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I know it’s a traditional thing and some people see it as outdated or patriarchal but I actually think there’s something quite nice about a whole family sharing the same name.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

Of course, which is why I don't think people look down on it because if it's not all you do or have going on in your life, you probably don't come across in a way that provokes a reaction that might be perceived as being "looked down on". Caring for your kids is as everyday and practical to me as the fact you have to do laundry and dry your pants -we all do that. If you introduced yourself to me and made that your personality or your life's purpose I wouldn't have very much to say or ask you about it which gets interpreted as devaluing it. Hobbies and volunteering and basically anything that gets your interacting with people and having adult activities and opinions about things is great, whether you care for you children 24/7 isn't relevant to anyone but your family though.

It's all feminism this and feminism that until a woman wants to choose her own lifestyle! I'm constantly having feminist rants drilled into me because I eagerly took my husband's name, am a housewife and want to be traditional. I didn't want my maiden name, i wanted my husbands name. My identity is that I'm a wife and mother, I want to stay home and raise our children and dress nicely and have dinner on the table for my husband. But that's not the modern feminist 'thing' so it must be shat on and I must be opressed. Feminists are ruining feminism.

No matter what way you look at it it is sexist. It's ok to be ok with that but you can't deny it. I'm not my husband's property. Plus why do women have to also become mrs? Just to show they belong to a man? Prove they aren't on the shelf? It's rediculous. My husband is the one that wanted to get married he should take my name!

Yes because it's not convincing to you. Its fine you know, you dont have to understand it. A longing for something can be very personal and down to personal life experiences and views and therefore difficult to explain. I could say I want to live on a boat because I want to have a moveable base (a specific example) but if the idea of living on a boat is horrendous to you then you still wouldnt consider my reason as convincing, would you.

Well did he take your name? It's not sexist if you dont view marriage/name changing as belonging to a man and being his property- which of course many women do not view it as that.

You yourself looked down on it as a woman not being interesting.

It’s not an argument with myself, though, is it - it’s an argument about lazy or debatable use of language and the problems that causes, and which you have chosen to parrot unquestioningly. Sometimes, a bit more clarity in choice of use of language and what is really meant by it would be helpful, to avoid people with very different views talking at cross purposes, because they do not have the same understanding of the meaning of equality, sex, gender, equity, discrimination, etc. The same applies to the whole debate over sex versus gender - lazy assumptions about which words to use and whether one word means the same as another, or which words should be used in legislation, can come back to bite you. If you aren’t careful which words you use, you can end up being blindsided.

Except that's a personal example of I don't like boats. Unless you're saying some women really don't want the right to literally own their own money in an account, apply for a loan, for it to be a crime if their husband raped or beat them then thats not a personal preference like boat travel, that's internalised misogyny and patriarchy in practice and no I'm not happy to let people personally "prefer" that without calling it out.

Ok take it up with the equality act if you want them to change it to the equitable act. I didn't name it! 👍🏻

We are taking about living in the past, we are not taking about wishing to be beaten and raped.

Yeah I said I find people who don't do anything outside of what the rest of us do just to live a life and keep the house running interesting cos it isn't. I don't get fascinated by people who brush their teeth either. If you've decided to make that your whole being, just because people find it not especially interesting to talk to you about it doesn't mean they're looking down on you, it's just neutral and sparks no interest. PP described it as timeless and beautiful i.e. it should have this special value to people in itself the way it did when the social hierarchy valued women being married and having kids. Just because that doesn't exist as a special status anymore doesn't mean people are looking down on it.

No, but you did originally parrot the word equally without referencing the Equality Act, so why you then chose to refer to the title of an Act (rather than its actual content) to justify your poor choice of language is on you…

Why do you think we have laws against these things if they weren't happening though? It's part of living in the past hence why I said you're welcome to list the absolutely amazing things about living in the past that make the prevalence and legality of treating women as property worthwhile...

Well actually I had referenced the act just not by name, I mentioned it's purpose which was to not discriminate against women for their sex at work. You clearly have very strong feelings about it but it is named as such for a reason and I think you're misinterpreting it's purpose. But that's a topic for another thread! 👋🏻

Do “SAHMs” really all just stay at home all day and do nothing in the wider community? Is someone, eg, staying at home doing online paid work all day always more interesting?

Hate to break it to you but bad things still happen in the year 2025. Marital rape became a criminal offence in the UK in 1991, are you saying all married women in the UK prior to 1991 were unhappy?

Of course they do still happens I didn't say they did. I just wouldn't trade living in a society where as much as there is still VAWG it's is at least illegal rather than a legal, accepted, and encouraged part of society. We've all read the examples of men being couraged to "discipline" their wives. I'm not saying every woman was unhappy but every women lacked the legal right to not be raped by her husband because it was an accepted fact that a woman owed her husband sex as a marital duty and therefore it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife. If you think that a legal framework that didn't protect women in that way didn't breed a society were marital rape was common (but called that because it didn't exist!) then you're being a bit naive pulling the old "not every man was bad, not every woman was unhappy" angle. Just because they thought it was normal doesn't mean they wouldn't have been objectively happier to have legal rights and protections we have today.

I didn't say they did which is why I said you'll probably find it you do things in the wider community you'll probably have things to talk about in a way that you don't perceive yourself as being "looked down on" which is actually probably people having nothing to engage with you on! Someone WFH all day is the same, but I find those that know they don't really do anything, go anywhere, hobbies etc know they don't really engage with people or talk about anything interesting rather than perceiving people as looking down on them because of what they do. I said the reason I think some SAHM perceive it as such is because they're missing the old fashioned social status it used to have and are perceiving the lack of that as people actively looking down rather than just not thinking it's special.

I dont think it changes someone's desire to live in the world pre 1990. Death during childbirth was higher in days gone by but if you want to live in days gone by you would take your chances. Obviously this involves a time machine and is therefore impossible 😂 if you are an unhappy woman living in the year 2025 then I can imagine you would find it hard to believe women could be happy in the past.

You seem to have a great understanding of people's desire to live in the past without listing a single thing they're desiring though which is what I asked you and PP. What is something so great about the past you'd want or need to go and live in the last to enjoy or one thing women would have been happier about in the past? You can insist all you want women were happy but based on their lived experiences and what we hear from women who lived through it, they all agree they may have got by and wee "happy" but they'd have been objectively happier to have had what they gained later on back then. I really don't see where you're coming from tbh when you won't list a single thing from the last that's to be dreamt of.

I agree to an extent, although I don’t think being a SAHM ever brought social status. SAHMs used to have a lot more female company, though. What brought social status was the status of the SAHM’s husband, or, to a lesser extent, the status of the wife’s family, which might slightly ease “marrying down.” It was, after all, a heavily class based society, as well as being patriarchal.

You don't think a SAHM ever had a social status above an unmarried mother who had to go out to work, or a married woman with no children , or shock horror an unmarried woman with no children? It absolutely did and is exactly why patriarchal standards were perpetuated, you followed along in order to not have the social stigma that was attached to not being married, not having children, and having to work.

I have no regrets about keeping my (unusual) surname. It only once was an issue when I was flying alone with the kids, but the customs people were OK with it. With my own name, I keep my personal and professional life separate and because my name is rare, it's memorable.

The assumption that someone who cares for their children doesn’t have anything going on or to talk about is highly inaccurate.

Try asking a housewife about literature, art, hobbies, theatre, current affairs, politics, etc. You might be pleasantly surprised by how well read and cultured they are 😊

An unmarried mother who had to go out to work had limited status for reasons entirely unrelated to whether she worked or not. An unmarried woman with no children had status if she was a nurse or teacher - far more than a married, destitute mother. Nurses and teachers had to stop nursing or teaching when they married, so they lost one perfectly acceptable status for another which was only as acceptable as the chosen husband. Families expected an unmarried daughter - she was there to care for her elderly parents.