I just thought it was a nice little old tradition but there is no power struggle in my relationship so I don't feel the need to make a point by either changing it or not changing it.
Imagine thinking about keeping your own name in those strange terms. How very sad to be identifying name choices in terms of point making.
I find the argument "ooh no, I'd never take a man's name" bizarre. The vast majority of us are given our fathher's surname at birth so you are already branded with a man's name. It's just a question of choosing which man you want to use the name of - your father or your husband.
You mean your father's or your father in law's. If the name a person is given at birth isn't their own because it was their father's first, that is also true of the man you're marrying. If your husband's name is his, yours is your own too. Can't have it both ways. It is probably because you don't understand that it isn't a choice between your father and husband that you find the argument bizarre.
I note that in later posts you amended your stance to say it's a choice between some male ancestor vs another male ancestor, but this actually is also wrong. Some surnames are female derived.
And even if they weren't, keeping the name you were given is intensely more feminist than taking your husband's. One is choosing to follow patriarchal tradition and one is not, because keeping your own name when you get married is the absolute opposite of patriarchal tradition. That is not to say that one cannot be a feminist whilst also taking one's FILs name, and indeed there are many women who did just that who have also done more for feminism than any of us ever will. However, it is not feminist in itself. Do what you want, but kid yourself not.