Changing names when marrying

[WellLarDeDar]

I had liked the idea of taking on DHs name if we ever married and thought I wouldn't bat an eyelid but now it's time (wedding imminent!), I've discovered I'm more attached to my maiden name than I thought, but also still do like the idea of taking DHs name. I think his surname is really nice but it feels really weird thinking I wont have my old name anymore. Naively, I never expected to be unsure over it, it's a very strange feeling.

Is/was anyone else in two minds about it? I'm curious to hear what other people think.

Also, do you think it would be weird for someone to change their maiden name to a middle name and take on their DH/DWs name as a surname?

(DH said that he would love for me to take his name but it's up to me entirely so there's no pressure from him at all. Neither of us want a double barreled surname)

@Hallyup6 id like to think they would keep it because its both parents history rather than just a mans or pick a new one together.

But it's not your 'husband's name', is it? At least not by your logic...Surely it's your father in law's name?

Yep, and he's a lovely man and I like him a hell of a lot better than my own father too.

In almost all cases, it's a man's name originally. I don't see how it's any less feminist to take the name of the man you at least chose to be related to. Father or husband, if it's about being "owned" then what's the difference between them? At least I chose this one.

@Hallyup6why didn't he take your name?

[quote Iggi999]@onlyhereforthecake you wrote yourself
Women can chose what to do, that's the point of feminism so you are stating what you think feminism is, just a much as me or any other poster!
I think feminism is about equality, not choice. You think it's about choice, not equality.[/quote]
why do you think you can't have both?

Surely by having the choice, you naturally have equality.

What feminism is not, it's telling women what they should or should not do. And pretending they are some kind of weak brainless species that only a few enlighten "feminists" can push in the right direction.

@Hallyup6

I'm curious what all these children with double barrelled surnames will do when they have a child with, or marry another person with a double barrelled name. It's unsustainable.

That's one reason I'd never do it and wanted my children to have their father's name.

someone always say this, as though it's inevitable that somewhere along the line there'll be a child with four hyphens in their surname.

surely just a moment's thought would make you realise that this is unlikely and that surnames will evolve.

@DrSbaitso

But it's not your 'husband's name', is it? At least not by your logic...Surely it's your father in law's name?

Yep, and he's a lovely man and I like him a hell of a lot better than my own father too.

In almost all cases, it's a man's name originally. I don't see how it's any less feminist to take the name of the man you at least chose to be related to. Father or husband, if it's about being "owned" then what's the difference between them? At least I chose this one.

If it's such a neutral decision, why would almost no man even consider taking his wife's - sorry his father in law's - name? Surely there are men who have had terrible relationships with their fathers too?

Tbh, I've wondered about double barrel names too. I'm sure they will evolve, they have to, but I'm interested to see what people do.

@DrSbaitso

But it's not your 'husband's name', is it? At least not by your logic...Surely it's your father in law's name?

Yep, and he's a lovely man and I like him a hell of a lot better than my own father too.

In almost all cases, it's a man's name originally. I don't see how it's any less feminist to take the name of the man you at least chose to be related to. Father or husband, if it's about being "owned" then what's the difference between them? At least I chose this one.

The point is that none of us have any choice over the name we're given at birth, so we own our name from birth. Please ask yourself why you consider your birth surname to be your father's but you consider your husband's surname to be his own?

The internalised sexism is so strong when it comes to surnames.

@Hallyup6

I'm curious what all these children with double barrelled surnames will do when they have a child with, or marry another person with a double barrelled name. It's unsustainable.

That's one reason I'd never do it and wanted my children to have their father's name.

Hundreds of millions of people in Spain and South America manage quite easily.

Let's say Elena Gonzalez Garcia marries Sergio Ramirez Sanz. Their child would take one of each of the parent's names, for example, Enrique Garcia Sanz. The name chosen is usually the father's name, but there's no 'rule' that it has to be. Really not difficult to find a solution.

Also worth pointing out that in many cultures - eg Chinese - women do not take their husband's name at all. It's by no means a universal tradition that cannot be changed.

I hope you aren't suggesting @onlyhereforthecake that I am claiming to be one of the "few enlightened feminists"

If it's such a neutral decision, why would almost no man even consider taking his wife's - sorry his father in law's - name? Surely there are men who have had terrible relationships with their fathers too?

Because the tradition doesn't exist for men and it would raise more eyebrows and isn't accepted anywhere near as readily as the norm. You can say it shouldn't be this way, and you may be right, but it is. So more women who like the idea of ditching their names will do it than men, because it's socially easier.

I think that if the tradition did exist equally for men, a lot of them probably would dump the name of a toxic parent if it would be accepted so readily. Even if they wouldn't, I don't care. I had an easy excuse to dumping the toxic name without angering anyone in the family and getting one that makes me happy. I'm not going to have my sodding father's name all my life when I don't want it.

@Marmaladee

I also think all women should go by Ms - why on earth should anyone know or care about our marital status? No-one knows or cares about men, so why women?

Absolutely. I really hate that women need to declare their marital status. WHY??

There isn't a title for men to announce their marital status in the same way there is for women.

I changed my name to my husbands as I couldn't wait to get rid of the name of the person who made half of me but has done fuck all for me in my life and was not a father in any way.

I also did if for others in retrospect but I won't say who or why as some would just combust.

@Iggi999

I hope you aren't suggesting *@onlyhereforthecake* that I am claiming to be one of the "few enlightened feminists"

as long as you are comfortable and happy with any decision someone else is making, and you make your own.

The poster coming up with the beautiful There are a lot of women see marriage as the ultimate achievement and changing their name as a badge of honour to show off that they have been picked. on the other hand

People trying to bring women down when they make a decision they wouldn't have chosen themselves sound funny on the surface, but are actually quite damaging.

Please ask yourself why you consider your birth surname to be your father's but you consider your husband's surname to be his own?

They're all men's names at the end of the day. I don't see a huge feminist difference in having a husband's name instead of a father's.

@DrSbaitso

If it's such a neutral decision, why would almost no man even consider taking his wife's - sorry his father in law's - name? Surely there are men who have had terrible relationships with their fathers too?

Because the tradition doesn't exist for men and it would raise more eyebrows and isn't accepted anywhere near as readily as the norm. You can say it shouldn't be this way, and you may be right, but it is. So more women who like the idea of ditching their names will do it than men, because it's socially easier.

I think that if the tradition did exist equally for men, a lot of them probably would dump the name of a toxic parent if it would be accepted so readily. Even if they wouldn't, I don't care. I had an easy excuse to dumping the toxic name without angering anyone in the family and getting one that makes me happy. I'm not going to have my sodding father's name all my life when I don't want it.

Traditions can and do change when people want them to change.

It used to be the tradition for women to promise to 'obey' their husbands on mariage. It used to be the tradition for women to give up work when they had a baby. It used to be the tradition for women not to have children outside of marriage.

But women changed these traditions - often after some struggle - because they wanted to change them. Men haven't changed the naming tradition because they quite like the idea of women taking their name and - unlike some posters here - are very well aware of the connotations of this tradition. It is a relic of the time when marriage meant that a woman passed from her father's ownership to that of her husband.

That is why almost no man wants to take their wife's - sorry father in law's - name. And who could blame them?

The point is that none of us have any choice over the name we're given at birth

Indeed, but I had a clear choice when I married, and I exercised it as I wished.

Maybe we should have a Mr for unmarried men
and a Mx or for married ones who want to change their title?

The title "Ms" is just a made up one too, isn't it?

@DrSbaitso

Please ask yourself why you consider your birth surname to be your father's but you consider your husband's surname to be his own?

They're all men's names at the end of the day. I don't see a huge feminist difference in having a husband's name instead of a father's.

So a woman never owns her name. We're either given a man's name on loan at birth until we take a man's name at marriage.

Got it.

@DrSbaitso

Please ask yourself why you consider your birth surname to be your father's but you consider your husband's surname to be his own?

They're all men's names at the end of the day. I don't see a huge feminist difference in having a husband's name instead of a father's.

My name isn't a 'man's name'. It's my name. I'm single and don't have children, but if I did, I would certainly want them to have my name.

And it's not a 'husband's name' is it? It's his father's name surely?

Men haven't changed the naming tradition because they quite like the idea of women taking their name and - unlike some posters here

again, loving the little goady attacks against the brainless weak women who dare disagreeing

are very well aware of the connotations of this tradition.

@onlyhereforthecake

Men haven't changed the naming tradition because they quite like the idea of women taking their name and - unlike some posters here

again, loving the little goady attacks against the brainless weak women who dare disagreeing

are very well aware of the connotations of this tradition.

It's not about 'disagreeing'. It's about the naivete in thinking that men would be quite happy to take their wife's name if only there were a 'tradition' for them to do so, while not questioning the existing 'tradition' and acknowledging what its roots are.

Traditions can and do change when people want them to change.

Great. I am personally fine with this one and glad I could use it to my advantage. I respect any other woman's choice to change or retain her name as she wishes. If it changes so that men can do it just as easily, that's great too.

It is a relic of the time when marriage meant that a woman passed from her father's ownership to that of her husband.

And that's exactly why I don't think it makes any feminist difference which relic of ownership you prefer to use. Born under one, marry into the other, either way you're under that relic, so just choose whichever one offends you least or makes you happy.

I'm keeping my name, ds has my name (wasn't even a conversation, I carried him so that's the way it is)

DP might change his, I don't really care either way but I like my name and it is staying as it is.

And that's exactly why I don't think it makes any feminist difference which relic of ownership you prefer to use. Born under one, marry into the other, either way you're under that relic, so just choose whichever one offends you least or makes you happy.

Even if a girl was born to a woman who hadn't changed her name, who in turn had been born to a woman who hadn't changed her name you'd still manage an 'ooooh but it's was you great-grandfather's name originally so...'

I had no control over the name I was given at birth, neither did your husband. We both own our names equally. You taking a man's name was a conscious anti-feminist choice. That's fine, but own it.

Great. I am personally fine with this one and glad I could use it to my advantage. I respect any other woman's choice to change or retain her name as she wishes. If it changes so that men can do it just as easily, that's great too.

It can only change when men want it to change, which they don't, because almost no man would give up his name and family history for a woman's.

And that's exactly why I don't think it makes any feminist difference which relic of ownership you prefer to use. Born under one, marry into the other, either way you're under that relic, so just choose whichever one offends you least or makes you happy.

Well no. If Sarah Smith keeps her name and passes it on to her children, then they're taking their mother's name, aren't they?

And the name I was born with is my name.