Mr and Mrs his initial surname 🤬

[ottermadness]

I just hate it, I’m not a Mrs and I have a name.

It’s nice that people remember to send anniversary cards though so I’m not going to be impolite.

AIBU that this gives me rage!?

Zombie, as a child, did you not ever sit through the register at school and wonder why all your friends and class has their dads’ names and not their mums’? I used to wonder why girls didn’t get their mums’ surnames and boys their dads’.

Their were some children whose dads had buggered off and has nothing to do with them, yet they were still saddled with their names. Not the mum’s name, who was the one bringing them up.

The patriarchal naming issue runs far deeper than whether you take your husband’s name or not. It defines you before you’re even born and you have no choice but to identify with it (unless you end up with your mother’s name or take a new one for whatever reason).

And to follow up on your last point, even if your father’s name had come from his mother, the fact that you took that name and not your own mother’s name, is patriarchal. Your name came from a man. Born into it - default patriarchy. Marry into it- choice patriarchy. But it’s still essentially the same patriarchy you’re named by, through default or choice.

Maybe it’s people that inherit the name of a father they don’t get on with; or they don’t identify with; or they don’t really know, that are the ones who are acutely conscious of the patriarchal aspect of their birth name? You think, why should I have to carry the name of that useless / abusive / non-existent individual, simply because he was the male parent? If you’ve experienced this, you might know what I’m talking about. Your birth name from your father can be a burden or a kind of disassociation from yourself, rather than something you internalise as absolutely natural and “yours”.

@looluu Ah, I see. From your last couple of posts, there’s clearly a bit of baggage tied up in your birth name for you. You are obviously well within your rights to free yourself of an unwanted name or association. I’m glad you did what made you happy.

However, it feels like you’re letting that get in the way of actually reading and understanding what is being said to you, as your responses aren’t really addressing the points that anyone’s making. You’re just repeating yourself without engaging with what we’re saying.

What you are saying is that because you were born with a given name, then that is your name and that’s it, regardless of the fact it came from a man.

But I don’t see it like that because I look at where it came from. I think this matters.

It’s a circular argument because the patriarchal naming tradition is a circular process - as is my whole point.

If your name is not defined by taking your husband’s name, chances are it is defined by your mother’s decision to take her husband’s name. And do it goes on ....

If you break the cycle by giving your child your name (not your husband’s) or you double-barrel, fair enough.

If you were born with your mother’s name or a double-barrelled name, then, by the same token, fair enough.

Otherwise you have YOUR name and it’s as valid as any man’s name, of course. But the fact is, you either took it from your father or you took it from your husband. This is the fact. I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly.

I’ve had DH’s name for nearly half my life now. It’s my name, far more so I feel, than the name I had before. I never felt my previous name identified me anyway. When changed it, there was nothing lost. It was a total non-issue, to be perfectly honest.

I won’t be the only woman who feels that way. If women want to strongly identify with the name they took from their father (or mother) then that’s their prerogative. Of course it is. But it’s a very personal issue and this is why no woman should be telling any other woman what is “feminist” or what isn’t because ultimately, we’re all mostly caught or reacting to the same patriarchal system from birth and/ or marriage and beyond. I think ultimately, you just have to recognise it for what it is.

@looluu And I’ve explained in great detail how and why I don’t care where my name came from, it’s mine because I’ve had it all my life and I see no reason to change it. Which is the exact same reason my DH (and yours) wouldn’t be expected to change theirs. You choose to see your birth name as your father’s name, I don’t see how I got mine (or my husband got his) as relevant. You have yet to explain why I (or anyone else) should see it as relevant, merely repeatedly stated that you do.

Additionally, as I’ve said above, the origins of my last name aren’t even patriarchal in the sense that you mean, but that’s not relevant, either.

Finally, scanning this thread, the only people attacking other people’s choices, terming them ‘bizarre’ or putting the word feminism in quotes are the people who have changed their last names and are apparently furious that other women have chosen not to. The reverse is not the case, I don’t see anyone raging about you taking your husband’s last name.

Never even thought about this we have the same intial so it’s neither here nor there here

Sure Bugg, if you choose to not care where your name came from, that’s of course absolutely fine. As I said, this is a personal issue. People will see / experience it through different ends of the lens and it’s fine to agree to disagree.

Sorry, not something I could get upset about. Much bigger things to worry about

@looluu

Zombie, as a child, did you not ever sit through the register at school and wonder why all your friends and class has their dads’ names and not their mums’? I used to wonder why girls didn’t get their mums’ surnames and boys their dads’.

Their were some children whose dads had buggered off and has nothing to do with them, yet they were still saddled with their names. Not the mum’s name, who was the one bringing them up.

The patriarchal naming issue runs far deeper than whether you take your husband’s name or not. It defines you before you’re even born and you have no choice but to identify with it (unless you end up with your mother’s name or take a new one for whatever reason).

No, the thought never occurred to me and I'm not sure I would've known the surnames of both parents if it had. It's still reasonable to discuss that despite the fact that I was more interested in my dolls at that point though. Completely valid point. It's just that you're wrong in claiming that it means a woman keeping her own name is as patriarchal as her taking a man's: this is nonsense. You are essentially saying that because most surnames exist at least partially as a result of patriarchy, there is nothing to distinguish between the various choices because of it. But it is a fact that some choices are more patriarchal than others.

My mother did this once after we got married and was rapidly told off. She didn't see it as a problem - but both her and my dad have the same first initial so Mrs A Smith is fine for her as she's Ann and my dad's Alex (for example).

@looluu

What you are saying is that because you were born with a given name, then that is your name and that’s it, regardless of the fact it came from a man.

But I don’t see it like that because I look at where it came from. I think this matters.

It’s a circular argument because the patriarchal naming tradition is a circular process - as is my whole point.

If your name is not defined by taking your husband’s name, chances are it is defined by your mother’s decision to take her husband’s name. And do it goes on ....

If you break the cycle by giving your child your name (not your husband’s) or you double-barrel, fair enough.

If you were born with your mother’s name or a double-barrelled name, then, by the same token, fair enough.

Otherwise you have YOUR name and it’s as valid as any man’s name, of course. But the fact is, you either took it from your father or you took it from your husband. This is the fact. I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly.

The flaw in your argument and the reason why you keep getting it wrong is your assumption that all surnames exist solely via patriarchy. This principle would mean that if a woman's surname came originally through a woman and had only been passed through the female line until her father, if he were the first man to pass it down, it would still be totally patriarchal. One man would erase all the women. This clearly cannot be true.

Your whole argument rests on a double standard: you say your name either comes from your father or your husband. But this is bullshit, because you're saying men get their own names and women don't. If a name only belongs to the first person who held it so it isn't really yours, it also isn't your husband's either. Can't be. It's a choice between the name of some long dead ancestor of yours and some long dead ancestor of your husband's. Choosing the latter because it belongs to a man is more patriarchal than choosing the former. There is no getting round any of this, however far backwards you want to bend over.

Well again, it depends how you look at it Zombie and how you identify with your background.

Anyway, it’s not a competition. Personally I couldn’t give a hoot about people’s reasoning for having whatever name they like.

I do find it slightly hypocritical though, when some women come on (not you, but I’m sure you know the threads), and proclaim, “No I did NOT take my husband’s name because I am not an appendage / it’s not the 50s / I am more independent-minded than you... etc etc etc. You know how it goes. I’m just saying this always strikes me as a very one-dimensional way of looking at it and it strikes me that, in many cases, they’re not seeing the wood for the trees.

But, as I say, it’s a circular argument because essentially, that is the rub of the issue and it could go on all day....

The only difference is the extent to which it matters to you that you got your birth name from a man (if indeed you did). If you’ve decided it doesn’t matter to you, then nobody can tell you it does. But others see it differently. That’s all.

As to the second half of your argument, you keep saying this, but you are missing the point,

The name a woman is born with is her name. It is equally as valid as the name a man is born with.

So if there is a brother and a sister who both have their dad’s name from birth, it is equally their name for as long as they decide to keep that name.

But I’m not talking about that. I’m not talking about ownership.

In the case of the sister and the brother, both names are patriarchal - ie acquired by default from a man. Neither of them had any choice, but it is what it is.

They can decide to own that name, or change it by marriage or deed poll or whatever. But what they can’t do, is argue it didn’t come from the father and is therefore patriarchal.

This argument that we don’t know whether women passed the name on somewhere down the line is nonsense really because we all know full well that the patriarchal naming tradition has been the default for centuries in this country. Yes there might be the odd woman who passed on her name in 1830 or whatever, but the further you go back, the more this will be the exception. And if it was the case that women’s names are equally default as men’s, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all.

But anyway, just believe what you want to believe. It doesn’t matter as long as your happy.

@looluu

• You say we can all disagree, then go on to state that your find it slightly hypocritical and one-dimensional. You claim you ‘don’t give a hoot’, but if you didn’t, you wouldn’t have made the comments that started this conversation. None of these are compatible statements.
• I pointed out that, scanning this thread, the only people attacking other people’s choices, terming them ‘bizarre’ or putting the word feminism in quotes are the people who have changed their last names and are apparently furious that other women have chosen not to. The reverse is not the case, I don’t see anyone raging about you taking your husband’s last name. You ignored that, as it apparently doesn’t suit your narrative, and continued to talk about all these hypocritical feminists.
• @ZombieLizzieBennet explained (again) how your circular argument doesn’t make any sense. ‘ If a name only belongs to the first person who held it so it isn't really yours, it also isn't your husband's either. Can't be. It's a choice between the name of some long dead ancestor of yours and some long dead ancestor of your husband's. Choosing the latter because it belongs to a man is more patriarchal than choosing the former. There is no getting round any of this, however far backwards you want to bend over.’ You chose not to address that (or understand it, perhaps?)

You are now presented with either believing that nobody understands your point or conceding that your point simply doesn’t make sense. I am very sadly aware that you will probably go with the latter option.

I will point out that there is no 'in this country’ on the internet and that, either way, you live in a multicultural society. I’ve already stated where I’m from, which - based on what you’ve said - is not the ‘this country’ to which you refer. It’s a big old world out there, with literal billions of people in it.

I quite happily changed my surname to my dh’s (I wasn’t new really a fan of my fathers surname) as I wanted our children to have a family name so we were all the same, it does make me laugh when my aunt addresses our cards as mr and Mrs his initial family surname, just send it mr and Mrs surname, I’m not into this double barrelling nonsense, it looks ridiculous to me (my opinion , we are allowed one) and as for Ms it reminds me of old spinster school teachers.

"Mr and Mrs his initial surname" is so old fashioned and seen so rarely nowadays, I think it's rather quaint. Like putting Esq after a man's name or similar. This is the sort of thing people got enraged about in the 1970s - now, it's just amusing.

Buggr - I just disagree with your argument, that’s all.

I didn’t say you were hypocritical. There was a thread just the other day (to be honest, I thought this was still it due to similar title) with 100+ women saying that they believe the choice to keep your birth name is superior / more feminist than changing your name. They then went on to say their children had their husband’s name.

I don’t regard myself as a feminist in the terms usually expressed in MN anyway. I just think it’s about perception.

For instance, where DH’s mother comes from, is probably one if the most patriarchal societies on earth, yet women can’t take their husbands name on marriage. This is because they are regarded as part of their father’s tribe / lineage for life. But the children always get the father’s name, even though their mother can’t have it. What this translates into, is that if your husband divorces you (by the way, it’s very difficult for a woman to divorce the husband), she is basically cast out with no claim to that family, in name and therefore legally. She has no claim on her children (past the age of 7, I think it is) because they are part of the father’s family / tribe, in name and legally. So MIL, having left that culture behind, actively wanted to take FILs name because this seemed more like equality to her. As I say, different perceptions.

But I can speak for myself and do know this - I was born with a name that came from a man. Now I have another name that came from a man and to me, it is what it is. There no right or wrong, it’s just how you relate.

@2pinkginsplease You’re not into double barrelling, so you didn’t do it (and nobody asked you to). That doesn’t make it nonsense. You’re presumably an adult, you should be aware that your choices are not the only choices.

Furthermore, in addition to whatever cultural changes are taking place wherever you’re from, there are literally hundreds of millions of people from other cultures for whom double barrelling is traditional, and further hundreds of millions of people from cultures where women do not change their last names upon marriage. You’re on the internet, please be aware that a world exists outside your small socio-cultural bubble.

You say we are allowed our opinions, but if someone were to say that ‘Mrs’ brought to mind an indoctrinated handmaiden and that they found your name change baffling and ridiculous, you’d be offended and wring your hands about the rude feminists trying to force their agenda down your throat. I’m afraid that both schools of thought have opinions.

@looluu You haven’t disagreed with my argument, as you haven’t addressed it. Which is rather my point.

Your MIL situation is unfortunate, but has nothing to do with what I’ve said.

I can’t speak about threads I’m not on, I can only respond to your comments here and I have already pointed out how they are contradictory. If you had initially chosen to only speak for yourself and your choices, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all.

Well I would say double-barrelling is probably the way forward in terms of equality.

It doesn’t actually matter how strongly you identify with your birth name (or not). That’s just you and, in itself, makes no difference. What is cortical is the name you pass on to your children - because if you want to disrupt the traditional system and this is important to you, then this is the only way. So if a woman keeps her name and passes it on, that’s the start of change. If a woman keeps her name but the children still inherit the fathers, then there’s no change in terms of the future. Or you could double barrel if you want.

After my divorce I moved into a new house with my teenage son and two daughters.

The house belonged to me and I paid all the bills.

Despite that we used to get regular mailshots addressed to my son, and only my son, from a company that was trying to sell us furniture.

Clearly he was deemed to be 'the man of the house' and the one who made the decisions when it came to buying the 'big stuff'.

Hell would freeze over before I would have bought anything from them.

@Buggritbuggrit we are allowed our own opinion.

Regarding double barrelling, what happens if Lucy smith jones marries peter simons Richardson, what happens with their names then, do the children get Samuel, smith jones simons Richardson? It’s a but if a mouthful!

Bugg - but your argument is just about how you relate to your birth name. That’s absolutely fine, but it doesn’t mean it’s the definitive standpoint that all women must assume.

You would say it’s ownership of your birth name that is what matters for feminism. I would say that what matters is the system itself - ie what name is actually passed on. Because anyone can own any name - you don’t have to be born with it. Make one up, if you like. But as long as nobody questions the default system of children inheriting the fathers name, nothing will actually change.