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'

fc301

It's an evolutionary thing.

If it's an evolutionary thing then why is it not the case in all countries & all cultures? Seems odd.

I took dh's name and regretted it almost immediately. I felt a huge disconnect between my life pre-marriage and post-marriage. That was actually because there was, and because dh then stopped paying any attentiont to the person I was before, and his whole family were the same. It was like I hadn't existed until hten and they had no interest in who I was, just who they decided I was now. All of us white, middle class, British for about 500 generations, so no great cultural differences.

I took his name because apparently it mattered to him sooooooo much and he got so upset, whereas it meant very little to me, at the time - I assumed I would continue to be me! Sadly, I should have made it a strong hard line.

I think quite a lot of men make a lot of fuss, and the more women give in the more fuss men will make, as fewer and fewer women will make the stand. Perhaps it's just because we can keep our maiden name for work while changing it for personal. Maybe that makes it harder to argue the toss?

Administration (excepting the opposable thumbs business) is never an evolutionary thing

I have always hated the idea that as a family we would not have the same name, all of us.

I have never understood why it is better to hold on to a name from my family, and him holding on to a name from his family rather than all of us as a new family unit sharing the same name.

Having said that, there is no reason at all for it to be HIS name.

We did chose to go for dhs name, but he would have been just as happy with joining our names our names or another option.

Oh, and dh isn't from Uk, and in his country my bank accounts, passport etc woudl all have
Mrs Steppe Hisname-myname automatically on them, I could not register as Mrs Steppe Hisname.

Amazing that this thread is still going!

steppemum, your post (and the story it tells) is one I've seen many many times- on here, and in RL.

Family all wants same name, new family unit etc. Everyone - man, woman - is apparently totally cool with it being his name OR her name or a completely new name, etc.

Yet - in every SINGLE one of these stories the decision is eventually to take his name.

Do you mind me asking why that was the decision with you? I am genuinely curious. (And the same to others on the thread who had the same situation).

See this is what folk mean by internalised misogyny/patriarchy I guess. Lots of normal nice non-misogynist people being perfectly open in theory to the idea of eg taking the woman's name but it almost never actually happens. Deep down that instinct that it would somehow be... ridiculous!

I would be so interested to know exactly how those conversations went. Did any one of you say, ok, I would actually like it to be my name? And if so what was your partner's response?

For interest, we chose a new name!

fizzy I agree with your post, and especially that it's always the woman changing name in the end.

I'm never changing my name, my surname is as much part of my identity as my first name. And while I do indeed share a surname with my dad, this name is as much my name as his, especially after 48 years.

I have influenced my DCs on this issue, and both DD and DS agree that it's an outdated tradition.

See Raspberry I felt completely differently about my actual name - I was rather excited about getting to change it - I really liked that idea. It wasn't an awful name or anything, I'm not close to my family so maybe that influenced it too but I honestly don't think so. I liked the new name so all good.

However, I would never have changed my name to his. And I wouldn't really have wanted him to change to mine either - for me, sharing a surname and making a new family unit meant just that. New unit, new name, both of us go through the same process of change.

I also don't understand AT ALL the 'it's just your dad's name anyway' comment. That's one of the most misogynistic elements of all, to me! Your name is your name once it's yours, no matter where it's come from. His name's his dad's name, then, by that token - but that never matters. Like it's accepted that the simple POWER of being a man makes his name HIS, as he's the head of a potential family unit simply by virtue of existing. The woman? Even her name is really a reference to something else. It can be changed, taken away, at best it's only on loan to her as a mark of which man she came from. Just awful, and so many folk trot it out as some kind of justification.

fizzy - several reasons:

we both come from families of 2 boys and 1 girl, and the others were likely to follow traditional paths, so that by him and his brother keeping their family names, and my 2 brothers keepign theirs, it gave both families equal chances of the family name continuing to the next generation.

dh is from another country and his name is typical of that country. We were planning to live in a third country and then in UK, and no plans to live in his country, so we felt it was a way of continuing the link to his country.

His name is lovely and it sounds quite glamourous in UK!

HIs familiy are very very traditional conservative. While they wouldn't have flickered an eyelid at me keeping my name (see the bit in pp about my name in the bank) so we each had our own names, they would have been really upset if we had thrown out the surname all together and chosen another one, and they would have struggled I think if dh took my name. We would still have done it, but it was a matter of how much it mattered to us v. how much upset it woudl cause.

I loved the idea of chosing a brand new name for our new family, Dh would happily have taken on a new surname. It would have been my ideal solution, but I don't think I was brave enough. I didn't feel strongly enough about it to do it, and neither did he.

We had the added complication that any name we took would have been either an English name, or a name from his country, and so by default we would still have been giving preference to one side of the family or the other, so we couldn't find a neutral name.

No one reason took priority, but the cumulative effect was that we opted for his name.

Wow, thanks steppemum. I am totally with you on the glamorous name - if DH had been a de Winter or a van Tallinghoff I'd have been taking his name like a flash!

I especially see what you mean about still favouring one side over the other with the nationality thing - and appreciate that you choosing an obviously from a third culture name would seem really torturous.

But also interesting that two of the elements to your decision were, essentially, about patriarchy, and tradition - and that telling against any decision to take a different path - his parents' feelings, and feeling brave enough to break the mould. I think that no matter how open to change folk say they are, in reality gonig against that patriarchal tradition takes a lot.

At the risk of sounding like a total idiot, when we got married (2001), I honestly didn't realise that keeping my own name was an option I presumed you had to change it to be married! I don't hail from another planet. I have a postgrad degree so hadn't been cut off from information or civilisation either.
I think I still would have changed it anyway to be honest. My previous name would have felt like a childhood name. Also DH is a quite traditional type and probably would have interpreted it as humiliating or as me only wanting half to marry him or something like that. He is 45 so not ancient.

Fizzy - I don't have a problem with tradition at all. I quite like it, it is the way families idnetify themselves.

My son has a family name as his first name, it has been the oldest son's name for over a hundred years. It also happens to be one of my favourite names. Dh was very clear that we did NOT have to follow any tradition, but I love the name and love the idea that it is part of his family.

dd1 has a middle name which has now become a tradition, it was my Granny's name, my mums middle name and my middle name. It is now dd1's middle name too.

I don't see patriarchy and tradition as the same thing. My reason for using another name would be to break the patriarchy, but I am happy to follow a naming tradition, if that makes sense. (although only if I follow it by MY choice)

and interestingly enough, in his culture, the women having her name and the man having his is fine, so we were not kicking against the same patriarchy tradition as in the UK. It was the chosing of the new name, the third option which would have caused problems.

similar post before about people not wanting to be "mrs" whatever, complaining that men didnt change their status when marrying, I posted that boys under legal "adult" ago of 18, were Master, was called all sorts, well guess what my grandon was poorly today, had to take him to a local drop in clinic, and collected prescription from pharmacy, both his med say "Master" then his name! In the 60s, 70s when I was a secretary correspondence to men was addressed J. Bloggs,Esq., unless they were under (then 21) when it was Master J. Bloggs.

From the manifesto -

^Labour believes in devolving power
to local communities but that requires the necessary funding follows.
You cannot empower local government if you impoverish it.
A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.
Labour is the party of devolution
and we believe in handing back power to communities. We will devolve powers over economic development, complete with the necessary funding.
It is through the planning system that communities can shape the kinds of high streets, homes and amenities that they want. But under the Conservatives, planning has been
under-resourced and disempowered, with democratic planning authorities unable to stand up to big developers. As a result, planning decisions have become too in uenced by narrow economic considerations, with developers’ pro t taking precedence over community priorities.^

Wrong thread, obvs!

nannybeach It actually doesn't matter if young boys are called Master.

It still doesn't denote whether the person is married or not, in the same way that Miss/Mrs does. Master is a term that stops being used at the age of 18, but that is totally different to women, where many people use Miss until married, etc.

Yes I put Master until age 18, but no-one uses that anymore (well, apart from our local pharmacy!).I think a lot of people use miss until they marry, not most, lots of ms these days, why are folk "worried" whether you title denotes if you are married or not.

Surely most people's maidens names are their Fathers surnames anyway? Not their mothers? So why not revert to your mothers maiden name if you're that bothered. I liked changing my name when I got married.

Why should you change the name you've had all your life because your parent also had it? My father also got his name from his dad aside my brothers. Why is my name less important than theirs?

It's a daft argument isn't it BLW. Just because the system was once sexist, surnames therefore belong to men only and it must remain sexist forever?

nannybeach, I think folk are "worried" because a woman's status should no more be defined by whether she is married or not than a man's should. Communicating marital status via title seems to contradict that. Not that it's a worry particularly, I just bypassed the issue by using Ms since I was about 15.

The maiden name is almost always the father's name, and his father's before that and so on. Therefore you're still carrying on the patriarchy just like any brothers you have who use their father's name. It goes down through the male's surname.

I love the nonsensical hypocrisy of women who act like they're nobly daring by not taking husband's name to keep their daddy's instead. The patriarchy lives on either way. It does matter where it comes from, ludricrous to say otherwise.

I think it is hilarious, the angst over it. Just use whatever name you like, nobody's stopping you.

Well it's the name they were born with, like their brothers and once they've passed it on they've passed on their name . Or do men own all the names?

I assure you my dad didn't think he'd passed on his dad's name. He passed on his name. And any woman who gives a child her name passed on her name.

I love the nonsensical hypocrisy of women who act like they're nobly daring by not taking husband's name to keep their daddy's instead.

How beautifully patronising of you. What a pity we can't be all be as insightful as your cynical self. Trust a woman to be nonsensical -right?

Most woman just use whatever name they like- which often happens to be the one they are born with. They don't imagine they are sticking it to the man or solving the patriarchy problem. The only angst is from people who define the relationship of marriage by the actual taking of the husband's name. Oh and people who would like to say "hey don't imagine you are doing anything for the cause, sister because you are a nonsensical hypocrite whose angst is hilarious" Meanwhile most women are thinking "you what now? I just didn't change my name, what the hell are people on?"

No, Pallisers do you really think in this day and age anybody except a handful of people cares what name you use?

You just said what I did--that women use whatever name they like.

Nobody can stop them, most people don't care, these name change agony posts are about 50 or 100 years too late.