to not want to be defined by my marital status or surname?

[tealight]

To be not at all surprised that women still strive to achieve equality when some/many/most (???)women in marriage take on men?s surnames and (in marriage or not) agree to their children taking the man?s surname? That is the way it used to be when women and children were literally, in the eyes of the law, men?s property. That is the basis o the tradition for fathers to give their daughters away. And why should my marital status be used to define me every time I fill out my personal details? Miss, Mrs, Ms? Men just have Mr. Yet many of us still subscribe to this. Why why why?????

Why does it bother you? You have the option to do what you want - you can keep your maiden name, use Ms, there's nothing to stop you doing that at all.

And if more people did it, then our cultural traditions would change. But things like that change slowly.

And you may not like being addressed Mrs (DH's initial) (DH surname), but it is - at the moment at least - regarded by most as the correct way to address a letter.

There are more important things to get worked up about.

Just define yourself by how you behave in your relationship.

Taking your husband's name does not mean that you immediately start to become subservient.

I agree with BecauseImWorthIt, I don't see it as something to get all riled up about. Who cares what other people do? It's only a name, it doesn't define you at all.

I did change my name when I got married. If you saw my husband's surname, you'd understand why but I also kept my maiden name, but as a middle name rather than double barrelled, it's hard to spell.

I didn't change my name when I got married. I kept my own surname and the 'Miss' as well. I also don't wear a wedding ring (I cannot stand jewelry of any kind) so I get a lot of very funny looks if I ever refer to 'my husband' although, he has a name, so I refer to him as that mostly (another bugbear of mine is being refered to as 'my wife', dh gets a kick in the shins for that, i do have a name, but thats another thread!).

Ds has both of our surnames in a double barrelled fashion, but my surname comes first in his, so that is what he is called by as it is sometimes too long or confusing to use his full surname.

When I got married, quite a few of my freinds asked 'how' I was going to go about keeping my own name - they thought it was the law to change to your husbands name! Same when ds was born, they assumed it was 'law' that he would have dh surname.

I changed everything from miss to ms at age 18 - 18 years ago
I have kept my surname.
I walked down the aisle alone (especially as I was paying for half of the wedding)

YABU

I don't think now that equality will change by name or title but I certainly used to when I was younger. I agree that title would be a start though.

People can call themselves what they want.

DW took my name even though she was a professional woman at the time. It is just a tradition. If, she had wanted to keep her old maiden name that would have been fine too. I don't feel I possess her because she took my name and I don't think that women who change their name are presenting themselves as possessions either.

This is nothing to get hot under the collar about and I don't see why anyone should judge my DW (or me) for it.

TBH it makes life easier for everyone of a family shares one name. Double barrel is a reasonable compromise I suppose. Frankly this thread reminds me of the silly nonsense spouted in the student common room 25 years by some female students. Making this some kind of 'feminist issue' and judging other women about it is plain silly. Funny how the majority of the ones who did go on about it in the student common room then married a wealthy banker or lawyer and took his name a few years later.

Right I'm off for some Gaviscon as I feel all dyspeptic.

I find it really weird. I love my DH and intend to grow old with him. I am happy to be a unit and have his name-why would I want to keep my fathers name. I could see some point in it if I had my mother's, mother's mother's etc name. The DCs need a name and double barrelled are OK, but it gets pretty silly when you get onto triple barrelled.
I am doing family history and I love the tradition-people in the future will find any reaserch pretty difficult if people do their own thing!
I can't see anything feminist in insisting on clinging on to your father's name. Or insisting that your DCs have your father's name instead of your FIL's name.

If you don't want to take it-or your DH wants to take yours-just do it quietly. It is nothing to make a fuss about or get upset about.

I guess pisces when it has been your name since birth you don't consider it to belong to anyone else.
I don't think your surname means that you are the property of anyone, certainly my children don't belong soley to my dh because they have his surname.

Being the only person party to the wedding to change their name seems strange to me as does changing your name in adulthood at all really.

Being labelled according to marital status via your title isn't very helpful though and should be ended.

It is just a name-a convenience. There has to be a system ,so you may as well follow tradition. People have always changed if it suited-e.g people with estates and no heir. It signified ownership at one point but not any more.
People should do what they like -as long as they do it quietly-you don't need to make a great statement out of it.
It may have been your name from birth but I don't think you should lose sight of the fact that it is only that because it was your father's name. There is something a bit odd about a feminist refusing to take a DH's name and insisting on keeping her father's name. It is saying 'it was OK for my mother but not for me'.

I get the baby growing inside of me, the time off to care for the children, the breastfeeding. I can't see what the problem is with giving the children their father's name? It helps fathers, who are otherwise mostly excluded, to feel connected to their children.

Why does taking your husband's name 'define' you? The children have the name, I like to have the name too, we are all the same family, separate from my parent's family.

Surely a person defines themself, does it even matter what someone else might think? Can't you just call yourself what you like? Why does someone asking you these trivial things mean they are defining you?

Exactly curiosity!

Because, curiosity, it's almost always the woman who changes her name; the children who get his name. The assumptions all go one way, and it's to the detriment of the woman.

Someone calling you by the wrong name, especially persistently is not trivial, it is a public declaration of how they see you, and women in general, so it matters.

For the record, I have retained my own name, and DD has it too, because she is a girl. Had we had a boy, he would have had DH's surname. Sikhs and Muslims often use gender specific names yet seem to be able to bond with their children of the opposite sex, so I don't buy those ill thought-out arguments about holding the family together!!

As an aside, because I take the dog and cat to the vet, they are called Doggy echt and Catty echt on their vaccination certificates. For some reason this gets slightly on my DH's threepennies.

I don't really mind people assuming I'm a bitter feminist divorced harridan. The only time it's ever been a problem in 20 years using Ms is with CRB people.

I have had 3 spats with the CRB people about this (3 different CRB checks), they REALLY don't like women using Ms or Dr, I've offered them both but they seem intent on assuming I might have got married in the past and changed my name and been too dippy to remember this fact on the forms .

Right, I have two things to say here. The first is that there is something feminist about "clinging to your father's name" because there is a clear difference between being given a name by your parents at birth and actively choosing the option that has been a story about the oppression of women for centuries. You can be complicit by accident or on purpose and it's a clear decision. Secondly there's the usual argument floating around here, the "I did it for my children". You didn't. You could have called your children after you if you wanted the same name and it would have been more sensible because (and I'm not saying this is going to happen) if you get a divorce and remarry and have another child then there would be children with a different name from you. It's impractical to name you children after someone else if you want the same name permanently.

Now I'm not saying that on no account should anyone ever change their surnames but I don't hold with the idea that it's a feminist decision and I don't think it should be passed off as rational either. People should be honest about the level of romance they engage with when they do these sorts of things. Naming after the husband is a patriarchal tradition that's a layover from a time when men owned their wives so the question really is whether you think it leaves an ideological mark to continue that tradition. If you don't (and most people don't seem to care) that's fine but don't expect the rest of us to regard you as a feminist.

I have no problem with taking my DHs name. It is just a label and I like the fact that we have the same name as a family.

I resisted for 3 years but just found it all a bit too much of a hassle after a while having a different name from the DCs when booking appointments etc.

And if people dont want to be defined by their title in a marital way, they could always take a doctorate, become a vicar or be knighted!
I find having Dr as a title generally quite amusing as it tends to confound people sometimes as they are obviously expecting a man attached to the title.

"we are all the same family, separate from my parent's family"

but not from your husband's parent's family for however far back the name goes. You realise how that sounds? You willingly gave up your family for his ancestry instead going down the male line for however many years. Perhaps you wanted to though? The ultimate sacrifice of one family for another?

its just convention
i will always be the person i was born. with my fathers name

fathers name - pmsl - his property

i tell dh this

he likes to call me Mrs john custardo

i cant help thinking there is some deep rooted insecurity if this shit actually matters to anyone. ffs

Have a Jewish wedding. Much easier - both the bride and groom and escorted to the chuppah by both of their parents. Simple.

I chose to keep my own name, but frankly, dont' feel that strongly either way about women who keep or change their names. But, I agree wholeheartedly on the Ms, Miss, Mrs thing. Until a man's marital status is clear from the title used in front of his name, I don't see why my marital status has anything to do with the bank, my colleagues etc. And it absolutely drives me crazy that while I can respect a woman's right to choose to be Mrs DHName, those same women refuse to respect what I choose to call myself. I made it clear when DH and I married, that while I didn't mind if I was automatically called by his name - eg at a wedding, if the seating plan has me down as Bling DHName I am fine with that - I would not be Mrs. And yet, people delight in calling me Mrs and think it's hilarious. I have not started biting back yet but I can tell it's going to happen relatively soon.

Oh, and I do think it's worth getting worked up about because as some people have said here, you should call yourself what you like, but then I expect everyone to respect that. Including theCRB should it get to that.

My joint account with DH is Miss (she just automatically put that in) and every time we receive a statement it makes my teeth itch.

YANBU. I totally agree! And this is exactly what prompted my name change yesterday!

I don't see why it is 'to the detriment' of the woman though. Surely if the woman was bothered the woman would choose to have a double barrelled name for all or to have her husband take her name or some other division of the kind you are describing.

Someone assuming that because you are married you have your husband's name is not a public declaration of anything beyond expressing that you are married. It is traditional in this country to take 'mrs' and the husband's name when you marry.

The point I was making was not about bonding, it was about belonging and is merely how I feel about my family.

No-one can define you unless you let them. You define yourself, you make your own choices for your own reasons. It does not matter at all what, if any, assumptions anyone else makes about you - they only define you if you let them.

If people call you anything like DH's wife or DS's mum it is because that is the part of you which is relevant to them, it has nothing to do with your definition of yourself and doesn't matter.

I didn't want DS to have a different name from his dad and I don't want him to have a different name from me. He got DP's name and I'm now tapping my feet waiting for DP to hand over his name in line with the time-honoured tradition. I've already been flamed for it (at home and here) so you can all save yourselves the bother.

You try getting a man to take a woman's name. It's a very very unusual man who'll do it. Even DH , who is absolutely 100% supportive of my obsessive feminism, wouldn't go there.

I can't get worked up about it. I'm not married so I have the name I was born with. My father's name, I suppose but I've had it for 32 years so it feels like mine now...

DS has DP's surname because it meant more to him to pass down his family name. FWIW, DP's dad never knew who his father was so he has his mother's name. I don't think that's that unusual so the assumption that all family names have been passed down the father's side is not entirely correct.

In two years, I've had no problems with having a different name from DS. His nursery are fine with it, and when I make appointments with the doctor etc I only give DS's name anyway.

And DP is just as likely to be called "Mr Mylastname" as I am to be called "Mrs Hislastname" as the phone is in my name. Doesn't bother either of us particularly.