To be surprised at his reaction?

[CowPatRoberts]

Been with DP a while and earlier we're discussing about what we'd do if we had children, and who's name they'd take. I've always been very clear that if I got married I'd keep my maiden name, it's never really been much of a problem and I thought he understood my point of view.

But today it came up that he thinks if we had children that it's totally non negotiable- they'd take his name. Went on about 'surrendering his identity' and 'destroying his heritage' and honestly I'm a bit about it all. He's almost militant about this, but I don't see why it's unthinkable for him to do it but totally fine for me. Am I nuts?

His argument seems to be based on the face that I have one more brother than he does, but other than that it's just 'the done thing'

If, after children, you become a SAHM (as I am now), how would the DH feel if for years on end he was supporting a wife and children who wouldn't even share his name?

See, I knew I was going wrong somewhere. DH is a SAHD and has been for the past 11 years. He and the children don't have my name (though the children have it as a middle name so they can double-barrel if they wish when they are older). Now I realise that I should be annoyed that my DH, who I support, doesn't even have the good grace to have taken my name on marriage so that everyone would understand that we are a family unit, being paid for by me and this would prevent me from feeling like an outsider in my own family which is how I must feel given the name situation

Just because someone is a SAHM it does make them subservient to their husband. By staying at home and raising the children they are also 'contributing' (as opposed to 'supporting') family life and playing their part in the family unit. Let's not make out that SAHMs somehow 'owe' their husbands for going out to work.

*doesn't make them subservient, that should say. Stupid, autocorrecting tablet!

If, after children, you become a SAHM (as I am now), how would the DH feel if for years on end he was supporting a wife and children who wouldn't even share his name?

Whaaaat? So the breadwinner in your view has the right to exercise their superiority over the rest of the family by "owning" them with his name? What a sickening attitude!
As a PP has said, what if the main breadwinner is female (as I am in our family)? Does she earn that "right" in your view.

SAHM = chattel, apparently.

Hope the same applies to SAHDs.

Bet it doesn't though.

Where did I say anything about subservience or chattel?
I did not say it was essential either. I am saying I can relate to why a man would want his wife and children to have his name.

So does the same go for SAHDs then?

Should they take their wife's surname if she's doing the supporting?

In this society it's not common at all for men to take their wives' names. We all know where the tradition comes from and we may well not agree with it, but the fact is, there is still more of a stigma about men changing their names than women. So it's more understandable surely why a man would be reticent to do that.
Women can name-change, double-barrel or keep their name as they like and nobody will bat an eyelid.
It's not about ownership. In some cases it may be important for them to feel included in the family unit. My DH was honoured that I took his name. He likes that he can call me Mrs K, just as I jokingly call him Mr K, amongst other things. It doesn't mean I'm subservient to him. It's just another thing we share more than anything else.

Society has nothing to do with your point. If, as you say, a man is supporting his wife and children when he's out at work, so they should take his name, then the same should go for the reverse. But you've come up with arguments against that, so it's just a 'women should take their husband's name' thing to you.

It is to do with society though because how many men do you know who took their wives' name on marriage. I'm racking my brains but I can't think of any at all. I don't mean double-barrel of course because we all know people do that.
We could have double barrelled but our names are from different languages and it would have sounded ridiculous.

It doesn't matter how many people I personally know. I'm asking about your opinion that you put forward.

So do you think SAHDs should also change their name if their wife is going out to work? Because if you don't then you hold a sexist view. It really s that simple.

A simple answer to a simple question would be nice.

the fact is, there is still more of a stigma about men changing their names than women. So it's more understandable surely why a man would be reticent to do that.
I guess I would ask if there really is a stigma about it. It is unusual and the more men do it, then the more normal it would become. Stigma just seems a bit strong to me as it means disapproval or disgrace.

Women can name-change, double-barrel or keep their name as they like and nobody will bat an eyelid.
I think this thread has shown that plenty of people will bat an eyelid if a woman keeps her name

It's not about ownership. In some cases it may be important for them to feel included in the family unit. My DH was honoured that I took his name.
So does this mean that I should not feel included in the family unit as I have a different name? Would I feel honoured if DH took my name - I'm not sure that I would. Should I feel dishonoured that he hasn't?
Why did he feel honoured - I think this sense of honour in someone else taking your name is something to be explored further. What does this tell us and why do some people think it doesn't work the other way?

No I don't think someone should change their name simply because they are a SAHM of SAHD

If anyone is going to change their name, it is easier for women to do it than men due to societal factors.

Nobody has to do anything. But if it is important to a man to have the same name as the rest of the family, then I don't think that is unreasonable.

To some people names mean nothing, however, DH would possibly feel like an outsider if he had a different name to the rest of the family. Maybe "outsider" is too strong term, but hopefully you get the sense of what I'm trying to say.

But you said that if a man was supporting his family for years while the woman was a SAHM then he would feel like an outsider. So why would a woman in the same situation not feel the same?

Your argument has no legs.

Can't get worked up in the slightest as to what other couples choose to do re: their surnames. I got married over 20 years ago, when it was comparatively rare for women to keep their own names. I thought about it long and hard, but ultimately wanted us all to have the same family name, so decided to switch. Dh was happy either way.

What would piss me off in the OP's case, is her dp saying "it's non-negotiable." What, so that means "STFU, what I say goes and your opinion counts for nothing."

In DH's case I mentioned that because he works a way a lot anyway. I wouldn't want him to feel not valued or not part of our lives or like a walking cashpoint so the name thing is a small step in that direction because it's important to him.

Donnie - by "honoured" I would think he felt that my changing my name was a public statement of my commitment to him because that's what I'll be known as going forward. It's more than a certificate than you sign once.

Where's his "public statement of his commitment to you" then?

And why are women expected to make this 'public statement of commitment' if they're staying at home but not the other way round?

It's not got anything to do with anyone staying at home, I was talking about how my husband may have felt in our scenario.

Octopus - of course he's no less committed to me but we couldn't both name change. Its an bit like an engagement ring - the man doesn't get one but he's still just as engaged.

Well, actually, you can both name-change, by double-barrelling.

You didn't say your DH. You said 'the DH' and SAHMs. You weren't talking about your marriage at all. You were talking generally and now you're twisting your way out of actually answering any questions put to you.

Anyone watching the sitcom 'blackish' ?
DS and I thought one of the best episodes was the name change episode...husband and wife had the same surname before marriage,cue many years on him saying to her 'well,you changed your name when we got married' and her responding 'no,I didn't'
He is then deeply offended that although she is Rainbow Johnson,the Johnson is her maiden name,and not the result of her taking his name,Johnson,on marriage........
< not entirely relevant...>

It is to do with society though because how many men do you know who took their wives' name on marriage.

Yes, that's the point. It continues to be an inherently sexist tradition.

Octopus - of course he's no less committed to me but we couldn't both name change.

Of course you could, and it's fine to choose not to - but that's not the point. The point at name changing 'as a sign of commitment' only seems to fall upon the woman. For the man, no one feels he's not demonstrating his commitment if he doesn't change his name. For women, if she doesn't change her name she's somehow less committed/distancing herself (to quote a different poster).

Whisk - I prefaced my comment with "I can only speak for myself" and ended it with "Just a thought based on my own experience."

As I said, double-barrelling did not occur to us because he already has 3 words in his full surname and even in the country of origin people are at it. We just use the first part because it's more manageable for the kids and it can fit on forms.