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 Countless posts saying that it's ridiculous in this day and age, it's outdated and degrading, no women should be treated like property to be passed about.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

"As it is, you didn't choose or create anything. Any woman in the whole world, if she'd shared your beliefs on changing her name on marriage, would have EXACTLY the same name as you do, and the family unit would have the same name"

Yes but any woman born into my life would have had the same names I did. Nothing unique.

Let me tell you why I think no system is perfect. My previous surname was the Spanish equivalent of Smith - didn't mark me out in any way from millions of people with that name.

In Spain, the custom is generally to double-barrel using the paternal surname first. All great and "equal" you may think. But all that essentially happens is that it just takes an extra generation for the female surname to get dropped, because your children will usually keep the first part of their surname (i.e. their father's).

So it's all much of a muchness, the way I see it. When my husband proposed he said he wanted to share his name with me. His name happens to have three parts to it, so imagine double-barrelling that. Our children have first names that are relevant to my history.

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

What does “anti woman” mean?

It doesn't make you 'anti-woman', no, but taking your husband's name is an anti-feminist act.

Well, maybe I'm just not a feminist then. Even though I do care about women's rights.

What does “anti woman” mean?

If you look at the rest of my comment, I used it to someone else who had used the term.

So I don’t know what either of you mean. Do you mean anti feminist?

As has been said repeatedly. Most women make non feminists choices. I am a feminist but I make choices that I know are not really feminist. No one is perfect. Just because in am not the perfect feminist does not mean I am not a feminist.

However, when I make those choices I own them, I admit it to myself and others. I don't go around blaming other people and justifying those decisions.

Change your name by all means but at least have the decency to admit it is not a feminist choice.

not even sure anyone used it at all?

well, they obviously did as I used it in my comment quoting somebody else.

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....

There you go. That was the bit that I was replying to. Anti woman clearly used.

Absolutely, Moussemouse.

I pushed on the anti woman thing because I just know with a sinking heart, that in a future thread someone will say “ Well, I was told that I was anti woman and couldn’t possibly be a feminist because I took my husband’s name”.

One can just see it now. The distinction between not being a feminist and doing a thing that isn't feminist eludes a surprising number of posters.

ItsuAddict really good posts, I don't know how anybody could deny the erasure of women's identities after seeing it in black and white in those announcements.

itsu that newspaper extract sums it up perfectly. Quite jaw dropping when you see it in black and white

There was a thread a few weeks ago on AIBU that was something along the lines of, "Are you a feminist - if not, why not." Many women were saying that they didn't feel they could identify with feminism anymore - or not the MN version of it anyway. It's not the message as such, it's the rigidity and presumed superiority of the way the message is delivered. It alienates people and maybe causes some to react against it. That is not to say people don't care about women's rights. They just realise that life, for men and women, is multi-faceted and contradictory and interpreting everything through a single lens of "the patriarchy" is too simplistic.

saf I do understand that women feel as you describe

• I used to. The issue as I see it is that without rigid views and approaches, little will change. The message is diluted when we take a pick and mix approach to the rights of women. It took the work of activists to get women the right to vote. I couldn’t in good conscience use that vote whilst justifying unfeminist decisions or actions as being due to life being multi faceted. It’s all or nothing if change is to be brought about. It has taken me till my mid 40’s to understand this.

"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.
*
Cady* - I don't think anyone on this thread has remotely suggested that women who choose to change their name are not proper women!!

However as someone (rightly or wrongly) in the public eye, Meghan Markle does have greater ability than most to challenge the status quo. And if she is a feminist, then she should consider that making an overtly feminist statement in a deeply traditional and patrilineal institution like the monarchy could have real impact. Not simply a point to prove.

Saf- do you see a distinction between saying that a particular choice is an anti feminist choice and saying that a woman who makes such a choice is not a feminist?

The message is diluted when we take a pick and mix approach to the rights of women. It took the work of activists to get women the right to vote

I think treating all matters with equal weight is what dilutes the message. Changing name or not does not impact on my rights in anyway, I have the right to do it or not do it as I please. Comparing it the right to vote or any other serious issue is irritating and I think turns people off caring about any of it. It stops people engaging because it makes us look like idiots who can't differentiate what matters from ephemeral background.

Just read this thread all the way through, very interesting.

I didn't change my name when I got married (laziness more than anything else tbh - although I did get a few "how very feminist" comments at work ). Now we're expecting our first child we're weighing up our options for our son's surname. DH's surname/my surname/D-B.

Me taking DH's name seems the easiest, but now gets my feminist shackles up. DH having the same name as our DC acknowledges their link (I don't feel that I need to demonstrate my bond to our DC as I have carried him - that's already there). D-B feels as though it might be messy when our DC gets married. What do other people do?

DD has DH’s surname and mine as a second middle name. She can use them however she likes.

Thanks Titty - hadn't considered that option.

Brogue

I am basilisk ( my name - haven't changed name on marriage ) DH obviously has his name - you are the first person who has ( and I did think 22 yrs ago mind you ) who has ever touched on - DH wanted DS to have his last name because I think he was a little envious of me having been the one who "carried" and gave birth to him. We did discuss a hyphenated name but went for the probably considered by many to be the woolly option of X name X name Basilisk Name Basilisk DH name ( but not hyphenated. As it turns out DS is dyslexic so the fewer names he has to write on forms the better ( I do release that is not the main point - just a lighthearted comment) Anyway no argument in this house about having the same married name but DS is generally known my DH last name. Except when he wants to / argues and then he is "basilisk name " Ah I don't know - it was a long time ago.