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!?

@looluu

“ 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.

It isn't whataboutery, it's an inconvenient fact you have ignored. You state that surnames are all patriarchal unless yours came from your mother, but this means a surname could have originated with a woman, only ever been passed down by a woman until a woman's father yet you'd still erase all that. If it matters that a father has passed a name down, it matters also that a mother has. If it matters that a name has originated with a man, it must also matter where it has originated with a woman.

Essentially, your argument is that because surnames as a whole have a patriarchal history, it isn't possible to identify degrees of patriarchy within that. This is factually incorrect. Women keeping their own women's names are, even for those few that can be sure it came from a man and has never been passed down by a woman, always doing something less patriarchal than taking their husband's.

And by the way, my surname comes from a woman - as in Mary's son.

I know nobody has said children should take their father’s name.

Despite my choices, I totally accept why some women would think women like me, who are Mrs, or who wanted to take their husband’s name on marriage, or who aren’t bothered if they get a letter with his initial on it are some kind of abomination to feminism. I kind of agree actually, though I would still make the same choices I did in the context of the relationship I’m in and how I personally relate.

I’m just saying that I don’t think much will change really until it really is as common for children to have their mother’s name as their father’s. Or, people who claim to not be Cino for table with the status auo, actually start questioning the underlying system of birth names, as much as lettters on envelopes or Ms / Mrs Hisname / Hername whatever. When you recognise the actual root of the transmission, you can start to weed it out. (If weed it out is what you want).

Wouldn’t feminists argue (welI I would) that the way oppressive systems persist through time is by focusing attention on the details, rather than the underlying structure. Turning the oppressed against each other so they sleepwalk through reality. People can put whatever letters they want in envelopes and women can change their names to their husband’s or Father Christmas if they want, but until the day that it’s as just common for a child to have their mothers name, we’re just going round in circles really.

Women not changing their names on marriage will only undermine patriarchy if these women also give their children their names, if not, women will die with whatever name they had and this particular form of patriarchy will rumble on as it has for centuries.

@Bouledeneige

And by the way, my surname comes from a woman - as in Mary's son.

Yeah but any sign of women in surname transmission can't be acknowledged if it was on your paternal side, so obviously that's whataboutery and doesn't matter at all.

I’m just saying that I don’t think much will change really until it really is as common for children to have their mother’s name as their father’s.

Which is fine, but this is a different point from whether taking your husband's name is more patriarchal than keeping your own. What you say here is a matter of opinion, whereas quite a few of the other things you've disputed are matters of fact where you were in error.

Going against the grain, this doesn't bother me.
For context.
Married 25 years, kept my own name, use Ms, gave my children both names hyphenated.

Zombie - you must know full well that in most cases, even in 2020, where there is a couple who have children, whether she has his name or not and even whether they are married or not, the tendency is still for the children to take the father’s name. Things are changing slowly, yes, particularly where there are single parents. But it’s still a long way to go. This is what I’m talking about.

It doesnt bother me but we dont receive cards so the novelty of a card would outweigh any possible name irritation

Oh and perhaps part of the reason this doesn't bother me is because its a practice that will soon die out. The only people I know who do it are very elderly.

Young women changing their name when they get married bothers me much more.

@looluu

Zombie - you must know full well that in most cases, even in 2020, where there is a couple who have children, whether she has his name or not and even whether they are married or not, the tendency is still for the children to take the father’s name. Things are changing slowly, yes, particularly where there are single parents. But it’s still a long way to go. This is what I’m talking about.

Actually you've talked about rather a lot more than that. If you think women not passing their surnames to their children is a more important issue than women giving up their own names for a man's, that's a legitimate view. It can and should be made without pretending that the woman giving up her surname isn't more patriarchal than keeping it, which you have repeatedly done.

YABU. Of all the things in the world worth getting worked up about, this is a very, very small one. It's not unreasonable for someone to assume that you are Mrs HusbandSurname if you are married, and using the husband's initial is the traditional etiquette for addressing a letter to Mrs. Is it right for these days? Possibly not. Is it worth a battle? Nope.

Put it this way, I’m 47. I live in the the middle of London. I’m not British by birth, though I call myself British now. DH was born here but mixed cultural / ethnic background. I know women who didn’t have their husband’s surname, sure. Particularly friends from other countries where its not customary, However, if I think of all the friends of my 4 children over 17 years, hardly any took their mother’s surname when both parents were in the picture. Even where parents were separated (but still both involved) it still tended to be the fathers name. Some double-barrel yes, but I actually can’t think of any couple, married or not, where the DC took the female surname. Even in Spain, the tradition is for the father’s name to come first in the double- barrelling, so that is the name the child goes with (unless it’s a really commonly-used name, in which case you might keep the other name for some distinction). Then it’s generally the father’s name that is transferred from the double-barrel when the person marries. So it’s not double-barrelling as people tend to think of it here.

“Actually you've talked about rather a lot more than that. If you think women not passing their surnames to their children is a more important issue than women giving up their own names for a man's, that's a legitimate view.“

Thankyou.

”It can and should be made without pretending that the woman giving up her surname isn't more patriarchal than keeping it, which you have repeatedly done.”

No, you misunderstand me here. I’ve fully acknowledged that I understand why people would see my decision to take my husband’s name as patriarchal. I have acknowledged that, by MN terms at least, I’m in a marriage that many would regard as quite patriarchal / traditional. I own this and it’s a legitimate view.

Keeping my name would have been more feminist if I had dine so to give it to my children. But I obviously didn’t want to do that. I completely understand why others would though.

My birth name always had a patriarchal association for me anyway and I know I’m not the only woman who would have felt like this from as long as she can remember. Clearly others don’t feel this way and that’s up to them. I’ve said repeatedly, it’s personal and we can agree to disagree here.

If a woman can’t wait to free herself from her birth name, she knows why. If other women base their identity on their birth name, they know why. I don’t think there can be any right or wrong here.

@looluu

• You know nobody has said children should take their father’s name, but continue with a strange straw man argument on the topic as though you are being disagreed with in some way.
• The double-barrelling in Spanish speaking countries was brought up when someone ignorantly stated that the concept was ridiculous and that double-barrelled names were impractical and impracticable. The Spanish situation was never presented as a feminist stance.
• Your anecdotal experiences aren’t relevant to this discussion. I’m in my early 30s and live in central London. All the couples I know have double-barrelled their kids names. All our individual experiences serve to prove is that the plural of anecdote is not data.
• You have referred multiple times to a monolithic historical system and have still failed to address that no such unifying historical system and that the history of last names is not the same all over the world.
• You have ignored any reference to matriarchal name transmission in the comments that have been made to you.
• You have again made statements about women like you being vilified by feminists , which - as I’ve previously stated - certainly hasn’t happened in this conversation. The reverse has been the case, and it has been done by you.
• You have moved the goalposts consistently throughout this conversation.
• Finally, to quote Zombie ‘If you think women not passing their surnames to their children is a more important issue than women giving up their own names for a man's, that's a legitimate view. It can and should be made without pretending that the woman giving up her surname isn't more patriarchal than keeping it, which you have repeatedly done.’

@looluu And, again, you cannot magnanimously claim that there is no right and wrong, and also state that the opposing views are bizarre or hypocritical. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

“ ”It can and should be made without pretending that the woman giving up her surname isn't more patriarchal than keeping it, which you have repeatedly done.”

No, you misunderstand me here. I’ve fully acknowledged that I understand why people would see my decision to take my husband’s name as patriarchal. I have acknowledged that, by MN terms at least, I’m in a marriage that many would regard as quite patriarchal / traditional. I own this and it’s a legitimate view.”

No, your response indicates that you didn’t understand what she’d said. Read it again.

No, you misunderstand me here. I’ve fully acknowledged that I understand why people would see my decision to take my husband’s name as patriarchal. I have acknowledged that, by MN terms at least, I’m in a marriage that many would regard as quite patriarchal / traditional. I own this and it’s a legitimate view.

No, you misunderstand me. The issue with what you've said is that you've claimed a woman keeping her own name is as patriarchal as a woman taking a man's. Your assessment of a woman taking her husband's name as patriarchal is correct, it's your assessment of a woman keeping her own that isn't.

I didn’t change my surname when I married DH and we still get joint Christmas cards from his side of the family with Mr and Mrs His Name. Yeah, they do not actually know and use my real name.

YANBU.

Bugg - you seem keep bringing up things that are your interpretation, but not what I’m even talking about.

For instance, I’m obviously only taking about the traditional historical situation in Britain. Where did anyone imply we were taking about the entire world. That would obviously be a very different discussion as there are so many traditions.

I have been vilified by women claiming to be feminist loads on MN. I don’t really mind. Not on this thread, I’ve already explained that. But you’ll have to just take my word for it.

I know the Spanish thing wasn’t presented as a feminist stance

On the matriarchal naming transmission, well, what would you like me to say? I acknowledge it happens. But it’s impact in the UK is minuscule compared to the patriarchal tradition. It’s barmy to claim otherwise.

Zombie’s comment I’ve answered.

And yes anecdotes are anecdotes, I agree. But it’s 2020 and I see virtually no evidence of matriarchal name transmission even today, except for in the cases of several single mums.

Zombie - I have said it’s personal. When you talk about “women“ - which ones? For me, I explained that as soon as I understood that mine, and most people’s name came from their dad, I wondered why. It never sat well with me, particularly and precisely because I had no choice.

So what I would say is that FOR ME, although I acknowledge taking my husband’s name was a nod to patriarchal systems, it was much of a muchness as far as I was concerned because I was always acutely aware of the intrinsic inequality in naming traditions since a young child. If this was an inequality (and is is), at least it was one that I chose with my eyes wide open.

Something is only “less” or “more” patriarchal if those involved believe it to be so.

If a woman believes it’s less patriarchal to hold on to her birth name rather than take her husband’s name, that it her prerogative based on her take on the world and how she feels.

There will be a whole myriad of perspectives here.

@looluu At no point has anyone (including you) stated that they were speaking exclusively about the UK. People have, in fact, specifically mentioned that they weren’t talking about the UK. If you chose to ignore that and automatically assume that’s what everyone’s talking about at all times, that’s on you. Like I said, parochial.

I have, at all points, responded directly to things you have said. I have no idea what ‘bringing up my own interpretation’ even means.

If you’ve been previously vilified by other people, then take it up with them. That is not the conversation that is currently taking place.

You haven’t ‘answered’ Zombie’s quote. As we have both said. Read it again.

And, for the 97th time, you cannot magnanimously claim that there is no right and wrong and recognise that there are myriad perspectives, and also state that the opposing views are bizarre or hypocritical. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

What’s with calling me parochial?

Some people may think that me taking my husbands name is submitting to patriarchy. I accept this. I don’t need to get angry.

I happen to think that given the wider context, it doesn’t make much material difference whether a woman keeps her birth name or takes her husband’s name (except to her and the DH of course). What matters, in terms of colluding with patriarchy, is which name you give your children.

So I have no view really on whether women change their names or not. It’s up to them.

What I do find on MN and it was the case in the thread that I think this came from, is that some women do seem to set great store on the fact they haven’t changed their names in marriage. They see it as evidence of feminism, enlightenment, etc. I think this is actually fine and it’s up to them.

Some of these women will then go on and give the children the DH’s name anyway. Again, I don’t care because I obviously did the same myself and would do again.

What I do find bizarre, and what often happens on MN is that some people get increasingly edgy whenever the wider context is pointed out - ie “have you considered where your name came from in the first place and what you’re actually identifying with?” - or - “if your children have your husband’s name anyway, is that really any more feminist in terms of transmission / outcomes?”

I don’t find any name choices bizarre at all - each to their own. I find the defensiveness bizarre and people who can’t see the irony in calling women out for enabling patriarchy by having their DH’s name, without any awareness that they are doing exactly the same, to an even greater degree, by confirming to the tradition of their children taking their husband’s name.

Just because taking a male name on marriage is a choice, doesn’t make it less damaging in a societal level than acquiring a name by default. I would argue the latter is actually more damaging because while many women these days question whether to take their husband’s name or not; far more women sleepwalk though life without ever having considered the patriarchy inherent in (most UK) birth names through history and still today. It’s so internalised it’s impossible to consider objectively.

I don’t really mean people on here and it’s not meant to be personal. But this happens all the time in MN and everyone knows it. I could link to the other thread the other day - hundreds of posts.

Anyway, I’ve been ill since yesterday so thanks for the discussion!

@looluu

Zombie - I have said it’s personal. When you talk about “women“ - which ones? For me, I explained that as soon as I understood that mine, and most people’s name came from their dad, I wondered why. It never sat well with me, particularly and precisely because I had no choice.

So what I would say is that FOR ME, although I acknowledge taking my husband’s name was a nod to patriarchal systems, it was much of a muchness as far as I was concerned because I was always acutely aware of the intrinsic inequality in naming traditions since a young child. If this was an inequality (and is is), at least it was one that I chose with my eyes wide open.

Something is only “less” or “more” patriarchal if those involved believe it to be so.

If a woman believes it’s less patriarchal to hold on to her birth name rather than take her husband’s name, that it her prerogative based on her take on the world and how she feels.

There will be a whole myriad of perspectives here.

Yes, you've repeatedly said it's personal, and every time you've said that you've been wrong. There are a myriad of perspectives, but only the one based on reality is correct. That is, the one correctly identifying that the decision to give up your woman's name for a man's is always entirely patriarchal, whereas the decision to keep it is not.

Facts are not influenced by people's feelings about them. That some surnames come from women originally, some have been passed down by women and most of us in this country won't know our full lineage are truths that are not affected by your feelings.

@looluu I said why I was calling you parochial immediately before I called you parochial. I know you selectively read, but I’m unclear as to how you missed one but not the the other. It’s still there, however. You can scroll up.

Again, you know nobody has said children should take their father’s name, but continue with a strange straw man argument on the topic as though you are being disagreed with in some way.

Also again, if you’ve been previously vilified by other people, then take it up with them. That is not the conversation that is currently taking place.

And just so we’re clear, the things you were saying that led to the current conversation:

^‘The irony on these threads that some people just can’t grasp, is that unless you inherited your name from your mother, you do in fact have a name that has been given to you via a patriarchal line.‘

‘... it’s nonsense to claim that your name is any less patriarchal than a woman taking her husband’s name.’

‘Even more bizarre, are those who keep their own name because of “feminism,” but then give their kids the DH’s name.’

‘In my view, those who don’t / can’t accept that whether they have a name that comes from their father or husband, they are adhering to the exactly same system, that are the “indoctrinated” ones.’

‘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.’^

And now your current stance:

^‘If a woman believes it’s less patriarchal to hold on to her birth name rather than take her husband’s name, that it her prerogative based on her take on the world and how she feels.

There will be a whole myriad of perspectives here.’

‘... it’s personal and we can agree to disagree here.’^

You have consistently contradicted yourself and somehow misunderstood or ‘missed’ things said to you, to such a degree that I suspect your comments are not in good faith.

“the decision to give up your woman's name for a man's is always entirely patriarchal, whereas the decision to keep it is not.”

I fundamentally disagree with you in this and I’ve explained why. Not just about feelings. Facts. The fact that what matters is birth names.

I would agree a woman’s decision to give up her name is patriarchal. But not necessarily more so, just differently so, than keeping a name you inherited from a line if male ancestors.