To ask what you think about being expected to take husband's last name

[DisaK]

Long time MNetter

I'd like to ask what other MNetters think about men who expect their wives to take their last name when they get married and are very pushy about it.

Of course I know for some wives who really don't like their own surname or much prefer their DP's, there might be no issue at all.

What I'd like to know is what you think of men who are very adamant that women should take their name when they get married.

It was never an issue tbh it's part of getting married in my opinion not saying I'm right or anything

[quote Itisbetter]@PrincessConsuelaVaginaHammock I’m not arguing with anyone.[/quote]
Whatever you would like to call what you're doing, your descriptions are based on vast double standards and thus illogical. You'll never make any sense that way.

Funny enough my dad somehow dont know how but put the middle name down in the surname box on forms for him and mum so my surname doesnt match my parents

But I'll be keeping it for sure because I love my name

Interesting that your father didn’t want to keep his fathers name but named you the one he’d chosen for himself.

That wasn't the main reason, but his father did the world a favour by dying, he was so abusive.

Your name is your name yes, in the sense that it was the name given to you at birth.

But this is not the point really. The point is, that when all is said and done, that name was passed to you because of a patriarchal line. No other reason why you should have it.

This is a fact and there’s no two ways around it.

It’s not about, “Why was I loaned a name when my brother wasn’t apparently... etc etc etc.” No. You were both given birth names in the same way. But that name, as opposed to any other name, came to you because of patriarchy. This is very obvious.

So you can own that name, yes. But there’s no denying why you have it or where it came from. You can also choose to own your husband’s name - it’s not that different when you look at it this way.

To clarify they migrated to the UK hence the forms and now it's too much hassle to correct

I wish I never had

@Itisbetter

Your fathers name (I’m guessing) is his fathers, and his fathers etc etc. The naming convention is to mark with the male parents name(the surname) in the uk.

But as I already mentioned, many surnames do NOT derive from the male line.

I think it depends on their reason. For example, if all their family had been wiped out by disease or genocide, and he was last living member and wanted to pass the name down to his children, then I can understand being insistent on this.

@intotheb1ue

Your name is your name yes, in the sense that it was the name given to you at birth.

But this is not the point really. The point is, that when all is said and done, that name was passed to you because of a patriarchal line. No other reason why you should have it.

This is a fact and there’s no two ways around it.

It’s not about, “Why was I loaned a name when my brother wasn’t apparently... etc etc etc.” No. You were both given birth names in the same way. But that name, as opposed to any other name, came to you because of patriarchy. This is very obvious.

So you can own that name, yes. But there’s no denying why you have it or where it came from. You can also choose to own your husband’s name - it’s not that different when you look at it this way.

That it's your name is, in fact, totally the point. Also, there are reasons why a surname might not have come from a patriarchal line: this is proven by the fact that some names have female origins.

Also, this idea that you lose your identity because you change your name in marriage is nonsense. Your identity is whatever you choose to make it. It will change over the course if your life, regardless of a surname.

People oversimplify this issue on here so often with bland statements like “Men who want you to take their surname MUST be controlling and chauvinist.” Well, maybe, maybe not. You could have a man who doesn’t care what name you have, but he’s still a controlling chauvinist pig. They come in many guises....

I think the difference is the changing on marriage - my surname is the same as my brother’s but no one would expect him to change his on marriage. That’s where I think the difference is, we are both given our father’s name on birth but he gets to keep his without question all his life, by keeping mine I’ve had questions, comments and awkwardness. I think it’s very different changing your surname to be the same as your husband’s compared to keeping the one you were named with at birth.

I preferred my husband's surname so I took it. If I didn't like his surname I wouldn't have changed my name. Simple as that. I didn't want to do any double barrelled surname (I like to keep things short and simple). I wanted us all to have the same family name. That could have been my surname or his but as we preferred his we went with that. I think women can do whatever they want. It's their name after all - take their husband's name, keep their own name, use both names, invent a completely new name! Who cares? It's up to them.

For our family we decided that girls get my name, boys get his. It’s repeatable if our children want a tradition to follow, but doesn’t just force the decision on the next generation in a way double-barreling does.

It’s important to me that a name always belong to a person and there never be any pressure for that person to change it. It’s one of the reasons I don’t like first names with common nicknames because people are constantly asking what you really go by instead of just using your formal name.

@intotheb1ue

Also, this idea that you lose your identity because you change your name in marriage is nonsense. Your identity is whatever you choose to make it. It will change over the course if your life, regardless of a surname.

People oversimplify this issue on here so often with bland statements like “Men who want you to take their surname MUST be controlling and chauvinist.” Well, maybe, maybe not. You could have a man who doesn’t care what name you have, but he’s still a controlling chauvinist pig. They come in many guises....

The existence of men who are controlling in other ways doesn't have anything to do with whether men like the one OP describes are controlling and chauvinist. As far as I can see, nobody is suggesting that the existence of one type of such behaviour negates others.

@MulticolourMophead I was talking about people who had their fathers name as I said. If your name wasn’t your fathers then you DIDN’T make the choice between keeping your fathers name or changing it to your husbands which is the situation I described.

The post by FudgeBrownie2019 could easily have been written by me. Every word is evocative of my own situation, although the attitude levelled at me (via a third party - they never, ever confront a person directly) was what was the point in getting married if I didn't change my name? (I pity the spouse of anyone who genuinely takes this stance).

The prospective DH on this thread is a bit of an anomaly as men are normally spectacularly unbothered by this dull minutiae of life. FiL couldn't have given a bison's cuss what I chose to call myself, yet MiL to this day addresses me as Mrs Hisname. Once upon a time it annoyed me, now it's a standing family joke. But it's interesting that it's nearly always women who try to put other women in what they see as their 'place' (undoubtedly the kitchen sink). That's nowhere more clearly in evidence than the childlike, derogatory 'Daddy' used in the context of women who have no interest in swapping their family name for someone else's.

Those like my MiL or that poster, whose instant response is 'let's put the little woman back in her box', reveal far more about themselves and their own particular hang-ups than they do about the women they target with their silly passive aggression. Anyone who is that keen to try to needle others generally has to be pretty triggered themselves. It's actually quite amusing to witness. Must really get up their hooters, mustn't it?

The controlling aspect of this would worry me. It would be fine if she chose to take his name, because she wanted to.

@intotheb1ue

Also, this idea that you lose your identity because you change your name in marriage is nonsense. Your identity is whatever you choose to make it. It will change over the course if your life, regardless of a surname.

People oversimplify this issue on here so often with bland statements like “Men who want you to take their surname MUST be controlling and chauvinist.” Well, maybe, maybe not. You could have a man who doesn’t care what name you have, but he’s still a controlling chauvinist pig. They come in many guises....

Yes but wanting your wife to take your name against her wishes is EXPLICITLY misogynist. The fact that some other misogynists might not care about surnames doesn't change that fact.

I wanted to take my husband's last name when we got married ,I'm a a traditionalist at heart but nobody should be forced and nobody should judge anyone,else,s choices .

[quote Itisbetter]@MulticolourMophead I was talking about people who had their fathers name as I said. If your name wasn’t your fathers then you DIDN’T make the choice between keeping your fathers name or changing it to your husbands which is the situation I described.[/quote]
Described inaccurately. The only woman choosing between her father's name and her husband's is a woman whose father and husband both have surnames they were the first to carry. This is likely to be a pretty niche situation.

A few years ago I submitted some insurance documents at work and a woman from HR literally argued with me that I wasn’t ‘allowed’ to use Ms instead of Mrs unless I was divorced and that she needed to speak to her boss to check that there wouldn’t be an issue that I’d checked ‘married’ while leaving the ‘previous name’ field blank.

That was pretty funny and easily sorted in the end, but it really shocked me that in a company of about 400 people, no other woman had ever presented as a married ‘Ms’ or as married with her birth last name. Among my married friends, very much a feminist and outspoken group, only one woman aside from me has kept her own surname, but she’s Québécois and keeping your own name is standard there.

All in all it makes me sad. Call me old fashioned but I’m not of the opinion that every decision a feminist makes is a feminist decision. Changing your surname isn’t feminist. You can still be a feminist who sometimes makes non-feminist decisions occasionally (and I say that as someone with cosmetic breast implants- very much a non-feminist decision), but you have to realise that these things stack up over time and it’s possible to wake up one day and find that actually you’re not a feminist at all.

Whether you have your father’s name or you decide to take your husband’s name, it’s the same system - just opposite ends of it.

Meant to add to my comment that I love being a mrs and being addressed as Mrs husbands initial our surname. It bothers me if I'm not addressed as such.

[quote Itisbetter]@MulticolourMophead I was talking about people who had their fathers name as I said. If your name wasn’t your fathers then you DIDN’T make the choice between keeping your fathers name or changing it to your husbands which is the situation I described.[/quote]
The name I have, I share with my father, it's not his name any more than mine, regardless of whether he was born with it or not (not, in his case).

My brother also has the same surname. Yet there are people on here trying to argue that for him it's his surname, yet for me it must be my father's surname.

Nope.

I have my name because it was given to me, it's on my BC. As it was given, then the name is mine.

Because, even now, you can give a child any surname you like on their BC. And I would have exactly the same opinion if my dad had been using his birth name.