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 Countless posts saying that it's ridiculous in this day and age, it's outdated and degrading, no women should be treated like property to be passed about.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

Its also possible for a society more sexist than ours overall to have certain practices that are not sexist/ less sexist that ours

That's true but this isn't really that. In fact, there are cultures where women taking their husbands names would be less sexist: the fact that they don't helps to disenfranchise them from their families in terms of rights to children, money etc.

Point being, its not nearly as simple as some of you seem to think..you throw around this is feminst/not sexist that is not feminist/sexist/patriarchal etc...as if all the terms were interchangeable and its a simple thing to decide these things for everyone. It's not. There is so much nuance and detail you ignore.

Well no, the point is that women in more patriarchal societies than ours not necessarily having the same patriarchal customs we do isn't the complicating factor you seem to think it is. It clearly isn't the case that everything done by women in a more patriarchal society than ours is intrinsically more patriarchal than every custom here, after all.

In fact, there are cultures where women taking their husbands names would be less sexist: the fact that they don't helps to disenfranchise them from their families in terms of rights to children, money etc.

What exactly are you saying here? Are you suggesting that women in countries where they are discriminated against in family law and money matters due to sex would improve their position by taking their husband's names instead of their own? What evidence do you have of this?

I'm simply suggesting that its not as easy or simplistic a thing as you seem to think. You don't have to agree, you can instead continue to make sweeping pronouncements if you prefer.

That still wouldn’t be “feminist”, though, that would be a mitigating step taken against a patriarchal custom (of disenfranchisement on marriage). The overall situation would still be “rights over children, money, property, whatever, rest with your husband in this society - you can keep your name and lose them, or change your name to his and potentially claim some of them, but either way they belong with his name.”

“Not feminist” doesn’t mean “wrong” or “bad”. It can still be the right choice for an individual person to make for all sorts of reasons.

There are an awful lot of things that are neither feminist or not not feminist, that seems to be ignored here.

I don't have evidence that taking your husband's name in ME countries would lead to greater rights in terms if family law. I doubt it, actually.

However, you can see the different perspective here, surely. If you don't even (traditionally) have the right to take your husband's name and consequently share the same name as your own children, you could easily feel "bypassed" - as if you are not even worthy of it, if you see what I mean. So it's understandable how the option to share the family name would be seen as progressive in some such cases. Totally agree with YourWan that the issue is far more nuanced and contradictory than people might think.

I took my husbands name. So, am I wrong? Anti-woman. Have I let my peers down?

I also wore a blue wedding dress. I must be confused....

Yes you should be clearer, but I note you don't attempt to address my actual point at all? "

As I have already said, I do not have the knowledge or experience to comment on naming traditions in other cultures. I'm not sure what you want me to say.

Well that wasn't really the question was it, but nice swerve.

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

I honestly wasn't intending to "swerve". The patriarchy manifests i itself differently in different cultures, so how can I answer your question?

yes it does, which is why your characterisations of the issue do not hold water.

" 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"

Still working on it...

Well unlike you majella, mine will be reasoned. The sum total of what you've had to say is that you can't make assumptions because crickets. The intellectual contortions some of you are engaging in here are an absolute joy to behold.

What do you mean nobody knows who those people are and why would anyone be interested in random engagements anyway?

I understand of course, but conversely, if you never change your name on marriage there is no evidence on historical archives that you were ever married. One parent will also have a different name to the children - so no direct evidence there either for posterity or for purposes of announcements.

Ultimately there are pros and cons with any system really. If taking my husband's name means I've taken his identity, I can live with that because it's our family identity and this is what I chose and we created.

I understand of course, but conversely, if you never change your name on marriage there is no evidence on historical archives that you were ever married. One parent will also have a different name to the children - so no direct evidence there either for posterity or for purposes of announcements.

The above shows that’s not true, though, doesn’t it? The woman would have her own name in the above, which would mark her parentage of the child as well as her association with the father (and could also specify her marriage eg Lucy Smith and her husband John Jones, if they so wished),

I understand of course, but conversely, if you never change your name on marriage there is no evidence on historical archives that you were ever married. One parent will also have a different name to the children - so no direct evidence there either for posterity or for purposes of announcements

Our wedding certificate and the marriage register show we are married.

Our daughter has my surname as a middle name and DH's surname as her surname. Even passport security can identify who her parents are.

I took my husbands name. So, am I wrong? Anti-woman. Have I let my peers down?

Yep,letting down the sisterhood. Or a bloke on an internet forum pretending to be a woman. Or something.
(Because all women have to think the same otherwise they're dim or repressed.)

• wore a white wedding dress
• had a church wedding
• kids only after marriage for both of us
• took husband's name and we all have the same name.

Everyone's different, and it doesn't make you anti woman to like traditional set ups.

if she really is the feminist she tells us she is, to retain her own identity and name on marriage, rather than allowing herself to be swallowed up into “Princess Harry” or “Duchess of X”

"If she really is the feminist she is" she'll have a mind of her own and not feel she has to prove a point to be thought of as a proper woman.
If she wants to keep her name, all good.If she doesn't,also all good.

I think women should do what ever makes them happy, having said all that i am always a little agog at work when someone changes their name/email before they head off so they don't have to their old name for a single second when they come back after honeymoon...
My husbands work has personalised uniforms and he has had women return and refuse to wear their old ones on the first day back while he sorts out a replacement.
That kind of almost militant thinking scares me a little!