To STILL be considered odd to keep my maiden name, even though it's 2018?

[jamoncrumpets]

I married DH in 2013. I kept my surname for a number of reasons: wasn't that enamoured of DH's, feminist reasons, I just really like my own surname.

Didn't make a deal out of it at all, but did mention to family and family-in-law that I'd be keeping my name. Kept the explanation brief 'I just like my name', and left it at that.

So why am I STILL receiving post from family addressed to 'Mrs DHSURNAME'?! Even from my own DF?!

Then today I was talking to one of my aunts and she was utterly shocked that I was happy to have a different surname to my DC 'But he's your SON, how can you not want the same name, you're a FAMILY?!' - tbh it never entered my head to care! I adore my DS, and my husband, and don't feel like our name is the vital thing that links us together.

AIBU to just be a little bit fed up of having to explain myself over and over again to people?! How can I politely tell these people to fuck off?

Because he'd be taking a name my mum changed.

"It's far harder for men to have the option to escape negative connotations to a birth name"
Really? Simple form, 20 quid and done. Man or woman.

Limoncell0 - see above. I agree. Intellectually, there's no doubt in my mind that we should have made different choices about DC's names. And Dh's suggestion of one each or girls vs boys makes sense. But I didn't have it in me. It's SOOOO tiring arguing about MY name all the time, the thought of having to explain it to every single person I ever meet was too overwhelming. I wish that wasn't true.

heateallthebuns I understand what you are saying about a clean slate. I guess I just get annoyed that men can just leave their names as they are. They don't have to put any effort or thought into their surname. I also want to put no effort or thought into it and just leave my name as it is. Why should I have to change my name at 18 (or whenever) before I have any achievements, or have children etc?

Surely, it could also be seen as feminist when we are able to behave exactly as we wish - without having to worry about if our surname is still patriarchal because it belongs to our fathers.

But, I do still see the point in needing to start from somewhere and having a clean slate would be good. I just can't be bothered with it and it would probably present the same issues as not changing my name. For example, people commenting, saying it's strange, still calling me Mrs DHSurname.

Loads of whataboutery here. My name might be my dad's name. But it has been mine all my life. All my relationships, achievements, successes and failures are attached to that name. Why would I ditch all that?

Indeed, anyone can change their name at any time. So even women who choose to keep their original names are choosing to perpetuate the patriarchy.

@heateallthebuns
I don't agree. Because in future generations if we start to pass on women's names it will no longer have a sexist connotation. It will benefit our daughters and daughters daughters.
Surely that's an improvement on going oh well it's just the way it is?

To all those saying changing a name on marriage is an ancient and widespread UK or European tradition, really it is not. In Scotland until the 19th century women did not change their names on marriage.

Throughout the UK, the very rich or noble have always been flexible about names, largely for financial or inheritance reasons. For example, 16th cent nobles such as Anne Boleyn or Catherine Howard were not known as Anne Tudor or Catherine Tudor once they married; noble/rich husbands have taken wives ' names at times, in order to inherit property. As someone has already said, women in Spain traditionally use their family name and their husband's family name, and so on.

Some historians suggest that what 'fixed' the custom in the UK of wives taking husbands' surnames was the introduction of compulsory state registration of births, marriages and deaths, which was introduced in the mid 19th century. The bureaucrats keeping the state registers found 'one name per family' much easier to organise. Before that, naming was rather more flexible. It was not totally unknown for a woman to be referred to as 'Mary Smith, wife of John Brown'.

A lot of the 'traditions' that people see as ancient and unchanging are relatively recent in origin. The same applies to notions of marriage. Today it's often said to be all about romantic love; for centuries it was a much more practical and even business-like arrangement.

No because names have meaning. To me my name is mine no matter the history. Men are attached to their names as irs part of their identity. Our names are no less important and it's sad we think they are.
We need to have that same level of self identity.

It is whataboutery, but I don't think it can be escaped, so it comes down to whatever is better for each woman in her own circumstances. Weighing up various careeer successes, heritage, pronouncability, travel frequency, where they live, how their upbringing was - but non of the choices are escaping the patriarchy.

You can be proud of your achievements and keep your original dads surname, but then many women don't get to be called the same as their dh and children. I know the woman's surname could be passed down, but it's her dads anyway and most people don't seem to pass it to the children. You could say that's prioritizing the traditional male sphere (work outside the home) over the traditional women's sphere (family inside the home). So again women have to go along with the male way of doing things.

florascotia2

Such an interesting post. I think there should be a programme on this. And you should present it.

Thank you.

I wish I had kept my name at birth all my life. And I also wish I had given my children my surname now.

But what is done is done. I would advise any young woman to keep her surname all her life.

It isn't an improvement because of where the name came from. It is the product of cumulative name changes over the centuries until the person says they're keeping their 'maiden' name.

I think in Spain losing the mothers name just gets postponed a generation although I'm not 100% on that. I'd love a system with no sexist undertones at all.

I don't agree it's not an improvement.
In future women will be much better off without this tradition.

Flora - exactly! Also, names change over time, for example there must have been one person who was a cooper or a potter who passed that name down to their children. Before that job was undertaken the family name must have been different. Also with the advent of literacy, before that things must have been much more fluid. Hence lots of spellings of the same name.

Will they be much better off though? How so? It's still not a matrilineal system even if a woman keeps her name, (generally - I know some women do pass their names onto their children). Only adopting a new name at 18 would be an improvement for women. As someone else said having the fathers name or changing on marriage do not have to be universal. What do native Americans do? Do they have a ceremony where they are given / -adopt a new name at 18? Or is that racist rubbish?????

Yes I have this too!

I have two children from different fathers and they both have my name. I get constant comments about it, as if I’m some tyrannical take over the world feminist despot!

My first DP changed his mind and started saying how awful it was when we split up. His mother never called him by my surname, all letters addressed to her grandson with her son’s surname. Despite XDP having no contact/interest in school and me filling out forms as primary contact, all school correspondence is addressed to Mr and Mrs XDP.

Aaaaarghhh!

Honestly, why is it still so unusual?!

So again women have to go along with the male way of doing things.

You see I totally disagree. We don’t! We have a choice.

So why do so many of us put down other women who make a choice to keep their name or give to their children? I’ve never even had one supportive comment.

@florascotia2 Thanks for posting, that's really interesting. I didn't realise that it was such a recent practice but it makes sense.

Itsu, I think your case is different due to your earlier post. But what will your children do when they have children? You can't double barrel a double barreled name. Same as Spanish system then, just postpones the sexism.

It's my name because I was given it at birth. Yes it's my dad's, and it's also my mum's and now it's mine. Yes it stems from a patriarchal tradition, and yes it might be nice if people chose new names when they had a family so they could start afresh, but my parents didn't and I'll be blowed if I'm going to change MY name now just to try to start a new naming tradition that almost certainly isn't going to take off.

Out of interest heateallthebuns, have you followed your own advice and created yourself a new name?

No, that's the point, it's too odd a decision to make, to make up a new name at 18. But everything else is sexist just different sexist. I've changed my name, but I'm a feminist. Like I shave my legs and have long hair. I just don't want to be looked down on as a worse feminist for changing my name. I feel all the choices are sexist so I made the choice that was best for me and my circumstances. I try to treat other people's choices with respect.

Changing your name on marriage is not a feminist action. It just isn't.

It doesn't matter where your birth name came from the fact remains it is your name. It belongs to you just as much as it does your father.

Most women I know who kept their names also gave their children both. Myself included.

Hell would freeze over before I marry a man who thinks women should change their name on marriage.

I don't think it's feminist to change my name. I just don't think it's less sexist to keep it. All choices are in the patriarchal system. There is no viable feminist choice. Albeit that is how I feel, and women feel all different ways. It's supporting others choices that is feminist.