to not want to be defined by my marital status or surname?

[tealight]

To be not at all surprised that women still strive to achieve equality when some/many/most (???)women in marriage take on men?s surnames and (in marriage or not) agree to their children taking the man?s surname? That is the way it used to be when women and children were literally, in the eyes of the law, men?s property. That is the basis o the tradition for fathers to give their daughters away. And why should my marital status be used to define me every time I fill out my personal details? Miss, Mrs, Ms? Men just have Mr. Yet many of us still subscribe to this. Why why why?????

I still don't see why women need to tell other women what they should do and think!
Personal freedom is far more important than anything else IMO. I think that many people have batty ideas-but I would defend, to the hilt, their right to have them.
It will be a sad day if ever people are told what they have to do.

Now those OED "suggestions" I do find quite offensive. If anyone tries to suggest that my name was Mrs my husband they can take a running jump! My first name is very very important to me. I'm amazed that something published only 10 years ago should be so old fashioned. I would address any formal letter to firstname surname, regardless of age, marital status or gender.

I didn't know Ms was an "original" title as it were. That makes me feel less antagonistic somehow. I shall research more.

Old fashioned formal manners still say that the oldest unmarried daughter of a family is Miss Smith. Subsequent daughters are Miss Jane, Miss Mary and Miss Alice if you are talking to them, Or Miss Jane, Miss Mary and Miss Alice Smith if you are writing to them.

When Miss Smith marries, she becomes Mrs John Brown if being addressed in writing or introduced. Or Emma Brown if talking about herself. It is NOT considered good manners to call yourself Mrs or Miss (or indeed Ms) anything unless you are talking to a child or a social inferior.

So, the aforementioned Mrs John Brown would get letters addressed to Mrs John Brown, would ring the plumber and say "This is Mrs Brown" ring a social equal she didn't know and say "This is Emma Brown" If she was bring introduced at a formal party she would be Mrs John Brown, and called Mrs Brown until she chose to say "Do call me Emma". Which she would only say to a social equal or inferior - she would wait for a social superior to offer her first name before she did.

Can't believe I know this stuff! No wonder there isn't any room in my brain fer anything useful - and that I like to be called just plain Kate Seeker!

Ta for the etiquette rundown seeker! Can you find the equivalent complex system of titles for adult males depending on their age and marital status?

blimey!
i looked again last night and my dictionary's actually 1989 not 98!
oops!

so, probably a bit outdated.
can't find anything written this century and my Complete Self-Educator was written in the 40s, so I don't think it'll be relevant.

(it was Mr and Master in my edition, btw)

Surprisingly not, ermintrude. Men appear to be Master until puberty, and then Mister until death, ennoblement, academic achievement or Holy Orders intervene. Now I wonder why that could be!

"I still don't see why women need to tell other women what they should do and think!"

Well I suppose it's marginally better than men telling women what they should do or think!

It isn't any better seeker.

I dont like (and this is where I agree with you) being Mrs Ian Harted. That is too personal a name to shove onto me.

I can't believe this thread is still going. We are all aware that seeker and ermintrude are into the oppression of women. They have stated this repeatedly. They want women to be oppressed by other women because this is supposedly preferable to them being oppressed by men. They want women to be oppressed by other women even if the women believe they have made choices because these women must be too stupid to realise they are being oppressed by their husbands or because they feel that in some way these choices are causing other women to be oppressed...

It's a ridiculous argument. I don't know why anyone is humouring it. These traditions don't even have their origins in the oppression of women and they are constantly evolving and taking on different social meanings. Not to mention that the only meaning that actually matters is a person's own interpretation. They may have been used occasionally throughout historical periods to aid the oppression of women and children but they do not have their origins there. I'm not sure why ermintrude and seeker want women to be oppressed so much that they only accept that interpretation of these traditions.

Ermintrude and Seeker will never be able to oppress women, it doesn't matter if they think they are superior because they're old enough to be brokkenhearted's grandmas. If that's true then maybe they should be ashamed for being so small minded and fascistic and simultaneously professing to be so wise and superior for their perception of patriarchal fascism...

bit more aggresive than i would have said it. i would have just said they are being ignorant and arogant and therefor unable to actually hear what other women are saying. they sure are oppressing though. i snort at the 'hubby knows best' comments cos that just shows how unaware they are. it is nice though to debate because it allows us (me personally anyway) to think about things differently and from others point of view.

I hesitate to say it, because I always stick up for women, but as one who lives in an all male household, I can say that men don't tell people what to think in the same way. If I was to show this thread to the males in my life they would be quite uncomprehending -not about the subject matter-but about the fact that people are told that their thoughts are unacceptable. They would be much more xxx thinks yyyy - so what?

Golly, curiosity and brokkenharted, fascistic, oppressive, arrogant, superior, ignorant - ooh, I'm feeling all oppressed by you calling me nasty names . What's got your knickers in such a twist, ladies? I can't remember telling anyone what they should call themselves, and don't think seeker did either. I can't speak for her (and I don't know how old you are so have never mentioned whether or not I'm old enough to be anyone's gran), but got the impression that she, like me, has stated that men being Mr Theirnames all their lives and women being expected to change both title and name IS INEQUALITY. And so it is. If you like the inequalities that's your choice, but surely to dismiss those of us who dislike them as fascists blahdy blah is to - ummm - oppress us?

Of course, the oppression accusation is nonsense and you're delicate flowers indeed if you feel oppressed by someone giving their opinions. Your opinions don't oppress me; they don't even depress me because I think they're a bit silly - but I have refrained from calling you or anyone else a doormat, pathetic, antedeluvian, submissive, weak or deluded. Because that would just be plain bad manners.

Interesting stuff seeker, but I am glad that it is no longer is use except for weird places like Buckingham Palace. Even my very formal (and upper middle class) grandparents didn't use that sort of terminology when talking to people (I expect they would have used it for formal invitations etc), and I've not heard "Miss Alice" type referenced anywhere other than the American Deep South. I am the youngest of three daughters, and have an unmarried paternal aunt. My father used to refer to me as Miss oldsurname Minima" sometimes, but I think that was a public school type reference.

I do wonder whether the feminist move against Miss/Mrs was responsible for the move to less formality, or whether that would have happened anyway. I think that with women playing an independent role in public life it would be very difficult to try and call them a name which basically means they don't exist in their own right (as in Mrs John Smith). I think if things were still like that I'd be inclined to introduce my dh as Mr myname surname (although he's done nothing to deserve being subjugated).

My brothers were primus and secundus at school - but they are even older than I am which is saying something.

I can't believe this thread is still going, even though I am one of the people keeping it going!

I think my issue remains not telling women want to think - or insulting women for their choices. I don't think I've done either of those things.

But I do want people to be very clear about the background to the choices they make, and the effect that those choices have on other women and society at large. I come from the generation where "the personal is political" I'm afraid. And that we need to guard our hard won freedoms - the price of freedom is eternal vigilance!

And I have to admit that it DOES sadden me that a young woman would refer to her husband as "the head of her household". If someone had told me in the 70s that people would still be saying that in 2009 I wouldn't have believed them.

'I do wonder whether the feminist move against Miss/Mrs was responsible for the move to less formality, or whether that would have happened anyway.'

I think that it would have happened anyway as a natural progression, I think that Ms fails because people are trying to impose it rather than allow natural progression. (If people try to impose things I dig my heels in-I think it is just my bolshy nature!)
My feeling is that marital status is completely unimportant -it doesn't define a woman, unless you let it-my DH isn't head of household, but neither was that the case with my mother or grandmother.

My only point is that my reason for being Mrs and my DH's surname isn't taken through ignorance. I am very clear about the background, more so than most people because I have a great interest in history, my family history and the women's movement. I have traced one line of my family back to the mid 1750s. I have great respect for (lose track of the greats)grandmother born in 1819. She was an intrepid woman, she did things that would scare me today, and she wasn't subservient (she married a man not approved of by her parents at the age of 18)and she wasn't anyone's property.

Therefore, while I am quite happy to let people keep their own names and use Ms, I do wish people would drop the assumption that they are the only thinkers, and at least acknowledge that those who go with tradition have thought about it just as hard-they have merely come up with a different answer.

I don't know why it should sadden you seeker. i wonder what you think my husband being the head of the household means? If you think that means control you could not be more wrong.

I respect my huband for being the man of the house, but that doesn't mean i kiss his feet. I am ashamed to say i probably have more control than him, but i strive to make us more equal.

I love that naturally my husband is stronger, and more able to provide for the family and that i am more naturally equipped to take care of our family. True today we have all the resourses that it doesn't matter anymore and a woman can bring in the family income and the man can childcare but i appreciate what we are naturally and think it would be foolish to forget. Men and women compliment each other as we all know. All i do is respect what my husband naturally is to my family. Again i must stress that this doesnt mean he controls anything. we agree on things and it is known between us and everyone that knows us that i am the more intelligent of the two of us and he loves that about me.

Brokken - sounds like you're in some weird situation where you feel yourself to be your husband's intellectual superior, you have control of finances, you make decisions together and yet you maintain this head of household pretence. It's what women have done for centuries and is oddly patronising to men, essentially saying 'I am actually at least one step ahead of my DH but if I tell him he's the head of the household he won't notice, bless him.' What would he do, cry?!

I also love that my DH is stronger - he can do heavy lifting so I don't have to - but I also know that I am strong in ways he is not. And I love that he is as good and nurturing a parent as I, and that we both win the bread for our shared household, and that we are happy to share responsibilities without one of us pretending to be worthy of more respect than the other.

in our house both of us are equal parents.bringing different and complementary skills,temperaments

neither one is

"more naturally equipped to take care of our family" - we are both parents,both loving and nurturing
"more able to provide for the family"- we both work ft both solvent and provide for family

i do eschew such traditional roles
man= provider
woman= home maker

Yeah now scottishmummy because you can in our society. i did say this.

You are more naturally equipped -> BOOBS! HIPS! I didn't mean that now a woman is more capable than a man because anyone CAN do it now.

I will be the main earner in our family in a few years time. I just appreciate our natural roles. Why are people so offended by what they naturally are??

giving birth is exclusively female
parenting isn't

neither gender is naturally pre-determined to be a good parent

love
nurturing
affirmation
consistency
all genderless qualities that people possess

man and woman
woman and woman
man and man can bve good parents if the possess the qualities above

I AM more intellegent than my partner. I think nothing of it. He has more common sense which i totally lack have less of. All i meant was he would never ignoremy opinion, he wants to know what i think cos he knows i am mmore intellegent and has a lot of respect for me. I have the money cos he is USELESS at budgeting. I have more control in a lot of ways because he isn't bothered about things that i am bothered about, so he goes along with. I am not proud of that, like i said, i am ashamed and am striving to fix it.

Being the head of the household to me is a repect thing. He is the man of the house. I really dont understand the issue???

Brokkenharted, you are a bundle of contradictions. Will your being the main earner be an unnatural role? . And because our society enables all of us to fulfil our potential in all fields, shouldn't our attitudes have changed somewhat?

I love being a woman, love breastfeeding my babies but know that while my boobs and hips are important for the babies for the first year or two, at the same time their daddy's arms, shoulders, chest, smiles, mind, attention and care are also central to them. We both embrace our natural roles as mother and father. We don't see why that means one of us is head of anything or why one of us should change their name or title. Imposing hierarchies based on gender is unnatural to us.

Again now, but say you were stuck in a dessert island and had a baby, you would look after the baby because you are the baby's natural bottle and s/he would need you for that for a while, your husband would need to use his supior strength to build shelter, hunt for food etc etc. That is all I am talking about. I know that both sexes are good at parenting.

man of the house sounds archaic and passive lil wifey

imo,it isn't respctful it is conferring an outdated title and set of assumptions eg

you lil wifey
he man provider

your post about your dh actually doesn't read respectfully.it read he thinks he is the boss (but i am) and i let him carry on blithely

Brokkenharted, could you please explain what your husband being the head of the household actually does mean if it doesn't mean he makes the decisions and has more control or even necessarily that he is the main earner?

If it's just about respect- why can't both partners respect each other equally?

I respect my husband enormously. He respects me just as much. Doesn't mean that we have to refer to each other as the head of the household.