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I know it’s a traditional thing and some people see it as outdated or patriarchal but I actually think there’s something quite nice about a whole family sharing the same name.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

Yes and it's not uncommon for people to want to go back to past times, days gone by. Lots of people are not happy with many aspects of modern life. There are good and bad aspects to both life now and life in the past. Nobody is saying they long for the bad bits.

Exactly this. I wish my children were living in a time before iPhones and when they could play more freely outdoors, that’s for sure. Many people seem more isolated and mentally unhappier, times used to be more carefree and relaxed, less pressure. Just my take on it.

I don't think people look down on them, I do think though that there isn't any value in it to anyone else and it perpetuates sexist stereotypes. I think if you feel looked down on as a married stay at home mother with her husband surname etc maybe it's because you're expecting people to look up to it or see it as very special or socially valuable? Like in the older days where a woman's value was based on her marital status, children etc and fortunately we've moved past that. No one's looking down on you, it just isn't of value to anyone but your husband and people might ask when you're going to do X because to them it doesn't seem like you have anything interesting going on or to talk about.

This post proves you can’t treat men and women “equally,” as only women get pregnant, so you could argue that in the past, a man wold also have been sacked for getting pregnant, but it just never happened that way… You should, of course, treat men and women equitably, but that does require an acceptance of certain differences between men and women.

I don't think PP longs for the bad bits, I just don't see what "good" bit they're longer for realistically when as a woman going back to that time period would mean giving up almost all rights and protections so I'm not sure what "good" bits are so dreamy being weighed against the fact you'll have no money, no rights etc

I'd say it's of value to her children who then become the next generation going out into the world.

Of course but then parents who work outside the home are also of value to their children. I'm just not sure why the need for other adults, who aren't being fed or cleaned by PP, need to value it?

Well it just depends how you view things and what is important to you. Not all women want to be career women. And dont forget not all men are horrible bastards so it's perfectly possible to have a happy marriage and family life.

I don't understand your post if I'm honest. Women are protected from being treated differently because they're pregnant I.e. they should be treated the same as their male (and female) colleagues who aren't pregnant. It doesn't matter who can or can't get pregnant you just can't be fired or discriminated against for being pregnant. A very valuable thing for mothers and not something I'd like to go back to living in a time before this

Of course but you can enjoy marriage and family life now hence I'm not sure what the pull of "the past" is? You're welcome to not have a career, but why dream for a time you didn't have a choice?

You dont need to value it any more than valuing anyone else you dont know.

I know that's what I said. I asked why PP felt people look down on it when no one actually cares. I think you'd feel people look down on it if you expect it to be praised or valued by people for some reason.

Because its not how your mind works that's why. Everybody likes different things. Its weighing up the good and bad of both ways of life and the past is appealing to some and not others.

Rubbish. Women who are pregnant have a right to be treated differently - not to be discriminated against for ante-natal appointments, or to be sacked for having severe morning sickness, or to be expected to continue doing physically dangerous work too close to the time of birth, or to be expected to take holiday time to give birth and then come straight back to work. Women who are pregnant have a right to be treated differently while pregnant. Would you want to be flown by a pilot who was 9 months pregnant?

That's fine! I just asked why and what the pull is, I note you haven't said a reason why either? What's the things you liked about the past that you weigh up against the bad as worth it, a better time? It would help if you gave reasons why the last is appealing. PP called it timeless.and beautiful and I listed some in beautiful things about it. You're welcome to list what was so great, perhaps I'm unaware.

Sorry - What's your point exactly?

Oh some people do look down on it. But in life you make your own decisions and try to not let the negativity of others get to you. You will never please everyone. Just choose what you want from life. Want a career great, want to stay at home with the kids that's great too.

It's all very well and good spending your time at home but you're very vulnerable. You won't have a pension, your work experience is limited and you're completely financially dependent on someone else.

Women's rights weren't about forcing women into the workplace but about making them less vulnerable and dependent. If you're unlucky enough to find yourself with an abuser who controls the finances, you're completely scuppered. You're also a lot worse off in the event of a divorce.

I've never actually said I'd prefer the past I was agreeing with the other poster that plenty of people do long for days gone by. I think for me a simpler life is appealing. Local shops and community rather than big supermarkets with self service. The internet is good but I'd be interested to go back and see what life was like as a grown adult without it. I'm on the fence about it personally.

@Yelleryeller Sorry, which bit of me saying that your assertion that men and women should be treated “equally” is untrue do you not understand? I disagree that men and women are now, or can, be treated equally, because we are different. Men and women should be treated fairly and equitably, but not be treated as the same, so I disagree with the use of the word “equal,” because nobody will ever agree whether two different things that have to be treated differently actually are being treated equally.

I haven't seen that if I'm honest. I've seen some sensible critique on it - concern about the vulnerability of a woman with no financial independence is a very real thing, but no one looking down on it for the sake of it. It's just not very interesting to anyone if someone doesn't do anything and just interact with their home and family all day whether that's staying home alone with the kids, or a dog. People may take people's lack of interest or intrigue about them as looking down on their situation, but I think that's just because they're contrasting that with the old fashioned idea that what they're doing is valuable and special in a social hierarchy that doesn't exist anymore.

Ok take it up with the equality act! Not sure why you're telling me. It's not about them being treated equally all the time, but in keeping their circumstances equal. The woman who gets pregnant and goes on maternity leave remains on the same equal footing as her colleague (man or woman who isn't pregnant/ on maternity leave) when she returns. Her pregnancy or leave shouldn't cause her detriment. It doesn't mean to treat them equally you send the non pregnant colleagues off on a maternity leave or to antenatal appointments. You seem to be started an argument with yourself over something or other.

All the reasons you give are just twisting the 'tradition' of taking the man's name. Funny how men don't want to do this.

Of course it's sexist. It comes from a time when women were possessions to be 'given away'. The whole thing doesn't treat women as equals.

It's the same as wearing the burqua- so many women say it's their choice but it's just going along with the patriarchy.

Doesnt do anything? A person's career might only be interesting to people in a similar career. Someone not in full time employment might also do voluntary work, particularly when the kids are school age, or just have more time for hobbies. They are not necessarily doing nothing outside the home.

Rural towns exist as does going offline and living a simpler life though, it's all a choice. Thanks to the advances in women's rights and their financial independence, a woman can choose if she wants to take herself off to live in a small village somewhere with local shops, using her bank account and credit she's allowed to access, rather than following the whims of her husband. I'm interested in examples of what people are longing for that is worth giving up the right to be basically an independent adult. I'm not sure there's a single convincing example and any of the romanticised ideals people have can still be enjoyed today.