Are Married Men "Husbands?" How About a New Term for a New Relationship?

[Rhondazvous]

I could be your cabana boy.

One could be the cabana boy and the other a male dominatrix. Are we having fun yet?

[Rhondazvous]

What are your thoughts on wife?

From the net:

Old English wif (neuter) "woman, female, lady," also, but not especially, "wife," from Proto-Germanic *wiban (cognates: Old Saxon, Old Frisian wif, Old Norse vif, Danish and Swedish viv, Middle Dutch, Dutch wijf, Old High German wib, German Weib), of uncertain origin, not found in Gothic.

Apparently felt as inadequate in its basic sense, leading to the more distinctive formation wifman (source of woman). Dutch wijf now means, in slang, "girl, babe," having softened somewhat from earlier sense of "bitch." German cognate Weib also tends to be slighting or derogatory and has been displaced by Frau.

The more usual Indo-European word is represented in English by queen/quean. Words for "woman" also double for "wife" in some languages. Some proposed PIE roots for wife include *weip- "to twist, turn, wrap," perhaps with sense of "veiled person" (see vibrate); and more recently *ghwibh-, a proposed root meaning "shame," also "pudenda," but the only examples of it would be the Germanic words and Tocharian (a lost IE language of central Asia) kwipe, kip "female pudenda."

The modern sense of "female spouse" began as a specialized sense in Old English; the general sense of "woman" is preserved in midwife, old wives' tale, etc. Middle English sense of "mistress of a household" survives in housewife; and the later restricted sense of "tradeswoman of humble rank" in fishwife. By 1883 as "passive partner in a homosexual couple." Wife-swapping is attested from 1954.

Equally disturbing.

Yes, equally. Both words reinforce the Christian ideal of the dominant man and the subservient woman. Wo-man = of man. Just saying the word repeats the lie of Eve coming out of Adam. I'm not uptight about it. But I think it's time our language grew with us.

[Rev. Rye]

Not sure if this is the right forum for this. But...


I am a woman and (gee, Rhonda, we never would have guess. Thanks for the heads up) I don't like the word "husband. I can't help wondering if it has an etymological connection to the word "husbandry."

Think about it. Until relatively recently, women were considered the property of their husbands. A woman without a husband was like a cow without a cowboy. From its inception marriage has been about men doing the tasks of husbandry—caring for and managing their wives.
e are in a new era now. Isn't it kind of retro to enter this new epoch with a term that speaks of inequality in the relationship?

I knew a lesbian couple at work once (well, technically, they were just two bisexual girls who dated for a while). I once heard one of them saying she wanted to be considered "the husband" in the relationship. Surprisingly, it was the less butch one who said she wanted to be "the husband." I can only assume she wanted her wife to have dinner ready for her when she went home after a long day of getting intimate with other girls at a titty bar (Yes, she did openly go to strip clubs, even when she was dating). Then again, she seemed to be stuck with a five-year-old's maturity and, from what I can gather, she seems to have been raised in a very conservative home. (FWIW, I have since met lesbians who were more "normal" than her.) I can only assume she used those terms because she couldn't think outside of those words.

Then again, is there a better alternative that doesn't seem as impersonal as "partner." I remember Elton John saying ""There is a world of difference between calling someone your 'partner' and calling them your 'husband'. 'Partner' is a word that should be preserved for people you play tennis with, or work alongside in business. It doesn't come close to describing the love that I have for David, and he for me. In contrast, 'husband' does."

That said, marriage itself is pretty much a throwback to a more paternalistic view of women and the world.

[Jenny A]

Yes, equally. Both words reinforce the Christian ideal of the dominant man and the subservient woman. Wo-man = of man. Just saying the word repeats the lie of Eve coming out of Adam. I'm not uptight about it.  But I think it's time our language grew with us.

That is incorrect with regard to man and woman, at least with regard to subservience, though it does have to do with gender roles.  Man was originally the word for both adult human males and adult human females.  There is an old English translation of Genesis that calls Adam and Eve men.  Werman (weapon man) differentiated males, and wimman  or wifman (weaving man) differentiated females and eventually vowel shifted to woman.  The "wer" eventually disappeared from the language with the notable exception of werewolf.   Wif eventually became wife.

[Cato]

Yes, equally. Both words reinforce the Christian ideal of the dominant man and the subservient woman. Wo-man = of man. Just saying the word repeats the lie of Eve coming out of Adam. I'm not uptight about it.  But I think it's time our language grew with us.

I offered a snide remark earlier in the thread. I still stand by it; however, since the thread has survived I thought it appropriate to provide a more considered response.

Jenny addressed the mistaken etymology so that leaves me with an opinion regarding the goal and your proposed means of achieving it. What you're proposing is simply a change of label invoking the 'lipstick on a pig' analogy rendered cliche. I have no doubt of your conviction and well meaning; however, I can't help but wonder if the label change idea is symptomatic of a subconscious side-effect stemming from our constant inundation of branding and marketing campaigns. This may read like I'm having a bit of fun, but I'm quite sincere here. Change the color, shape, name or the music played with the product being peddled and magically you are made to feel you are buying a new product even though you are being sold the same shit.

Take society's consideration and treatment of women over the entirety of human history and then compare that to the advances made in just the last 100 years or so. The improvement has been exponential. This is not to say that things are yet quite right and I empathize with the frustration that must accompany the silence when you ask the question, "it's so fucking simple, why doesn't everyone just get it?".

We're close, but the last stretch is going to seem arduous mostly because you are living it. Do those that came before you proud and continue to struggle and demand for what is rightfully yours. Endeavor to finish what they started, equal rights and treatment of women. Forcing a label change accomplishes nothing! Enforce what being a woman means and let the terminology evolve on its own accord.

[Ravenshire]

Singular - spouse.
Plural - spice.

You sayin' the spice girls were way ahead of the game?!?

[Ravenshire]

I don't see why people are getting excited about these terms.  If you're not calling each other "bitch" or "fuckhead," then you're happily married, and why look for things to feign outrage about?

Personally, I've always thought husbands should be called "poor bastards," but that's just me.

[CapnAwesome]

Do we have to change every word every twenty years? If husband is changed to something someone will decide that whatever it was changed to is now offensive to them.

[Rhondazvous]

I knew a lesbian couple at work once (well, technically, they were just two bisexual girls who dated for a while). I once heard one of them saying she wanted to be considered "the husband" in the relationship. Surprisingly, it was the less butch one who said she wanted to be "the husband." I can only assume she wanted her wife to have dinner ready for her when she went home after a long day of getting intimate with other girls at a titty bar (Yes, she did openly go to strip clubs, even when she was dating). Then again, she seemed to be stuck with a five-year-old's maturity and, from what I can gather, she seems to have been raised in a very conservative home. (FWIW, I have since met lesbians who were more "normal" than her.) I can only assume she used those terms because she couldn't think outside of those words.

Then again, is there a better alternative that doesn't seem as impersonal as "partner." I remember Elton John saying ""There is a world of difference between calling someone your 'partner' and calling them your 'husband'. 'Partner' is a word that should be preserved for people you play tennis with, or work alongside in business. It doesn't come close to describing the love that I have for David, and he for me. In contrast, 'husband' does."

That said, marriage itself is pretty much a throwback to a more paternalistic view of women and the world.

The word 'partner' does make me think of the Lone Ranger and Tonto. You're right, it doesn't describe the intimacy of a loving relationship.

Languages grow as society encounters new things that can't be adequately described by the existing lexicon.

"By the power invested in me by the state of affairs, I now pronounce you man and...uh..well. You may kiss the...um...hmmm."

[Rhondazvous]

Yes, equally. Both words reinforce the Christian ideal of the dominant man and the subservient woman. Wo-man = of man. Just saying the word repeats the lie of Eve coming out of Adam. I'm not uptight about it.  But I think it's time our language grew with us.

That is incorrect with regard to man and woman, at least with regard to subservience, though it does have to do with gender roles.  Man was originally the word for both adult human males and adult human females.  There is an old English translation of Genesis that calls Adam and Eve men.  Werman (weapon man) differentiated males, and wimman  or wifman (weaving man) differentiated females and eventually vowel shifted to woman.  The "wer" eventually disappeared from the language with the notable exception of werewolf.   Wif eventually became wife.

That is an interesting view and worth looking into. I'm coming from a Christian worldview that defines the wo in woman as meaning of man. I never heard it the way you described, Thanks for the education.