AIBU to be surprised that in 2013 people are up in arms about a woman keeping her surname on marriage?

[ComposHat]

For clarity's sake, it is worth stating that I am a gentleman mumsnetter who is due to get married in the spring.

My fiancée is keeping her surname after the marriage. It wasn't something we'd discussed, it was just something both of us assumed that we would both keep our surnames on marriage.

Anyway over the last few weeks I've been shocked at some people's reaction to this.

My fiancée met her Aunt who was over from Australia who asked her what her surname would be after marriage, to which she responded 'same as it is now.' her Aunt was a bit dumbfounded and her Aunt's husband who is a bit of a stereotypical unreconstructed Aussie male, starting going on about 'what sort of bloke would stand for that' I'm amazed he hasn't put his foot down' etc etc.

A male friend of my parents had a similar reaction. He asked my mum how she felt about there being another Mrs Hat in the family and when she explained there wouldn't be, he was beside himself.

Am I really surprised that people have such definite opinions on such things and feel entitled to express them to us in quite vehement terms?

I remember as a child seeing post being addressed to my mum as Mrs and my Dad's first and second name! It seemed totally illogical and wrong to me that her identity was completely subsumed by his. i remember thinking that won't be me.

DP and I are not married. DCs have both our names. DP didn't really like that, but no way were my children having a different name to me. When I hear of people explaining why they took their DP's name after kids and marriage, they ofte say, it was so they could have the same name as their children, and I just wonder why they automatically got given the father's name anyway.

Dp assumed I'd take his name when we get married and we have 'had words' a few times. I have got angry because he assumed I'd take his name and never asked me, and that the Dcs would have his name too! He just doesn't get why I want to be me.

As I said in my post, I do not feel I have the right to tell people that I dislike their choice to change their name

Except, of course, you did. You said it is unbelievable and sexist and something out of the dark ages.

Yeah, but it is sexism. It's something women do and men don't, isn't it?

I've got to admit, I agree with sticky here. Stating that women changing their names is a sexist practice is just a fact.

I agree too.

if it were pereceived as more normal and acceptable for men to change their names then it would be more even.

butno+ women are almost assumed to take theirhusband's names.
often we're not even asked if we have.
it's the reason why I wished our wedding invitations had gone out with first names only!

I agree ldr if a woman changes her name because she wants to fine but it started because women were seen as property and a womsn legally ceased to exist once she was married and changed her name. Its an archaic tradition routed in sexism. If you understand that and feel you don't care and still want to change your name that is fine but it us a sexist tradition.

No NotADragon, I did not.

By 'telling people' I mean telling people directly, unprovoked, so to speak, like so many have done to me about my choice.

It is sexist = fact
I don't like it = an opinion (which I will give if requested and unlikely to offend, eg, this thread)

YY, I feel that way too 5mad. Lots of women I know changed their names. It doesn't mean they're not aware it's sexist.

There are shedloads of things we all do that are sexist and unbelievable (but probably not out of the dark ages cos they were quite good on women using their own names back then). It's part of living within a system, you don't always kick against it.

Doesn't mean it's rude to admit the sexism is there, though.

I used to work for Sheila McKechnie, the campaigner (RIP). One day we were on a fag break and got talking about a member of staff who was getting married - a young lass, ten years younger than me and several decades younger than Sheila. Sheila said she was really puzzled by the switch in attitudes - that her generation of feminists (young in the 60s and 70s) felt liberated by Ms but younger women were now both taking their husband's names and calling themselves Mrs. She wasn't disapproving at all, merely puzzled.

I am now a few years older again and find myself in the same shoes, really not understanding the younger women at work who do the whole 'husband's surname + Mrs' thing.

Isn't it also true that there's been a boom in people getting married at all? I think I heard that's so. It was going down for years, then went up again.

Certainly weddings seem to be very commercialized and not so many in registry offices as I remember, but that could just be my impression from being the age when everyone is getting married!

I think that's just because you don't have to get married in a registry office if you aren't religious these days.

Forgot to say, re. re-registering babies after getting married - my parents never re-registered me and it's never caused me any problems. No-one's ever batted an eyelid at my birth certificate. Odd how often you hear of someone in a very junior official role making shit up, isn't it?

ooh I've just remembered a different twist on this.

FIL split up from MIL 25+ years ago and has had a partner for most of this time, certainly they were together before I got together with dp (approx 20 yrs ago).

In the last few years, MIL has started to sign herself as Mrs [FIL surname] rather than her surname. They have never married. Or at least they haven't ever told anyone that they have married... Would have thought they would have mentioned it to at least one of their numerous children by now if they had of done, even if they didn't want to invite us to the wedding!

She insists on sending christmas cards to us as Mr and Mrs [dp surname] - I'm Ms Myname.

So I always send theirs as Mr DPsurname and Ms Hername - I figure if they haven't had the decency to tell us that she has changed her name for whatever reason, then how do I know that I needed to change it?

Childish and petty? Yes. Satisfying? Very! In my defence they are very uninvolved in our lives (I've met him 5 times and her 3 times in20 years) and probably call dp once a year if he is unlucky, took them 5 years to see ds1 for the first time etc, didn't bother to call and find out how we all were when ds1 was born - dh was seriously ill, when I woke up in the night to feed ds the first thing I would do (even if ds was screaming) was check that dp was still alive before sorting out ds. So I'm not greatly inclined to be charitable when I think of them.

I just think it's funny that she is pretending to be married even though she's not!

Yes, might be so, edam.

Edam according to the gov.com website you are legally obliged to te-register your children under the 1976 legitimacy act do its not bollocks but if you don't do it no one will chase you up about it it seems. Its obviously a silly outdated rule!

I took my DH's name when we got married. My main motivation was to ensure that any DC would have the same name as both parents. I had a bigger problem with the thought of any DCs taking my DHs name and the rest of the family being Mr X, Miss X and Master X, and me being Ms YTD.

I have friends who both took a new name entirely on marriage (which was actually the name of the place that they first met), and kept their original surnames as middle names, which I thought was great. I like the idea of a couple sharing the same name and creating a new family unit together. Yet still acknowledging the family that they have come from.

It never occurred to me for a second to change my name. DH never mentioned it either, I think he'd have collapsed in shock if I had said I wanted to. My own Mum has never and changed her name and DH is a child of a single lesbian feminist mother.

DS is firstname myname DH'sname so he can choose to use either, or both (or neither!).

I couldn't give two hoots what any other individuals do, but I have to say, it does surprise me that "taking your husband's name" is still so common amongst women in their 20s/30s.

I love the idea of having an affair with my husband.

I was busily working on stuff for the invites tonight and I was wondering if there's anyway we could subtly slip it into the general guff about the wedding/the venue/hotel/reception/travel that my fiancée will be keeping her surname on marriage without it being a bit out of place?

I thought it might be less awkward than explaining at the wedding and we get cards addressed to 'The new Mr and Mrs ComposHat'

ComposHat

We used an "At-home" card included in the invitation, which is fairly common in the US, but I am not sure whether it would be correct ettiquette in the UK. We were moving house right after the honeymoon so it was useful for that, but the main reason we included it was to let people know that I was keeping my name. I think you could also add other information like email addresses and make it more informal than these example:
wedding.theknot.com/wedding-planning/wedding-invitations/articles/at-home-wedding-invitation-cards.aspx

I concure with TraceyTricksterFri 01-Feb-13 00:04:38

I am astonished that an Australian would be so surprised.

I'm also aussie and am baffled you had that reaction

That's interesting cerealqueen. I remember when I was about 4 years old a bunch of ladies that were over for tea laughed at me knowingly because I said I wouldn't change my name even if I got married.

While they were laughing, I thought "you're wrong, I really won't". Joke's on them now

I've wondered sometimes if it were that moment that made me so determined to keep my name. They were women, they should have supported me!

You could just put a line in your general guff saying that "neither of us will be changing our name following the wedding".

good plan, WhoKnows
that would work well.

"neither of us..., so our correct form of address will remain Ms DF DF'surname and Mr Composhat Surname"

whoknows & vinegar that is brilliant! I shall do it forthwith!

Scone - i like that Julia is a Dr :)

I wish I'd thought of it before my wedding.....

LRD there has been a slight increase in marriages in recent years, partly attributable to the licensing of civil venues. But a large proportion of those are remarriages making this a difficult social trend to read. The proportion of children who are born to couples who are not married at the time of the birth has continued to rise sharply in the same period but birth rates have also risen.

So it could mean that people who have been married once are more likely to marry again. But people who have never married may be more likely to never marry. In any event there is nothing to suggest a resurgence in marriage as an institution will happen any time soon. Hence repeated attempts to get parliament to sort out a statute which will allow courts to allocate interests in the family home between longterm unmarried partners who split up, especially if they have children. Or, if you are a massive optimist, give people £3 a week to get married and stay married!