To think women taking their husband’s name doesn’t have to be sexist?

[RealNavyEagle]

I know it’s a traditional thing and some people see it as outdated or patriarchal but I actually think there’s something quite nice about a whole family sharing the same name. It doesn’t feel like “losing my identity” to me, just part of building a shared one.

AIBU to think it’s not automatically a regressive choice and that it can just be a personal one?

I asked if you had heard of the Law of Coverture. For centuries, when a woman married, she lost all agency and her rights were subsumed. Part of this was being called by her husband's name, eg Mrs Barry Green.

Marriage is a legal contract which protects women, therefore it's not sexist. However legacy traditions of the Law of Coverture such as a father handing his property to her new owner, promises to 'love, honour and obey' and taking your husband's name, are deeply misogynist.

I think there's a lot. Part of it is definitely that the tide is turning and the patriachy - which can be a bit amorphous and unclear - is panicking. A big part of this has been the pushback on women, often from other women.

I also think that while early feminists were demanding be let in, to have a seat at the table etc etc etc, they were doing so while accepting patriachal structures. I so clearly remember my early days in the City (25 years ago now). I thought that to be good at my job, I had to be just like the men - it would not have occurred to me in those days to think there was a problem with the intrinsic culture of long hours/drinking/socialising etc.

And I think the women who made choices like not taking their husband's name, were very much making a stand. They went into it with their eyes wide open. They were making a statement about who they were and how they would behave. Whereas I just though t it was a perfectly reasonable thing to do and was shocked by the response.

Not to mention many women keel their names from a professional point of view as that's the name people know them as. I can honestly say I don't know many women who do change their names after they get married and I do know some who have legally, but don't use it day to day. In saying that I don't know many people who bother getting married now either.

There must be a fair few who use both, especially with average marriage age rising so some women who might otherwise have changed feel they need to keep a name they've built up a work reputation in. Ie someone who'd have fully changed at 23 but doesn't for practical reasons at 33.

I know someone who runs her own business (she’s divorced) and used her maiden name. She’s remarried and changed her name on her business card. I was quite surprised by that, it seems an unusual thing to do in 2025 especially on a professional level. Her choice though of course.

That's incredible. Because in my social circle, I know precisely ONE woman who didn't change her name. At work, I know a slightly larger number, but still very much in the minority and at least half of them use their married names everywhere except at work.

Clear statements of fact are helpful and as I mentioned upthread have served to enlighten me and change my perspective, so I've really enjoyed that aspect 😊

I got frustrated reading about women's experiences of changing their names and getting backlash, I think it's important to state that firstly! On the other side, some initial responses in this thread said that women who changed their name aren't feminist but I don't think it's that black & white nor needs to be made personal in that way, I think you can state that it's not a feminist act for sure, but there is no need to label someone (when really, we all make choices and some will be feminist, others won't). I hope that makes sense. I've really enjoyed the conversation overall, but I think people won't listen if they feel judged and that would be a shame as I've certainly learned a lot.

I wish I knew. What hacks me off about certain adherents to the third-wave - Naomi Wolf et al - is their accusations of 'gatekeeping' feminism and banging on about 'choice', as if those choices would ever have been available were it not for the efforts of earlier feminists.

The first wave won us women's enfranchisement, but a second key battle they tried to fight was equality vs. difference - ie women's place as citizens and mothers - and IMO we've made minimal progress on that score in the century since. Check out those WOHM vs SAHM threads on MN - they are vicious! Wave #2 got us reproductive autonomy and the Sex Discrimination Act, for better or worse, and more workplace rights (although nothing approaching real equality in the workplace). We also got our first ecofeminists in the Greenham Common women - so prescient were they. This is why all the crap about 'choice' sticks in my craw: it discounts the very serious, sometimes life-and-death struggles feminists have undergone to achieve more rights and more freedoms for women. As far as I'm concerned the 3rd-wavers can stick their accusations of gatekeeping up their proverbial!

Naomi Wolf, incidentally, has now morphed from a self-styled feminist to a full-blown conspiracy theorist. I can't say that I'm surprised.

Well thankfully that's in the past

It does make sense, thank you for being so clear in your analysis. Unfortunately I think there are some women, and it normally is women sadly, who simply will not tolerate mention of the sexism or the impact of our choices on other women.

But ultimately, we do all make compromises with the patriarchy we live in and I dont see a way round that.

@MageQueen said: Whereas I just though t it was a perfectly reasonable thing to do and was shocked by the response.

Me too. Really surprising. Have you ever heard the schtick: 'but your husband's name is your legal name!' Coming from women who have themselves married, this is so curved-ball that I struggle to accept they actually believe it. They changed their names therefore they will have to have been through all the rigmarole of upgrading passports, bank details, etc., all requiring a marriage certificate and identity checks. What a whole lot of hassle.

If you retain your own identity on marriage, you need do precisely nothing. Contrary to popular expectation and from a legal standpoint at least, the choice we made was the default decision. Your name is your name unless you pull out all the active stops to change it.

This protestation about the legality of names is disingenuous - the same kind of faux ignorance expressed on MN as 'but I don't understaaaaand!' It has to be.

My mum genuinely thought that it was the law for women to take their husband's name and was horrified that I'd get into some kind of trouble.

I actually think at least some of it is genuine. There's something about womens names that causes some people's brains to evaporate out of their heads. Those people speak to other people, the nonsense spreads.

Which isn’t to say nobody ever weaponises faux ignorance either, but I do get the impression some of it is honest.

Totally agree with this. Rather than tying yourself in knots trying to say something is not sexist why not say it is sexist and based on patriarchy but you just want to do it anyway? That's the choice you've made- to do a sexist thing.
I changed my name. I had a ' foreign' name that nobody could pronounce. But I did it because basically it was easier to stick to tradition than have the same conversation about why I wasn't doing it. I regret it. I've realised with age that other people's inability to pronounce my name is a 'them' problem, not mine. In any case, for some reason everyone can now pronounce it. According to my brother there is a celeb or a footballer who has the same name and suddenly its not impossible to pronounce after all!

I can see why some people would find that lovely. Why is it always the man’s name?

Legacy traditions are traditions carried over from the Law of Coverture which are still used now. It wasn't so long ago that women couldn't get a mortgage without a husband.

What hacks me off about certain adherents to the third-wave - Naomi Wolf et al - is their accusations of 'gatekeeping' feminism and banging on about 'choice', as if those choices would ever have been available were it not for the efforts of earlier feminists.

Absolutely, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Again doesnt apply anymore. But by the sounds of it its marriage thats connecting all this.

Or couldn't be raped by their husbands. That change of law is frighteningly recent.

@SouthLondonMum22 and @PutThe - we've no way of knowing whether those are exceptions to the general rule, but I find that amazing! On second thoughts, the idea of misogyny spreading like some kind of miasma, taken in practically since birth, is the way dominant cultures do tend to operate. Tagging something as human nature or accepted convention does neatly avoid having those falsehoods questioned or challenged: because everyone knows that!, it's just common-sense.

Patriarchy in action.

I've given you three wedding traditions that are still in use: 'Giving away the bride', promising to obey and taking her husband's name. They still apply.

It's delightful that you think we live in a feminist utopia, completely cut off from the past. Long may it continue💜

So are you for or against marriage? I'm not sure if it's you or another poster that keeps mentioning bad things associated with marriage.

Totally agree with this. Rather than tying yourself in knots trying to say something is not sexist why not say it is sexist and based on patriarchy but you just want to do it anyway? That's the choice you've made- to do a sexist thing.

Yep! There'd be a lot less talked about the sexism if there weren't so much denial. One would think people who don't like hearing it would've got their heads round that by now.

I've already said that marriage is a legal contract that protects women, I'm of course in favour of women being financially protected.

Not as often as you'd expect. A few times. My favourite being the woman on the helpdesk at Barclays who helpfully said, "Oh, I see you still have your maiden name on your account, I'll just change that for you" and when I said not to she said, "but it's the law."

That wasn't a pretty conversation.

So what's the reason behind posting things that are bad about marriage? Or that used to be bad but dont exist anymore