Ex wife still has husband’s surname

I’m yet to see anyone give a good reason that this practice continues.

And you have yet to show a good reason why it shouldn't beyond a weird sense of grievance against marriage and a determination to tell other women who are perfectly happy with their choices that they are wrong.

Being known by my husband's name has never hampered opportunities for me and if I have missed the point of your brand of feminism, I'll live with it.

You have tried very hard to tell us we're doing it all wrong and we should be more like you, but you must realise by now you are failing miserably.

You will never convince people who are happy with their life and their choices that they are unhappy.

Your interest in sociology has come across as quite high handed and patronising to any woman who has commented on this thread & not shared your view.

We all have free will and free choice. I am not so stupid as to not see & understand that the practice of changing your name to your husband's has a misogynistic background.
I fully expect my own daughters won't make that choice if they do decide to marry one day. They may decide to never marry at all.

However, I did change my name when I married over twenty years ago and I am happy with that choice. I also wasn't given away nor did I wear white but changing my name was something I wanted to do & I went into it with my eyes open, knowing it was a practice routed in mysoginistic tradition. My choice.

I am also happy that I have decided not to change it back when the marriage ended.

I don't have to justify that choice to you or anyone else nor do I have to be criticised by you for it.

You didn't invent feminism and you aren't the only person in the world who understands it.

I have an interest in sociology and a desire to improve opportunities for our daughters, granddaughters and beyond.

I’m yet to see anyone give a good reason that this practice continues. What is driving it? Can’t be practicality because that would apply equally to men. Unlikely it’s only women with all of the ugly/difficult names.

It stems from misogyny, and I believe it hampers opportunities for women in many ways (missing the point of feminism being just one of them).

So come on, what great benefits come to the women that change their names such that it should continue as standard practice?

I have an interest in sociology and a desire to improve opportunities for our daughters, granddaughters and beyond.

I’m yet to see anyone give a good reason that this practice continues. What is driving it? Can’t be practicality because that would apply equally to men. Unlikely it’s only women with all of the ugly/difficult names.

It stems from misogyny, and I believe it hampers opportunities for women in many ways (missing the point of feminism being just one of them).

So come on, what great benefits come to the women that change their names such that it should continue as standard practice?

If you are truly happy in your rose garden, why are you so bothered about what other women are perfectly happy doing?

All your posts come across as bitter and resentful that other women don't live their lives as you seem to think they should.

I’ve been very happily married for almost 22 years. Only marriage because civil partnerships weren’t available to straight couples back then, but both DH and I saw it as two adults with their own identities choosing to commit legally to one another. Not a Disney “one-true-love” situation.

I wasn’t given away (because nobody owns me to give me away) and nor did I give up my public identify to be an association of the man I signed a contract with, just as he changed none of his identity for signing a contract with me. Neither of us would have considered that to be anything like a logical thing to do. I have no idea at all why I would want to be more directly associated with DH’s family than my own.

When we had DD, we wanted both branches of her family in her name, but it would have created 7 syllable double barrel if we did that. Without hesitation DH suggested she have my surname and his as a middle name. Because I did the actual hard work of growing her and getting her into the world safely.

I suspect most women change their names because of societal influences of romance (marriage being seen as some sort of validation) and commitment rather than any actual hard thinking about why that should an expectation for them but not their humans.

It’s such an odd thing to do given it’s generally she that shoulders the greatest risk if the marriage breaks down.

I’ve been very happily married for almost 22 years. Only marriage because civil partnerships weren’t available to straight couples back then, but both DH and I saw it as two adults with their own identities choosing to commit legally to one another. Not a Disney “one-true-love” situation.

I wasn’t given away (because nobody owns me to give me away) and nor did I give up my public identify to be an association of the man I signed a contract with, just as he changed none of his identity for signing a contract with me. Neither of us would have considered that to be anything like a logical thing to do. I have no idea at all why I would want to be more directly associated with DH’s family than my own.

When we had DD, we wanted both branches of her family in her name, but it would have created 7 syllable double barrel if we did that. Without hesitation DH suggested she have my surname and his as a middle name. Because I did the actual hard work of growing her and getting her into the world safely.

I suspect most women change their names because of societal influences of romance (marriage being seen as some sort of validation) and commitment rather than any actual hard thinking about why that should an expectation for them but not their humans.

It’s such an odd thing to do given it’s generally she that shoulders the greatest risk if the marriage breaks down.

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder about this. For most women, it's not a problem, but you desperately want it to be one.

We have two (sensible) choices when we get married. We can take our husband's name (the choice taken willingly by almost every married woman I know), or keep our father's name.

Of course we also have the nonsense options that you have proposed, but I doubt many women will seriously consider any of them.

Don't you think it's strange given your jaundiced view of marriage, that so many women are still willingly entering into the married state? Could it be that for most of us it brings us happiness and fulfilment?

I think you protest too much. Does the annoyance and lecturing of women who - entirely reasonably - want to be married to and bear the name of the man they love come from it never happening for you? Or from a bad experience?

We are not all the same.

I’ve noticed that the male family members of women who change their names on marriage because:

they hate their surname
it’s too hard to say/spell
it’s too common

cope just fine having the same name for their entire lives. Weird phenomenon, really.

As I have explained above, my issue is with women being expected to identify themselves in relation to the man they choose to sign a legal document with whilst men have no such expectation. Their children often aren’t given any immediately identifiable link to their mother (the person that risked their physical and mental wellbeing, often their career and independence and also their life) or her family, in favour of the partner that took relatively few risks and who can pretty much carry on regardless/benefit greatly from the situation whilst being much freer to walk away with little ongoing impact.

It’s not about the female choice per se, it’s about the presumption, the expectation which applies to women alone (not much progress from when they were literal belongings of men and identified as such - how utterly sweet and charming 🙄). Women who defend female choice without acknowledging even a fraction of this do their future female descendants an enormous disservice.

So why is keeping a name just to be higher up in the alphabet an OK reason but when I said I kept mine because literally everyone I currently know just knows me as that name & I don't want to go through the faff of changing it you came for me? 🤔

I think it’s a very honest and interesting post. OP could have achieved the benefit by changing her name to Aardvark on her 18th birthday or at any time since. I wonder why she didn’t take that option. The answer is likely that it would have upset her family/hard to justify giving up her name for another without the socially acceptable (indeed expectation) of marriage etc. And we are back to the roots of the practice being inherently damaging to women. Not cool.

Even if the rationale given were reasonable, why aren’t men with surnames taking the chance for them and their children to get higher up the alphabetical list if they marry a woman with a A-M surname?

Watch out with your perfectly reasonable explanation, @AmIHumanOrAmIAYeti will be along in a minute to berate you and pick apart your post.

I agree with this a 100%. It is absolutely what I think. I wasn’t ever going to get married or have kids, then I did marry late and have a DD. I certainly was never going to change my name. I would have been appalled at that idea.

However I have to confess to being completely shallow when given the option and I did change my name because his was so much nicer and it’s further up the alphabet (I always hated being last for everything growing up) and now divorced am hanging on to his name purely for the same reasons.

I clearly have no principles whatsoever which is not the easiest thing to admit. Vanity has won.

It wouldn't, but I didn't like my name so couldn't wait to offload it, therefore it wasn't even a consideration. Double barreled name would have been fairer if I did.

Anyway, wasn't really practical me taking it other than nursery and schools would get my surname right, but 100% practical not changing it back with all the faff that comes with it (and as mentioned, I couldn't wait to get rid of my own surname!)

I've noticed on this thread that those who claim to be feminists seem to be the ones putting other women down for their own choices. Strange that.

I’ve noticed that the male family members of women who change their names on marriage because:

they hate their surname
it’s too hard to say/spell
it’s too common

cope just fine having the same name for their entire lives. Weird phenomenon, really.

As I have explained above, my issue is with women being expected to identify themselves in relation to the man they choose to sign a legal document with whilst men have no such expectation. Their children often aren’t given any immediately identifiable link to their mother (the person that risked their physical and mental wellbeing, often their career and independence and also their life) or her family, in favour of the partner that took relatively few risks and who can pretty much carry on regardless/benefit greatly from the situation whilst being much freer to walk away with little ongoing impact.

It’s not about the female choice per se, it’s about the presumption, the expectation which applies to women alone (not much progress from when they were literal belongings of men and identified as such - how utterly sweet and charming 🙄). Women who defend female choice without acknowledging even a fraction of this do their future female descendants an enormous disservice.

It wouldn't, but I didn't like my name so couldn't wait to offload it, therefore it wasn't even a consideration. Double barreled name would have been fairer if I did.

Anyway, wasn't really practical me taking it other than nursery and schools would get my surname right, but 100% practical not changing it back with all the faff that comes with it (and as mentioned, I couldn't wait to get rid of my own surname!)

I've noticed on this thread that those who claim to be feminists seem to be the ones putting other women down for their own choices. Strange that.

How would it have been less “practical” for your husband to take your name?

I know what you meant.

What I don't know is why people think a name/taking or keeping someone's name is your whole identity. It's your identity on paper or even if people mentioned you. Your surname differentiates you from others with the same forename or a different family.

Some are acting like if you choose to change your name you're all of a sudden a different person, suggesting your identity has been taken over by the husband.

For me it's more practical and I remain the same person I was before I changed it and decided to keep it!

Don't know what your problem is but if you want the last word then feel free.
I know exactly what I mean and I'm sure others do as well
But hey ho, nit pick away if you really want to. 🤷‍♂️