I was disappointed when CNN ran an article called "How to Address Women -- Married, Divorced, Single" that somehow managed to avoid addressing, uh, how to address women -- married, divorced, single.

The writer, Wendy Atterberry (who blogs for our friends at The Frisky) is getting married this summer, and while she "reject[s] the notion some have expressed that when a woman takes her husband's last name she's giving up her identity," she acted really surprised when some of the women in her family wanted their invitations addressed to Mrs. Husband's Full Name.

Read why this riles me up after the jump.

Sorry guys, but the notion of being addressed as Mrs. -- even on something as trivial as a wedding invite -- is effing medieval.

It's bad enough that kids pretty much automatically get their father's name -- but the fact that he's the default human being of the household? Sorry, that's bananas.

The fact is, if you decide to "take your husband's last name," you are literally taking your husband's name. In what universe is that not giving up your identity?

Take my mom, who felt pressured to take my dad's cumbersome-ass Polish last name and give up the awesome, alliterative one she'd been proud of her whole life. Everybody wanted to know if she wasn't happy to be part of my dad's family, and what they were going to call their kids. (Because this should just always be the husband's last name? What the hell?) Twenty years after they divorced and she took back her old name, she's still getting mail and phone calls for Mrs. My Dad. Obviously, chicks can't handle bills and ads for cable Internet on their own.

I know, today's feminism is all about choices. But until guys are forced to take a title to signify that they're available or off limits, or until they start taking OUR last names en masse without being thought of as p*ssies, I'd be interested to hear a compelling argument for how the amoebic taking-on of another person's name is in any way defensible.