To not like my DH being referred to as my partner?

[generalunrest]

I was on the phone to some twatting call centre the other day, and they asked me what my partners name was, even though they'd just called me Mrs Unrest.

Is it unreasonable of me to not like my DH being categorised as some kind of business partner?

I know that partner covers just about every kind of relationship, but I'm proud of us being married for 10 and I take the vows we took seriously and so don't like them being trivialised by someone else.

Yes...I know I should get a life/get over myself/get annoyed at bigger things, and I'd like to think I'm not being judgy or smug about people who aren't married or those whose marriage has broken up. If I am I'm sure you'll let me know, I'm a big girl, I can take it

I do see your point, PaolosGirl, and I don't see anything wrong with correcting someone if you want to.

But the word "trivial" was actually used by the OP in exactly the context I'm talking about, as was the assertion that being married = commitment and something to be proud of, which the unmarried don't have. You didn't say it, but she and others did, and that's what I take issue with.

YABU. People just say 'partner' these days, Find something else to get wound up about.

It's a shame that 'people' can't say partner or husband.

We had this in hospital when the midwife kept talking about partners, and what partners were allowed to do in terms of visiting hours etc. Dh said "what about husbands?" and she got quite shirty and said "not all of our mums have husbands, you know". I know not all women are married, but around 50% are - so why ignore that, or not acknowledge it? Surely it's not too much effort to stick "or husbands" on then end?!

Oh - and not getting "wound up" by the way, simply pondering a point!

I suppose it's a case of, why would/should the midwives have to list all the permutations of "partner", when the word "partner" does in fact cover husbands- it doesn't exclude them or anyone else. A husband IS a partner. "Partner" is inclusive.

If they said "partners and husbands", surely they should then have to say "partners or husbands or best friends or civil partners or parents". All of these people might be the significant other of a woman who is giving/has given birth.

I would find it anachronistic if a midwife used the generic term "husband" as a coverall. After all, around half of babies are not born to married couples.

Exactly - but half are born to married couples! As my earlier post said - why not recognise that? I agree (to a point) that partners covers most things, but I would still like recognition for the fact that dh is my husband. We were both wearing wedding rings, my notes said that we were married, so why the sniffy response from her?

Just out of curiousity - when does a boyfriend become your partner?

I suppose it it's a one-to-one appointment and she knew you were married, she could have said "husband". I thought you meant it was in a group situation where "partner" would have covered everyone.

To answer your question, I probably started calling my boyfriend my partner when we'd been living together for about five years, and he was also supporting me through a major bereavement. "Boyfriend" started to feel a bit odd after all we'd experienced together. Since I've been pregnant, I always refer to him as my partner rather than my boyfriend. We've been together for ten years and it just feels right to use that term.

However if someone refers to him as my boyfriend, I don't mind. Technically he is my boyfriend too- I just think of him as my partner.

Meant to say "if it was a one-to-one appointment", sorry.

No, it was a one-to-one where she was explaining the visiting hours to us after we'd just had our third baby. Dh was 44, I was 38, and with our eldest child at 10 years of age it was pretty obvious we were more than boyfriend and girlfriend. It's been a very long time since we've been that!

So my 20 year unmarried relationship is trivial is it? I'm proud of my relationship too especially as it's lasted a lot longer than most marriages I come across

I think you are being v unreasonable. Dp is my partner, that is not trivial. What am I supposed to call him- my boyfriend?

Partner covers all serious relationships and is a perfectly adequate generic term. Just because you've signed a piece of paper doesn't mean your 10 year marriage is any more worthy than my 20 year relationship.

It's 2009 and marriage is not as common as it used to be.

No you are not being unreasonable.
Let me make one thing absolutely clear here: I am making no moral judgement about whether cohabitation is "better" than marriage or vice versa- we all know of cohabitations that have lasted longer than marriages. It is not a moral judgement I make here- it is one of accuracy.
There is, without a question of a doubt, a great deal of difference between marriage and cohabitation in a legal sense.
Marriage is a legally recognised state- cohabitation has no meaning in law (and before anyone says that it should have, let's get this straight: you want the state to decide for you when you are/aren't legally tied to another human being?!).
You are just a reasonable human being who realises the differences between the two states and has a desire for accuracy.
"Partner" is NOT the same as "spouse".

Being someone's "partner" can mean absolutely anything; being someone's "wife" can ONLY really mean one thing: you legally tied yourself to them at a given point in time.

so marantha- what about the other half in a lesbian civil partnership? Aren't they as married as a heterosexual couple? Should she be referred to as the husband?

Personally, I cannot see how my 16year long marriage would be trivialised in any way by dh being referred to as my partner. It's just a catch-all phrase including husbands, cohabiting partners, gay and lesbian wives and husbands etc. It doesn't lessen him to be included in an over-reaching generic term.

generalunrest, please don't let the PC brigade bring you down: all this "partner" business does is fool women (not all I admit- a lot of women are savvy enough to realise that if they do live with a man without the benefit of wedlock they have to make sure they are legally protected in some way) that their live-in relationship with another person is somehow equivalent to legal marriage- it is not and these women often find themselves high and dry when cohabiting relationship breaks down.
As I said in my previous post here, the state cannot-and should not- pronounce two people legally tied just because they've shacked up under the same roof for a couple of years. It would be the equivalent of forced marriage.
It is amazing, though, how may women want to have their cake and eat it: they dismiss marriage as a "Piece of paper" then run to Daddy government to "help" them when things go wrong. Can't have it both ways, girls!

cory, the other half in a lesbian civil partnership is in a legally recognised relationship just as marriage is. A person in a civil partnership- regardless of gender- is known as a "civil partner". Nice and simple.
For example, Mary and Jane are in a civil partnership. Mary is the civil partner of Jane and vice versa. David Furnish is the Civil Parnter of Sir Elton John.

I am married, but I don't think that somehow makes my relationship more superior than anyone elses. YABU

DougalDoneGood, as I said in my first post here; it is not a question of cohabitation being better or worse than marriage. It is a question of ACCURACY. Being married is not the same as cohabiting.

There are lots of legal differences between marriage and cohabitation- being an unmarried partner may not have the same implications as being a married spouse.

Why is unreasonable to want accuracy in this matter? Ask any woman who finds herself destitute because she didn't secure marriage from her partner and he has thrown her out of the home that he solely owns whether or not the distinction between an unmarried state and a married one is unimportant and trivial!

I can call the guy I've been seeing for two days my "partner" if I wanted to. I cannot call anyone other than the person I am married to "my spouse".

But you can marry somebody purely for convenience and without ever actually having met before the wedding, so being married doesn't always mean the relationship is any more solid or secure than that of two people cohabiting. The term partner covers everybody without prejudice.

Marantha unlike in the old days when most women over a certain age were married today a huge percentage of women are not married. How are people in call centres supposed to know who is and who isn't-mind read? Partner is a perfectly sensible word to use far less insulting than to be called married when you aren't.

Also many of us in long term relationships are not brainless fools doomed to be left high and dry. My partner and I both own our house. Should we split up (highly unlikely) I have the legal right to half the house, I have a pension and a career I can return to. My partner and I have also ensured I'll be well looked after should he come to an untimely end.

I hate this assumption that unless a woman is married they can't have both a long term relationship and security. It's 2009 women don't need a wedding ring to ensure they don't become 'destitute' should they find themselves alone for whatever reason.

YANBU I absolutely hate it, dh is my husband not my partner and I am proud for him to be my husband and to take his name so no YANBU

I always correct a person who referres to my husband as partner.

Yes you could call a guy you'd been seeing for two days your "partner". You could also very easily marry him and call him your "husband". That argument really holds no water.

Milamae you are right, not all unmarried couples have neglected to think about their legal and financial standing should they be parted by death or separation. I know that my partner is more than a casual boyfriend- it's absurb to think that you have to get married to make that distinction.

And let's be honest- when you ask for "accuracy", it's surely not really about wanting people to recognise your legal position as a married person, and the fact that you'd get half the house if you split. It is based on a value judgement about marriage versus non-marriage- your own value judgement. Otherwise why would you care? But why should the world at large subscribe to your value system?

To be honest, if I was working in a call centre (or anywhere else for that matter) and someone asked me, I'd wonder- after rolling my eyes down the phone- why they were so bothered and what they had to prove!

Meant to type:
"if someone asked me to correct myself and refer to their "husband" instead of their "partner", I'd wonder"

Sorry getting a bit riled up at the whiff of superiority on this thread, can't type straight!

blushes, "Partner" has no legal standing. "Spouse" does.
For example, in the hierarchy list of deciding who is deemed next-of-kin in the event of the deceased failing to name who they wish to be considered as such , there is absolutely no mention of "partners" it only refers to "spouses".
Being an unmarried partner holds no AUTOMATIC right to be considered next-of-kin (an unmarried partner could, of course, challenge that they were in fact N.O.K but they would have to go out of their way to challenge it-it would not be the default position as it would be in marriage).

Being someone's "partner" is essentially meaningless, or rather it only has the meaning that the person nominating a "partner" attaches to it. It says nothing about the relationship. It conveys nothing at all.
Being someone's "spouse" means one very important fact- that person tied themselves legally to another person at an identifiable date in time.
A lawyer would never interchange "partner" with "spouse" if they were presented with a case surrounding the relationship of two people in a live-in relationship. It would be a fundamental mistake to do so. "Are they married or not?" would be one of the first questions asked.
I don't give a monkey's whatsit if people marry or not, but please don't tell me that being someone's "partner" is the same as being someone's spouse!

"Being someone's "partner" is essentially meaningless, or rather it only has the meaning that the person nominating a "partner" attaches to it. It says nothing about the relationship. It conveys nothing at all."

In my relationship, being someone's partner isn't meaningless.

You're right that the technicality of being married indicates a different legal postion. We've established that this becomes relevant a) in court b)if you die c) if you don't have joint tenancy of a house d) if you separate. I do get that. But it's pretty much irrelevant in the context we're talking about.

I still don't get why you would care if someone outside one of these legal contexts referred to your husband as a your partner. We're talking about a call centre operative here, not a lawyer. We're not talking about a situation in which the legal implications matter.

To use the same sweeping tone and logic as the previous poster, if "partner" conveys nothing at all, then beyond the legal mechanics outlined above, "spouse" also conveys nothing at all.

I'm afraid that "spouse" DOES convey more meaning than "partner" even outside of a legal context.
Living with a partner does not necessarily imply any commitment on the part of the couple. A lot of people cohabit as a trial run to see IF they want to commit (this is why the idea of giving unmarried couples legal status is deeply unfair on the couple themselves).
Being someone's "spouse" tells the listener that there is no possibility of the relationship being a "trial run": the couple have already committed to one another. OK, the marriage may not last BUT the step to take the relationship to a legally recognised one was taken- and the law is very important and marrying is still what people usually do when they want to be together for life (after 2 years, most cohabitations have either dissolved or converted to marriage) if only for legal protection and what is wrong with that?
I'm sorry but the reality is that unless I know the couple in a "partnership" have 3 children and a 20-year mortgage the word "partner" in itself is meaningless to me.