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 Countless posts saying that it's ridiculous in this day and age, it's outdated and degrading, no women should be treated like property to be passed about.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?

Are these statements sexist or not?

Men tend to be paid more.
Men tend to be better drivers.
Men tend to have fewer domestic responsibilities.
Men tend to be better at DIY.
Men tend not to becomeSAHP.

Your viewpoint is nothing new or thought- provoking. There is nothing you have said that the vast majority of women haven't considered many times over, yet you seem to think people don't understand. I do understand, but I just don't feel the way you do about it.

Why are you asking me thise questions? Yes they are sexist statements but, with the exception of the better driver one, they are also reality in the world we live in at the present time.

When I say, "men tend to hold onto their own names," I was not saying that this SHOULD be the case, simply that it is a fact in our society. I feel like I'm stating the obvious.

Because it is a fact, because names are still passed down the patriarchal line and because we are not in a situation that we are equally likely to inherit our mother's name, then the surnames many of us have are patriarchal from birth. This is a fact.

Now some women might feel that despite this, they own that name - it's theirs. Some women (like me) feel the injustice if having a patriarchal name from the very start. Particularly women who have complex relationships with their father might feel this way. What if your father abused your mother, or left you as an infant, yet you are still carrying his name and expected to own it as yours?

That is the contradiction for me and why the act of taking your husband's name is no better, but also no worse in the overall scheme of things.

The other issue is that you can't dictate to people how they should or shouldn't feel about things like this. If a woman says she wants to take her husband's name, in full knowledge if the historical context and the wider picture, then I'm afraid you just need to respect that. Decisions happen on an emotional level as we'll as intellectual. If you feel differently in the context of your relationship, that's great, but not everybody is you.

Well i know I'm not going to change your mind, and I don't bother pursuing these debates in real life as I recognise it's generally pointless (tends not to work in reverse though).

But an inability to fathom why changing your name on marriage is an anti-feminist choice, and/or complete apathy as to why it matters - comes across as not very bright. To me. Sorry!

Good point saf, surely women shouldn’t be in the kitchen? Personally I don’t do the cooking, my DH does it. Perhaps I should buy him some fancy kitchen equipment!

Christ, the thread took a weird (or goady?) turn last night.

Does it really need spelling out that enjoying cooking as a hobby (and getting hobby-related kit for a birthday) is not unfeminist, any more than refusing to cook makes you a good feminist?

Saf that’s all good as long as you acknowledge it’s anti-feminist and working against the position of women overall. Not every woman wants to take up the mantel and bring about change and that’s for each woman to decide in the same way you’ve decided.

saf, here’s the thing. You’ve advanced the idea that the vast majority of women changing their names on marriage, and vanishingly small numbers of men doing so, is not a sign that this tradition remains sexist. But you have advanced no arguments (not even old and tired, let alone new and thought-provoking) to back your assertion that there is something else driving the perpetuation of the tradition that isn’t sexist attitudes and expectations.

We have a tradition based on deeply sexist practices. The tradition remains despite the laws no longer existing. Around two thirds of men would want or expect a woman to take the man’s name on marriage. Women on another thread yesterday were confidently (and rudely) asserting that when you get married your name becomes your husband’s, whether you like it or not. Women who don’t change their names are asked why they bothered getting married, aren’t they really committed to their husbands. If they dare to pass their own name to their children, particularly double-barrelled, they are called naff or pretentious.

All the evidence I’ve seen is that the practice remains strongly driven and supported by sexist attitudes and expectations - a woman is under pressure to do this, and a man under subtle pressure not to. A woman is expected to show greater signs of commitment to her marriage than a man is; a woman is the one expected to make the change so that a family can all have the same name.

It’s not good enough to say ‘I don’t know what the reason is, but it’s definitely not what you said, but I’ll give no arguments for why I think that, or what I think the real reason is.’

If you try advancing arguments, you might meet some new and thought-provoking ideas in return. If you resort to tired cliche with no supporting evidence or argument, you can’t complain that you hear nothing new in response.

All I can say to you is how I felt. To me it seemed like a choice between two men's names. My own surname had connotations of my father. He was not abusive, there are far worse. I would say he was more in the category of controlling. So keeping my own name and passing this on to our DC did not feel any more liberating or feminist than taking my husband's name.

If this makes me thick, then so be it.

I imagine many women feel this way and this is perhaps why the tradition persists. Some women may have had two men's names during childhood, if step-fathers have been involved etc.

And yes there are deeply sexist connotations. That goes without saying. But I take responsibility for my actions, so is a woman like me a victim of the patriarchy (but too dim to see it ) or simply being honest that to all intents and purposes, taking my husband's name was something I wanted to do?

There are several points here. Of course women are free to choose to take their husband's name if they want to. However, I question whether, in many cases, it is a completely free and informed choice. And even if it is, it is not a feminist choice and should be taken in that awareness.
And I honestly can't comment on the question of there being no difference between taking your father's name or your husband's name. There aren't any other ways of saying that having a family name for 25 years and establishing your identity in it, is different from taking a name solely because of a patriarchal tradition with no reference to the life you have previously lived.

The thing is saf, if you're viewing it as a choice between two men's names, you're doing it wrong. You're experiencing a logic fail. If your name isn't yours because it was your dad's first, the same is true of your husband. And some surnames originated with women anyway, so even if you do take the (daft) view that nobody's surname is their own unless they were literally the first person to bear it, you still wouldn't know if it were a choice between your male ancestor and your DHs or not.

Now it's obviously fine to make decisions for illogical reasons, people do that all the time, and the idea that it's a choice between two men's names is one that has a lot of traction. But that's an example of how people tend to disapply their critical faculties when it comes to traditions.

I am not saying everyone should see it as a choice between two men's names - I am saying that was how it was personally for me. And I don't think I will be the only one who feels that way.

Sexist attitudes are deeply ingrained in society - of course they are! Also, I think there are deep contradictions in female psychology when it comes to this kind of thing. I could own my choice to change my name while accepting the impact of this kind of choice in society - and I largely do. On the other hand, I'm not sure a world in which the name-changing tradition has died out is actually what all women want. If it was that simple, women would have stopped name-changing years ago.

I know you're not saf, don't worry that much was clear. And no, you're not the only one who feels that way- but it's still incorrect. You're allowed your own feelings but not your own facts.

Name-changing is a sexist tradition. That is so obvious it goes without saying.

What is not a "fact" is that all women must necessarily want to dispel and react against all sexist traditions. I think this is what makes some posters uncomfortable on here. They can't countenance the fact that some women may actively choose to hold onto sexist traditions - therefore they must be "stupid," "brainwashed by patriarchy" or whatever. I don't think things are that simple.

Weddings in general are inherently sexist. In my country and in my DH's culture there is a lot of pressure to confirm to certain ceremonial wedding traditions because it's seen as two families coming together, not just two people, if you see what I mean. In this country, people can elope, get married in a registry office or whatever, but many otherwise non-religious women still opt for the white dress and being given away. Are they all brainwashed by the patriarchy? Why is it so hard for some people to admit that certain traditions are sustained because women actually enjoy them? It could well be the case with name-changing on marriage.

This thread reminds me a bit of one of the "who pays on dates" thread. Posters get adamant that equality has to mean bill-splitting and can't conceive that some women prefer a different dynamic.

Are they all brainwashed by the patriarchy?

They are socially conditioned, yes.

Feminism and the rights of women aren’t pick and mix. You want equal pay but still be given diamonds and paid for on dates. Picking the patriarchal traditions that suit you won’t end sexism.

I maintain the arguments and concepts require intellect or education to process and understand. The school in the Facebook video posted up thread had the right idea, educate them early.

“They can't countenance the fact that some women may actively choose to hold onto sexist traditions - therefore they must be "stupid," "brainwashed by patriarchy" or whatever. I don't think things are that simple.“

Not stupid or brainwashed by the patriarchy no. But socially conditioned, yes. We all are. Refusing to recognize that is a bit stupid. But recognizing it and going ahead with an anti feminist choice regardless is making a proper, free choice.

Are they all brainwashed by the patriarchy? Why is it so hard for some people to admit that certain traditions are sustained because women actually enjoy them?

What we enjoy is shaped by the society we live in and the way we are brought up. Why do so many men enjoy the idea of their future wives changing their names? Probably not because they’re outright misogynists, probably more because they, like us, grew up in a society that’s tipped in men’s favour.

Women enjoy white wedding dresses because that’s what our society tells us a beautiful wedding looks like. Doesn’t mean the enjoyment isn’t genuine.

(that said, I wouldn’t have married a man who expected me to change my own name, no matter how genuinely he enjoyed the idea.)

What is not a "fact" is that all women must necessarily want to dispel and react against all sexist traditions. I think this is what makes some posters uncomfortable on here.

Of course it isn't. There are lots of women who actively enjoy sexist traditions. Some women are sexist themselves. Some don't understand the impact their decisions have on other women, as evidenced by all the posts to the effect of my choice doesn't concern you. Others know but don't care, still others know and are happy about it. Women take many different views on this. The facts here are things like you not choosing between two men's names.

But your next point is a non-sequiter: it's perfectly possible to think a person genuinely wants to do something and that their wishes cannot be separated from the influence of patriarchy. Indeed that's a point a lot of us have been making.

Some people here need to separate their notions on what women as a class should do or why they do things, and what individual women do any why.
And stop being so fucking rude if they can't manage that.

But your next point is a non-sequiter: it's perfectly possible to think a person genuinely wants to do something and that their wishes cannot be separated from the influence of patriarchy. Indeed that's a point a lot of us have been making.

This! Exactly this.

On the other hand, I'm not sure a world in which the name-changing tradition has died out is actually what all women want. If it was that simple, women would have stopped name-changing years ago.

This one stood out for me - it’s one of her assumptions people make (that feminists don’t want anyone to change their names) but I don’t think it’s been a major theme of this thread.

It’s clear that for some people, everyone in their immediate family having the same last name is important to their sense of identity as a family. I can understand that - names are important. So it’s likely that without a massive cultural shift, people will want to continue doing that.

My argument is that for name-changing to be a neutral choice (that is, neither feminist or based on sexist values and/or expectations), we would need to be at a point of near-parity between men and women changing their names.

Some people here need to separate their notions on what women as a class should do or why they do things, and what individual women do any why.

I don’t think that’s a very fair characterisation of the thread - this has been a pretty reasoned thread, a few shouty moments aside, and there has been a clear and consistent theme of understanding why women choose to change their names on an individual level - culture, expectation and social conditioning are complex and weighty things. Women are by and large brought up to be less attached to their names, for example.

In that context, it’s perfectly reasonable to discuss the macro causes and impacts of those individual, reasonable, understandable choices, which may not be particularly positive.

It's a very fair point, but since you're on the other side of it you wouldn't agree.

Am about to have a civil ceremony for marriage and Mrs Pan is VERY much looking fwd to being a MrsPan. Her family generally have been pretty shitty toward her over the years and esp now she is being married, AND she thinks the world of my sisters, who whilst are both married with their husband's surnames they did used to have our family name, and MrsPan wishes to be referred to by that name. It makes her feel very proud.

No it's not very feministy (one could argue) but not exactly the least feministy thing one could do. This does not concern her.

So it's A LOT more complex than the folk who contenance no opposition allow for.

Are you saying you wouldn’t have felt proud to be referred to by her name, MrPan?

It's a very fair point, but since you're on the other side of it you wouldn't agree.

No, I’ve already criticised other posters on my ‘side’ (how grim, can’t we have a proper discussion without it being adversarial) for what they have said about other posters.

Can you quote some examples? If I’ve said something that suggests I don’t think individual women should change their names, I’d like to correct it; if I’ve missed a major theme of the thread I’d like to see where I’ve gone wrong.