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.

@intotheb1ue

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.

If your husband's name is his, so is yours. If your name is really your dad's because it came from him, then your husband doesn't have his own name either and actually neither does your dad. This entire view rests on a double standard, which is why you didn't describe it as keeping your own name or taking your FILs even though it would be just as accurate as what you wrote.

Red flag for me, I never even considered changing mine and not sure I even discussed it with DH, we both just carried on as we were.

The system follows the male line. It’s a patriarchal male centric naming convention. If you honestly can’t see that I’m not sure how to explain it?

@happymummy12345 In what situation in your life are you addressed with a title of any kind? Do your friends call you Mrs. A. HisLastName? Does your doctor come to the waiting room and call for ‘Mrs. A. HisLastName’? My doctor just calls my first name (as that’s less likely to be a data protection issue to call a full name). Honestly I can’t think of one situation other than a wedding invitation sent by a time traveller from 1949 in which it would be normal for someone to refer to you by your husband’s name.

That is a dealbreaker for him

@AFireInJuly

Why is it a dealbreaker for him? And what do you think of it being a dealbreaker than your children MUST have his name?

@Itisbetter

The system follows the male line. It’s a patriarchal male centric naming convention. If you honestly can’t see that I’m not sure how to explain it?

It doesn't necessarily, actually. It can't, when some surnames originated with women. But even if it did, you are applying different standards to men and women. If a woman's name isn't hers because it came from her father, then by definition her husband's can't be his either if he got it in the same way. This renders your whole argument inaccurate.

I think in general, having an opinion on something that doesn't directly affect you is fine. But to try and push that opinion onto someone else who is directly affected by that thing, then that's unreasonable

Princess - I think it’s a double standard too, but for the opposite reason you do. Of course, your name is your name. Your brother’s name is his name. I’m not talking about that - I’m talking about where it came from and WHY.

Do t just look at one aspect and get gaslighted. Look beyond at the wider picture.

So say you and your brother have the same name as your father had, and his father had and so on so on so on, back maybe hundreds of years - all connected and traceable via the make line. For the sake of argument, your brother’s children will automatically be named via that same patriarchal lineage at birth, whether they like it or not. But traditionally (and still what generally happens) your children will not get your name, whether you take your husband’s name or not.

So which is more patriarchal? The fact you’re not even questioning the origin of your birth name? ( I didn’t mean “you” personally, I just mean people). Or worrying about taking your husbands name or not?

The most patriarchal stroke is when a woman decides not to take her husband’s name because ”independence” or whatever (even though she actually has a patriarchal name anyway) but then still allows their children to have the DH name and not hers Effectively cutting herself out.

Completely agree with @PrincessConsuelaVaginaHammock, especially this:

If your husband's name is his, so is yours. If your name is really your dad's because it came from him, then your husband doesn't have his own name either and actually neither does your dad. This entire view rests on a double standard, which is why you didn't describe it as keeping your own name or taking your FILs even though it would be just as accurate as what you wrote.

I think the fiancee should be getting to the bottom of why his name is more important than hers and probably postponing the wedding till she finds out what other sexist ideas he has

intotheb1ue Not all surnames originated with males, so the patriarchy isn't that strong.

I did my family tree on my mother's side, and I have at least 2 instances from the 1700s where the female surname was carried down. (Still checking on some of the others.) My family will not be unique.

It seems to have been during the Victorian age that the patriarchal ideas came in strongly and got massively reinforced, so all this guff about tradition is just that, guff.

It's not a great sign really.

But going back to OP's question:

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.

I'd call these men sexist wankers best avoided. This won't be the only sign of the sexist crap they believe.

If you want to change your name, that's your right, but no one should be forced to do so.

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.

Wow! I nearly fell for that! Good joke

I’m not talking about that - I’m talking about where it came from and WHY.

Yes you are. When you use that terminology that's exactly what you're doing. If what you mean is you would like to focus on something else, then don't say a woman is choosing between her father's and husband's name when she isn't. You simply cannot make the argument you're making when you get such basic facts wrong.

The same is true with you stating that surnames are automatically patriarchal when it's an indisputable fact that some come from women. You cannot divorce either of these things from your view that both choices are equally part of the same patriarchal system: that might be true if all names were men's not women's, but all names aren't.

And really, framing this as people who identify keeping their own name as being less patriarchal than taking their FILs mustn't have thought the matter through is pretty problematic. They might just disagree with you. After all, changing your name on marriage to a man is undoubtedly, unequivocally a patriarchal tradition and there's zero basis for it other than patriarchy. Whereas a vanishingly small number of us will know enough about our lineage to be able to say the same with such certainty about our surnames (apologies to anyone reading who can trace their roots back to 1104 or whatever!). This is why, fundamentally, taking your husband's name on marriage is more patriarchal than keeping your own.

“If your name is really your dad's because it came from him, then your husband doesn't have his own name either and actually neither does your dad.”

Well yes absolutely, if you want to put it like that. Your brother doesn’t have his name, he has his dad’s. Your dad doesn’t have his name, it’s his dad’s. And so on so on.

But what’s the common denominator here?

THE NAMES ARE COMING FROM THE DADS, NOT THE MUMS!

Sorry to shout, but I don’t know how to explain this any more clearly really.

Of course, if you happen to have your mum’s name, or a double-barrelled name, then this doesn’t apply to you and I’m not talking about this .

I would say F* off and change your own name then!

Seriously, I changed my name to dh's when we got married and I was very happy to. I have no relationship really with anyone in my own family and the only person I vaguely talked to (my mum) remarried and doesn't share the same name as me. So I literally had a surname I shared with no one and meant nothing to me (my dad is dead).

It was lovely to change it to dh's name and actually feel like I had a name I shared with my family (and my dc, most importantly, when they were born). Obviously, we could have chosen a new name together (several friends have done this), but actually I wanted a name I shared with people beyond just my immediate family that had some history to it. We could have chosen my name I suppose if I was close to my family.

But I probably wouldn't have been marrying dh anyway if he was the sort to make such demands about what I called myself.

@intotheb1ue

“If your name is really your dad's because it came from him, then your husband doesn't have his own name either and actually neither does your dad.”

Well yes absolutely, if you want to put it like that. Your brother doesn’t have his name, he has his dad’s. Your dad doesn’t have his name, it’s his dad’s. And so on so on.

But what’s the common denominator here?

THE NAMES ARE COMING FROM THE DADS, NOT THE MUMS!

Sorry to shout, but I don’t know how to explain this any more clearly really.

Of course, if you happen to have your mum’s name, or a double-barrelled name, then this doesn’t apply to you and I’m not talking about this .

Again, it's not a common denominator that all the names come from the dads BECAUSE SOME SURNAMES ORIGINATE WITH WOMEN AND YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE OF THESE EVEN IF IT WAS YOUR DAD WHO WAS CALLED IT AT BIRTH NOT YOUR MUM.

I don't know how to explain this more clearly either...

If you automatically take your father”a name at birth, then that’s patriarchal. Even more so if it comes via a long line of men.

If you take your mother’s name at birth, it’s breaking the chain of patriarchy.

If you get a double- barrelled name, it’s also breaking the chain.

Surely it's the principle of the OP's question, that a man might think of marriage as a takeover in name terms, which could well extend to other areas of life. My name means nothing but I wouldn't change it to someone else's. My paternal grandfather had to change his Polish sounding name to a German one, in order to keep his job (decree by Himmler). After he was captured in WW2 and married my mother, my father chose a very British name. My generation are the first with this new name. My daughter has this name too, and whether she keeps it or not is her choice.

I always wanted the surname "Fox" and considered changing it.

Anyway... I took my husbands name and I don’t regret it at all. I didn’t change overnight or become less of an individual

What I would certainly not have done though, is given our DC his surname if I didn’t share it. What’s that about?

I agree with Princess. Plus you get situations like my great-grandparents who actually had the same name. And I dare say that wasn’t that rare in some parts of the country where some names were very prevalent.

@intotheb1ue

If you automatically take your father”a name at birth, then that’s patriarchal. Even more so if it comes via a long line of men.

If you take your mother’s name at birth, it’s breaking the chain of patriarchy.

If you get a double- barrelled name, it’s also breaking the chain.

Continuing to use a name that originated with a woman isn't patriarchal. Giving up your own woman's name for a man's automatically is.

I haven't changed my name and my husband is unhappy about it. It's even worse now because my daughter's have my name but my son has his (because I'm far too tired and in too much pain after birth to argue anymore).
I have said to my husband to take my name but he won't and nor will he let me double barrel the childrens names.
Tbh would have been a lot easier to marry someone who knows its 2020.

If you take your mother’s name at birth, it’s breaking the chain of patriarchy.

Most people take their mother's name at birth. Because that is the main legal principle. In many cases, the mother's surname is the same as the father's because she chose to change her name on marriage, but in the case of unmarried mothers, it's only become a thing to give a child the father's name in recent years. And not all unmarried mothers choose to use the father's name.

Ultimately, the mother has the over-riding choice.

The only reason my DC have their dad's surname is down to him being an abusive cunt, who badgered me until I gave in. I wanted them to have mine and didn't have the same understanding as I do now.