Apparently I can't be a feminist because I changed my name when I married.

I was clear that I said that no doubt many men do exist who genuinely aren't offended so not sure why I need to be presented with individual examples of your DHs.

I don't assume that they're more truthful with me, but that they appear to be more truthful ABOUT me and have an opinion on my stance about keeping my name which I find strange when compared with their stance about their own partners.

I think people should bear in mind that critiquing a practice, is not the same as criticising an individual's choice or the reasons for that choice.

There is sometimes a fine line and sometimes people stray over it; but people who get angry about other people analyses a practice and trying to understand why and how it happens and interpret that discussion as a criticism of a choice they have made, usually do so either because they're a bit insecure about that choice or because they don't believe it's valid to critique it. And why would a critique be invalid?

I personally couldn't give a flying fuck what choices individual women make. I do give a fuck about the circumstances in which they make those choices and I am interested in hearing people's opinions about it.

I think a position that relies on men being more truthful with you than they are when they speak with other people is not a very useful one in a discussion. I could just as easily claim that men are being more honest when they speak to me and say that they aren't bothered!

"I also think on this thread is the sort of thing that puts people off feminism."

Like I said upthread, some people are quite easily put off.

Sorry, I should clarify - I have met many who claimed not to be bothered but were happy to express their more honest beliefs when talking about me rather than their own wives. I've had many a man explain to me why DP would be offended by my stance and how deep down they felt rejected when it happened to them. My own DP has admitted that although the situation will never arise with us, he'd be a little hurt but would never let it show as he respects my position. He's never really been able to express quite why he would feel hurt and I suspect that he tolerates my position rather than understands it. So openly he would express support but it would really be about face saving in front of his friends and family.

My DH doesn't mind in the slightest that we both use our own names. He gets mistakenly called Mr Mysurname and just goes along with it, the same as I do if I get called Mrs Hissurname.

I know it's hard not to but I don't think we should be criticising the choices other women make when they choose something that does not advance feminism. If we are to direct our disapproval anywhere it should be at whatever is causing women to make anti feminist choices in the first place. A woman may well accept a lower wage than a man if she needs the work and who would judge her for that? Pregnant women and new mothers are not in an equal bargaining position relative to their partners. You can't blame them for not wanting to rock the boat. Anyone who struggles to understand why a woman would give her child the father's surname over her own must be living in a lovely utopian bubble.

"I have yet to meet a man who hasn't been offended when his wife refused to take his name."

I should introduce you to my DH then . He couldn't care less about it. My mum, on the other hand, wondered why I was bothering to get married if I wasn't going to take DH's name .

That surprises me, Blistory. I've yet to meet a man who has been offended by his wife's decision not to take his name.

I also think on this thread is the sort of thing that puts people off feminism. Sorry dear, you are being subjugated by the patriarchy but you just don't know it. Why not accept in this case, that people make different, informed choices?

Because the reasons given often show that it wasn't an informed choice. It is to do with pressure and social expectations - all of which have a historical context.

I have yet to meet a man who hasn't been offended when his wife refused to take his name. No doubt many men do exist but I suspect they remain in a minority and it leads me to question what other underlying sexist beliefs they have that they might not be aware of. These beliefs shape society so yes, as a feminist, I think they should be challenged.

Whereas I feel very uncomfortable being addressed as Mr and Mrs Hissurname, it is always Mr Hissurname and Ms Hersurname here. I hate the term maiden name as well, I have a surname, if I ever changed my name I would have a previous surname.

If you are so happy and confident in your "different and informed choice", why are you so cross about the way others see it?

I would just find it very weird, being married, to see "Mr Woozley and Ms/Mrs Maidenname" for one thing. Also it would look like an homage to a film actor as our names together spell his name, and I don't particularly like him as he was a Romney supporter.

I also think on this thread is the sort of thing that puts people off feminism. Sorry dear, you are being subjugated by the patriarchy but you just don't know it. Why not accept in this case, that people make different, informed choices?

I don't give a flying fuck what the history of marriage is or whether you think I'm cowtowing to the patriarchy in changing my name. The important thing is to me you marry someone who considers you an equal who is worthy of you and your marriage is what you make of it together. That's what I'll be passing on to my daughters, and I've already told them you don't have to get married at all and that girls can marry girls too- as they have seen going to a civil partnership ceremony of my best friend.

To be anti marriage for these reasons to me is a bit like saying you don't like school because they used to use corporal punishment.

I took my Dh's name, after a long conversation with him about it. I had thought of going the double barrel, but it sounded like an illness. And I'd like my kids to have the same name as both parents.

I don't think your name is a hallmark of feminism, it is more a pride issue or a lineage issue. It is a lineage issue with my Dh. He is the only son, and none of his sisters have children. So the name either dies with his generation (it's unusual) or his kids have it. I don't like the idea of his surname disappearing from these parts...

I think anyone who thinks feminism is all about choice, has a really basic misunderstanding of what it is tbh.

It's the political movement for the emancipation and liberation of women.

Feminists made choices possible for women, but that's not the point of it, that's a side-effect. Feminism isn't all about choice, libertarianism is.

Oh, and for you people who keep on about choice, sure you can choose but why should feminists automatically approve of that choice? Would you expect feminists to approve if you:

• chose to accept lower pay than a man doing the same job, because why not, it's more important to him?
• chose to bring up your daughters to cook and clean and your sons to sit around being waited on (after all women are just better at cooking and cleaning!)?
• chose to vote against women bishops?

While I don't particularly care what individuals do, I think the issue of name-changing will only cease to be an issue when name-changing on marriage is equal between men and women, and when children's surnames are equally split between dads' surnames and mums' surnames (where different)

Wish I could find some statistics, but from the people I know I'm guessing it would be:

women changing to DH surname on 1st marriage: 95%
women keeping their own name on 1st marriage: 5% (maybe more on 2nd marriage)
men changing to DW surname on 1st marriage: 0
double-barrelling on marriage: 0

where the parents' surnames are different:
kids getting dad's surname: 99%
kids getting mum's surname: 0
kids getting double-barrelled: 1% (me )

Thinking about your experience though, depending on how it was said I think I too would feel judged. I suppose they have a relatively short time to 'assess' a situation and are trying to gather a lot of info quickly, but I can't see how different surnames are particularly relevant.

No worries, I think they should be fastiduous, to be honest, but consistently!

Request for title information on forms is a bit of a nonsense. If forms need gender, marital, qualifications info, they can ask, so title info conveys nothing extra. I suppose they request title info only so that they can address people by the title they prefer, so the trick will be to convey to a million bureaucracies that the preferred title is none at all.

summerflower sorry I wasn't actually replying to your post, but the one above about the issue at the Canadian border! Was just trying to point out that they are quite fastidious about these things and the issue wasn't necessarily related to having different surnames.

I understand the child safety issues - the point was that no-one ever asked re DD, but as soon as I had DS as well, I was challenged.

Another instance, travelling with DH2, we had DSD as well who has her mother's name, so four surnames between us, and we were not challenged.

So, yes, I think it was because I was a lone woman travelling with two children with different fathers. The questions were not, do you have the fathers' permissions, it was how come they have different surnames from you? I don't know, they were just two random kids I stole??

Maybe I will just change both to my names as I look after them and pay for them and then no-one will bat an eyelid.

I think every woman over 18 should be called Mrs.

Like on the continent.

Miss only for little girls.

Then it would have no political connotations.

It is just a shortening of Mistress.

Titles are largely useless these days. I prefer not to use one at all. I'm not interested in people's marital status, and fail to see why categorising men as married or unmarried would be a step forward.

I'm a Mrs and a feminist Hully, I'm married to my husband, therefore I am a Mrs and happy to be categorised as such.
The only thing I do wish is that there was a title for a married man that categorised him as such.
Whatever my daughter wants to do with her name if and when she marries is up to her but I think it's important for a family to have the same surname, whomever it first "belonged" to.