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 Countless posts saying that it's ridiculous in this day and age, it's outdated and degrading, no women should be treated like property to be passed about.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

There are also countries in Europe where women do not change their names on marriage. It's not legal to do so at all in Greece, for example, whereas in Italy it is only legal to add on your husbands name to your own, though few do so. In France it is not possible to legally change your birth name, although you may use another name such as your spouses socially if you like. Same in Belgium.
That's before you even leave Europe, there are many places outside of it that have similar laws and customs.

All these other countries where families are secure and loving but have different names.

The unit, the family is about the love not the name.

But if a woman changing her name on marriage is anti feminist and indicative of society believing a man owns a woman, how does that explain countries where a man literally owns his wife yet she does not change her name?

Are we really to believe that the men of the UK actually believe their wives belong to them more if they change their names? That it has any actual impact on anything?

Majella, I think we all agree that the context in which the name change takes place is vital in this discussion.

In some countries, keeping and upholding your father's name is seen as a matter of honour.

There are other cultures in the ME where women become named by their eldest son! So I would be "Saf1ya mother of Malik". If you "only" have daughters, you are relegated to "Saf1ya mother of daughters!"

Majella, I think we all agree that the context in which the name change takes place is vital in this discussion

Well, you and I seem to, but more than one poster has asserted that it can't ever be a feminist decision, only an anti feminist one, so I don't think they agree that context matters?

I have taken my wife's name and have no regrets. I certainly much prefer us having the same name than having different names, but I know other married couples who kept their own names as that didn't bother them.

I do think that if we had left the patriarchy entirely in the past then as many men would change their name when married as women. That doesn't make it wrong for you individually to change your name, but maybe it's something to think about.

What do lesbian or gay married couples generally do? Has a pattern emerged in terms of taking one name or hyphenating or whatever?

The same sex couples I know have generally hyphenated or just kept their own names. In fact where they have hyphenated they often did it before marriage / civil partnership.

Well, you and I seem to, but more than one poster has asserted that it can't ever be a feminist decision, only an anti feminist one, so I don't think they agree that context matters?

Throughout a very long thread people have been pretty clear they are discussing in a particular cultural context, and that context being Britain - the predominance of name-changing, the statistics, the legal history and history in different parts of the UK. Practices in different countries have been used as counterpoints to the UK experience.

Against that background, it’s pretty clear people are talking about name-changing not being a feminist choice against the cultural context of a difficult past to the practice, the fact that hardly any men change and the majority of women do, and the fact that many men want women to change their names.

Suggesting otherwise is a massive derail and demonstrates a lack of engagement with the thread as a whole.

I don't think they have been clear about that at all. The poster who clearly said "it can never be a feminist decision" did not add "in the UK and excluding people of other cultures who live in the UK".

I think you are assuming their understanding of context that they did not evidence.

I think you are assuming their understanding of context that they did not evidence.

Perhaps we should let them speak for themselves, but in the context of the many posts that went before it, it made sense to me as being in the context of those many, many posts - that is, in a UK context, without having to cumbersomely add your addendum to each and every post.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you are, however. Having participated in the whole thread to date, I’m pretty happy with my reading of it.

Interesting to hear a male perspective, knittingdad

After we had a baby (neither of us changed our names on marriage and were happy with that), DH did raise the possibility of us both changing name to the double-barrelled version our son has, so we'd all have the same name. I don't think it's important but I'd be willing to do it if he decided he really wanted it. I think the logistical faff of changing passports (and visas as we live abroad), licenses, banks, social media etc has put him off for now!

I will try to think up an acronym for "in the U.K. specifically but also applies to other cultures where there is a patriarchy based tradition of women taking their husband's last name on marriage". Apologies for assuming that this was being taken as read. Obviously, I can't comment on other cultures of which I have no knowledge or experience.

Almost all threads here speak in a context of being in England (and usually the south) nevermind UK, not sure why higher standards of clarity are applied to feminist threads than to school, employment, parking, news stories etc.

I can hazard a guess...

I don't think it matters because it is interesting that in many of the most patriarchal cultures, wives do not take the husband's name, but there is an emphasis on keeping the father's instead.

I recently hosted a dinner party for some of DH's work colleagues and was talking to a lovely Egyptian couple. DH told me afterwards that the man has another wife in Egypt with children and quite possibly another one over there as well! He rotates between them, but this wife did not have the same surname as the husband.

Well, I do live in a country (Scotland) where women didn’t traditionally/formally change their names on marriage, although most do now. Wander round any older Scottish graveyard and you’ll see lots of “Jeanie Crawford, wife of Thomas Stuart”. Name-changes still have a slightly different legal status here today.

And no, I still don’t think changing your name to your husband’s name is a feminist act. It could be a neutral act in a place where the broader context of patriarchy wasn’t there. But it’s hard to imagine any real society in the world today where it could be a feminist act.

I suspect people are still reading “feminist” and “not feminist” as “good” and “bad.”

There are a lot of ME families around us and the wives more often don't take the husband's name which sounds very "un- patriarchal". The the problem is that the children still automatically get the DH name. You wonder if this has any bearing on the problems in some countries of women having no rights to custody of their own children, or trying to take them out the country without the DH if they have a different name on the passport, etc.

I took my husband's name. it doesn't mean he owns me or makes all the decisions. I'm actually the higher earner. I love being Mrs XXX and I like it that I have the same name as my husband and son. We are a little family unit!

Lots of talk of a shared surname making a family a 'unit'. Strange way to look at it.

I will try to think up an acronym for "in the U.K. specifically but also applies to other cultures where there is a patriarchy based tradition of women taking their husband's last name on marriage"

Yes you should be clearer, but I note you don't attempt to address my actual point at all?
If changing ones name on marriage is a sign of the patriarchy and women should not do it to fight the patriarchy, how does that square with the notion that women do not change their names in far more patriarchal societies?
You allege that women changing their names is detrimental to feminism, but also note that so many still do it in a society that is arguably one of the most feminist in the world. It doesn't all seem to add up.

It adds up perfectly. Something can be a patriarchal custom whilst also not being practiced in all patriarchal societies. It's also possible for a society more sexist than ours overall to have certain practices that are not sexist/ less sexist that ours. I'm reminded of the memorable Daesh manifesto specifying much better maternity leave entitlement for women workers than most of the world has!

women do not change their names in far more patriarchal societies

Patriarchy expresses itself differently in different societies.

Are you arguing that women losing their names while men don’t is inherently more feminist than nobody losing their names? How would that work?

You wonder if this has any bearing on the problems in some countries of women having no rights to custody of their own children, or trying to take them out the country without the DH if they have a different name on the passport, etc.

As far as I'm aware there's no provision for women in the countries you mention to be exempted from the requirement for father's consent to take the children out of the country if they take the husband's name, nor to be treated better in custody matters. So probably not, although if anyone has any examples suggesting otherwise I'd be glad to hear them.