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

Because men don't change their name. A man's name is regarded as his - it's his name from birth. A woman is expected to change her birth name on marriage.

You have to start from somewhere and we are where we are - with the names we have been given by our parents. Feel free to change your name to your husband's, feel free to choose an entirely new name, feel free to keep your own. But don't pretend that there is no difference between taking your husband's and keeping your own.

Btw, there are some surnames that do come from women - often when there was an inheritance involved, but also a few occupational names such as Brewster (apparently brewing ale was a woman's job in the middle ages).

Oddly enough I discovered recently an example of the woman's surname surviving in dh's family. We'd always giggled about his Grandad's middle name (a surname, think Pratt or Bottomley). He is SO grateful his Dad dropped it, after generations of Christian name, middle embarrassing surname, and then actual surname. Only dh recently found, at his Mother's house, a sampler dating from 1798 embroidered by a girl with this surname. She's clearly how it came into the family and we assume she must have had a few bob for it to be visited on her poor children. If ever there was a case for ditching your surname on marriage, that was it!

Well, Seeker, there's a very good reason if you view women mainly as childbearing vessels for the genes of men. Which is why going along with it is un-feminist.

Well why is my name not mine but my father's, but my dp's is his, not just his father''s?

And it may be my father's name- but it is also mine. The name tht I have had since birth. The name that identifies me as me. Just as much and in exactly the same way as a man's name. There is no reason for a woman's last name to be disposable and a man's permanent..

Personally I can't get annoyed about women changing their name on marriage, it's one of those sorts of issues which I think ought to annoy me, but doesn't.

I know men who have changed their names to match their wife's name.
I know partners with children whose children have the woman's surname.
I also know a "Jane" Smith who married a "John" Smith

If my professional life meant my name being traceable (eg published academic) I probably wouldn't have changed it.

As it was I didn't want to keep my father's name, and dh's name was as good as any. Our family name is fairly mainstream and likeable.

I'm now condidering changing our family name to something entirely different just to confuse uber traditional in laws but frankly can't be arsed with the hassle of it.

Keeping my fathers name (if that's how you want to view it ) is no worse than taking my (imaginary) husbands fathers name.

As for considering it horrific to have a different surname from your DH and DC, well, I guess that's where we differ.

how come my surname is really my father's but dh's surname is his own?

what is the logic that explains this?

They are keeping their OWN name (which for the first generation would be true) but subsequent to them, they would be handing down maternal names.

For the vast majority of women ( in the UK at any rate) , deliberately not changing their name on marriage is utterly pointless and equally hypocritical because they are keeping their father's name.

I would find it quite horrific to have a different name from my DH or children tbh but don't give the tiniest toss what other people do and certainly could care less if they're making a feminist statement by doing so.

Oh, and y'all talked about Caitlin Moran.

What she said was that the way to determine if something is a feminist issue is by thinking are the boys worrying about this shit?.

If there is an issue that causes conflict and stress and worry to women, and men and boys just don't ever have to think abut it, then that issue is a feminist issue.

Because either:
a - it doesn't need worrying about at all, but women are somehow being made to worry about it
b - it is something that everyone needs to be concerned about, but somehow it has been made out to be something that women need to deal with

Excluding perhaps issues to do with mooncups.

It's like the MN personal attack policy

It's ok to say: that is not the action of a feminist

But not to say: you are not a feminist...

!!!!!!!!!!

Fastidia said 'If you don't change your name on marriage when you're a woman, it's amazing who feels they have the right to comment -sometimes adversely - on it.'

Given some of the comments on here, it seems to work both ways.....

I think it's wrong to tell someone "you are not a feminist" but it's okay to point out to me that something I am doing is not furthering the rights of women.

I think that feminism is a set of beliefs.

So someone can be a feminist in their beliefs even though some of their actions may be actions that do not further the cause of feminism.

I'm expect that some of the things I do are not positively feminist actions, either because:
I don't realise that the thing I am doing is unfeminist.
I do realise it but am too lazy/selfish/conditioned by the patriarchy to make the effort to do make the more feminist choice.

And furthermore(!) taking offence is just dull, much more interesting to have a good old talk about it all.

Of course it is easy to not change your name, all you have to do is nothing.

Look, two things...

1. Obviously I really don't want to upset or offend anyone because a) it's counter productive and b) why on earth would I?

But I don't understand this taking offence at someone with a different point of view. I'm not offended by those taking the man's name just because it isn't a good idea in my view (because of the historical associations etc).

1. As I said before, to me, it is a question of logicality.

To be a feminist means working towards the emancipation, liberation and empowerment of women. Buying into a patriarchal tradition that was about male ownership is not consistent with that aim. Ergo, it is not the action of a feminist.

To explain further, I have been forbidden by some friends to call myself a socialist, because although my natural feelings, politics and inclinations lie that way, some of my lifestyle and actions are inconsistent with that label. I had to think long and hard about it and ultimately agree. Now I just call myself a hypocritical-socialist-with-good-intentions-yet-who-does-the-necessary-in-a-capitalist-system.

And no I am not suggesting anyone call themselves a hypocritical-feminist...

I'm really very offended to be told I'm not a proper feminist because I have my husband's surname and identify as a Mrs and very surprised that it's Hully telling me so.

Is the simple fact that keeping your own surname is actually keeping your father's ( or certainly a man's name somewhere along the line) ) name escaping people? So it's ok to have a name that belongs to your father because......?

Double-barrelled is all very well until your child marries, then what happens, ridiculous triple/quadruple surnames?

I know it's harking back a bit, but have just seem summer's comment about staying married being an achievement. People tend to change their name ON marriage, not as some sort of long-service award for surviving ten years without walking out. And it's not a personal failing if your marriage ends, necessarily - if your husband (or wife) has an affair, or turns violent, are you somehow less worthy than you were when you thought everything was fine?

(FWIW I have been married for considerably more than a decade although I sometimes do dream of MN-stylie leaving the bastard when he dumps his pants on TOP of the linen bin, yet again, instead of lifting the sodding lid and putting them inside.)

Hang on a minute - not changing your name is really really easy?

I really do see where you're coming from (and I wonder what my actions would have been had I liked my birth name more) but I can't see that that act of not taking your husband's name is radical enough to make an impact.
Just playing devil's advocate I think it would be easier to argue that marriage itself is an anti-feminist act rather than the name-changing that goes along with it.

I agree fork.

And I'm not interested in prescribing behaviousrs per se, it just seems to me that feminism is about the liberation and empowerment of women, and that not changing your name is a really really easy way to not subscribe to the patriarchal way, so er...

"It's my view. You don't have to agree. Why get offended? If you disagree, you disagree. "

I'm offended because it's a judgement you have made on a lot of women (including me) which is deeply unhelpful to feminism IMO. Perhaps offended is the wrong word but I had a strong reaction to reading what you wrote.

I guess it's the prescriptive nature of your opinion. "You can't call yourself a feminist." I think there are probably activities that I could partake in as a woman that might preclude me from being as being accepted as a feminist but I can't for the life of me see that the name thing is one of them.

I don't go in for choice feminism (I made a choice, I'm a woman, therefore it is a feminist choice) but I do think that prescribing a narrow set of behaviours in order to be a feminist is counter-productive to say the least.

I believe in equality of opportunity and equality of outcome and there are many cultural and political changes that need to take place to achieve that, and I'm not denying that taking your husband's name is part of a patriarchal system. I guess I just don't think the name change in and of itself is necessarily an anti-feminist act (if entered into informed).

Perhaps the way to go with the name issue is to no longer name our children after ourselves? After all a name is bestowed upon all of us with no choice, perhaps at least if we had a unique identifier and it was no longer expected that a family all shared a name - I mean why is it really necessary? - freedom of choice would be more open and women wouldn't feel the desire to change their name so that their husband, children and themselves all share it.

I'm not being facetious, this thread made me think about the whole concept and it's a bit weird once you start ruminating. Why is something as important as your name decided at birth by your parents and why do people (generally) accept their names even if they don't like them that much? Maybe we should be named for convenience by our parents and then at a certain age have an opportunity to amend our birth certificates to reflect the name we have chosen for ourselves.

Jeez, I've not even started on the wine yet... Perhaps I should :D

If I get to be a MIL (I have 3DSs) then future DILs can have a free choice- it will be nothing to do with me.

In that case we can just agree- I changed my name because I wanted to and I am free to do so. (MIL dead before I met DH)