# Damn wedding weenie! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 25, 2004, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937 "2004-04-25T18:04:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/141 "2004-04-27T20:23:40Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > So, the ‘manner mavens’ are biased sources, because they are knowledgeable and make their living informing people about etiquette? That’s like saying the dictionary people are all biased against your personal, random, definition of words, because they’re all trying to make a buck on standardized definitions. > > Per your death-row analogy, we have conflicting, respectable, opinions on their innocence, namely the court system having found them guilty as charged. There is no conflicting opinion (other than your own) as to the main points of etiquette. There are conflicting opinions on smaller points, for sure, but many things are standard. > > You may think “no children please” is acceptable, many people don’t. If you have 2 people in a room, and want to invite one to a party, but not the other, do you insult the other person by pointedly bringing up the party and saying “but you’re not invited”? Maybe if you’re a big jerk, you do, but nice people will avoid insulting others, even if it isn’t as easy. While I do find the entire structure of etiquette to be based on some flawed ideas, I am attacking specific points of that structure … namely, the protocol for sharing information. And I assure you, mine is not the only dissenting opinion on that point. As for your party analogy, it is flawed because if parents receive a written missive indicating the kids cannot attend, there is no reason that they would show their child the invite… “See, Billy? No kids! We can get rid of you for three hours! Hahaha!” or that the child would even care. “I can’t go to the wedding, mother? I’m simply devastated… I… I’ll be in my room with my tinkertoys.” ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/142 "2004-04-27T20:25:27Z")
Hey, **CandidGamera** - I’m having a party this weekend, and _you’re not invited_! Doesn’t that make you feel special? That’s why you don’t put “no kids” on invitations. Disinviting someone to a party is rude. Even if it’s a small person. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/143 "2004-04-27T20:35:43Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > While I do find the entire structure of etiquette to be based on some flawed ideas, I am attacking specific points of that structure … namely, the protocol for sharing information. No, you’re not. You’re attacking the entire concept of there being a protocol. What do you think the etiquette people are doing in this case other than setting up a standard protocol for sharing invite information? If you’re listed on the invite, you’re invited, if you’re not, then you’re not. That is a protocol. Feel free to set up your conflicting rules, but you’ll have to convince everyone else to use it, and become a :shudder: manner maven in your own right. What good is a protocol if nobody agrees on the same one? At least with Miss Manners, you get one set of rules, and if people learn just the basics of it, there isn’t misunderstanding, or hurt feelings. You get the best of both worlds, clearly communcated information, and no unnecessary negativity. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/144 "2004-04-27T20:53:05Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > No, you’re not. You’re attacking the entire concept of there being a protocol. What do you think the etiquette people are doing in this case other than setting up a standard protocol for sharing invite information? If you’re listed on the invite, you’re invited, if you’re not, then you’re not. That is a protocol. > > Feel free to set up your conflicting rules, but you’ll have to convince everyone else to use it, and become a :shudder: manner maven in your own right. > > What good is a protocol if nobody agrees on the same one? At least with Miss Manners, you get one set of rules, and if people learn just the basics of it, there isn’t misunderstanding, or hurt feelings. You get the best of both worlds, clearly communcated information, and no unnecessary negativity. Nobody’s convinced me that there **is** agreement on the whole wedding-invite-children thing. Not amongst the general populace, at least. Whoa… I see the special smilies. Nifty. When did that happen? Anyway. my primary objection all along is that people are holding up the manners-books like shields saying ‘We don’t have to give you vital information! You’re a subhuman thing if you don’t read these books and abide by them!’ The problem is the information issue. That said, though, there are a lot of those so-called manners rules that are nonsensical and impractical. And if you build a house out of broken bricks, you get a pretty crappy house. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/145 "2004-04-27T20:56:26Z")
> [@ENugent](#): > > Hey, **CandidGamera** - I’m having a party this weekend, and _you’re not invited_! Doesn’t that make you feel special? > > That’s why you don’t put “no kids” on invitations. Disinviting someone to a party is rude. Even if it’s a small person. Can’t say it bothers me in this case, ENugent. Or, if one were to construct a more relevant analogy … let us say that Amy X sees Jane and John Doe on the street. Amy X is having a party. Amy’s party is for whatever reason a female-only affair. She approaches her friends, greets them, and mentions the party, invites Jane, and explains to John that she would invite him, but it’s a girl’s-night-out. John, being a reasonable and adult person, is not offended. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/146 "2004-04-27T21:04:14Z")
This is insane. > [@Sauron](#): > > Go back to what **Jonathan Chance** posted regarding his conversations with the groom. During the first conversation, the groom says he’ll check on making an exception. Three hours later, the groom says they’re looking into having someone to babysit the child. Then, nothing. For two days. SO WHAT!!! The groom was GUILTED into saying he’d check after he specifically said NO KIDS. Jonathan should have shut his mouth the second he had the clarification he was seeking. Ok, he didn’t. So now what? Well, you seem to contend that he should sit on his ass and expect the bride and groom to do all the work to make babysitting arrangements for them, and them exclusively, since no one else is bringing a kid, SINCE THE RULE IS, NO CHILDREN! What, they don’t have enough to do already with planning this whole thing? The guest has no obligation to even _attempt_ to make his own arrangements since he knows the rule and knows how busy the bride is and since there’s a chance she may not get to it or may not be able to arrange it at all? He couldn’t have said, “No, no, don’t trouble her, I know how busy she must be. We’ll see what we can do on our end and let you know.” THAT would have been the polite thing to do, since we’re calling out “rudeness” now. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Of course if plans change the host is obligated to let the guests know as soon as the information is available. But the wedding plans and rules didn’t change. They were still “no kids.” The groom was just going to see if the Mrs. would consider changing them. > > Incorrect. They established, three hours after the initial conversation, that Baby Chance would make the trip, IF they could find someone to sit the child during the service. Everything else the Chances could do regarding attendance was now on hold. No, you’re incorrect. There’s been no change – the wedding is STILL NO CHILDREN. She MUST have a babysitter. The question then remained, who was going to try to find one. Mr. Chance left it up to the already busy and harried bride! He can wait 3 or 4 or even 5 damn days, given what else is on her plate right now, and especially given that he knows she didn’t want kids there in the first place (and this is probably exactly why – she knew she’d end up being the one stuck with making all the babysitting plans, which she didn’t want to have to do!). His inconsideration of her hectic schedule is what’s rude. > [@](#): > > “Immediately” isn’t my problem. My problem is that the groom left his guests in limbo for several days. That’s rude. A few days’ wait was rude? That’s laughable. Honestly. We will _never_ agree on that, that’s for sure. See above. > [@](#): > > He was “cheesed off” at the attitude of the groom, not the rule. **Sauron** , you’re wrong. Since you won’t go back and read the OP as I suggested, I’ll copy and paste the relevant section here: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Jonathan Chance_ (bolding mine) > > We find out about 3 or 4 days ago that kids aren’t invited. **This cheeses me off** as it will be about a 6 hour drive to the wedding and **I don’t want to** drive that far just to hand the kid off to a babysitter. He was cheesed off to learn that his kid wasn’t welcome! This was LONG before he got the “huffy” attitude from the groom. > [@](#): > > The groom made an offer to see if they could arrange childcare. When JC finally got an answer (five days after the offer was made), the groom was rude … unacceptably so. Yeah, in the middle of the most hectic time of all the wedding preparation and planning, the groom was put upon to modify his request that no children attend and then the bride was further put upon by the groom to now hunt for a babysitter and they’re the rude ones. Ok. > [@](#): > > If the groom was going to be this rude, he _never should have offered to arrange childcare on-site_. Alternatively, he could’ve just stuck to the rule and told the Chances that the baby couldn’t come. Yeah, you’re right about one thing – the groom should’ve just said no and stuck to no. But to call him “rude” for not jumping through hoops within _your_ timeframe in an effort to make special arrangements for you is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > I’m not TRYING to have it both ways. If you think it’s easy for parents (hell, for anyone) to just up and travel 400 miles (not to mention cross-country) for a wedding … well, let’s just say you and I have different social considerations. I never said it was easy, but as I’ve said before, **they didn’t even _try_**! > [@](#): > > It’s my contention that the groom knew where the Chances lived, since they sent them an invitation and all. It’s my contention that the groom knew there was a fair distance between the site of the wedding and the location of the Chances house. THAT’s the hassle I’m talking about. When the (unforeseen by the Chances) issue of childcare popped up, that added even more to the hassles faced by the Chances. And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Ok, the groom knew there was distance to be travelled - check. The groom knew the Chances have a kid - check. The groom could assume there might be a question of childcare - check. That still doesn’t address why it was rude of HIM not to break his back to accomodate said hassles and not rude of the Chances to expect them to be accomodated. > [@](#): > > I am under the impression (and correct me if I’m wrong, JC) that **Jonathan Chance** was more upset about the “left-in-limbo” portion of the whole situation than the “no kids allowed” portion. And that, in my opinion, was solely the fault of the groom. Then you haven’t been paying attention. He was cheesed off from the outset, then got progressively more cheesed off when his friend didn’t respond _immediately_. > [@](#): > > Since the groom made the offer to check on alternate arrangements for childcare and then didn’t follow through in a timely manner, that’s completely on him. At that point, **he** is committing the faux pas. “Timely” by _whose_ standards? Certainly not mine and certainly not the bride’s or the groom’s. Listen, he can be cheesed off by any and all of the above all he wants. The bottom line is that kids aren’t invited to the wedding. Once he got confirmation of that, what to do with his kid was his problem and his problem alone. He let the groom take over the responsibility for it and then showed displeasure when the groom didn’t do it fast enough. Too bad. He was wrong. But thank _goodness_ they got it all worked out! ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/147 "2004-04-27T21:17:41Z")
You’re absolutely correct, **Shayna**. JC was upset about the childcare arrangements even before the conversation. My apologies. You’re wrong about the groom’s responsibilities, though. Doesn’t matter how much he has on his plate, once he offers to check into arrangements, he’s obligated to follow through. The whole “etiquette” thing. Read what Emily Post has to say about obligations once a promise has been made. I’ll quit harping on this. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/148 "2004-04-27T21:34:55Z")
So perhaps he checked, and the answer was “no.” ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/149 "2004-04-27T22:00:59Z")
What’s the best way to address the wedding gift to a bride who is a former student and present coworker, and a groom I don’t know? ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/150 "2004-04-27T22:11:23Z")
> [@Sauron](#): > > You’re absolutely correct, **Shayna**. JC was upset about the childcare arrangements even before the conversation. My apologies. > > You’re wrong about the groom’s responsibilities, though. Doesn’t matter how much he has on his plate, once he offers to check into arrangements, he’s obligated to follow through. The whole “etiquette” thing. Read what Emily Post has to say about obligations once a promise has been made. > > I’ll quit harping on this. Thank you. And finally, agreement! Of course he was obligated to follow through. But the question remains as to how _quickly_ he should have done so. Remember, too, that it wasn’t _him_ making these arrangements, he’d pawned that off on his bride-to-be (and in my opinion she’s the only person he was rude to, since it was her rule to begin with, he knew that, and didn’t respect it, but that’s a whole 'nother thread). That means he didn’t have any control over how fast it got done or not done. I really do understand the Chance’s anxiety over wanting to know “as soon as possible.” But “as soon as possible” for the bride and groom obviously ended up being 5 days. In my opinion, that’s not an excessive or “rude” amount of time to wait to hear, especially given the circumstances. And if his anxiety level increased over that time, he always had the option of calling the groom, thanking him for looking into it and letting him off the hook and taking over the responsibility if it was that important to him to know sooner (which he really should have done the minute the groom offered in the first place, which would have saved this whole unfortunate situation from escalating, but I’ve already said that, so I won’t rehash it since that’s not what actually happened). Aaaanyway, now that we’re done examining **Jonathan’s** social life under a microscope and picking it apart to death, what say we toast the bride and goom, as well as their lucky friends, the Chances, who get to share in their joyous day, and wish them all many more years of happiness and friendship (which ought to last a lifetime if they can keep resolving their misunderstandings better than we observers can, as they obviously did). CHEERS! ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/151 "2004-04-27T22:35:03Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > What’s the best way to address the wedding gift to a bride who is a former student and present coworker, and a groom I don’t know? If they’re not married yet, it’s easy - traditionally, presents sent before the wedding are sent to the bride. If they are married, you would normally address it to both of them. You can ask her what her husband’s name is, or you can just send it to her and figure they’ll understand that if it’s a wedding present, it’s for both of them. ---
**Author:** ![Elza\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Elza\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elza_B)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/152 "2004-04-27T22:36:21Z")
> [@jeevwoman](#): > > Ava–unrelated to everything, but since we had a lot of little kids at our wedding, I went to the dollar store and made little ‘gift bags’ for the (non-infant) kids. I put in a little box of crayons, a coloring book and some Harry Potter stuff for the older boy. This kept them entertained and gave the parents a bit of a break. I have heard that they were well-received and we heard nary a peep from the kids the whole time. Of course, we had a very low-key informal wedding, but still, I recommend it. Thanks for the recommendations! I think I’ll be doing that - although we’re pretty sure the kids will participate in the dancing and fun stuff. Our ring bearer was my brother’s ring bearer last June and he spent half the reception dancing with us on the floor:). I offered to get a baby-sitter for the kids since I felt they might be bored, but the three siblings are fairly shy and won’t stay with a sitter - they’ll only stay with their parents, their daily sitter, my mother, or me. So I don’t want them with someone strange, especially when I know they’ll be fine. Thanks for the tips, though - I’ll definitely put some fun bags together for them:). Ava ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/153 "2004-04-27T22:36:54Z")
Out of curiosity, **Sauron** , has it never taken you more than a day or so to find an available baby-sitter? All the parents I know chronically lament how hard it is to find one, and they’re folks who are used to looking. Is it really so inconceivable that it would take someone who _isn’t_ used to the whole baby-sitter-seeking bit more than a day or two to find one? To have someone offer to see what they can do and then bitch because it takes them a reasonable amount of time to do the necessary research and legwork is just stupid. Asking about it every single day, it’s like when you tell the Minions that you’ll do something later, and every ten minutes they ask you, “Is it later yet?” ---
**Author:** ![Elza\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Elza\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elza_B)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/154 "2004-04-27T22:48:30Z")
> [@CrazyCatLady](#): > > Out of curiosity, **Sauron** , has it never taken you more than a day or so to find an available baby-sitter? All the parents I know chronically lament how hard it is to find one, and they’re folks who are used to looking. Is it really so inconceivable that it would take someone who _isn’t_ used to the whole baby-sitter-seeking bit more than a day or two to find one? To have someone offer to see what they can do and then bitch because it takes them a reasonable amount of time to do the necessary research and legwork is just stupid. Asking about it every single day, it’s like when you tell the Minions that you’ll do something later, and every ten minutes they ask you, “Is it later yet?” Add that to the fact that the wedding is growing closer, your mother wants you to finalize the song list, your baker needs you to sign off on the cake, your caterer wants a final head count, you still have to finish your vows, your dress still needs to be fitted, you have a hair trial and makeup trial, bridal portraits, and you’re still working forty-fifty hours a week - and sometimes things take just a LITTLE longer than the regular guest expects. So one of the beefs here is the groom not getting back to **JC** in _his_ time frame about a baby-sitter when it was explicitly stated in the first place that children were not invited. Yes, it’s the bride and groom’s responsibility to make sure their guests have the information they need, but the bride and groom also have a LOT of other responsibilities, and they’re making a concession for you as it is. Personally, I’d find a sitter for Baby Kate on your own - should that not be possible, decline the invitation. It’s as simple as that. And this is coming from a bride who has done as much as she possibly can to make sure her guests have every single bit of information that they need - and sometimes I’ve made sure they have _more_ than they need. Give them a break. Ava ---
**Author:** ![CRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@CRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CRich)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/155 "2004-04-27T22:51:40Z")
Well, I don’t personally have anything against the rules of etiquette, or the necessity of such, I would agree that quite a bit of wedding etiquette is vague and misinterpreted or misused by quite a few people. As an example, a few years ago Mr. Rich and I were invited to the wedding and reception of an old friend…or we kind of thought we might be. You see, I know that there is an etiquette rule about how to invite some guests to the reception and not to the wedding, and the invitation that we received was rather unclear as to whether we were being invited to both, or to just one with the announcement of the other included. I showed it to as many innocent bystanders as I could and everyone just scratched their heads and said “huh, damned if I know.” The wording was extremely vague and that’s not exactly something that you can just call the happy couple up and ask. “Say, did you mean to invite us to the wedding as well as the reception, or are we on the “only good enough to come and eat cake” list?” I had been strongly in the if-we-all-just-read-our-Emily-Post-the-world-would-be-a-better-place camp up until that point. Now, as much as I appreciate how good manners and proper etiquette can smooth over many a sticky situation, there are times when good old-fashioned directness would make everyone’s lives much easier. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/156 "2004-04-27T22:58:16Z")
> [@](#): > > **ENugent** said: > If they’re not married yet, it’s easy - traditionally, presents sent before the wedding are sent to the bride. If they are married, you would normally address it to both of them. You can ask her what her husband’s name is, or you can just send it to her and figure they’ll understand that if it’s a wedding present, it’s for both of them. I think they have had the legal wedding and are now doing the church wedding, since she has already changed her last name. I was just wondering if there’s any rule on what order to write their names on the card. ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/157 "2004-04-27T23:00:50Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > I think they have had the legal wedding and are now doing the church wedding, since she has already changed her last name. > > I was just wondering if there’s any rule on what order to write their names on the card. If she’s changed her last name, I’d use the traditional “Mr. and Mrs. John Doe” format on the envelope, and “Mary and John” on the inside (you can do the names on the inside in either order - might as well put hers first, since she’s your acquaintance). ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/158 "2004-04-27T23:08:10Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Exactly the point I’ve been trying to hammer home. Glad you came around to my way of thinking. not quite, unless youre sayin reference etiquette books are the source of your position ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/159 "2004-04-28T01:13:48Z")
> [@ENugent](#): > > If she’s changed her last name, I’d use the traditional “Mr. and Mrs. John Doe” format on the envelope, and “Mary and John” on the inside (you can do the names on the inside in either order - might as well put hers first, since she’s your acquaintance). If you’re going to do that, make extra, extra sure she has indeed changed her name. And it wouldn’t hurt to go on and address the package to Mary and Jon Doe. It’s equally correct, and far less likely to make her jump up and down shrieking, “I have an identity outside of him, goddammit!” Okay, most people don’t actually jump up and down screaming and cussing, especially when someone sends them presents, but the Mr. and Mrs. Hisname thing _does_ make a lot of women feel like nonentities. If she has not changed her name, put her name on one line, then his on the next. You can also address it to Her and Him, all on one line. ---
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/160 "2004-04-28T03:08:38Z")
> [@CrazyCatLady](#): > > If you’re going to do that, make extra, extra sure she has indeed changed her name. And it wouldn’t hurt to go on and address the package to Mary and Jon Doe. It’s equally correct, and far less likely to make her jump up and down shrieking, “I have an identity outside of him, goddammit!” Okay, most people don’t actually jump up and down screaming and cussing, especially when someone sends them presents, but the Mr. and Mrs. Hisname thing _does_ make a lot of women feel like nonentities. > > If she has not changed her name, put her name on one line, then his on the next. You can also address it to Her and Him, all on one line. Bless you. 11 years later, and SOME PEOPLE still haven’t figured out that I’m still a person, and happen to exist outside of the identity that he deigned to bestow upon me. :rolleyes: I didn’t change my damn name; get over it. And I do jump up and down screaming and cussing over it. 11 years, goddammit! 11 years! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937.md?page=9)