Anyone know of any stats on name changing after marriage?

High profile Labour Party members have used private education.

That means they made a non-socialist choice, which they may well have made consciously and with significant thought. It doesn't mean they no longer are labour.

Posters aren't gatekeeping feminism.

They are disagreeing with you.

I got married in August 2015 and didn't change my surname. My husband knew from early on I wouldn't and while he was disappointed he accepted it and it's no issue. I'm pregnant now and our little one will have his surname which we discussed together. He asked me if it could be his name (our names are too long to double barrel which would have been my ideal) and I agreed. Just me and one other female I know on my Facebook list didn't change our names when we got married. My reasons are purely down to equality of the sexes and that I love my surname.

The one thing that really annoys me if that I still get cards addressed to Mr & Mrs XX from people who know I didn't change my surname. The other is the wife of my husbands friend has asked me about three times what the surname of our children will be....when she already knows. People!

There are no gatekeepers as such, but there are feminist concepts and definitions; otherwise feminism would have no meaning at all.

Sometimes people may point out that a particular choice someone has made is not a feminist choice. I am a die-hard second wave feminist, but I have made some choices all through my life that are not feminist choices, just as I have made some avowedly feminist choices, like keeping my own name when I married. I think most all feminists would say that.

It astonishes me how many women seem to sleepwalk into this. I have always known that I didn't intend to change my name on marriage, and I think it would have been a dealbreaker if he had tried to insist. But almost all the women I know have taken their husband's surname or used it for their children if unmarried.

I can only think that when one is planning a wedding one gets so carried away tucking all the "tradition" boxes that one loses the use of one's wits a bit.

It is always women who have the hassle, isn't it? Hassle resulting from changing their names, hassle resulting from not changing their names.

Men just sail right along with no bugger ever questioning their right to their own names.

Thankfully there are no gatekeepers to feminism.
It is abundantly clear from many of the responses on this thread that there most definitely are.

I always consider myself to be a feminist, everywhere apart from on MN, where I am a sheep who makes non/anti-feminist choices.

Oh well!

It's not easy.

I still have my maiden name on my passport as the priest who married us spelled my husbands name wrong on the wedding certificate. The priest has since gone AWOL. One day I will work out how to fix this but the register office are flummoxed. So I'm half and half really.

Sure but if ALL surnames are tainted with associations of patriarchy, then that association should be equally problematic for Peter Jones as it is for Laura Jones. We should be ditching ALL current surnames then, not just pushing the problem onto women.

Peter Jones should be disgusted at the patriarchal notions and rush to find himself a new name, untainted by past associations. A completely new name - Blobhead or something else untainted.

The reality is that Peter Jones will never give a thought to any of this, never mind changing his name. He can marry 10 different women in his lifetime and he won't contemplate a new surname. All his 6 children will bear his surname.

Meanwhile Laura Jones becomes Laura White on marriage, then Laura Jones again when she gets divorced and then Laura Smith when she remarries a second time. And she'll have the attendant hassle of name-changing and having children with different surnames to her.

This is precisely why things are unequal at the moment.

I chose to change my name on marriage - I know I made a non-feminist choice, but I'm fine with that

BTW Baxter is another female-derived name (a female baker)

Kidnapped I think the origin of mine and most other people's surnames comes from the patriarchal notion that children are possessions of their fathers and that female children then become possessions of their husband on marriage. Both equally founded in the patriarchy.

You really think that men own all surnames, 2cent?

And women's surnames don't belong to them at all?

The only people pretending to argue for radical solutions

Excuse me? pretending to argue. I personally was not pretending to argue. How very rude Doingit Do you only wish to hear views that exactly accord with your own?

This thread was very aggressive and dismissive from the start of one thing deeply rooted in the patriarchy being so much better than another thing deeply rooted in the patriarchy. That argument is inconsistent and does not hold up to scrutiny.

Having your father's name does not make you more of a feminist than having your husband's.

I don't have either my father's name or my husband's name. I have my name.

What is a poor old feminist to do?

Well, you could always become Kidnapped X. However, that looks like you are related to everyone else who replaced their surname with an X to signal it is not theirs, so not optimal.

Or you could make up a surname that is definitely female.

Mary Midwife
Gina Governess
Wendy Washerwoman

Or just use your mother's first name and stick a "daughter" on it.

Mary Annasdaughter, or alternatively, Mary, daughter of Anna.

@specialsubject: Actually, prioritizing your convenience and comfort over patriarchal tradition is a much more feminist reason than "because I happen to find his name prettier".

I am often surprised to see surnames that one would think any person in their right mind would have gotten rid of as soon as the law was passed that you could take the woman's name. I fully expected those names to go extinct immediately. There are dentists called "Dr. Pain" and there are even worse names - who would want to employ a Mr. Lazy? Sure, people will try not to discriminate against you, but life is still easier with a nicer last name.

People still very often decide for the husband's name even if that name is horribly ugly. That is not convenient for the wife, it does not get her a prettier name, it only serves patriarchy.

What I don't see is why that means my surname isn't mine?

No, me neither.

The only people pretending to argue for radical solutions are the ones insisting that it's too late now and unless we develop a whole new woman's alphabet we might as well just recognise that our names and identities belong to men and that's the end of it.

"Pretending" being the operative word.

It also did not occur to me to change my name 30 years ago when I got married. Our children have DH's surname. I have never had a problem with their names being different. With so much divorce and remarriage, it's very common for family members to have different surnames. Also there are other ways to pass my name down. I have one of those Scottish surnames that works as a first name; I'm American and it's quite usual to use surnames as first names for girls as well as boys, especially in the South.

It is a bit much to insist that unless a name "springs from the ether" that it doesn't belong to the female person it was given to.

Nobody is denying that surnames have usually been derived from men's names in the British Isles.

But that doesn't mean that women have no names.

It doesn't mean that only their husband's names matter enough to be passed on to their children.

The only people pretending to argue for radical solutions are the ones insisting that it's too late now and unless we develop a whole new woman's alphabet we might as well just recognise that our names and identities belong to men and that's the end of it.

Most do seem to do it now.

I didnt because it was a large amount of admin to no benefit. No feminist reason!

My2 - in all likelihood the reason a name comes from the father was that the mother had already given up her own surname in favour of the father's. The predominance of children being named after their father will not go away while so many women give up their own surname.

I think it is pretty radical to suggest that men own all surnames.

And that women's surnames are those that are bestowed on them by men until they pass to another man.

And if I decide to become Katie Brown (a surname in neither of our families) then surely Brown is just another man's name by this logic?

What is a poor old feminist to do?

I acknowledge that many surnames are rooted in men's names or occupations.

What I don't see is why that means my surname isn't mine?

If my first name was Georgina, would that also not be mine?

Lass The name did not just magically appear out of the ether when I was born. It was, like the vast majority of children given from my father's family. It makes no sense to pontificate about the patriarchal roots of taking your husband's name and not acknowledge the origins of family names.

It's not your father's name. It's your name.

I am actually astonished that some women apparently think so little of themselves they don't even think they have a name.

All those political rallies about governments doing things " not in my name" - never realised only the male contingent were entitled to say that.

Thankfully there are no gatekeepers to feminism. For sure it is possible to be a feminist and make non feminist choices. However I think there is still a certain amount of misplaced principled feminism here. Having your father's name does not make you more of a feminist than having your husband's. If it does it is merely a marginal step up from what has gone before.

Surely a feminist principle would be female generated family names for female children or both members of a couple choosing their family combined family name. Just because you are keeping your male generated birth name does not mean you are making the world more equal in any serious way. I think this one needs a much more radical approach to get the equality that is being sought here.