There are a couple of DUers who have been posting negative comments about all the MSNBC females (except Maddow) for the past year or so.

and started using the last name Clinton, it did make me lose a little respect for her.

Very rarely are women in this country referred to completely by there husband's name, such as in Mrs Tom Jones. More often it's Tom and Linda Jones.

I honestly don't get changing your last name to your husband's. I didn't. When a niece was getting married a few years ago she changed her name, telling me that it was much easier that way. No. First off, you apparently have to go through all sorts of hoops to get various things like driver's licenses changed. And of course if you divorce you might want to change you name back. Then you remarry and change your name again. I'm highly amused at women I know who've been married three or four times and dutifully change their name every time.

In twenty-five years of marriage once and only once was there a small glitch because of having a different last name. It went like this: we'd eaten out at a restaurant, and the next day my husband realized he'd left his credit card there. He called them, they had it, said if it was okay with them his wife would retrieve it. He then called me and I went to the restaurant and they understandably wanted to see some identification. Mine of course was all in my name, nothing of his surname anywhere. I thought for a bit, and then pulled out my check book. We had a joint account, both full names and our address, which matched the one on my license. They happily let me have the card.

Is the child last name the same as the father? Is it hyphenated?

I am a feminist. I have my husbands name. If I kept my name prior to marriage.. well I would be carrying my fathers name.. starts to get a little loopy.

If you keep your name prior to marriage.. most excellent

If you change your name post marriage.. most excellent

for the conventional form of a married woman's name, that is, using her husband's surname.

When someone like Mitchell is called 'Mrs. Greenspan' it is IMHO a direct putdown of her as a woman because she is a woman with some authority or standing.



Since you brought it up though, your family probably chose to give you your father's surname because it is the norm in some countries. In other countries you would have been assigned a matronymic surname. Either way, it's your surname, not your parent's.

Mitchell was carrying GOP water--i.e., not denigrating her personal accomplishments, per se, but that she was touting positions held by her husband's crew.

As for the whole name thing--it ain't my business. People do what makes THEM feel best, and that's their decision. I know a few couples who do the hyphenated thing. I had a cousin who picked her own last name, because she didn't like any of the ones she'd gotten via family or marriage. To each their own, I'm not going to be shitty to people for choosing their own path on this subject.

This tradition of the wife taking the husband's name is not a world-wide phenom. In many cultures the wife sticks to her family name (which still comes down from the father) but the name of both mother and father are given to the children.

or something similar.

Still, it is offensive to suggest that she does not have her own opinion, that she just repeating Greenspan's stands. If it were true, she would have been long gone from any journalism assignment.

She is NBC national correspondent for foreign affairs, for crying out loud. Still, if someone disagree with her, it is so easy to throw Mrs. Greenspan instead of rebutting.

It's a quick way of saying "right wing tool" with one fewer word.

It would be the same sort of thing as calling James Rubin "Mister Amanpour" (and he has been called that) to suggest that Cristiane was influencing his actions in some fashion (e.g. WRT Iran) when he served in public life.

Think about that.

It's a snide, backhanded way to diminish her status. Andrea Mitchell has had a long and prominent career using her own name. Her reputation doesn't come from being married to Alan Greenspan. She chooses to use her own name professionally. It's flat out insulting and more than a little bit conservative to call her by a name that isn't the one she uses just to make a point on who is her spouse.

Most of us women who are married without a name change can recite instances of people insisting on calling us "Mrs. Spousenames" even though our actual names are known. In that context it's almost always a putdown.

official documents.

That doesn't mean I'm not "allowed" to snark about how a spouse can influence another spouse, along with everyone else--including you.

Ask Mister Amanpour about his views on Iran--there's an example of "Mister Spousenames" that I put forth, and that you ignored.

I guess it didn't "marry" well with your thesis, is that it?

Wanna know how frequently according to Google search? Once in 2006.

Andrea Mitchell on the other hand....page after page of hits.

I

Mitchell, Amanpour and Rubin combined.

Andrea Mitchell didn't marry a schmuck. At the time of her wedding, she was marrying one of the most powerful men in the world. Nowadays, he's retired, but when he was on the job, he made E. F. Hutton look like an amateur (i.e., when he talked, the WORLD listened).

Just like James Rubin married one of the most powerful WOMEN in the world. There are many countries in the world where Andrea Mitchell can walk unrecognized, but there isn't a corner of this planet where Christiane Amanpour can walk without being known for the famed international reporter that she is. Now, she's certainly an "influencer" owing to the platform she has on television, but she doesn't have one one thousandth of the clout that Greenspan had--all he had to say was "irrational exuberance" and people started clutching their wallets frantically.

The fame of Alan G:

http://www.amazon.com/Alan-Shrugged-Greenspan-Worlds-Powerful/dp/047139906X
Books were written about this guy--that's just one of several...

This, though, is the point everyone is trying to make:

As offered up thread, she could be called RW or wife of Greenspan instead but "Mrs. Greenspan" is flat out insulting to a professional whose reputation is tied to HER name, not his. It carries a different weight than calling Amanpour's spouse by her name because of the different societal expectations on naming conventions and frankly is SEXIST regardless of other snarky intent.

so I will have nothing more to say on the topic. My POV has been articulated, you disagree, best leave it there.

but yes, my POV has been articulated, you disagree, and neither one of us seems convinced by the other's argument.

just as in Hispanic Cultures is to hyphenate your birth name and your husband's surname. My daughter does that. While I never did that, I do not go by his given name at all. That is totally losing your identity.

The rise in women taking on hypnenated surnames suggests to me that we may be transitioning away from the surname change as a norm, ever so slowly.

is more about publicizing her connections to conservative politics and economics
than a way to demean her as powerful woman. Her power base is partially derived
from this fact.

My grandmother proudly called herself by her husband's full name. It was as if
she disappeared into his identity. Yet, she had had no real opportunity to gain
status in her own right. She was a product of early twentieth century culture.

It is an expression of how far we have come, that woman now create their own
status in society and proudly claim it by choosing to keep and call themselves by
their birth names.

"Her power base is partially derived from this fact."

Would you like to go in-depth as to why you think that Andrea is not more powerful
because of her connections? or just throw stuff at the wall?

If she were incapable of forming her own opinions, if she were just repeating Greenspan's, how long do you think she could have lasted? This isn't Chelsea Clinton or Jena Bush (not sure her current last name) who provide fluff to the networks.

There are many other correspondents - men and women - who would love to snug this assignment if it appeared that she was was just a show case.

I don't watch her midday program, but she certainly is not parroting anyone when she reports on foreign affairs.

her opinions would not part of her reporting. No where do I claim that she is
being show cased or parroting her husband's opinions. I said. IMO. her power
base is partly supported by her connections.

I have watched her daytime show many times. Her Republican leanings do
bleed through her reporting.

She has been in DC for more than 35 years.

From her bio-

"She has been the Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent for NBC News since November 1994. Previously, she had served as Chief White House Correspondent (1993–1994) and Chief Congressional Correspondent (1988–1992) for NBC News."

I was an educated feminist probably prior to your birth.

not a feminist or you would not come into this group and gratuitously trash a professional woman with decades of success because you think she married into something.

And just for the record Sweetie ... the President when I was born was Franklin Roosevelt.

Done

The point isn't to be that she's less of a person for who she married, she's less of a journalist. You can't be sleeping with a source and be objective. If she's reporting on the establishment, she shouldn't be establishment.

Her reporting stinks and this helps explain why. If the Russert kid had a different last name, most people would point out who his dad is or call him Russert to draw attention to nepotism and how bad he is at his job.

She was the same sort of journalist before she married Greenspan. It IS different from Russert kid, who had little professional experience before his father died. Mitchell had a long, prominent career before this marriage.

Besides, as also pointed out upthread there are other ways to point out the link to Greenspan or to point to her weaknesses as a journalist.

The best way to debunk James Carville is to point he's schtupping a Republican who plays his same role with the GOP. They're two soulless, political creatures joined in unholy matrimony. It's a quicker debunking than getting into his politics. The same holds for Mrs. Greenspan.

This appears to be another flavor of the "gay shaming" critique where everyone gets in a tizzy over the scandal of a Republican getting tossed out of the closet. No, they're not being shamed for being gay, they're being shamed for hypocrisy. They're gay and work with people who oppress gay people, some of them even champion gay-bashing legislation. And we're supposed to respect their privacy and sexuality when they don't respect the rights of others? No. This is why there's no shame with Barney Frank. He's gay, open about it, never hypocritical. I don't care if a man cheats on his wife, it's not my business. I do care if he runs as a family values conservative and makes his marriage the centerpiece of his campaign.

You seem to be missing the significant point on this thread. No one is saying that Mitchell's association with Greenspan should be ignored. The argument is that Mitchell shouldn't be called a name she doesn't use professionally in order to make that point because of the gender specific reality that women who don't use their husbands' names are viewed as somehow threatening the social order.

My point is that you shouldn't project your own bugbears onto the actions of others. If I say I don't think Holder is a good Attorney General and never say anything about his race, why assume I don't like him because of his race? I don't view Andrea Mitchell's professional name as a threat to the social order. You tend to piss people off when you project.

If you said "I don't think that boy Holder is a good AG.." that would be equivalent.

It is pretty easy. Anything else is disrespectful.

When I got married, I adopted my husband's surname because my birth name was much longer and I was sick of helping people spell and pronounce it. When we divorced 20 years later, I kept his name because it was establshed professionally and by then I was used to it.

If I were to change my name, I would adopt my mother's birth name because it is very unusual and nobody but my uncle even has it anymore. But then I would be back to the spelling-and-pronounciation circus.