Amal Alamuddin has changed her name professionally

I'm not sure I'm understanding this NAMALT thing. Sorry if this is a bit of a derail, but it seems a bit like saying Muslims bomb skyscrapers (NAM). As a liberal I feel inherently uncomfortable with these generalizations - and yet they seem perfectly acceptable here. Yonic who are these men that feel like that (your statement above) and why do you think it's ok to try ascribe such a thing to a class with the most cursory of caveats? We wouldn't accept it of women.

Women are submissive (NAW) or whatever.

Just another example of how men (NAM) think names don't really belong to women but just denote the man they are most closely linked to at any point.

@ your dh *manciepancie

On my first marriage I changed my name - because it didn't occur to me not to. I do recall getting wound up by all the various bits of paperwork involved in name changing. Just after divorce my first H suggested I no longer had the right to use the name I'd used for 10 years and he expected that I should go back to my maiden name! Perhaps he thought he was just lending it to me!! By then I was known professionally by my (his) surname and I just started to use Miss as my title.

By the time I married a second time it was even more important to keep 'my' name and have remained with it. Our children have their dad's surname (DH2) as it's more distinctive than mine, but all are content with me being the odd one out.

It's about personal choice. There again maybe I'd have been ok about another change if it was about marrying Mr G Clooney - as I'd also be able to afford to pay a PA to do all the paperwork.

I also think it is important to remember that the feminists on here (and other forums) tend to come from a place of wanting women to do well. Their arguments and views come from a wellspring of support. Even when things get heated, that is still apparent.

Chunderella

I didn't feel attacked speaking personally and enjoyed debating with you. :)

I do think that when peoples decisions feel as if they are coming under attack (even if that isn't what is actually happening) they shut down to vigorous debate and personalise it right back atcha.

There is also that whole set of standards that we set women up to meet and one of them is the enhanced betrayal we might feel when a women is perceived to attack us. We tolerate if far less.

We expect women to be more 'supportive' and tolerant of our bad choices and failure to take an arguments points on board (as happened on the thread) than we do men.

Not right or fair.

It's so great that so many people are interested in this topic. There's a survey going on at the moment about what people do with their surnames after marriage/civil partnerships. If anyone wants to have their say and fill it in, the link is here: www.surveymonkey.com/s/surnames

I don't think there is anything wrong with precipitating feelings of discomfort and I am happy as such to own my own dissonance. But not everybody is familiar with the feminist arguments (I am imagining young women coming across them for the first time) and we don't want to chase them off. It is hard to gauge intention on a screen and it doesn't hurt to go that little bit further to convey warmth, even if you disagree with the POV.

I don't see that as an approach confined to women either and I would say the same to a debate populated by men. I refuse to pander to the gendering of unconditional positive regard ;)

For me the point Novice makes about women's careers taking a back seat to their husband's resonates with the name thing - even our identity takes a back seat when we marry. And even if we don't change our name, we still have to deal with it in lots of ways - interesting conversations with the bank, sighing as you get another Christmas card to Mr & Mrs, being asked to justify your decision. Dh had none of that to deal with.

I do agree with Novice. We have to be sensitive and keep debate among us women, disclosive (is that a word?) discursive and supportive. That doesn't mean we cannot challenge BUT there is assertion and there is aggression and it does seem like they are getting a little muddled here. :)

I left the thread yesterday because I recognised that large parts of it were not a debate. It was primarily shouting down anyone who didn't agree with the "right" view. A debate would involve questioning why Bonsoir and Rhiannon hold the views rather than denigrating them in a really fierce way.

Oh and the irony of telling me that you are entitled to express opinions. Of course you are. As are LittleBear, Bonsoir and Rhiannon. Even if we disagree.

Plus the irony of saying that people can't come on and stonewall debate. Nope they can't. But everyone who has come along and disagreed with the OP, Voyager etc has been quite aggressively dismissed in my opinion.

The final irony that struck me is saying around smothering views in real life and it spilling out here.

As I see it in rl in my day to day job, one of my passions is increasing the level of senior women in corporate Britain to be equal to men. On average there are just as many graduates as women who enter various professions but by the time you get past age 35 85% of the leaders are men. I can frequently go into a room with 20 senior deal folks and be the only woman. So I am passionate about changing this and IME doing it is around debating these issues, doing shadowing, mentoring and encouraging/inspiring them not to let their careers take a backseat to their dh's career. Yelling and sneering at them because they changed their name isn't going to achieve this equality. Debating, questioning, putting forward a firm but kind rather than aggressive point of view just might contribute to the equality for which we all strive. Again just my opinion and rl experience.

You could just say I am being overly sensitive to the comments on this thread or maybe I am not feminist enough for fwr. But somehow I don't think I got through science degrees (mostly men), professional qualifications (mostly men) and being one of the most senior women in a global household name organisation (guess what? leadership are mostly men) with the same name that I have had from birth (ignored the male leader who knows dh and suggested I change my name to his) by being overly sensitive or not being a feminist. Then again as Petula just said JF didn't change her name!!

Of course there are parallel threads running at the moment which fully demonstrate how a woman can keep her own name but also have objectionable misogynist opinions - Judy Finnigan. Not changing your name on marriage does not mean automatic feminist allegiance, any more than changing it means you are precluded.

But name changing is still very much a feminist issue that ties into many other feminist issues, and it is right to discuss it

An act of love? So does he love her less because he has kept his own name and identity?

Srsly??!

Her original surname came from her father. It is still therefore patriarchal. I believe she is in love. This is beautiful. Taking The Clooney name is probably an act of love. So be it. She may regret it if she splits up from him. Let's hope she doesn't . I wish them happy.

Equality isn't some sort of nirvanaesque goal that should take precedence over all other human considerations...

Maybe MNHQ should work on deleting comments like this (if they really have a commitment to non sexist language) rather than comments that say the poster has said worse.

It's a shame I didn't write what Chunderella?

I have responded to your points and those of other posters. I don't think changing your name is career suicide for most professional women, if they want to change it. In no way do I think they should change if they don't want to.
I do think that choice is the most important thing for women. This isn't fetishization.