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

I have a different name from my DS and have never had a single question-as I keep saying it is unimportant.
I find it odd that if it is pointed out that people have their father's name they say 'it doesn't matter it is my name'. I have DH's name-I have now had it longer than I had my father's name-it is my name and I fail to see the difference!
It is personal choice-up to the individual and nothing to do with anyone else.
I know I am equal-I don't need a name to prove it-I refuse to get bogged down in trivialities.

I have a different surname to my dc and in 15 years of travelling all over the world with them have never ever ever ever ever had a question, let alone a problem.

Never read the comments.

Bue, the comments on that article - I got as far as the second one:

If it's too much trouble for a person to align the names of their children with their own last names, and there are many possible ways of doing it, you've got to wonder what other aspects of their parental responsibilities are too bothersome for them, too.

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2012/nov/22/travel-troubles-not-sharing-childs-surname

I wonder if the writer is a MNer and was inspired by yesterday's discussion?

"Getting married is nice for the couple involved but it's not like climbing Everest or graduating with a first or anything."

Getting married is the easy bit, staying married happily, equally and lovingly, is the hard bit. In my humble opinion, getting a first is easier, if you are intellectually inclined, than negotiating the thorny path between retaining an independent sense of self and forming a working and lasting partnership with someone who society accords more value/privilege than you.

The fact that a couple of posters have said it's harder for a man to change his name is proof of outdated patriarchal assumptions.

In England, a woman can 'prove' to her bank and other organisations that she's changed her surname by showing them her marriage certificate or decree absolute. It's not the same for men. This must be the reason people assume it's easier for the woman to change her name.

In reality, anyone can change their surname just by doing it. It's legal to go under several different surnames as long as you're honest and consistent in their usage. Banks might say you need a deed poll, but that isn't true either: they can demand one, but there's no legal requirement.

If Mr Jones and Ms Smith decide to change their name to Mr & Mrs Very-Posh upon marriage, all they have to do is give the registrar a statement. They can carry on using their old names for work, if they want, and can name their children Smith-Jones if they like. It's not the big deal that most people (patriarchally) think it is.

"Getting married is nice for the couple involved but it's not like climbing Everest or graduating with a first or anything."

Are you sure about that now? Plenty of women say they're "proud" to be married, and to be known as Mrs.

No the individual shouldn't give up what is right for them. It is all about choice. My SIL kept her ex DHs name and didn't take my brother's name. I presume she just liked it. It is no big deal. I changed mine, there is no necessity for me to justify it. It is my choice, not up for judgement and trivial.

Hit post too soon.

Does having different "needs" to the majority, or even the ideal, in a smaller issue like this really make you anti feminist? Does it negate any agreement you may have with the bigger issues?

(By bigger issues I mean women being given equal opportunities/rights as men)

The problem with subjects like changing your name when you get married is that although, in theory, it is damaging to equality, it's rarely quite as black and white as that.

Maybe it would be better if we all provided a united front, it would be a huge symbolic gesture. And in terms of equality it would be the "right" thing to do. But in personal terms in might not be the "right" thing at all.

Should the individual give up on what is right for them in order to satisfy the needs of the majority?

I did prioritise dh's family name over mine for the reasons already given. However I chose to use the title Ms rather than Mrs as I didn't see why my marital status was relevant.

Oh I think we're on the same side re that one...

"Put off", forsooth.

Fastidia - I really, generally do agree with you - it's very unusual for me to be on the 'other' side of any feminist debate. And in actual fact, I'm not really - since I admit that changing your name is not the right thing to do, even though I did it. I admit I'm in the wrong on this.

But I would argue that, for example, socialists and communists are often accused of putting people off their movement...! I mean you only have to look at the Republicans in the US as an example of this. They are thoroughly put off socialism by Obama (who's about as much of a socialist as David Cameron is, really). Anyone who doesn't agree with a particular ideology will be put off it by its proponents. I don't think feminism in unique in this regard.

But that's the crux of it. They don't agree with it, and never did in the first place. They don't need any putting off, it's just an excuse.

Oh yes, fas it's funny that, isn't it?

No that's not what I meant, but I can see why it looks that way. Im afraid I've had a few .

I meant that it's incredibly complicated but that we all have our limits. If someone asks, as the OP did, I'll say what I think, just as I expect others would if I asked about feminism and marriage or make up or whatever. On the other hand, I would (and have) protested outside a lap dancing club, but I wouldn't target the women who worked there. I guess we have our own hierarchies and we tend to gravitate to people who share our views. That doesn't mean we dont feel an affinity with larger movements, but that we have a position within the broader collective. A bit like a political party I guess.

I think there are some things where it would be preposterous to demand to be in the club though.

What other political movement has to put up with people who clearly have no commitment to the basic tenets of the movement calling themselves part of the movement?

Actually, scrap that, communism does. Pol Pot, capitalist China, Stalin etc.

OK here's another one. Feminism's basic principle is that women are human beings just like men, not chattels and not inferior and not an afterthought.

If you don't believe in women's humanity, then you're not a feminist.

I agree with Brassection, if you believe in forcing women to carry pregnancies they don't want and undertake the health risks and life risk of labour when they don't want to, you don't really believe women are as human as men, because there isn't a situation anywhere where you would insist men have to put their welfare on the line for the sake of someone else.

Trotskyists accuse Stalinists of betraying the revolution. Stalinists say Maoists are idiots and not real communists.

AFAIK, none of them say: "well that's it then, I'm not going to be a communist anymore, it's communists like you who put other people off being communist and guess what, my commitment to the movement is so weak and tenuous, that I too have been put off - I'm off to join the Tory party".

Only feminists are accused of putting people off an entire political and human rights movement.

Interesting ain't it?

I kept my own surname but each to their own. Women who wear marriage as a badge of pride are weird though - the sort Blistory is talking about. Getting married is nice for the couple involved but it's not like climbing Everest or graduating with a first or anything.

So Brasssection - what you're saying is that you deem people unworthy of being in the club, but you yourself refuse to be thrown out of the club by others.

I'm with you with regards to the latter. I changed my surname, but I refuse to be thrown out of the club. Feminists have me whether they want me or not.

But there is a contradiction there, surely. You can't tell someone they're not feminist, as frustrating as their stance might be to you. Because you wouldn't tolerate it from someone else with regards to issue X where you allegedly 'fail'.

All you can do is continue to argue the toss, debate, question, etc. I know I failed as a feminist when it comes to taking DH's name. I really do. But I'm also part of the solution when it comes to (many) other matters.

No-one's perfect. We all just do our best.

I kept my name because for me changing to my husband's name implied I was being transferred from my father's property to my husband's, which is total bollocks, plus my DS had my surname as his useless father left when I was pregnant. It was a conscious statement of my individuality and when challenged about it I used the above explanation.

Several times my DH has been referred to as Mrs Original and he thinks it is hilarious, but when I ask him to think about why it is so funny, he gets a bit huffy. I've told him clearly, I love him but I don't like what changing my name would have implied

See, this is where it gets tricky for me. Feminism can't be a free for all. I remember a woman arguing that she was anti-choice and a feminist because she cared about the rights of the 'girl babies'. Sorry, she wasn't a feminist in my book. Was I wrong to say that? Did she them complain about women like me who want to keep people who disagree with out of the feminist club?

We all have our own ideas about what it is to be a feminist. For me, keeping my name was vital. For others I see it isn't. I must admit that I find that strange, but I also know radical feminists who think I've betrayed the sisterhood for marrying in the first place. I take their point, but I would never run away bleating about the big girls throwing me out of their club. There are varieties of belief and commitment within every great political movement. Running away and saying 'not fair' every time someone questions one's assumptions is pretty feeble and weakens the collective and the movement.

once had to call someone,name written as Mary Doe. so i asked for ms doe
she had total berky,im married as if shed been insulted

SM, a lot of women do appear to need their marital status as a badge to ward off...I dunno, single women, predatory men, dancing chimpanzees, whatever..

I've never felt the need to publicly proclaim my status to anyone but comments from recently married friends have been :-

'I feel safer now that I'm married' WTF ?
'Ms XXX but I'm actually married, I've just kept my maiden name for professional purposes' - fine but the context was in making a complaint to a customer services manager who needed a surname. She had no fecking interest in your marital status and didn't give a toss about your surname or the fact you used Ms.

woozley - you can do what ever you want, no one cares.

But you can't ALSO expect people to agree with your choice, or say it is a valid FEMINIST choice.

ive never strongly needed being recognised as being identifiably dp partner
im his partner i dont need to be identifed by same name as him.why would i
our kids are double barrelled