Taking husbands name

[luelle]

I've just read a twitter thread regarding women taking their husbands surname when they marry, and out of the hundreds of replies I skim read I would say a good 90% of the replies are people absolutely dead against it. Countless posts saying that it's ridiculous in this day and age, it's outdated and degrading, no women should be treated like property to be passed about. That its awful when women would throw away their family name without a second thought etc.. I'm just shocked, I never realised it had become such a negative thing in so many peoples eyes!

I am aware of the history behind taking surnames and yes it was to do with ownership from father to husband, but surely in this day and age we have moved past all that enough for it to simply just be a nice thing you do when you get married, if you want to?

I think it's become so common now for women to keep their maiden names, and I don't think women are really expected to take their last name anymore. It is a choice and it's great that women are free to make these choices - but I just found it quite sad that this thread had so many people bashing people that do choose to take their husbands name?

I plan to take my DPs name if we get married, just because I'd like to. In my mind, it's an exciting part of marriage and a new chapter. I'm still me, I'm still part of my family, I still have my family history. AIBU to be a little sad that I could actually be looked at negatively for doing so? Or have times just changed that much?

I did not say that I hated my previous name btw, nor that my relationship with my dad was toxic. It was complicated, but I only realised how much so when I came to this country and as I've got older. Changing my name by deed-poll wouldn't have occurred to me and I don't know why this is even relevant to the price of the fish, to be honest.

saf I’m not sure which bits you agree with. Are you saying you’re aware that your own choices work against woman as a whole, yet you still choose to exercise them?

I guess what I am saying is that I don't see things as black and white as some people do. Your feminist perspective is affected by your personal experiences and background and there is no "one size fits all" for relationships.

In response to your question American, the answer is, I'm not sure that name-changing is against women as a whole, no. First of all, I'm not sure there is such a thing as "women as a whole." I totally understand where the tradition of name-changing is derived from. I come from a far more traditional and religious culture than the UK, I spent many years in a kind of feminist rage, but as I've got older, I guess I just think you should be honest with yourself about how you feel, own it and take responsibility rather than raging about something that may or may not matter to other people.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "women as a whole."

rather than raging about something that may or may not matter to other people

Saf I appreciate you answering the question but based on your comments above, you can’t ever have had a single feminist thought

The trouble with saying “oh, all these little things don’t matter” is that if you ignore all the little drips one day you find yourself saying “Where did that sodding great overflowing bucket come from?”

American - I've worked in parts of the world where women aren't allowed out. Where I come from is very Catholic and that's another story. How can you say to someone you don't know that they have never had a feminist thought in their life. Really?

I do largely accept the theory of what you are saying, but human beings are more than a "theory." There are many areas in which women have no choice. Name-changing in this country in this day and age is no longer one of them.

So why do women still actively choose to do it then? Some may be unthinking slaves to patriarchy, yes, But can you really say this of all of them? Are they all stupid? Do they not "get" it? It seems like when women's choices don't fit in with your discourse, you dismiss them as dim or naiive. Maybe they just have a wider perspective on life?

It seems like when women's choices don't fit in with your discourse, you dismiss them as dim or naiive.

No one has suggested that - only challenged arguments that those choices are without constraint or context, or that they don’t have a wider impact that affects other women’s choices.

As many have said on this thread, most of us make unfeminist choices that are based on sexist traditions or norms, and that no doubt perpetuate those traditions and norms.

The question is whether we own our choices, and the fact we’re not perfect and choice isn’t complicated, and recognise the impact of those choices - or whether we are intellectually dishonest and deny that there is a broader picture that we are part of.

Well I was called "dim"and something else I can't remember earlier on.

There is the broader picture, yes, but can you be certain what that is? Attitudes evolve and nothing is static. What about a world in which men feel as if they can't propose with a ring, or a woman feels as if she can't share her husband's name or weddings become legal formalities and nothing more - would that actually be any "better." Some may say yes, many would think life would be pretty depressing. The "wider picture" is contradictory and in continual flux.

Well I was called "dim"and something else I can't remember earlier on.

I don’t agree with anyone calling you dim, but I also don’t agree it was for the reason you have described.

There is the broader picture, yes, but can you be certain what that is?^

No, but I can look at the evidence to determine the most likely factors, and use logic to determine whether there is a reasonable justification that isn’t based in sexism.

Attitudes evolve and nothing is static.

Thank goodness. They need to change more if we are to have real choices.

What about a world in which men feel as if they can't propose with a ring,or a woman feels as if she can't share her husband's name or weddings become legal formalities and nothing more - would that actually be any "better."

What about a world in which people can make the choices that are right for them without cultural baggage or expectations and social norms? We’ll know we’ve reached it on this particular issue when name changing rates are more or less the same for both men and women, because there is no reason not based on sexism that women should disproportionately change their names on marriage.

Some may say yes, many would think life would be pretty depressing. The "wider picture" is contradictory and in continual flux.

I don’t know, there are some remarkably consistent themes around the role and expected behaviour of women.

The wider picture is the continued subjugation of women. Half the world’s population. The narrow picture saf is your continued desire to access jewellery.

I guess the difference between you and I Jassy, is that I'm not sure that all cultural norms or expectations of men and women are always a bad thing, or that the alternatives are necessarily preferable.

Can you give another example, saf?

It's often argued on here that women who don't work are making an unfeminist choice because of historical context and the wider picture. Well, yes that's true in an abstract sense. But the reality of the wider picture, in the here and now in this society, is that women just end up doing pretty much everything in the house and child-related anyway and end up stressed, run-ragged and resentful. Another example would be women feeling social pressure to return to work 6 months after having a baby - liberating or restrictive, I don't know?

I think it tends to be an economic decision, actually. The tide hasn’t yet fully turned on men being worth more in the workplace, so if someone is going to stay home it makes sense for it to be the lower earner - usually female. I don’t think anyone thinks that’s right anymore.

They are examples of social norms you think are a bad thing. Can you give an example of a social/cultural norm re expectations of men and women you think is a good thing?

No, I am saying that things you think "should" be a good thing, often come with a whole different set of problems and restrictions.

I do think there is still far more social pressure for women to be the at home default parent when children came along. I admit, my DH never considered a SAH role for himself at any point and he would acknowledge that too. On the other hand, I can't get riled up about the situation that led to me becoming a SAH parent because I have to be honest and acknowledge that, ultimately, I felt a strong need to do this. If I was at work, would I be happier? I'm genuinely not sure, but probably not overall. So that is one example of how a "cultural norm" has turned out to be what was best for our family. Obviously, everyone is different.

Something can benefit an individual woman very much but still ba an anti feminist thing. I was a SAHM- it suited our family and it suited me. But it is impossible to pretend that being entirely financially dependent on a man and being the person disproportionately responsible for household and child rearing tasks is profoundly anti feminist.

My mum went back to work 2 weeks after having me. Dad did 90% of the childcare.

Worked out well for me as I was grew up challenging all gender expectations.

Sorry-pressed send too soon. And it also means that is some ways we were very peri role models to our children (in other ways, of course, we were fabulous!

.....very poor role models.....

I think it’s the difference between seeing life only though your own lens instead of looking at the wider problem and how women as a class are affected by societal norms. What works for you makes other women financially vulnerable when things don’t work out and causes them to lose ground. Obviously something like being a SAHP can be an issue of practicality and that’s quite fundamental but being presented with a diamond ring, given away by another man and changing your name are really not traditions to cling to, if you accept that they promulgate sexist notions.

But it is impossible to pretend that being entirely financially dependent on a man and being the person disproportionately responsible for household and child rearing tasks is profoundly anti feminist.

Which is why I set myself up long before meeting my husband. Bought a house at 19, secure career, money in the bank. Husband has high earnings but I don’t rely on them. I have my own money.

Bertrand tell us about the eternity ring thing. I googled it and just got jewellers websites talking about the ring being a measure of a man’s devotion

I see the SAHM issue, of course and the being "given away". But how on earth is being given a diamond engagement ring anti-feminist?!

See any men wearing diamond engagement rings?

It’s the equivalent of a dowry.