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I know it’s a traditional thing and some people see it as outdated or patriarchal but I actually think there’s something quite nice about a whole family sharing the same name.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

Well Mrs definitely isn’t going anywhere for me, it’s the start of my email address, so anyone who emails needs to type it for a start 😊

Oh I always do exactly what I want, prefer the old ways to the new for sure. They’ll stand me and my children in good stead as our environmental crisis worsens 👌🏻

I take it as a compliment not a criticism to be called old-fashioned, I’m very comfortable with that. As I said, I’d happily live at least 50 years ago for many reasons.

It’s clear nowadays that many people hate marriage, motherhood, children and traditional ways of life. But they are beautiful and timeless, and certainly not going anywhere.

I'm a happily married mother of two and my latest obsession is trying to grow pollinator friendly flowers, I don't see what any of that has got to do with the subject matter of this thread.

You certainly aren't reducing your carbon footprint by using archaic titles or upholding patriarchal traditions. 😅

To be clear, I'm talking about wider societal trends. Obviously within that there's still lots of room for variation. But again that diversity is the point really. The old surname and title models don't exist in the same way that they used to.

You certainly aren't reducing your carbon footprint by using archaic titles or upholding patriarchal traditions.

Yes, if anything Ms is the most environmentally friendly option because it's shorter than Miss or Mrs. Also it means no resources are needed to change the woman's title, since Ms isn't affected by marital status.

Not that I'd ever considered that to be amongst the advantages, but if we're on the subject...

You were the one who started being rude about ‘quaint little old lady customs’…BTW I’m also a big fan of gardening, hope your flowers turn out well.

I don’t think they have for ages though, it’s nothing new really. I’ve always known people use all variations of titles and surnames.

Oh and by the way, I do think it is very rude and unkind that in real life you have experienced people including family refusing to use your chosen title or surname, that’s really uncalled and unsupportive for as it’s up to you.

Yes I agree, it's been like this for a while. I do think that diversity is part of the reason for the move away from titles.

Thank you for acknowledging, I appreciate that.

I've said right from the beginning I dont think its sexist, that's indeed the topic of the thread, so there's nothing new about my opinion. Even if your life has been miserable and disadvantaged doesnt mean that you get to dictate how other women should choose their surname. Your opinion is no more valuable than mine I'm afraid.

Exactly this. I have a very toxic relationship with birth family and had always wanted to change name. Getting married gave me an excuse without my family kicking off. Divorced now and kept the name because as it is MY name. Not on loan from my husband. Couldn’t give a shite what anyone else does. There’s bigger feminist issues than bickering over who’s the better feminist because of their stance on married names.

Actually the topic of this thread is whether taking your husband's name is sexist. Not whether my experiences of sexism because I didn't take it are sexist. Then we had a subdiscussion about how important it is, which you initiated because I wouldn't concern myself to ask someone who can't offer an informed opinion on the issue. There'd be no point.

Also, nothing I have written is trying to dictate to other women how they should choose their surname. Not even close. That's a strawman. It's funny how often it gets resorted to in these threads when a woman who kept her own name says something a name changer doesn't like, though.

Yes and I dont think it is sexist. I dont think whatever decision a woman makes on her surname is sexist. Your entitled to feel upset if people treat you badly in life but it doesnt change the topic of whether a woman taking/not taking her partner's name is sexist or not.

Didn't say it did. This topic does seem to inspire a lot of rebuttal of points that weren't made, I think perhaps more than the average in internet discussions.

Well we can agree on that

Some people see marriage itself as a sexist, patriarchal concept. And it was but it’s moved on. I personally view it as a useful legal contract that offers protections for couples and children should the relationship break down. So in the same way, the act of changing your name has evolved. It used to mean that a woman had changed from a father’s property to a husband’s
but that’s no longer the case because women have agency over what their name is.
Also with same sex marriage it’s a pointless argument. Two female colleagues of mine are married. One changed their name so is that sexist?!

Changing my name to my husband’s name on getting married actually felt very empowering to me because it meant I no longer shared a surname with a very controlling and sexist man who thought of me as a possession of his, but instead shared a surname with a man whom I had met and chosen on my terms.

Lots of girls have abusive and controlling fathers so this won’t be an uncommon feeling.

Yes, I could have insisted that my husband and I choose a completely new surname, and that would probably have been a more feminist choice. I’m very happy for couples who feel able to do that. But in my case I think it would likely have upset my in-laws immensely as they are come from a historically oppressed group and their name is recognisably associated with that group. A rejection of the name have been taken as a rejection of their culture - and me taking the name made them really happy. It wasn’t worth damaging my relationship with my new family over.

Now that this thread has unexpectedly resurrected - @PutThe, every time I see your screen handle I mentally complete the sentence with Buffalo Bill's infamous quote about the lotion and the basket...

On point, it's interesting that the most recurring theme is that men's names are their own but women's are only 'borrowed'. Nothing would ever have possessed me to discard my own name, but I'm clear that those who do now own them as theirs. The assumption that a woman will immediately hand her name back to its 'rightful' owner at the point of divorce is really misogynistic and offensive.

Men have never been expected to relinquish their names at any point in life. All I want is the same privilege: the expectated norm for men, but too often seen as egregious in women. As for making a point: of course it is. It's making a point that the right to our own identity is a small ask, whatever sex we happen to be.

As for that hideous old custom of addressing a married woman called Jane by the title of Mrs John Smith, thank the gods this is dead in the water, although a small minority still insist that it's 'correct'. Like hell. Marriage doesn't carry an unwritten requirement for women to disappear into the ether. Glad this one's well on its way into the dustbin of history. 💣☠

Lots of boys have abusive and controlling fathers too. Why don’t they take the empowering step of taking their wives’names?

Exactly

We ask this rhetorically on many threads.

I suspect it is because boys see their surname as theirs, not their father's.

The whole 'women change surname when they create a new family with a man' sets up the subconcious feeling that her name pertains to the min man in her life and swaps from father to husband.

To compound this - many of the men women on MN report wanting to dissociate with are step fathers. Men whose mothers renamed themselves for. Thus compounding the sense and expectation that women re-label themselves according to the man in their lives

But for a boy / man, they feel their name is rightfully theirs, not temporary, not stuck on, not subject to any ifs or buts and not partly owned by anyone else, e.g father.

And a woman (or man) can change her name for any reason at any age over 16 (18?). She does not need to wait for man to marry her and save her from the name connection with an abusive man. But many women do - understandable because of the admin involved, but it's always there as an independent opportunity, man or no man.

All within the context that of course it is fine for individual women to change their name should they wish to. Do what suits you best and feel secure with that.

But I'm never sure why making that choice means you can't also critique the bigger picture in an objective way.

They could if they wanted to

It’s clear nowadays that many people hate marriage, motherhood, children and traditional ways of life. But they are beautiful and timeless, and certainly not going anywhere.

Most people would say that denying women and mothers their financial independence to protect themselves and their children by denying them the right to the own bank accounts, allowing women to be discriminated against because of their sex in the workplace, no maternity pay for mother's, marital rape being legal etc etc weren't examples of a time of people loving marriage motherhood and children....

But rigid stereotypes and oppression are timeless. What's wrong with doing all the housework/childcare/running around after a half wit and working full time? It's beautiful.

Ah yes of course, not to forget the timeless beautiful days of domestic violence not even being criminal. No wonder PP would happily go back, it all sounds so fun

And you don’t think the fact that they don’t might have anything at all to do with the patriarchy?