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

Don't you understand that the choice of changing a woman's identity to a man's is skewed?

The "choice" = follow a patriarchal tradition that is designed to switch owernership from one man to another, or not.

What sort of "choice" is that? And how on earth can it be a feminist one?

There isn't much point in feminism if you are forced into a choice that makes you unhappy.

Only relevant in that feminism is about choice.

That's very nice, married and exotic, pleased for you both. It is, however, entirely irrelevant.

Me too marriedinwhite-but slightly older. I like my freedom (couldn't do without it) but I love being a woman-I think they have much the best deal-I decided that aged about 5yrs and have never changed my mind!

Ah, but if you were really beautiful and really stupid you wouldn't know how stupid you were - ignorance is bliss

I have spent most of my life ensuring that I am able to do things that ultimately will please me. Many would say I am just selfish; I would say I am just honest. It has done me no harm at all and along the way I have always thought about others.

I have done a lot of things that fall into the feminist camp and a lot that simply don't and I don't regret any of it. Had a good first career, stunning in fact, been a sahm, went back to work in a more worthy cause, am chief domestic manager, like the hairdresser, like make-up, like being neat and tidy, like quite a lot of the domestic side of things and really like looking after and caring for DH and the DC.

Frankly I don't care if that make me a feminist or not. I am me and at 52 I am happy and seem to have two relatively well balanced teenagers, barring the odd blip but I think we (and I mean we as in DH and I) have managed that reasonably well for 22 years of being married and nearly 25 together

I find it far more worrying that according to a current thread many women would rather be beautiful than have brains-it make a change of name seem trivial. Men wouldn't even consider the question.

Feminism is not to do with choice - wrong.

Feminism means that women can choose what they like - also wrong.

""I also resent being told that feminism is not to do with choice and that I should be doing what the bossiest women tell me to do."

Yep. I'd resent that too.

The issue is that just because a woman chooses to do something doesn't make it a feminist choice. Women are capable of making profoundly anti feminist choices- and, on occasion men are capable of making feminist choices.

Saying that feminism is about women being able to make choices is only half the story.

"I also resent being told that feminism is not to do with choice and that I should be doing what the bossiest women tell me to do."

Yeah, I'm a communist and I resent being told communism isn't just about my individual choices as well.*

So unreasonable and bossy, these political people. Don't they realise a political movement is just about my choices?

No-one's telling you what you should do Exotic. They're just pointing out that following the status quo, whatever your reasons, isn't a feminist choice. It's just an individual choice which you of course, have the right to exercise.

• I'm not really

That's interesting. Thanks for the link edam.

Spanish name rules here Still not perfect, because it tends to be the grandfather's name on both sides given to the child, but at least women's names do survive one generation - you could adapt it by giving free choice which of your parents' names you hand down.

How do they do in in Spain?

They deal with double-barrelled surnames perfectly well in other countries. Spain, for instance.

Seeker, your came after your question which followed you quoting my post. So I was just enquiring if you were posing that question and face at me?

I take it you were.

I fully understand, can appreciate and (in hindsight) am on board with women keeping their surnames when they get married. I think it is A Good Thing.
However when you double-barrel your surnames to give to your child I get stuck with the trail of consequences because, although some people, like yourself, do not mind what their offspring do with the respective parts of their surnames, some people will. They will mind very much. And therin lies huge potential for deeply upsetting members of the family.

I am thinking about this issue. Mn is good for this.

well, it depends what yu mean by "aimed"!

I really don't understand why what happens in the next generation is a stickingnpoint, but changing your name to your partner's this generation isn't!

marry not required in that sentence on re-reading,

Seeker is your aimed at me?

My reference to you at 16:28:14 is not sarcastic. I am just musing about the potential problems that could occur when two double-barrelled surnames marry/have children. It's a sticking point for me when I think about this issue.

I have no problems with the argument for women keeping their names when they get married until I get to that point.

That wasn't the issue.

And yes/no is just dull.

it only required a yes it no?would he have happily taken your surname

No he would have beaten me and sent me back to the kitchen to iron his dinner.

would your dp have gone with your surname had you won?

We gave the dc dh's surname because he won Rock,Paper,Scissors.

"I'm just trying to work out what dh and I would have done when when dropping half of our hypothetical hyphenated names upon the birth and naming of dd1. Even if all the grandparents were as breezy and reasonable as you chibi and seeker.
I would have found that decision horribly difficult."

Whereas dropping your name and giving your child his/her father's name is strqightforward, simple and not problematic at all?