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?

I took my H's name, which is actually his step dad's name, but have since found out that his step dad is an abusive rapist, so really wish I didn't have his surname now. It makes me feel that we are all under his shadow.

Rethymnon Some of our surnames originated with women. EG Webster came from a word meaning female weaver. It's not all the patriarchy.

You're continually failing to point out that keeping your own name is less patriarchal though rethymnon, indeed trying to pretend otherwise. The two are not the same.

I kept my name because I was too lazy to sew different name patches on my uniforms.
Kids have DHs name.
Amused when I’m called Mrs DH name or DH is called Mr my name (it happens)
Kids are fine with DH name.
It’s patrilineal which is not patriarchal so feminism can sod off for not knowing the difference.

MrsLevinson - if you had an abusive father, or perhaps one that you barely knew, you may well go through life wondering, “Why the hell am I lumbered with this b***rd’s name. I don’t want to associate with it. Why did I get this name, just because he was a man, as opposed to my mother’s”. In these circumstances, you might feel that patriarchy had lumbered you with a name - one that you feel the need to reject, if anything. That’s when you would not take it for granted or identify with it as “your” name. It would always remind you of what you wanted to separate out from.

Can you see this? I think most women just inherit a name from their father and own it as theirs because why not? They wouldn’t think not to, particularly as a child. Yet some women will question why they have their father’s name and from an early age will feel this as patriarchal control.

Each to their own but I kept mine. Maybe in the future I'll change it but I don't really see the need? I will never have the same last name as my kids and I dont see the significance of it really.
My 1st DD has her father's last name (not DH) and 2nd DD will have her father's first name as her last name as in DHs culture thats just how it is.
It's a last name ffs, don't know anyone who would lose sleep over it!

My uncle who got married around 10 years ago changed his name to his wife's last name. A friend of mine and his wife made their own new last name, as they both came from an abusive family and didn't want to "carry the name on". Fair enough.

I really don't think it's a big deal what people want to do.

But those on about the women who carry their fathers name out of patriarchy, I'm sure the sons also carry the fathers name? They may also of had an abusive father and be lumbered with it - and then have a wife who wants to take that name in the future, to then produce kids with the same name and so it goes on.

Just some food for thought!

You're continually failing to point out that keeping your own name is less patriarchal though rethymnon, indeed trying to pretend otherwise. The two are not the same

It is, however, the key to breaking the patriarchal cycle.

As long as women keep changing their names, dc will be given dads name, and the patriarchy continues.

If women keep their own names, there is then the choice of names for dc. And gradually, we will hopefully see more dc given mum’s name.

This argument of “it’s patriarchy whether it’s your dads or husbands name” will not get anyone anywhere.

My husband's on his 3rd surname (his parents had a very acrimonious divorce) so he was less attached to his previous surname and he wanted us to have the same surname when we married so we merged our names, and we get compliments about how lovely it is.

I'm aware that we're unusual though, I only know two other women who kept their own names and one other couple who merged their names.

DC don't have to inherit DH's surname, and given the seperation/divorce rate and that mums get custody of the kids more often than not, it makes sense to give them their mother's name.

Because I'm a feminist and its my name

My children have my name

I hardly know anyone who has changed.

Giving children the mother's name should be the default. It makes far more sense given the divorce statistics and most children remaining with their mum.

I don’t know why people are bringing patriarchy into this. Surnames here are patrilineal and surnames have nothing to do with patriarchy.

There are societies all over the world where surnames and lineage are matrilineal but the society also patriarchal. The Hopi come to mind.

If we had a matrilineal system where the man took the woman’s name and the children had the woman’s name...it would have zero effect or correlation with whether or not we had a matriarchal or patriarchal society.

The two are not mutually dependent.

Also MrsLevinson, I’m not interested in arguing what is more or less patriarchal. I’m telling you how I felt and I know I won’t be the only one to see things this way. Getting rid of my birth name was very liberating for me.

Unless you have walked in the shoes of every woman on the planet and seen the world and relationships through their lens, then you don’t get to put anyone else down for their decisions.

I love my husband. I am totally secure in the dynamic we have. I don’t need to be the same or do everything the same as him to be equal. We understand the way we relate and how we feel instinctively. I wanted to take his name and have never regretted it for a second.

Other people can do what the hell they like if it makes them feel happy. But don’t tell other couples how they should feel.

Men are not asked why they kept their names upon marriage, yet women are.

Men are not told that they're keeping their father's name, and that it's not really their own, yet women are.

Men don't generally choose to give up their (what's the male equivalent of maiden name?) because they don't like it or it reminds them of an abusive father, yet women do.

Is it really 2019?

Because my name is pretty unique and I'm attached to it. Also my mum kept her maiden name when she married my dad so it seems normal to me to keep your own name. Its not a feminist statement just seems natural to me because of her.

I have a double barrelled surname and when we had our dc's I agreed to give them their fathers name because triple barrelling seemed a bit much and it was more important to their dad than it was to me. I have never had any issues having a different surname name to my kids.

You have no idea what my father was like rethy, best not to assume.

It's fine for women to feel that having a name that has been passed down the male line is patriarchal. It is. It's just less patriarchal than giving up your own name to take that of a man for whom all the same things could be said, and that doesn't even have the redeeming quality of having been given to you due to the tradition of children having their mother's names. And really, if you're interested enough in naming history and customs to understand the patriarchal aspects, you should also have cottoned on that the tradition was to give the child the mother's name. Hence children of unmarried parents not getting the father's name until pretty recently.

MissPolly - you raise a valid point about sons being lumbered with an abusive or absent father’s name.
I guess they can lose it on marriage if they wish? But maybe this feels like going against the grain a little more? Depends purely on the individual, as with women.

MrsLevinson - if you had an abusive father, or perhaps one that you barely knew, you may well go through life wondering, “Why the hell am I lumbered with this b*rd’s name. I don’t want to associate with it. Why did I get this name, just because he was a man, as opposed to my mother’s”. In these circumstances, you might feel that patriarchy had lumbered you with a name - one that you feel the need to reject, if anything. That’s when you would not take it for granted or identify with it as “your” name. It would always remind you of what you wanted to separate out from.

You always get loads of these comments on these threads and they always make it sound like getting married is the only way to change your name. It isn't. If you don't like sharing a surname with your father you can resolve that without beginning to share a name with your husband. I mean, are you saying that if you'd not got married your name would have been good enough, but as soon as you got engaged it became unbearable?

Also MrsLevinson, I’m not interested in arguing what is more or less patriarchal

But that's what you have been doing.

Also, your comments about putting women down or telling others how to feel are simply not applicable. Putting down a poor argument is not the same thing. I have no issue when women say they made a different choice to me and don't display massive double standards or logic fails.

I didn't take my husband's name because I couldn't think of a single reason why I should, and none of these (very frequent, always lengthy) threads on MN have convinced me otherwise.

MrsL - maybe we’ll just agree to disagree. All I can tell you is that my birth name felt more patriarchal than my married name. That’s just me, but I know I won’t be the only one. People have their reasons and it’s no good trying to frame one thing as “better” than the other. My point is that it’s irrelevant.

I didn’t take my husband’s name.

Because I had a mortgage, life insurance, home insurance, health insurance, car insurance, a bank account, a credit card, a driving license, a passport and a career in my name and couldn’t be arsed to change them all.

And because my dad had no brothers and I have no brothers. So my surname dies with me.

I mean, you can agree whatever you want. Meanwhile, it isn't irrelevant, and you don't get to tell other women it is.

Well I could have changed my name before I got married yes. But I didn’t. I don’t know why - why don’t all women change their names to their mothers’, or to a random name.

I wanted to take my DH’s name when that time came. It felt right to me in the context of our relationship. I am totally aware that it’s not “feminist”, but I couldn’t care less because I wanted to do it regardless. So shoot me.

I have no view whatsoever on women who keep their own names; double-barrel or choose whatever names they like. It simply doesn’t bother me in the least.

It simply doesn’t bother me in the least.

Your posts on this thread very much suggest otherwise!!