In the interests of ending offence even more, I propose we should ban persons from saying thats say jane is johns wife I mean come on, she is a person, she is not “his” he dos’nt own her. After that the kids come next, hey we don’t own them either.
Geez, a lot of the time Mr and Mrs So and so is short hand for “that married couple”, and Mrs So and So, is short hand for “so and so’s wife”.
I’ve always heard that as “Are you Mr. and Mrs. Doe?” rather than “Are you Mr. and Mrs. John Doe?” The surname is used, not the first name and surname. Surnames are expected to be shared among family members (though they aren’t always) and first names are used to distinguish one individual from another within the family.
But in a small town or with a common last name, being Mr. and Mrs. John Doe keeps you from getting confused with Mr. and Mrs. James Doe - your husband’s brother and his wife, or Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Doe - your in laws. There is actually a reason for it.
Having never lived in a town that small (I’ve lived in big cities all my life - St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago, etc. - the smallest was probably Morgantown, West Virgina which is still most likely larger than what you are referring to) I have really, truly, never encountered what you speak of. Even when visiting my in-laws, who are Appalachian mountain people infamous for, ah, >ahem< family trees with few branches I have not encountered what you describe. It may exist in some small towns for a reason, but that doesn’t mean we should impose this wretched custom on everyone everywhere. There are cultures where first-cousin marriages are common because they are small communities and everyone is already related, but no one advocates close-kin marriages world-wide.
Aside from that - there is STILL no reason to refer to a woman by her husband’s name in the situation you describe! There may be a John Doe and James Doe, but John’s wife is Sally and James’ wife Rita. Why are the men never referred to as Mr. Sally Doe and Mr. Rita Doe? It is always the woman’s name that is obliterated, and that reveal the sexist bias of the custom.
It is by etiquette. It isn’t by modern usage. My husband has been known as Mr. Dangerosa Smith - for similar reasons to why Mrs. John Doe evolved.
You see this particularly with women with professional lives where there husbands are occasionally referred to as Mr. Important Woman. I’ve seen it with Julia Robert’s husband, for instance - everyone knows her, he is Mr. Julia Roberts.
I’m not sure its sexist as much as its placing identification on the public spouse rather than the private one.
Speaking of which, some women enjoy being private. I have an acquaintance who I’ve known for years and she is my age (42) and I still call her Mrs. Swanson. I have no idea what her first name is - I’m sure I can dig it up through the back of my mind. According to friends who know her far better than I do, she finds her first name to be a highly private thing (and she is one of those ‘names have power’ feminist pagans - so she protects her name from casual use). Her husband is the public face of their relationship, she is a private person.
This is a little like Westerner’s critiquing the veil worn by Muslim women as sexist. For some women it is a form of oppression, but other women CHOOSE to wear the veil, they find it comforting and protecting.
Wait…let me get this straight. You think these people PURPOSELY offended you for some reason when they were made aware of how important an issue this is to you…
Strangers that were extending an invitation…
Interesting.
Guess they didn’t want you there.
Frankly, I think the real issue is that there are people out there who believe sincerely that “the rules of etiquette” trump “the preferences of people around you”. In the reality I live in, the statement is nonsensical because etiquette is just a fancy word meaning “treat people nicely”.
The unfortunate result is that people end up giving offense because they honestly believe it would be “nontraditional”, “poor etiquette”, or “not the right way to do it”, and further honestly believe that they are making a hard choice but the only right one.
This all goes double if the specific behavior being followed is actually a corruption of the tradition or whatever.
Unrelated to names example–my cousin is in the middle of a potential family feud because their wedding invitations only have the bride’s parents names on them, despite the fact the groom’s parents are contributing to the funding as well, because “it’s traditional that the bride’s parents do the inviting”.
No, I think there are people who believe maintaining tradition is so important that it somehow excuses giving great offense. Much as you keep grasping at straws in order to prove that I am somehow wrong or mistaken.
They weren’t strangers. We’d known them - or at least they’d known my husband - for quite some time, even from before he was married.
Yeah, they did want me there. They professed to be offended I didn’t come, but someone I was supposed to just suck up my offense at their refusal to use my proper name.
Is there any rule on the SDMB about messing with a poster’s username?
“grasping at straws”? I don’t have to prove you’re wrong. You can think anything you want. I just find your being offended odd. I mean they obviously are ‘strangers’ if they don’t know your name. Maybe not to your husband but to you.
Additionally I would love to see how your husband broached the subject to them. “Thank you for the invitation. My wife’s name is Sally and please don’t address the envelope without using her first name. She doesn’t care to be addressed that way.”
Forgive me for thinking there is no way that conversation took place.
No reasonable person would ever assume that addressing an envelope in a classic manner would offend anyone. Sorry, but I would think you were off your rocker if I ever heard being addressed traditionally on an envelope I sent “offended” you.
But…to each his own.
Offred. Ofglen.
I can’t say that I would want a goodwife named Ofmuffin. Or Mrs. Archy Muffin, for that is not any different.
I will not forgive for that conversation HAS taken place, and more than once. Your denial of reality will not change the fact that such a thing has taken place. But, by all means, continue to live in your antiquated world where women are not full humans beings.
Marriage does, by its very definition, involve the joining of two people…and by extention, the “abandoning” of one’s sole personhood. Whether or not you change your name makes little difference; in matter of fact and law, you are no longer flying solo. You ARE becoming the “wife of someone else,” as he is becoming the “husband of someone else.” If “wife” is the dirty word here, don’t get married.
I personally don’t have strong feelings one way or the other about women changing their names…change it if you want, keep yours if you want. Who cares? Some women view it as a public affirmation of the new family they have created; some women want to keep their family/maiden name. Some women keep their family name professionally and use their husband’s name socially.
I guess I just don’t see the point of reading more into it than is really there; for all the people who find invitations to “Mr. and Mrs. John Doe” somehow offensive, what about “Ms. Jane Doe and Guest?”
Judging by some of these posts, I’m guessing that whoever issued the invitation should’ve gone to the trouble of finding out the name of Ms. Jane Doe’s date/boyfriend/girlfriend/whoever before offending them by leaving it basically blank…? Or does that begin to sound absurd?
My dad does a lot of corporate-type events and he gets invitations issued to “Mr. and Mrs. Joe Levins.” Yes, they know my dad is married; no, they do not know her name. Why would they? They may have never even met her. Should she not get invited til they find out her name?
Should my dad tell these people that his wife won’t be attending because she’s so offended that Corporation X didn’t address her by her first name on the invitation? Should he pull his business associates aside and inform them that they need to issue a new one?
I honestly don’t get it.
You missed the part, apparently, where the people who are getting angry about this are getting angry at people who have been informed of the preferred nomenclature.
I don’t see what’s wrong with Mr. and Mrs. Smith, or Mr./Ms. Smith and Guest. Either neatly avoids the problem, since even among women who didn’t change their last name very few get offended at being presumed to be “Mrs. Smith”. It’s “Mrs. Joe Smith” that’s at issue.
“and Guest” does not make assumptions about the guest - “and Guest” means “bring another person”, it does not specify which one and need not be a significant other.
Why can’t they have someone ask her name? I used to do just that when I worked in corporate America. Is it that much trouble to pick up a phone as ask “What is your wife’s name, and does she have a preferred form of address?” Some of the people I used to work with had spouses with advanced degrees and quite successful careers - many women who busted their butts to be MD’s would really rather be referred to as doctor than “Mrs.” or “Ms.”
And, again - it is always the woman’s name that is obliterated. I have never seen an invitation with “Mr. and Mrs JANE Smith” on it. Apparently, men deserve a phone call to determine their name but women should just shut up and put up with being called someone else. You don’t see the hypocrisy there?
Yes.
Maybe let it go the first offense, but most certainly NOT the second. I simply will not respond to an invitation from someone who cares so little about me that they refuse to call me by my proper name. Men are never asked to do this, why should women?
I have.
Frankly, I’d rather - its a personal preference thing for me - get addressed as Mrs. John Doe than have someone call me up and ask me my first name for an invitation. If you don’t know me well enough to know my first name - DON’T USE IT.
Mrs. John Doe? I’ll let you know when I see X in concert next month.
John Doe is the bassist/singer for the band X…okay, I’ll go now