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!?

When I send a letter to married couples, mainly family at Christmas, I will always write Mrs A & Mr B Jones or Mrs Y and Mr Z Smith. Always the Mrs first, but I’m just a pedantic petty pain in the arse .

@ 2pinkginsplease It’s a mouthful for you, as previously stated, hundreds of millions of people (there are circa 500 million Spanish speakers for a start) have been managing just fine for millennia. If it doesn’t work for you, don’t do it. Repeating ‘we are allowed out opinion’ and disregarding what I have said does not make you seem any less parochial.

@looluu I haven’t said all women must do anything, I’ve been very clear on choice - repeatedly. I also addressed the passing of names onto children in my very first comment.

Again, you are choosing not to engage with what is actually being said.

I agree I hate it if I get anything addressed to Mrs (DH) initial Geekster. I took on his surname not his entire identity.

[quote 2pinkginsplease]@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![/quote]
Try doing your research before coming out with rubbish. The Spanish have been managing double barrelled names for a long time, and they have no issues.

Lol these threads are always good bingo fodder.

'but it's just as sexist to have your dad's name'
'I never liked my name'
'my old name was difficult to spell'
'it makes life easier at airports'
'I'm proud of my husband'

Etc etc. No man I've ever heard of has used his marriage to get away from a father he disliked, a name he thinks is weird, or a name that others struggle to spell. Not one.

What am I not engaging with?

I’ve been honest that this is not my circus anyway because, in the scheme if things, I wanted to change my name and I have a quite traditional marriage. I know that’s not a popular thing to admit to on here, but there it is.

But if I wanted change, ie. the current default patriarchal naming-system to be disrupted, I would focus on the underlying and insidious structure of the system itself, not simply how I may or may not identify within it.

In the world as a whole, everyone in the family having the father's name automatically isn't all that common. It's not standard in China, for instance. Spanish and Portuguese speakers will normally double-barrel, one name from each side. Sikh men and women traditionally have different surnames. Upper-class Italian and Belgian (iirc) women traditionally keep their own names. In the Arabic-speaking world, polite address for married women with children does not include their surname at all, whatever it may be - they are Umm (first son's name) or increasingly Umm (first child's name). Same with cultures where patronymics (or matronymics) are the norm, or cultures where surnames only exist for administrative purposes. And then there are cultures where surnames only reflect a wider ethnic group identity and don't even vary that much between families. We all manage.

@looluu

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.

No, it doesn't depend on how you look at it and identify with your background. The facts remain the facts, however we feel about them.

Your feelings about not wanting to keep your own name because your father had it before you are valid in their own right. They don't change the indisputable truth that taking your husband's name was more patriarchal than keeping your own, and more importantly, they don't need to. They're valid anyway. The rest of your post essentially seems to say that there are other issues that matter too, and of course that's correct. But they do not affect this particular point.

@looluu

You: women who do XYZ are hypocritical. XYZ is bizarre.

Me: no, this is why some of us do XYZ. This is how XYZ relates to succession.

You: anyone can do what they want. I don’t care what anyone else does. But women who do XYZ are hypocritical. XYZ is makes no sense.

Me: those are incompatible statements.

You: it’s not a definitive standpoint for all women.

Me: I never said it was. I said it was the standpoint of some women and that calling it bizarre or hypocritical because it’s not your choice is blinkered.

You: I don’t understand how I’m missing your point.

Ad infinitum.

It’s often said that you cannot reason a person out of an opinion that they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place. This thread is a rather terrifying example of that. The complete refusal of rational thought and inability to understand or engage with any unfamiliar views is very worrying.

I hope none of you votes.

Zombie - the real crux in terms of the ongoing perpetration of this patriarchal naming-system is birth names. Birth names are how how the whole patriarchal structure is transmitted through generations.

@looluu

Zombie - the real crux in terms of the ongoing perpetration of this patriarchal naming-system is birth names. Birth names are how how the whole patriarchal structure is transmitted through generations.

The real crux is that surnames are not automatically entirely patriarchal, even when a woman took hers from her father, whereas a woman giving up her own name for her husband's is. There are surnames that come from women originally and there are surnames that are passed down by women.

I don’t know who regards themselves as feminist on here and who doesn’t, but for any feminist, surely the first premise is to challenge the accepted patriarchal structures you were born into. I do this and I don’t even regard myself as feminist..So rather than simply “my name is my name because I was born with it, same as any man”, get beyond that, step out the identification box that the patriarchy has conferred on you and ask why. Why should you accept a male name as default? Just ask why.

Then think about how this system has prevailed through the centuries and what will cause it to continue for hundreds of years more. The answer is birth names.

Whether a wife takes her husbands name is part of the system. But the crux of its transmission is birth names, regardless of the mother’s name.

“ There are surnames that come from women originally and there are surnames that are passed down by women.”

Sorry but that does strike me as whataboutery. What we are talking about here is a rigid structure of patriarchal naming / identification that stretches back centuries, to the days when men were regarded as head of the households and their families; unmarried women had a reduced status and children born out of wedlock and without a father’s name were considered illegitimate. It’s huge tide to turn.

My point is, if I had kept my father’s name, but my children still had DH’s name, then what’s the difference in terms of perpetrating of this system?

I’ll be dead in a few decades. But it’s his name that my children would carry on. Same as now. So it’s birth names that matter.

I really don't understand why women take men's names full stop.

I have the name my parents gave me and I am a Ms. I am not identified by the who I am or was married to. It would wipe out my identity as me. I can't believe women still identify themselves as mens' chattels in the 21st century.

@looluu It’s not whataboutery if I have literally told you that’s not the history of last names where I’m from. And we’re a massive country. Again, step out of your bubble.

You asked what points you’d missed. I parsed it for you. You ignored that.

You are again ignoring what’s being said to you: ignoring that not all last names are historically patriarchal; ignoring that NOBODY (literally not a single person to whom you’re speaking) has said that children should take their father’s last name; and telling women how to be feminist. As the only way to be feminist is as you decree and anyone who disagrees is a victim of the patriarchy (although, you will choose to ignore any and points raised that demonstrate that is illogical).

Being concerned with current and future parity and equality rather than historical inequity apparently makes no sense to you, as there’s apparently no point bothering with the latter. How can you not see how twisted that is?

Yet, you are also not bothered by other women doing what they want. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

Did you take your name from your father’s or mother’s side Boul?

Will you be giving your children your name or your husband’s name, do you think?

Looluu why on earth are you arguing that women taking mens names on marriage, or not, doesn't matter? Yes, we get it, the chosing of surnames for children is very important - we don't disagree. But we are talking about women taking mens names on marriage. I didn't have any choice on what name I was given at birth but I sure as heck have a choice in whether or not I keep my name or change it upon marriage, and its the respecting of that choice that most of us are talking about.

Bugg - I’m not talking about you at all. I’m talking about a historical system.

Why are you getting aggro? There’s no need.

I heard recently it goes back to when a woman’s name should only appear in print when she is born, married or died. Ridiculously outdated attitudes like this are pointless today. My MIL gave me a Christmas card list a few years ago and I made sure both of the couples full names were on the envelopes.

Yes it’s true that taking your husbands name is a conscious decision, in the sense that acquiring a birth name is not. But surely the fact that most people get their birth names from their father, (I’m talking about those who do, not you personally Bugg) purely by default, without any say, should be the main focus for feminists or people who think the system needs to change? An adult woman at least has a say in her name, a baby does not. What concerns you more?

Again I’m not talking about ownership of names because the real issue is transmission.

I completely acknowledge that my decision to take my husband’s name was deferring the patriarchy, You’ll get no argument whatsoever from me there. But more patriarchal still (regardless of anything I did or didn’t do) is the fact that my four children have his name. Because this is the transmission. I’ll be dead. Which brings us full circle to the fact that birth names are what is fundamental to the reinforcement of this system.

@looluu And I’m saying that there isn’t only one historical system. There are numerous. Ignoring that fact because it doesn’t suit your narrative doesn’t make it untrue.

Terming my disagreement with your comments as ‘aggro’ whilst also continuing to disregard what’s been said to you doesn’t make your points any more valid.

And, again (as you appear to have missed it the multiple times I’ve said it), nobody (literally not a single person to whom you’re currently speaking) has said that children should take their father’s last name.

looluu I have my father's surname as that was the name I was given at birth and I have lived with for many years. I did not take my husband's name and it never occurred to me to do so. I am now divorced so clearly that's a matter of relief.

My children have double barrelled names to reflect both parents.