've been married since 2008.

I do wonder how Americans manage to use Ms routinely without imploding......

Ooh. Maybe it’s changed then. 👏

Thank you so much both @CurlewKate and @Notlikeamother
Much appreciated, although sad it's become more patriarchal over time!

I don't believe for one instant that they do think this. I think it's wholly disingenuous. For what reason I can't imagine, unless it's to intimidate other women into compliance.

Of course every married woman who has relinquished her own name on marriage knows that changing all legal documentation requires proof of identity, certificate and paper trails. It is, as many of them acknowledge, a headache - particularly when they post asking for advice as to which name they should travel under on their honeymoon.

Sounds like a lot of unnecessary inconvenience to me.

What it does make unambiguous, however, is that it's not the default legal position. Opt to retain your family name and you need do absolutely nothing. Your name is your name unless you actively change it.

I'm not buying that those trotting out the rot that 'your husband's name is your LEGAL name' are even under any illusions that this is actually the case.