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?

Yeah, TittyGolightly - far too late now. You and me are in the same boat there ;)

Do what you like. It's no guarantee whatsoever that he will give you any respect, no guarantee of a happy marriage, no guarantee of anything really.

There are no guarantees whatever you do. But a man who respects a woman as a separate entity is surely more likely to respect her than one that considers herself part of him just because she said “I do”?

50+% of marriages end in divorce. Around 30% of women keep their name. So there must be a hell of a lot of name changers no longer with their husbands.

There is one poster suggesting that if you don’t take your husmand’s name you are more likely to split up- which is a pretty offensive thing to say and which she has rightly been challenged on. And another doing the “I fear for my boys” schtick. But apart from that, the discussion seems pretty civilized.

I am not saying you are more likely to split if you don't take your husband's name. How can I possibly assess that?

I don't even think the name thing is a big deal tbh, but I was thinking it's probably easier to extricate yourself from someone if you never took his name and particularly never shared finances (which I know is another issue entirely but it often gets advocated on here).
I'm not even saying this is a bad thing.

It should be quite easy to prove an assertion like the one about splitting up, so let's have it. I presume you have stats limon? You can't possibly have been stupid and arrogant enough to say that otherwise?

You are misinterpreting what I say Paul.

I have "my husband's name". If I was to want to chuck him out tomorrow, I would be stuck with that name. We have joint finances and always did, so separating that out would be more complicated and stressful. If I had "my own" name and had always kept my own finances, it would feel like less of a wrench and therefore easier to separate on a practical level (the emotional level is another matter obviously).

No, what you said was quite clear. And nonsensical. You wouldn't be stuck with his name, for a start, any more than you are now. Assuming you live in the UK anyway. You would be legally permitted to change it, as you are now, thus keeping it would be a choice on your part. In terms of the finances, bracketing taking your husband's name alongside joint finances was rather odd anyway, but in any case there are very few of us who wouldn't feel the financial impact of divorce however the money is arranged. Most people just aren't that rich.

The reality is that you're attributing these very strange sentiments of yours to other people. Best not. As I said, this is the sort of statement you should be able to evidence. You evidently can't, though. It was just something you pulled out of your arse, yes?

Why do defensive Paul? This is a discussion. When posters put it to me that my identity is subsumed into my husband's, that I'm backward, or his property, I don't need to fly off the handle - "Whete is the evidence? You are talking out if your arse!" It's a specific point that comes from a valid perspective and there is some truth in both perspectives on here.

I don't even think the name thing is a big deal tbh, but I was thinking it's probably easier to extricate yourself from someone if you never took his name

By that reckoning, women are conditioned to change their names in order to make it harder for them to leave marriages but not men. Sexist, much?

and particularly never shared finances (which I know is another issue entirely but it often gets advocated on here).

No shared finances here, either. Or wedding rings. And yet, somehow, still together, still functioning and raising a child to know that men and women are equal.

I have "my husband's name". If I was to want to chuck him out tomorrow, I would be stuck with that name.

Well no. Plenty of women change their names back to their maiden name after divorce. Considering that it will be the name on your birth certificate that can't be hard to do.. You just need your decree absolute and marriage certificate. You don't even have to change by deed poll

We have joint finances and always did, so separating that out would be more complicated and stressful. If I had "my own" name and had always kept my own finances, it would feel like less of a wrench and therefore easier to separate on a practical level (the emotional level is another matter obviously).

That seems to be an argument for not changing surnames. Having said that, what on earth has changing names got to do with combining finances? You are making so many ridiculous, ignorant assumptions.

“.If anything, you are likely to think and act more like separate entities, I would say, and it's easier to split up with no consequences.”

If that isn’t suggesting it’s easier and more likely for people to split up if they don’t share a name.....then I don,t know what it is saying!

I was musing really because PPs have suggested my identity is subsumed into my husband's because I took his name. It gets you thinking. One pp even compared it to slaves taking their masters names!

I think if I ever had to change my name back, it would be much more significant than a form and a fee. There would be the psychological and emotional impact of it too. In some ways it would feel like going backwards, to my childhood name which I would not be entirely comfortable with either. Whether to be a Ms now, rather than a Mrs. Telling people your name has changed etc. Do you change the DC name as well? It's not just a form.

Itsu, you know perfectly well I wouldn't have asked permission from his parents. It does not mean I'm some kind of chattel. It's a custom. You know what it means but you don't need to take it literally. You are still equal, but it's a different kind of equal to the way you see it.

it's a different kind of equal

Read it all now.

I think if I ever had to change my name back, it would be much more significant than a form and a fee. There would be the psychological and emotional impact of it too.

The psychological and emotional trauma comes from the divorce itself not from changing names back. People only do that because they want to, often a while after the divorce, presumably for a fresh start. If you would feel that changing your name was "going backwards" then you wouldn't do it. The people who change their names back obviously don't feel like that.

Do you change the DC name as well? It's not just a form.

It is just a form but you can't unilaterally decide to change your children's name. The father would need to give his permission which lets face it is unlikely to happen.

You are still equal, but it's a different kind of equal to the way you see it.

That is probably what women in Saudia Arabia are told.... The fact is that things are only equal if they are equal.

Pointing out that you are wrong isn't being defensive limon. Nobody made you say something so ridiculous, and it's not flying off the handle to expect a person to justify their claims.

Also, a perspective that thinks a divorcing woman would be stuck with the name she used in the marriage is by definition not valid.

I think if I ever had to change my name back

Why would you ever “have to” change your name?

it would be much more significant than a form and a fee. There would be the psychological and emotional impact of it too.

But there is no psychological or emotional impact of women changing their names when they get married?

In some ways it would feel like going backwards, to my childhood name which I would not be entirely comfortable with either.

Why ever not? Presumably it links you to your family - actual flesh and blood. Why would that be something to be sad about?

Whether to be a Ms now, rather than a Mrs.

Why are women the only ones expected to announce their marital status to the world? If all women just used Ms this issue would disappear.

Telling people your name has changed etc.

But surely you did that the last time you changed it. What’s different now?

Do you change the DC name as well?

Why on earth would you?

It’s clear you see marriage as a badge of honour. An achievement. As a woman, you’ve made changes to share that with the world, and ignore that the traditions you’ve followed are rooted in sexism. Your husband has made no such changes. Doesn’t that bother you?

You are still equal, but it's a different kind of equal to the way you see it.

I'm reminded of the line in 'Animal Farm': 'All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.'

You are just throwing all the questions that have already been asked at me again. I know all this.

Clearly there is an emotional and psychological implication to changing your name on marriage - a shift in identity, to some extent. So it follows that the name issue would add another layer of complexity and emotional stress in the event of a split. It doesn't matter whether you agree with NC or not, it is what it is.

I'm reminded of the line in 'Animal Farm': 'All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.'

Yes!! I knew there was something familiar about that line. I wonder if Limoncell0 has ever read it?