Should I change my last name?

If you don't want to change your name don't change it. I would never in a million years change my name. It is my name, end of story. It would be horrible to start marriage feeling sad to have lost your name. There's also no reason why any future DC can't have your name.

If I get married (plan to next year) then I will change my surname. And our childrens.

If you want the family to have the same name, wouldn't it make a lot more sense for him to change his name to yours and the children's rather than go through the faff of changing at least 3 people's names?

A lot of women change their names because, as shown on this thread, women's last names are harder to spell or pronounce or are uglier than men's last names. Men's last names are also more unusual so difficult to live with, or,alternatively, less unsual so easier to live with. Men's names are just better.....

Lol! And of course none of these women have brothers who also hated their names or found them hard to spell and therefore took their wife's name!

If there were just one - just a single one - comment which said "My husband always hated his name so we all took my name instead" then I might find the "It's my free choice" thing a bit easier to believe.

But there isn't.

This is why we need civil partnerships to be available to all. You get the legal protection without any of the sexist baggage around rings, proposals, white dresses, Mrs, name changing, husband and wife etc.
If it had been available I wouldn't have married DH at all, but picked this option. DH would have far preferred this too.

A lot of women change their names because, as shown on this thread, women's last names are harder to spell or pronounce or are uglier than men's last names. Men's last names are also more unusual so difficult to live with, or,alternatively, less unsual so easier to live with. Men's names are just better.....

See what you're saying, Lottapianos, but when gay people couldn't legally get married everyone I knew who had a civil partnership referred to it as "getting married" anyway, because that was what they really wanted to do.
So i suspect that if a straight couple announced they were going to have a civil partnership people'd say "You mean a registry office wedding?" and if they said "Yes, but we want to get away from all the baggage about rings and veils" someone's Nanna would say "Well, in My Day we just had tea and sandwiches afterwards. There was still rationing, you see."
"Mrs" was originally short for "Mistress" as "Mr" was short for "Master". It was the standard title for all women, married or not, until at least the eighteenth century. I have always wished things had stayed that way.

'When you strip away all the princess day gubbins, I do think that marriage is capable of shucking off the old patriarchal baggage, though the available wording in the ceremonies needs to be changed. We wanted to say “partner”, not husband and wife, but we weren’t allowed.'

This is why we need civil partnerships to be available to all. You get the legal protection without any of the sexist baggage around rings, proposals, white dresses, Mrs, name changing, husband and wife etc. Yes I know all of that stuff is 'optional' these days but it's still very much expected.

Depends what's most important to you! I changed mine and people were surprised. At least one person vaguely thought I was letting the side down, and I kind of saw his point.
But I saw it as a sign of - "corporateness" is probably the best way of putting it, "This is the Inarazz-Manky Household. Callers accepted on Saturday nights by appointment."
Also the repeated pattern, passing down surnames along with the Y chromosome, rather appealed to something 'spergy in me.
Also I had a bad relationship with my maiden name. a) it reminded me of being at school b) it sounds derogatory c) even my own family can't agree on how to pronounce it.
But that's just me :)

I would hope so. But it’s not something we can test!

Well it is. You could have asked him if he would happily abandon his own name and take yours. Sounds quite easy to me.

Yes. It was. He did.

In which case I've misunderstood your post. I thought you said you were the one to abandon your name and adopt his, not the other way round?

@icedpurple

But if you had loved your name and your husband had hated his, would he have adopted your name exclusively?
I would hope so. But it’s not something we can test! But also I am under no pressure whatsoever from him to adopt his. It’s my preference that we all have the same name. Is that partly driven by ‘social norm’? Well maybe - again it’s impossible to say- but we’re not following other norms - for example I do not want an engagement or wedding ring, no walking down aisle, not the usual paternalistic speeches arrangement, etc. We did discuss having a totally different surname but there’s nothing that either of us particularly want.

If it were really important for you that your children have your name and not his would he have complied?
Yes. It was. He did.

To reiterate what others have said, you can do whatever you want with your name as far as I’m concerned, but you can’t necessarily call it a free choice or a feminist one.

For couples that even give this any thought, one option comes with the weight of thousands of years of human patriarchal history behind it, the other is actually tainted by the ‘F’ word. It might technically be a free choice, but let’s not pretend that it’s between two equally weighted options.

That’s why only one of the two options can be called feminist IMO. It doesn’t make the other option wrong, but you can’t have your cake and eat it.

We all do all kinds of things everyday that reinforce the patriarchy.

My partner and I didn’t plan to get married - we only did so because we bought a house (which we didn’t think we’d ever be able to do), and marriage was the easiest way to tie our financial lives together in the way we wanted. It was a financial transaction essentially - which is actually pretty traditional when you consider the history of marriage!

When you strip away all the princess day gubbins, I do think that marriage is capable of shucking off the old patriarchal baggage, though the available wording in the ceremonies needs to be changed. We wanted to say “partner”, not husband and wife, but we weren’t allowed.

Marriage certainly has some sexist history and accompanying traditions, and it's totally valid to have a problem with those, but the idea that marriage itself is sexist in 2018 in the UK is one that needs some interrogation.

Marriage provides more protection to the economically weaker party, which is disproportionately likely to be the woman, than being in a relationship without being married does. Which is what most people who aren't married tend to do instead. Patriarchy loves it when women incur caring responsibilities and discrimination due to perceived caring responsibilities, without even the not especially massive protections offered by marriage.

Almost everything is sexist, including marriage but I still chose to marry and I don't regret that either.

Many aspects of marriage are indeed sexist, but at the same time it does confer certain legal protections on a woman, especially if she has children.

I see precisely zero benefits to abandoning your name and adopting your husband's. If it were so great, why wouldn't men be clamouring to take their wife's name? Again, by all means do what suits you best. Just let's not pretend it's a feminist choice, or indeed a free choice at all.

His surname is unusual and so sort of defines his family more. We both like it more than mine. Mine is common as muck so I really don’t care about it.

Not having a go at you, but there have been several posts on this thread along similar lines: I don't like my name... my husband's name means more to him than mine does to me..... my surname is hard to spell etc etc etc.

But it all keeps coming back to the same thing: we have not had one single - literally not one - woman here telling us that her husband didn't like his name, that it was hard to spell and so on. But logic dictates that about an equal number of men and women will have the same family names. Yet somehow men never ever want to give up their 'horrible' names and adopt their wife's. Never.

And to me that’s what feminism is about... its about having the free choice.

But if you had loved your name and your husband had hated his, would he have adopted your name exclusively? If it were really important for you that your children have your name and not his would he have complied? Because if not - and in the vast vast majority of cases it will be 'not' - then it isn't really a free choice.

@IcedPurple I am a feminist. Almost everything is sexist, including marriage but I still chose to marry and I don't regret that either.

Feminism is about equality, which we certainly don't have in this regard. There is absolutely no expectation that a man will take his wife's name on marriage and every expectation that a woman will take her husband's. If a man keeps his own surname no one questions that. If a woman keeps hers she is likely to get lots of people assuming she changed it anyway. Not exactly what I'd call a free choice.

But it's not a "free choice ". As others have said, if it was, where are all the men changing their names? By all means change your name but please don't kid yourself it is a choice made entirely freely. It's a choice made in a patriarchal society with hundreds of years of "tradition" behind It and in the context that marriage is historical a patriarchal institution. When I shave my legs (about twice a year) I know I am not making a truly free choice. I could only say that if I saw equal numbers of men and women wandering about with hairless legs, or frankly any women at all with hairy legs.

If I get married (plan to next year) then I will change my surname. And our childrens.
I will be called Ms (not Mrs) Hissurname.

When we had children I wanted them to have my surname. At first he was surprised and thought I was being unfair, but when I explained my reasons he agreed that it was the fairest thing to do.

But once married I’d like us all to have the same surname. Purely personal preference.

His surname is unusual and so sort of defines his family more. We both like it more than mine. Mine is common as muck so I really don’t care about it.

So given the choice of the two, I choose his. And to me that’s what feminism is about... its about having the free choice.

I do sort of hate the excuses - I have a friend who's been engaged twice; the first time she was going to take his name because 'it's much more interesting than mine', the second time she took his because 'it's much easier to spell than mine'! Just acknowledge that you like the tradition, don't come up with crap rationalisations of it!

Agreed. Like I said above, approximately an equal number of men and women will have the same 'not nice' or 'difficult to spell' names. But only women consider them a 'reason' to change their names on marriage. That's because men would consider it degrading to adopt their wife's identity but many women are happy with the reverse. And that's fine, I guess, but feminist it is not.

It's not re-branding, it's just not significant for me.

That's fair enough of course. But since someone asked this question on the feminism page, people are answering within a feminist context. And there is simply no way round the fact - and it is a fact - that a woman taking her husband's name is adopting a relic of a highly sexist tradition, even if they personally are happy with it.

You can be100% certain that it would be 'significant' for men if their wives asked them to take theirnames.

I never considered changing my name, and DH made it clear that he didn't want to change his. So we each kept our own. Six years later, the thought of not having our own names seems quite bizarre to me. We're expecting our first child in a few weeks and he'll have our names double-barrelled.

I have been surprised (and a little disappointed) at how overwhelming the majority of women I know who have changed their names to their husbands is. If you had asked me a decade ago I'd have said that nearly all my friends would keep their own. Turns out not. And I do sort of hate the excuses - I have a friend who's been engaged twice; the first time she was going to take his name because 'it's much more interesting than mine', the second time she took his because 'it's much easier to spell than mine'! Just acknowledge that you like the tradition, don't come up with crap rationalisations of it!

Thebewilderness, why on earth do “they” need to agree on a name, or not get married? Why can’t they just keep their own names?

Reality that's a bit unfair. Either there is a choice for everyone or there isn't. If there isn't someone is being forced to do something. I most definitely had a genuine choice. Just because I opted for the traditional patriarchal norm doesn't mean I did so because I don't understand that that pressures exists. We made that choice because it best suited our family circumstances and wants as a couple.

I think everyone who is getting married should research their families names as best they can and select from those the name they want to be known as from that point forward.
If they cannot come to an agreement they ought not to get married.

It's up to you op. Each to their own.