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?

Thanks itsu I have been beaten down for it, my mil still furious!

Wow trousers that’s a powerful story.

@limon what nonsense - equality is just a point of view? I despair sometimes.

In my circle of friends and acquaintances, it is very unusual for a woman not to take her husbands surname. Some I know kept their maiden name at work but outside work were known by their husbands surname.

What is a matter of fact? That the definition of feminism on here is a fixed given?

Equality means different things to different people.

No things are either equal or they are not. It is not a matter of opinion. There can only be equality with regard to changing surnames if men are expected and are as likely to change their surname as women.

So when standing up for women's rights is likened to racism, I think of what my MIL had to go through to stay alive and laugh at the sheer banality of minds that can be so "unwoke".

Winter - there are some measures of equality that are indisputable. Others are less easy to define because one size may not fit all.

Definition of equality
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

It’s really not a point of view.

Dungeon - What about a situation where men and women were forced in the name of equality to take equal maternity leave? Equality would be achieved sure, but not really because it doesn't take account of the biological factors of being a mother. That's just one example.

What about a situation where men and women were forced in the name of equality to take equal maternity leave? Equality would be achieved sure, but not really because it doesn't take account of the biological factors of being a mother. That's just one example.

What "biological factors" or being a mother? Women certainly need time off to recover after giving birth and to establish breastfeeding but there is no biological reason for them to have a whole year. I think it would be a good thing if the woman did the first six months and the man did the second.

There don't have to be biological or physiological reasons Itsu. But seeing as you ask, the biological may well influence your psychology and make your more predisposed to certain behaviour patterns.

I’m sorting out a load of employment contracts this afternoon. Usually we use a pay scale that ensures equality, but today I’m gonna pay them according to their physiology.

Dungeon - well that's one area where we differ in what constitutes equality then.

But limoncello, women aren't forced to take maternity leave (well, except for 2 weeks) so I don't understand that argument? The parental leave one is a great example though in that when men and women are given equal opportunity and protections when taking parental leave, then we're at a place where our society can be called more equal. doesn't mean that either one of them HAS to take it. But the option is there. And the less obvious part of that is that it has to be seen as equally acceptable for men and women to take that parental leave for it to work.

Trousers - I'm not comparing racism and feminism directly. They are different. The point I was making upthread was about slavery - that those who were oppressed KNEW they were oppressed. it's less clear with feminism.

If you want to compare feminism and racism though, I think they can be compared. It could be viewed that misogyny is less harmful than the kind of institutionalised racism we saw in, for example, Nazi Germany, of course. But actually, there are women all over the world who are directly suffering physical and mental harm as a result of not having a voice. That varies from women in countries where their legal freedoms are massively reduced compared to us in the West to the indsidious underlying sexism that sees so many women in domestic abuse situations without financial or other forms of independence. At a higher, more nebulous level, it shows up in lack of women in major leadership positions or in girls being repeatedly steered away from certain professions or behaviours. It's not the death camps, but, thank god, very little that's wrong with the world is as bad as what happened there.

TittyGolightly - you are being facetious and you know it.

But seeing as you ask, the biological may well influence your psychology

How’s that then? Social engineering, that’s how.

Little girls should dream of weddings and babies and how amazing it will be when they show the world how lucky they are to be married. What an achievement for a mere female!

Dungeon - well that's one area where we differ in what constitutes equality then.

Well no. It is just another area where you are incorrect about what constitutes equality.

But seeing as you ask, the biological may well influence your psychology and make your more predisposed to certain behaviour patterns.

Or... just a thought... hundreds of years of socialisation might impact your psychology and make you more predisposed to certain behaviour patters.

This is so frustrating. This absolute unwillingness to see that there might actually be more to the world than straight biological imperative. Is there a gene that says it's important for a man to keep his name and a woman to change it? And if so, why is that gene only prevalent in mostly English speaking countries?

you are being facetious and you know it.

Ah. So we shouldn’t pay people according to whether they pee standing up or not, presumably because their worth isn’t determined by their biology.

So why should their name be?

the biological may well influence your psychology and make your more predisposed to certain behaviour patterns.

Example please

Differences in "biology" were once used as an argument for not giving women the vote..

Where do you think the patriarchy comes from Itsu? It was never some abstract thing that descended on humanity? Humans created it - it came from within us. The reality is that it's human nature to a large extent. The patriarchy is the social manifestation of male psychology, that's the way I see it anyway. But women and men are different biologically and, to a greater or lesser extent, psychologically too. Men and women will relate to each other according to this. So the way I relate to my husband makes me more psychologically disposed to takes his name than for him to take mine. I would say it's a combination of social programming and also the natural dynamic that exists between us. That is me trying to be as honest as I can. This is a silly question to be honest, but there it is anyway.

Bertrand Right, but my point is that it is patronising to assume the latter (which sounds just like "the silly women doesn't understand" to me) without considering that the former could actually be the case. As I mentioned below in my post to Winter, there have been a few posts on this thread that come across pretty poorly - not yours.