Amal Alamuddin has changed her name professionally

i think it's pretty clear that the OP means some of them are, and she stands by that opinion, and she knows some women for whom that is the case

you might disagree with that, but i don't think the OP is being contradictory

From the OP - Successful women who change their names professionally always strike me as either stupid or coerced...

Followed by - I never said any woman who changes her name is stupid or coerced.

Now I am confused. Unless you mean that only some of them are. And given that you don't know them or their motivations, it is an odd thing to say.

damsilli i would assume the parents of the grandchildren would be able to decide which of their surnames (if any) would best suit their children

it's only when people are wedded to the idea of the man's surname being the default that it is a problem

I fail to see how anyone who has made the success of their career as Amal has can be labelled as stupid - that's the only stupid thing I can see here. And why assume that she has been coerced, even in the way you define it? I agree that changing name to avoid conflict is coercion but I don't see why that should be assumed here - I know George is older than her but he's hardly a dinosaur. And yes, she is Lebanese - what's the tradition/societal norm there (if there is one), is it to change name or not?

And, as I said before, I fail to understand what the negative impact of this could be - she has built her reputation prior to her marriage, so she can hardly be said to be riding on her husband's coattails.

And on a less ranty note, I've noticed that when very high-profile/famous, successful women change their name on marriage, the marriage is often short-lived.

I think women should feel entirely free to choose whether to take their husband's name or retain their father's name (whatever other surname their parents gave them). There is no feminist issue here other than free choice.

Ugh, I'm disappointed too.

I've waded into this debate many times so I'll try to avoid getting massively sucked in. But when a woman changes her name to her husband's, it is unequal - how on earth can it not be? One person's name gets to stay and be the name of the family. One gets ditched.

However much the woman feels she is, or in fact is, making a free choice, when she does that she is reflecting and perpetuating the deep-seated, often not necessarily even conscious, idea that men are more important. She doesn't have to consciously think men are more important. Whatever she thinks, that is the message she's sending - to her sons or daughters, to her pupils, to her colleagues, everyone.

And that is how the message of inequality gets passed on (among a million other ways). Why does that matter? Because deep down inside men and women, that inequality of value is what allows other, worse, less symbolic, more real inequalities to perpetuate. Like the shocking levels of male on female DV and abuse, boys' attitude to rape, unequal pay, unequal shares of housework etc etc that hold women back, hurt women, keep women in their place. Those things happen because more value is placed on men and deep down men and women know that, and that is what feminism should fight. If you are a feminist I don't see how you can be happy with perpetuating that unequal message, however symbolically.

If that wasn't the case, and it was 50-50 men taking women's names too, I wouldn't think it was sexist (though I personally think changing your name is a ridiculous, pointless and outdated hassle and something I would never do).

But it's not like that, is it. It's almost exclusively women who do it.

And it's often not a free choice anyway. Women often do it because they are worried about being seen as strident ballbreaking feminists, because of pressure from family, because their groom mopes and complains if they propose not doing it. I've seen strong, professional women who would do better to keep their names cave into that pressure, even when they didn't really want to. No, that's not coercion or force, but it's not a fair, free choice either when that pressure doesn't apply in the other direction.

If it doesn't matter, ask yourself what percentage of men you know would be happy to do it, and why that percentage is so small? If it doesn't matter, ask yourself if it would be OK if every time a black person married a white person, it was traditional and expected for the black person to take the white person's name, because traditionally white people held all the power, and 90% of black people just happily went along with that? Would they do that?

Of course it matters and IMO she is doing us all a disservice by sending out an unequal message. Of course it's her "choice". But feminism does not equal any old choice. Feminism is about equality.

Purpleroxy is right about lots of names. Lots of very valid reasons not to take a mans name, but also other issues. Like practicality. Calling your kids both names of husband and wife is only good once. What next? 4 surnames?

Does anyone here have daughter with both surnames? What will happen?

I get cards from DH's relatives addressed to 'Mrs HisName'. They also send DD cards and presents adressed to 'Miss HisName' even though her surname is actually 'MyName-HisName.' It feels like they're trying to erase my identity.

We also get a lot of comments about DH 'letting' me keep my name and 'letting' DD have both our names. These comments come from people who approve as well as those who don't.

miggsie i have been to a number of weddings recently where they included the "who gives this woman...?" "i do" (from the father). i was very surprised i have to say

I didn't change my name on marriage - if DP had wanted to change his name to mine I wouldn't have had an issue with it - I disagree with the practice currently because it is only something that applies to women. When men start doing it then it actually is a choice, not a cultural expectation applying only to women.

It also is a harking back to the time when women were defined by who their father was, then by who their husband was, as they were simply not expected to have any existence outside their male relatives.

i'm just a bit surprised as i thought her tradition would be to keep her father's name.

i certainly don't think it is a case of stupidity (well, except in possibly a teeny tiny minority of cases)

there is coercion and there is coercion. i don't think anyone is talking about women being physically or verbally threatened into changing their names

but as beccajoh notes it can be made very awkward for women who choose not to change their names (not always, but often). you often hear of the husband or his family being personally offended by the woman's decision not to change her name, and that decision not being respected (birthday cards addressed to Mrs Husband'ssurname etc). difficulties entering and leaving the country if it's not somewhere where mothers traditionally have different names to their children etc

I changed my name because I wanted to have the same name as my husband. We then had children so all of us have the same name.

However, I did want to ditch my surname for various reasons (it was not the one I was born with anyway) and dh had a straightforward practical surname. I think it would be best if couples marrying could choose which of their names they liked best - whether that involved the woman or the man changing their name. Also this would work well for gay/lesbian marriages, some of whom hyphenate both the names. But as we move down the generations, kids are going to be called Jack Smith-Jones-Green-Taylor etc so I'm not a fan of hyphenation.

Besides, I think being Amal Clooney is not going to remotely harm her career/chances of people looking her up. I'm sure she will be inundated with work and be offered more than she could do in 100 years!

I'm not suggesting every woman who changes name is coerced.

Society assumes women will change their surname. Cases where it doesn't are isolated. I didn't change my name upon marriage, and was quite careful to tell the vicar this (before we were married), and the reception venue so they wouldn't introduce me as Mrs MarriedName. It was in one ear, out the other. Seconds after the vicar pronounced us husband and wife he introduced us as Mr & Mrs MarriedName, and when we arrived at the hotel all the signs said Mr & Mrs MarriedName. I've been married 6.5 years and still have people asking me why XYZ paperwork is still in my maiden name. I wasn't a 'maiden' when I got married either.

I don't think anyone who changes her name is stupid (OP has a pretty poor opinion of much of the adult female population if that's the case), but I do think many, many women are coerced by society in general because they don't realise there's an alternative, or don't believe keeping their own name is a viable choice.

I changed my professional name after I married because as far as I was concerned, my maiden surname was already patriarchal anyway - so I swapped a patrichiarchal name I was born with for another patriarchal name but at least one I was choosing to use.

i haven't said anything about women being stupid . i also haven't said anything about whether an individual woman should change her name or not

it has become tradition because upon marriage a woman became the property of a man, and in most of the uk at least, that included taking his name. whether that is the case in law today (it isn't) doesn't mean that many areas of society don't still uphold some of the assumptions and inequalities that go with that idea of ownership

i think it is a good thing to question traditions and whether they are perpetuating inequalities, either overtly or covertly, and whether that is a problem

I didn't change my surname when I got married and someone recently told me that I can't call myself 'Mrs'. Apparently I am legally still 'Miss'. Is this true?

And yes, it is ok and right to question these things.
And yes, tradition is good enough reason if that's what you want to do

To be honest I really don't go round wondering about this sort of thing.
I've no idea how it became tradition, clearly less people are doing it today than say 50 years ago, so I'm assuming that trend will probably continue.
Women aren't stupid you know, if they want to change their name when they get married, then I say why not?

It certainly doesn't mean they are "owned" by their husbands. That may have been the original meaning of the practise but that's not relevant these days.

Just to say FWIW I know several (4) men who have taken their wives surname...some as long as 25 years ago so not common but not unknown and they don;t know each other, many who have double barrelled, 3 women who gave their surname to their children even though their husband had kept "his" name.

I don't live in a trendy area, or even a wealthy one...I am not "well known internationally in my field" and neither are they...these are all "normal" or "usual" families with different arrangements.

I think "normal" or "usual" is changing.

And I think Mrs Clooney has every right to make whatever choice she wishes to without it calling into doubt her intelligence or equality in the relationship.