"Well it’s sexist in the sense that it didn’t include DM, yes. But I think sometimes men have a particular way of communicating and this was one if those times. Just as women do on other occasions."
And also sexist in that you did not speak to your future MIL in the same way. It is one sided. No one, it seems, asks for a man's hand in marriage in a heterosexual relationship.
Sensible post by CurlyWurly - patriarchy has also historically worked against against same sex relationships, through religion and law and I do think it subverts the patriarchy when women take matters into their own hands and adjust traditions on their own terms.
IMO from a feminist perspective, This 'hand in marriage' business needs to either die out or it needs to divest itself of sexist baggage by as many women asking their future MILs as men asking FILs, or asking the 'other' parent. With the agreement of the fiance/e, of course, as discussed by Curly Wurly.
In the same way that a woman changing her surname to her husbands on marriage will lose its sexist currency when as many men change their names to their wives', or as many adopt both names hyphenated or a combined or new surname.
Until then, you cannot take the decision out of its context.
You can of course still make the decision to take a man's name - but it is within the context of an unequal assumption. And it does imply status - there have been many references on MN to men taking the piss out of men who change their names or whose wives do not. It is seen by many as not having got your DW under your thumb, basically.