To ask: why wouldn’t you take your husband’s surname?

[Josephinaphia]

Not looking for a row here - just genuinely interested in people’s reasoning behind not changing their surname upon marriage.
I am married and although I have a very unique maiden name which I love, I took my husband’s surname when we married. It was strange at first and a little sad, but now it is my name and part of my identity, as my original name was. We have 2 DDs who both have the surname too.
My questions are:
If you kept your name, what were your reasons? (e.g. you’d already made a name for yourself in your profession)
If it is a feminist issue of ‘ownership’ as some people seem to suggest, why is it any better to be ‘owned’ by your dad, to be known by your dad’s surname?
Is it not complicated having a different surname to your children, does it not get annoying when people assume you are Mrs DH’s surname anyway?
Do your children question why you have a different name?
With the whole double-barelling thing, again is this a feminist issue? To both be equal? But then what is the long-term plan? When your DC get married will they add their surname to their spouse’s surname and potentially have a quadruple-barrel name? And what of the generation after that?
I have a really lovely dad who treats my mum incredibly well and my husband is the same to me, so I’ve never really had a complex about men being superior or me being inferior and just never really saw the issue with having a shared marital, family name - but it seems so common now for women to want to keep their maiden name (their dad’s name) in some capacity and I guess I’m just curious as to why. As far as I can see, taking your husband’s name is the sensible way to do it if you’re going to have family. Double-barrelling in particular is surely just causing problems for your children further down the line?

My cousins partner took her name when they got married. Many reasons but one was that he didn't want to be reminded of his father.

I am saying you can’t deny where it comes from and that that is from a man and that is because of patriarchy.

Mine came from a movie actually. From a woman character.

I would argue that the truly deluded ones are the women who try to obfuscate the patriarchal tradition via which they received their name.

Once again, I’m not saying it isn’t your name, it is. But the fact you have it is a manifestation of patriarchy. At least own it.

At least when I took my DH’s name I was under no delusions. Nor was I in denial.

It really depends on the circles you move in.

Educated women are more likely to keep their surname.

But that is changing, as more women realise the inherent sexism of taking your husband's surname.

I note that in the UK it does seem to be less mainstream to keep your name. Again, that is changing.

A woman's surname is her surname. She doesn't 'borrow' it from her Dad, any more than her brother does.

I didn’t because DS had my surname and I didn’t want to change that. Logistically much easier that my son and I share a surname.
The nice thing is that if he marries and his wife does decide to change her name, it wouldn’t have belonged to a man previously.

I’m the last of my line. Mine’s still not pleased 19 years later, either. Tough.

^No a woman’s name is not “borrowed”. It’s the name she inherits, as does her brother, yet there is no denying that this default inheritance is due to patriarchy.
Exactly the same patriarchy that traditionally results in women taking their husbands’ names.
The only difference is that babies have no choice.^

So are you saying that taking your husbands name is somehow better, less sexist, because there is a choice?

Because that's a load of bollox.

You don't have to wait until you get married to change your name if you want to, the fact is that most people don't and wouldn't bother because it's hassle. They just accept the name they were given.

It's only women who are expected to change their names, and while there is huge cultural and societal pressure to do so, it isn't really a true choice.

So you think just continue with the patriarchal tradition then, Rethymnon?

Change has to start somewhere.

What if your husbands name was Dickbreath? Or Titfanny.

OnlyAHeart - well if you name came from a movie; or your mother; or someone else then clearly, it’s not a patriarchal name is it?

If your name came from your father or your husband, then it is.

This is obvious.

Because my name belongs to me. Because I don't belong to my husband. Because I am known professionally by my name. Because I couldn't be bothered doing the paperwork to change it. Because I don't want to be a Mrs (reminds me of MiL). Wish there was an automatic tradition of children inheriting both parents names

Because it's my name. I didn't have to give it back when I got married

Your argument has more holes than a colander though rethy. It rests on several incorrect assumptions and, when shit comes to shite, you think women's names are less their own than men's. This is clear from the fact that you referred to your dads name v your DHs until you were called on it. It is from this initial double standard that your argument flows, and that is why it fails.

Tang - when I took my husband’s name I did it with my eyes wide open and fully aware that it was confirming to patriarchal norms.

But my name had already confirmed to patriarchal norms anyway because I got it from my father. It wasn’t “borrowed” - it was my name. But that doesn’t change the fact of how I received it.

So much of a muchness, as far as I’m concerned.

I like my name, I have a big family that I want to stay connected to. my DH had his step dad’s name, step dad’s died a long time ago and he has no connection to his family anymore. Kids were born before we got married and also have my surname.

The thing is it does make women lose their identities.

I often wonder what some old school friends are up to. But if I Google them or search for them on Linked In then I might not be able to find the if they have changed their names.

My mother changed her name a couple of times, married and divorced, and I really felt odd that is would have been hard to link up the different versions of her life.

My only regret is not insisting the children had my name. Women have to put in most of the effort into making children so I think the only fair convention would be for the children to have the mother's surname and the father to decide whether or not to keep his as he pleased.

conformed not confirmed

We ARE owning it! I got my name through patriarchy! What I and others are saying is that we are chosing not to continue patriarchal name changes when we have a choice in the matter. How are you not understanding that Rethymnon?

I recently got married. I was Miss Gibbon. Now I'm Ms Gibbon. DH doesn't give a crap, he wanted partnership, not ownership. We don't have rings either.

At the point they had me, my dad had been a Jones for 40 years, my mum had been a Jones for 20, and now shes been one for 50. It's my family surname, not my dads or his dads or who ever else ancestor you wish to pick.

I kept my name, professional reasons and I like it. My dh is welcome to change his surname to mine

Why would I randomly change my name part way through my life just because I've changed my relationship status? If you think about it, changing your name, i.e. the words used to distinguish you from other human beings, is a bit of a weird thing to do, no?

Anyway I live in Scotland where women changing their names on marriage is a relatively recent trend. I must be a traditionalist at heart.

Throck - ok your not changing your name to a man’s name. You are keeping the name you were born with. It’s YOUR name. Yes I get that. But you still have that particular name for because of patriarchy (if it came from your father). The same patriarchy that I confirmed to when I took my husband's name which is now MY name too.,

It's interesting as well that the tradition in England is actually for children to have the name of the mother. Obviously that in most cases has tended to be the name she got from her husband, but the custom is for children to have the mother's name and this is evidenced by the fact that children of unmarried mothers had their name, not the dad's.

With that in mind, most of us who have the same surname as our father also have the same surname as our mother. If its somehow less patriarchal for our mothers to have taken their FILs names on marriage than to have kept the ones their parents gave them, why does this suddenly stop when they name their children?

“. But you still have that particular name for because of patriarchy (if it came from your father).”
Nobody is denying that.