Tom Mulcair's Wife Has Decided to Take Her Husband's Surname For Elxn Campaign

156 posts / 0 new
Last post
terrytowel

This is how Hillary was referred to in the media when Bill Clinton was first Govenor of Arkansas. I personally don't care, bit it made people uncomfortable.

 

Hillary Rodam (Mrs. Clinton)

 

terrytowel

Double Post

takeitslowly

i would feel very uncomfortable if i had to wear what she was wearing in that picture.

Ken Burch

terrytowel wrote:

This is how Hillary was referred to in the media when Bill Clinton was first Govenor of Arkansas. I personally don't care, bit it made people uncomfortable.

 

Hillary Rodam (Mrs. Clinton)

 

That was Arkansas in 1978.  It has nothing to do with how people in Canada would vote today.  Why are you even trying to make an issue out of this?  What is your point here?

Ken Burch

sherpa-finn wrote:

Unionist was wondering whether men ever take their wife's surname.... well c'mon Babblers, its time for all us pseudo progressives to join the 21st century:

Men taking their wife's name, double-barrelled surnames and even meshed versions are all the rage as traditional marriages go out of fashion

  • Increasing number of husbands taking their wives names when they marry
  • Often men with 'embarrassing' names don't want to pass it on to children
  • 'Meshing' - creating a new surname by combing both names - also popular

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3122546/Men-taking-wife-s-double-barrelled-surnames-MESHED-versions-rage-traditional-marriages-fashion.html#ixzz3glbRvVqO

in 1969, John Winston Lennon became John Ono Lennon.  More recently, there Jack Gillis, who took his then-wife Meg's name when they formed The White Stripes.

Northern PoV

Ya, the name change would help ... and if her husband is serious about winning he could match her sacrifice: trim the beard!

Facial hair is unusual in the executive class and experiments show that facial hair does indeed matter for politicians.

A clean shave at this point would be too radical but adopting the "Richard Branson/George Michael look" would signal he is ready to lead. Cool

terrytowel

Ken Burch wrote:

It's a non-issue and there was no point in starting a thread about it.

I'm sorry I thought this was a DISCUSSION board. Are we to pick and choose what topics we can and cannot discuss according to you?

Like it or not wives of political leaders is a valid discussion topic.

The Hillary Clinton picture was about her maiden name, which is the TOPIC of this discussion.

Spouses of politicians and if they should take their husbands name. And what impact that has on voters.

Again I personally don't care. But some do. as eviedenced that both Sophie and Catherine and Laureen have taken their husbands name.

And remember what some voters told Joe Clark. "How would you expect me to vote for you, If your own wife won't even take your name?"

takeitslowly

But if alot of women  decide to keep their last name instead of taking their husands, they would still be keeping the last name of their own father, is that a right assumption? What is important is the last name you give to your children, imo.

takeitslowly

its such a hassle to inform the banks and everyone that my  last name is changed to my mother's last name.. i want to do it but it just seems i have to change all my identifciation cards..and its costly

Tehanu

takeitslowly wrote:
But if alot of women  decide to keep their last name instead of taking their husands, they would still be keeping the last name of their own father, is that a right assumption? What is important is the last name you give to your children, imo.

Yes, assuming they grew up with their father's name, that would be true, and this isn't likely to change on a large scale any time soon because so many women still take their husband's name, or at least the couple's children do. It will be interesting on a societal level to see if same-sex marriage produces any shifts in this.

I grew up with my father's name (in spite of having a feminist mother)(and my mother's maiden name would be her father's in turn). My personal identity is centred around that name. Including my education, my professional work, things I've written, etc. Same with plenty of other women. If I were to marry a man, should I give that identity up to conform to a patriarchal norm that should have disappeared decades ago? No.

And women feeling the need to change their names upon marriage to men is indeed patriarchal. Kate Harding on marriage and name changes:

Quote:
... I do multiple intrinsically non- and/or anti-feminist things a day, basically. None of it changes who I am or what I stand for–but those things also don’t magically become feminist just because I’m the one doing them.

And that’s basically what I think of feminists who are among the 90% of American women who choose to take their husbands’ names at marriage. They’re not bad people. I don’t want to collect up their feminist cards. But it is just fucking reality that they made a non-feminist choice in that particular instance. It didn’t magically become feminist because they were the ones who chose it.

For political campaigns to reinforce this patriarchal tradition is sexist.

Tehanu

I notice that there's still no link/verification to the claim that Catherine Pinhas has instructed media to use Mulcair's last name during the election (the media has been all over the place on how to refer to her, just do a quick Google and it goes back for years). I also notice that on the NDP website in Mulcair's bio it says this:"Tom has been married to his wife Catherine Pinhas, a public-health psychologist, for 37 years." So I'm going to treat this rumour with a big grain of salt until proven otherwise

If Pinhas were to start using Mulcair's last name I would be very disappointed. Just as I'm disappointed (but not really surprised) that in spite of Trudeau's claims to be an advocate for women's issues, Sophie Grégoire's name has been rebranded.

In case anyone is inclined to dismiss this as a non-issue, let's remember that for centuries the institution of marriage transferred effective ownership of women from their fathers to their husbands, and name changes are a specific and effective way of reinforcing that. There's a reason why feminists have challenged this, with notable success in Quebec. For Trudeau's campaign to negate this success after he got married in that province is very telling.

An excellent article by the editor of Feministing in the Guardian about marriage and name changes:

Quote:
... Your name is your identity. The term for you is what situates you in the world. The cultural assumption that women will change their names upon marriage – the assumption that we'll even think about it, and be in a position where we make a "choice" of whether to keep our names or take our husbands' – cannot be without consequence. Part of how our brains function and make sense of a vast and confusing universe is by naming and categorizing. When women see our names as temporary or not really ours, and when we understand that part of being a woman is subsuming your own identity into our husband's, that impacts our perception of ourselves and our role in the world. It lessens the belief that our existence is valuable unto itself, and that as individuals we are already whole. It disassociates us from ourselves, and feeds into a female understanding of self as relational – we are not simply who we are, we are defined by our role as someone's wife or mother or daughter or sister.

... Of course, there's also power in a name change. Changing your name if, for example, you change your gender presentation makes sense – a new, more authentic name to match the new, more authentic you. But outside of the gender transition context, marriage has long meant a woman giving up her identity, and along with it, her basic rights. Under coverture laws, a woman's legal existence was merged with her husband's: "husband and wife are one," and the one was the husband. Married women had no right to own property or enter into legal contracts. It's only very recently that married women could get their own credit cards. Marital rape remained legal in many states through the 1980s. The idea that a woman retains her own separate identity from her husband, and that a husband doesn't have virtually unlimited power over a woman he marries, is a very new one.

Do I think that women changing their names when they marry is a top-level feminist issue? Probably not. But let's remind ourselves that the expectation that women do so when they marry is a full-on 100% reflection of the patriarchy (and so, no, it's not equivalent if men do it, in effect they're challenging the patriarchy in that case. Few of them do anyway).

And women married to political leaders changing their names during a campaign is a blatant appeal to demeaning, sexist, dinosaur voters.

And maintaining the expectation that a heterosexual male political leader's wife must subsume her identity into his in order to appeal to these voters is indeed harmful to women.

 

Pondering

Northern PoV wrote:

Ya, the name change would help ... and if her husband is serious about winning he could match her sacrifice: trim the beard!

Facial hair is unusual in the executive class and experiments show that facial hair does indeed matter for politicians.

A clean shave at this point would be too radical but adopting the "Richard Branson/George Michael look" would signal he is ready to lead. Cool

I don't agree. There are exceptions to every rule. The theory I heard is that beards hide the face so people with beards seem less trustworthy. Mulcair's beard doesn't hide his expressions. To me it makes him seem more grandfatherly and wise. If he were to change it now it would be a distraction and lessen his authenticity which is very important. 

Pondering

As to the name changes, I take Tahanu's point, it's still a name change of sorts, but they didn't drop their "maiden" names. Assuming it is true that they have added their husband's name as a hyphenation it seems to be for campaign convenience so readers will realize that the reason they are being discussed is because they are the "wife of".  There has been no suggestion that either are considering a legal name change or to start using their husband's name for professional purposes. 

mark_alfred

Tehanu wrote:

I notice that there's still no link/verification to the claim that Catherine Pinhas has instructed media to use Mulcair's last name during the election (the media has been all over the place on how to refer to her, just do a quick Google and it goes back for years). I also notice that on the NDP website in Mulcair's bio it says this:"Tom has been married to his wife Catherine Pinhas, a public-health psychologist, for 37 years." So I'm going to treat this rumour with a big grain of salt until proven otherwise

The same is true for Sophie Grégoire.  It says, "Married to Sophie Grégoire, they are the proud parents of Xavier, Ella-Grace, and the newest addition to the family, Hadrien."  For Harper's wife Laureen, the statement is:  "Mr. Harper and his wife Laureen have two children, Benjamin and Rachel, and maintain a permanent home in Calgary."

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Tehanu wrote:

I notice that there's still no link/verification to the claim that Catherine Pinhas has instructed media to use Mulcair's last name during the election (the media has been all over the place on how to refer to her, just do a quick Google and it goes back for years). I also notice that on the NDP website in Mulcair's bio it says this:"Tom has been married to his wife Catherine Pinhas, a public-health psychologist, for 37 years." So I'm going to treat this rumour with a big grain of salt until proven otherwise

The same is true for Sophie Grégoire.  It says, "Married to Sophie Grégoire, they are the proud parents of Xavier, Ella-Grace, and the newest addition to the family, Hadrien."  For Harper's wife Laureen, the statement is:  "Mr. Harper and his wife Laureen have two children, Benjamin and Rachel, and maintain a permanent home in Calgary."

1. Thanks, Tehanu. I had bowed out, being a male, and fighting a lonely battle against the notion that women taking their husbands' name was a matter of "freedom of choice" vs. authoritarian state repression or something.

2. Mark_alfred, perhaps you didn't notice the two occasions above when I linked to the OFFICIAL LIBERAL PARTY WEBSITE presenting "Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau". As Tehanu says - this is disappointing, but certainly not surprising.

Tehanu, I hope you're right about Catherine Pinhas, and I've been referring to it as a "rumour" from the start of this thread, but I'm afraid that when CBC starts hyphenating her name, it's because they've been asked to do so. And I've gotta say: disappointing, and somewhat surprising. Still hoping terrytowel is mistaken.

 

Ken Burch

terrytowel wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

True.

But really,who cares what she wants to call herself?

Because does it really make a difference to voters if a spouse takes their husbands name?

Its seems for a PM or President there has been NO spouse who didn't take their husbands name

Except Maurren McTeer and look how that turned out.

It's extremely unlikely that Maureen McTeer's decision to keep her original name played any role at all in the PC party's failure to win a majority in 1979, or its defeat on the no-confidence motion and subsuquent thrashing in the snap election of 1980.

And in this day and age, who CARES what a party leader's wife calls herself? voters who obsess on something like that wouldn't vote NDP no matter what.

It's a non-issue and there was no point in starting a thread about it.

kropotkin1951

WIth the way the CBC acts these days I wouldn't be surprised that since the Liberals asked them to change the way it refers to the leader's spouse in the spirit of balance they went ahead and instigated it for the NDP also.

terrytowel

From the Wednesday Windsor Star, captioned as Catherine Pinhas Mulcair

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/ndp-faithful-applaud-mulcairs-message

kropotkin1951

Interesting. The NDP bio of Mulcair doesn't use this new name for her.  Other than the timing of this the story of how she wants to be referred to is up to her or at least it should be.

terrytowel

As Hillary Clinton has said (about her name) "If I don't have a problem with it, why should anyone else care?"

lagatta

It isn't so lonely. I'm certainly annoyed by this resurgence of patriarchal thought.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I heard Catherine Pinhas Mulcair likes to drink green tea.

Discuss.

terrytowel

lagatta wrote:

It isn't so lonely. I'm certainly annoyed by this resurgence of patriarchal thought.

It is about doing whatever it takes to get every single vote you can.

As Hillary Clinton said, What is more important? My name or Bill becoming Govenor?

 

 

Unionist

Tehanu wrote:

 

And women married to political leaders changing their names during a campaign is a blatant appeal to demeaning, sexist, dinosaur voters.

And maintaining the expectation that a heterosexual male political leader's wife must subsume her identity into his in order to appeal to these voters is indeed harmful to women.

 

Just thought I'd quote some more. With all the repetition on this site, why not repeat a little of what truly bears repeating?

 

terrytowel

In the States they have the First Lady bake-off contest, sponsored by Family Circle Magazine.

Why doesn't Chatelaine Magazine do the same?

Ken Burch

terrytowel wrote:

As Hillary Clinton has said (about her name) "If I don't have a problem with it, why should anyone else care?"

Agreed...no one should care about whether any woman takes her husband's name or not.  So why do YOU care? I'll concede that folks here have a right to start threads about things that interest them, but it's hard to understand why this matters to you or what it is you think this decision by MMe. Pinhas-Mulcair proves.  Is there some larger point you're trying to make here?  Some argument you are attempting to vindicate?

Please tell me you're not going to argue that the NDP has to distance itself from feminism and other anti-oppression movements in the name of winning the votes of "traditional values" Neanderthals and "manly man" types.

This is 2015.  The last name used by the wife of a party leader is something virtually nobody in North America cares about anymore, and certainly not anyone who would even consider voting NDP(or even Liberal, for that matter).

BTW, the story of the rise of Bill Clinton, the most reactionary Democratic president the U.S. has elected since Grover Cleveland, offers no useful lessons whatsoever for the NDP.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

What the hell is happening to this place? Why do we even have this thread. This place is getting down right nasty, petty, and "gotchaesque". Why are we starting so many stupid and useless threads like this one; these ones especially seem to turn into nasty, no-holds-barred smear fests! Mods, CLOSE THIS THREAD!

Unionist

You brothers would do well to read Tehanu's comments. I learn from her. Just listen to her.

And Arthur: Aren't you exaggerating just a tiny bit? Relax.

Ken Burch

terrytowel wrote:

In the States they have the First Lady bake-off contest, sponsored by Family Circle Magazine.

Why doesn't Chatelaine Magazine do the same?

Because they're not hopeless sexist dinosaurs and they realize that this isn't 1920, so they know better than to insult their readers' intelligence.   Do you also want Mme. Pinhas-Mulcair to appear in NDP campaign ads wearing an apron and pearls while spinning down the stairs Donna Reed-style?  Jesus Christ on a cocktail weenie!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm with Ken.

This thread is stupid. I'm surprised that it made out 3 pages.

Nobody gives a fuck except TT.

Unionist

alan smithee wrote:

I'm with Ken.

This thread is stupid. I'm surprised that it made out 3 pages.

Nobody gives a fuck except TT.

With all due respect - read Tehanu's comments, alan. I give a fuck, Tehanu gives a fuck. Terrytowel floated a rumour which he has been unable to substantiate. But there is something important to discuss here.

And this thread belongs in the feminism forum.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Unionist wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'm with Ken.

This thread is stupid. I'm surprised that it made out 3 pages.

Nobody gives a fuck except TT.

With all due respect - read Tehanu's comments, alan. I give a fuck, Tehanu gives a fuck. Terrytowel floated a rumour which he has been unable to substantiate. But there is something important to discuss here.

And this thread belongs in the feminism forum.

I'll heed your advice and read the comments.

I just don't see how this will make any difference in an election campaign. I don't think a maiden or married name is high on the priority list on E-day.

And you're right. Ultimately this is a feminist issue.The thread should be moved.

Ken Burch

I do like Tehanu's comments...they've been insightful and very instructional, and put me in mind of these lyrics from a traditional Canadian ballad(sung from the viewpoint of a young woman growing up on a farm in Ontario, IIRC) 

We're slaves to our fathers until we are wives-

then slaves to our husbands the rest of our lives.

 

Still wish terry would explain what his point is here, though.  He seems to think there's some huge meaning in this change in nomenclature(assuming it's even true) but refuses so far to say what that meaning is...preferring instead to take a tone of enigmatic, passive-aggressive insinuation.

 

terrytowel

Ken Burch wrote:

Agreed...no one should care about whether any woman takes her husband's name or not.  So why do YOU care?

I have no point, no agenda. This is a DISCUSSION as this is a discussion board. I didn't think you need a pin point to contribute or discuss something.

I told you a spouse name makes no difference to me.

But obviously this has struck a cord with babblers, as we are now on page 3 of this discussion. I just strated the thread, but my comments are not dominating the thread. I have not kept this thread alive, babblers have be sharing their thoughts. That is what a DISCUSSION board is, to discuss things.

Like it or not political wives ARE PART of the campaign. Otherwise they would just stay home, like Renata Ford.

And for those who feel this is a stupid thread, easy solution. Don't contribute here. Go to other threads to share your thoughts, and leave those who want to discuss this subject to themselves.

Obviously the mods don't have a problem with the subject, so why are you all getting so hot and bothered by it?

Don't like the thread, just ignore it, and visit other threads.

It is that simple.

terrytowel

Now the National Post is calling Catherine Pinhas Mulcair by her new name

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/the-making-of...

lagatta

It is a surprise that the National Pest supports the subjugation of women?

swallow swallow's picture

That article refers to "his wife Catherine" twice and includes this line: "1976: Married, at age 21, to French-born Catherine Pinhas." (Same name she gets on the NDP's web site.) So I would not take it as evidence of much. Interesting read, though! 

Tehanu, as always, thanks for shining a ray of good sense into a muddy conversation. 

terrytowel

Ken Burch wrote:

This is 2015.  The last name used by the wife of a party leader is something virtually nobody in North America cares about anymore,

Except in the USA. A President would never get elected if the spouse did not take the husbands name. There are still pockets of America that is so backwards in terms of equality, they make Stephen Harper look progressive!

Ken Burch wrote:

 Do you also want Mme. Pinhas-Mulcair to appear in NDP campaign ads wearing an apron and pearls while spinning down the stairs Donna Reed-style?  Jesus Christ on a cocktail weenie!

I take it you didn't watch the recent CPAC special where Laureen Harper did just that?

One interesting tidbit. The Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough both led the federal NDP and kept their married names, despite divorcing their husbands.

Their is no meaning or 'agenda' behind this fact, it is just an FYI.

pookie

Such ridiculous twaddle.

Had the thread been started by (almost) anyone else there would not have been nearly the hostility, though the dismissiveness would have been there.

And not everything has to be about who will ACTUALLY be swayed to vote for the NDP.  Give me a frigging break.

IF the story is true, it is about trying to position the "Mulcairs" as a more "traditional" and thus "non-threatening" couple.  Meaning a couple where the man's name predominates. No one could be so naive as to deny that.

I'm a woman and I sure as shit care if an aspiring PM's wife suddenly decides to yoke her last name to his.  I care about what that says.

If you honestly don't, then fill your boots.

 

Unionist

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Thanks pookie! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Ken Burch

terrytowel wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

This is 2015.  The last name used by the wife of a party leader is something virtually nobody in North America cares about anymore,

Except in the USA. A President would never get elected if the spouse did not take the husbands name. There are still pockets of America that is so backwards in terms of equality, they make Stephen Harper look progressive!

Ken Burch wrote:

 Do you also want Mme. Pinhas-Mulcair to appear in NDP campaign ads wearing an apron and pearls while spinning down the stairs Donna Reed-style?  Jesus Christ on a cocktail weenie!

I take it you didn't watch the recent CPAC special where Laureen Harper did just that?

One interesting tidbit. The Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough both led the federal NDP and kept their married names, despite divorcing their husbands.

Their is no meaning or 'agenda' behind this fact, it is just an FYI.

1)Mulcair's involved in Canadian politics, not U.S. politics.  He doesn't have to carry Arkansas.  And even in the U.S., it's far from clear that any significant number of voters, or at least any who would ever even consider voting for any non-reactionary candidate, would hold the views today that Arkansas voters held on the matter in 1978.

2)Nobody who enjoyed seeing Laureen Harper do a Donna Reed imitation on CPAC would ever vote NDP (or even Liberal).  You're talking about maybe 15% of the voters there.

3)Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough kept their married last names because those were the names they established their public identities with.  If  they'd gone back to their original names before entering politics, they'd have used those names as party leaders.  The only consideration at all was established name familiarity, not some weird fixation with still looking deferential to the men they'd divorced.

You say you have no agenda here, but it sure as heck sounds like you're making a case that the NDP can only form government if the wives of male NDP candidates take their husbands' last names as a ritual gesture of submission to male authority.  Do you also want gay and lesbian NDP candudates to go back in the closet 'til polling day?  Quebec Dippers to campaign solely in English?  FN/Metis candidates to go back to "the rez"? Asian-Canadian candidates to go back to Mumbai, Karachi, or Beijing?

Sorry, but that doesn't wash.  The NDP has no need of the votes of paranoid patriarchal pigosaurs.  Canada moved past that years ago. Canadian voters don't CARE what candidates' wives call themselves-any more than they care what candidates husbands' call themselves.  It simply doesn't matter.

Ken Burch

That would be a bad sign if it were the case(and we still don't even know for sure that it is), pookie.

I just realized that terrytowel could be using this development(if it was, in fact, true for sure)to set up yet another "See?  the NDP isn't any more progressive than the Liberals so you might as well vote Liberal because Justin's hair" argument.

If so...ugh...

Pondering

takeitslowly wrote:

my father abandoned me and i would love to take on my husband's name if i ever get married.

I'm sorry that happened to you and it is a reminder that we don't always know the reasons someone chooses to do something.

terrytowel

Ken Burch wrote:

That would be a bad sign if it were the case(and we still don't even know for sure that it is), pookie.

I just realized that terrytowel could be using this development(if it was, in fact, true for sure)to set up yet another "See?  the NDP isn't any more progressive than the Liberals so you might as well vote Liberal because Justin's hair" argument.

If so...ugh...

Like I said I don't care one way or the other about her name. But we are now on page 4 of this discussion, so obviously the name issue strikes a cord with people.

And for those who are saying I'm stirring the pot with the  name issue, the detractors on this thread are the ones keeping this thread alive. Not me as I said I don't care one way or the other.

But keep on responding. You are doing a great job keeping this thread alive, as I myself said I don't care what names she uses.

quizzical

page 4? it's 2 pages.

 

mark_alfred

quizzical wrote:

page 4? it's 2 pages.

If you set the comment viewing option to 10 posts per page, then there are ten pages rather than two or four.

terrytowel

pookie wrote:

Such ridiculous twaddle.

Had the thread been started by (almost) anyone else there would not have been nearly the hostility, though the dismissiveness would have been there.

And not everything has to be about who will ACTUALLY be swayed to vote for the NDP.  Give me a frigging break.

IF the story is true, it is about trying to position the "Mulcairs" as a more "traditional" and thus "non-threatening" couple.  Meaning a couple where the man's name predominates. No one could be so naive as to deny that.

I'm a woman and I sure as shit care if an aspiring PM's wife suddenly decides to yoke her last name to his.  I care about what that says.

If you honestly don't, then fill your boots.

 

pookie thanks for your defense

Not every thread here has an agenda. This is a DISCUSSION board where we post OBSERVATIONS and discuss things.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
quizzical wrote:
page 4? it's 2 pages.

If you set the comment viewing option to 10 posts per page, then there are ten pages rather than two or four.

oh...why is anyone carrying on then about how many pages the damn thread is at?  pretty fkn weird thread. don't think there's any proof of a name change, read all the crap saying it was so and it seemed to me more like the newpapers indicating who she is in the pics as they start early on and then fade it out by article end.

mark_alfred

I think it's too bad that some women feel obliged to change their names for social standard.  But, I don't judge women who may do this.  My sister, for instance, goes by her own name rather than her husband's, but at social gatherings sometimes people will refer to her using the husband's surname, and she just chooses to let it go.  Often it's a matter of convenience.  It's like having a very complicated name and shortening it to something that's more accessible to people (like, my name is Sxituefnhyeritscoiut, but just call me Scott --> do I judge Sxituefnhyeritscoiut?  No, I figure opting for convenience sometimes is perfectly understandable.)  The situation my sister occasionally is in in gatherings is a situation that all three of the leaders' wives will be in frequently over the next month.  "Oh, and you're Tom's wife?  Mrs. Mulcair, it's such an honour to meet you!"  For Catherine to correct people that it's actually Ms Pinhas a billion times over would get pretty exhausting after a while, I bet.

quizzical

my mom and dad interchange their names for the audience i guess you would say. if it is something to do with mom's stuff and someone calls my dad by her last name he is fine with it and  so is mom when someone calls her by his at his functions etc.

we're a four name family and people deal with it just fine.

Pages