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I know it’s a traditional thing and some people see it as outdated or patriarchal but I actually think there’s something quite nice about a whole family sharing the same name.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?

Think the most recent marriage rate was roughly 20 women per 1000 unmarried women

20 married women for every 1000 unmarried. Absolute poppycock. I have no idea what the stat is, but this is not it. At best, you have misunderstood 2 random numbers.

I just looked at the office for national statistics website. It's only England and Wales though, doesnt include Scotland

Over half of women in relationships with children are unmarried. I presume you mean 80% of married women change their name, not 80% of all women?!

This isn't true. Just under half of women are married, but that includes those not yet married, those divorced, and those widowed. More women get married than don't. And of those about 90% change their names.

Seems pretty clear social pressure to me!

Are you saying the ONS is wrong? It's a marriage rate. It has been declining since records began, other than the slight increase after covid due to backlog

And dont forget where it talks about the percentage of married adults that includes men, so you can divide the figure basically in half.

Are you talking about the marriage rate - i.e. 20 of 1000 unmarried individuals get married per year. This is quite different to how many people are, in total, married

The fact of the matter is that in the UK a much larger proportion of women still change their name upon marriage to their husband's than do not. Guessing similar numbers re title change.

Yes. That’s what I said. I used my word with care.

I'm unsure exactly what you're replying to here. I never wrote any of the random points you are apparently responding to above, other than the one about emotional significance attached to a name.

Yes that's exactly what I said. 20 per 1000. Presumably will be lower in the next census. Roughly 50% of adults are married in the UK which includes men and women in that 50%

But you wrote this: “The idea that we'll carry the same name throughout life is neither a big deal, a seditious act of rebellion or in any way a deviation from the standard expectation taken for granted by men. It's not a great deal to ask.” You quite literally say you are asking to keep your name… I therefore pointed out you have absolutely no need whatsoever to ask for any such thing, given the fact you have to ask to change it, not the other way round…

I wrote what I wrote. From this, you've made a large number of tacit deductions about my attitudes, my beliefs and my feelings about a certain issue. These are quite some way off-base.

Have you RTFT? There are plenty of testimonies above about women receiving a large and unexpected amount of pushback - from relatives to random encounters in business transactions - about using their own family names. Some of these women have been married for decades, and most, as I, quite reasonably assumed that no one in this day and age would care in the least what other women call themselves, even if they knew she was using her own family name which most people in casual encounters wouldn't. The disparity between married status and not using a 'Mrs' title was one, people taking gratuitous offence when asked to amend a title or use their correct name was another, as was in-laws and parents refusing to acknowledge a woman by her rightful name.

This is the issue I was alluding to - that the common courtesy of our own preference of identity is frequently denied to women in a way it isn't with men. The implication seems to be that asserting an individual identity once married is stepping outside our box, and we must quickly be squashed back in.

As a long-married woman in this position, I am best placed to judge exactly what I have to ask for, and am continuing to have to ask for after nearly eighteen years. If you've inferred otherwise from my posts, then this is their contextual explanation. It's a comment on my experience - not what you seem to believe I think 'all' women should or shouldn't do.

It was not intended as any kind of personal slight.

It was not a tacit deduction - as you say, you wrote what you wrote. To interpret it the way you would like me to have interpreted it would have required tacit deduction, I merely took you at your actual word.

I think part of the issue here is the fact you have been married for 18 years. I work in a primary school - I therefore deal with families of a younger generation, and I do not experience the attitudes you describe amongst younger parents and families. In my generation, yes, of course the attitude you describe is more common, but even then, it depends on the circles in which you move, the attitudes of the families you come from and marry into, and the thinness of your skin. I’m more of a rose by any other name would smell as sweet sort of a person than someone who actually thinks there is any validity in the notion that it is natural to have some deep emotional attachment to a surname of all things. I know some all-boys’ schools used to refer to the boys by their surnames, but I would actually be pretty offended to be referred to in that way. It is not my surname I hold any emotional regard for, it never was and it never will be.

I agree it's not sexist anymore than taking their father's name is sexist.
It's her choice.

Were men ever considered property to be given away on their wedding day by their mother who had previously been asked if they could take the property from them to keep and in turn gave the men a new name to show ownership?

Does anyone believe in this day and age that a wife is a man’s property, and if not, then in what way is that relevant?

Yes. These days it goes by another name. Male privilege.

Legally, of course, married women are not the property of their husbands. But strong notions of ownership and patriarchy still prevail in society, and these attitudes support the oppression of women in the modern day, in particular, oppression through violence against women.

Absolutely!

No. You said 20 out of 1000 are married. That is very very different to 20 out of 1000 get married!!!

The ONS says just under half of the adult population is married. This percentage varies by age group.

No 😆 that's not what I said. I said the marriage rate is 20 per 1000 unmarried women. I quoted the ONS exactly. Your just trying to alter what I said as you at first called the figure poppycock and now you realise its not.

Aah, ok, perhaps I misunderstood what you were originally saying then. What was your point in context of women taking their husband's name?

But what has that got to do with marriage? The violence and attitudes exist inside and outside of marriage. Marriage makes no difference to it, except to give couples a more clear understanding of their legal arrangements.

When people were talking about how many of us are married. It's definitely on the decline and for a lot of people is not the big deal it once was.