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?????

Sorry - I am very late to do this, but just wanted to pick up on something implied by many, said by Bokkenharted:

"Why i say that seeker hs made me feel worse in this subject than any man would ever. It is a woman offnding me!"

Of course men in general not going to make you feel bad for acting, unexaminedly, to their advantage. They are not even going to draw attention to it.

Sometimes analysing things and talking clearly about them is going to make some people feel bad. This is regrettable, as hurting people always is, but it is not a womanly responsibility always to refrain from hurting other women's feelings by what they say. And patriarchy traditionally makes such a fetish of men minding delicate women's sensibilities precisely because it is excellent cover for ripping them off in various ways.

"I didn't really watch many cartoons, b. there were more heroines than just SheRa, c. I thought I was a boy. What's your point here?"

I was wondering if it ever grated on you that so few women were portrayed as brave saviours when you were small?

Yes, but that is maybe a conclusion you drew from watching cartoons as a child? Why would you assume that I drew the same conclusion or that I watched cartoons?

curiositykilled, there is actually something I want to say to you. It's become pretty clear that you believe that any problem here is an individual problem that's perpetuated by individual women. I think this because you said "Someone else expecting you to make tea, accept a lower wage or call you a child-like term you don't identify with does not perpetuate this kind of thinking unless individuals allow it and use it to define themselves". An Office of National Statistics study in 2007/2008 said that on average women are paid 17.1% less than men for doing jobs that are identical. They know this because they surveyed people, most companies do not have pay transparency so generally people only know their pay as it relates to others if they're in accounts or work with people who will discuss this type of thing. Now what I really want to know is whether you think that pay gap is the fault of the individual or if it's somehow a societal problem (even if you're not entirely sure how)? I want to know this because I'm curious about whether you think women really are completely equal to men or if you think there are a few things that actually are still a problem?

I just added DH's name to my own. Not in a double barrelled way but my original name is like a middle name for me.

Had been married before and took husbands name (I actually rather liked it) but once we divorced and I reverted to my original name I was determined not merely to discard it again when I married second time.

I don't fuss about it too much. To me, my family is important therefore I want my family to all have the same name. Traditional I suppose but had DH had a hideous surname then there is no way I'd have changed it and the kids would have had mine.

...sorry the formatting doesn't seem to be working and curiositykilled, I didn't really assume, I just thought you probably had because there were lots of cartoons on when we were younger.

'I don't want to sound patronizing - although I know I will - but I do think this kind of makes my point. A lot (not all, of course) of young women really don't seem to see that the equality they enjoy today was hard won by women of earlier generations. It is very depressing to realize that the baton is not going to be handed on.

I would disagree, seeker. I think that women of earlier generations have done such a good job that things that seemed important are no longer so. When women were the property of the husband it was a big issue, but now that they are not- the name is completely unimportant. I still can't get my head around the fact that those who think the name makes them the property of a man cling to being their father's property because they have his name but justify it by saying 'well I have always had it'.
My mother and grandmother are/were both strong women so they were never the property of anyone. My grandmother, although born in the times when it was a man's world, thought herself the equal and acted accordingly. I haven't been brought up to think that a name signifies anything and was quite happy to change mine-I answer to all 3!
It really isn't important. People should be free to choose-if you want to keep it just do it quietly! I know 3 people who suddenly changed back to their maiden names for various reasons (not divorce)-everyone just accepted it.
Surely feminists won, purely because everyone can choose?
I choose to have my DHs-I like us being a unit. As I said earlier, people doing one name studies have contacted me-they know my birth surname. I am still the same person.
If people can worry so much about a name they are very lucky that they haven't had worse traumas to confront-on a scale of one to ten it is negligible!

ninagleams - those statistics, I believe, take into account job description only, they do not take into account longevity in the position or the hours men and women are working. If you have been in the job for 10 years earning your incremental yearly pay rise you'd be mighty annoyed if someone who just started demanded the same wage as you.

The pay gap I believe is a more complicated issue than just how much women and men are actually being paid to do the same jobs.

Thanks curiositykilled, I think you've made your position very clear.

I went to my 30 year anniversary school reunion last month. Around 30% of our old 6th form turned up, which was a brilliant turn-out - but the logistical difficulties involved in contacting everyone when around 90% of us are married were considerable (thank Goddess for Friends Reunited!).

Only 2 of us have kept our birth surnames , one woman because she has an unusual surname and is a self-employed professional with her own business since before her marriage, and me because I married for the first time at the grand old age of 41 with a 6 year old child who has his father's surname, with mine as his penultimate middle name . Why should my old friend have to "re-brand" after she married, or my DS be the "odd one out" in the family because he's acquired a stepdad?

One of our former classmates died of cancer last July. We had all lost touch with her before her marriage. If her family had not been thoughtful enough to include her maiden name in her obituary in the local paper, WE WOULD NEVER HAVE KNOWN.

Why the hell should I or any other woman disappear just because we've got married?

My SIL hasn't changed her name after marriage either. Surely it isn't such a big deal nowadays? I've been a MS since I left home at 18 and became financially independent of my family.

Any Canucks out there - please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in Quebec, married women are now legally obliged to retain their maiden names for official purposes.

You don't disappear-I have been found quite easily-it just takes a little more effort.

RT curiositykilledthecat on p19
I made an assumption from your sentence:
"Asking for 'weather presenters' and 'bar staff' e.t.c. is an element of political correctness that I really dislike."
that you were talking about hiring people or some similar scenario. My apologies.

Assumption is indeed the mother of all...

Also, also (I just can't stop) am intrigued as to why it so easy for a woman to challenge the status quo by simply not putting up with any nonsense about tea-making/low pay/bias in the workplace? Even if, ooh say, she is in her first job with no job security & no union in a screaming recession with bills to pay and mouths to feed.

Or rather if it is so easy, why it would be so very very very hard for a man, should he so wish, to make his own personal stand by changing his name or devising a new marital prefix and introducing it to a grateful world?

For those not keen to read 20 pages of fascinating debate, this query is in response to a number of posts including one from which the following quote is taken:
"We both feel, rather similarly, that the only inequality is that women are given a choice where men are not about prefixes and name changing on marriage. Perhaps the whole issue would be more equal if men were given equal opportunity to change their prefix and their name to display their married status publicly."

Piece of the proverbial, surely?

I don't think it's a big deal nowadays, MrsFlittersnoop. Just think that it's a woman's prerogative to choose whether she wants to name change or not and she shouldn't be judged for it either way. Other people's logistical difficulties in contacting someone aren't a relevant factor in my book (although I appreciate they may be to others) and in any event are surmountable as your friend's family proved.

I googled Quebec on this because I thought that very interesting. It appears that married women there are not legally obliged to retain their maiden names but if they do want to change to their married name they require the authorisation of the local authorities, i.e. they have to go through the same procedure as those changing their names for other reasons. This is different from a lot of other jurisdictions where the legal process for a name change due to marriage is simpler and faster than for other kinds of name change.

Anyway, I then got a little carried away with my googling and discovered loads of interesting (to me anyway!) things. For example, the position in the UK is actually different to what I (and I think quite a few others on this thread) thought ...

It turns out that here anyone can change their name willy nilly (except with intent to defraud) and there is no legal requirement to produce a marriage certificate or Deed Poll. However because banks etc will usually require some form of documentary proof of a name change I guess one of these is required in the Real World. This applies equally to men and women incidentally so the issue re discrimination that curiosity raised earlier doesn't exist legally speaking (although again in practice I suspect that a man using his marriage certificate as proof of name change might run into difficulties from bureaucratic banks not up to date with modern times ...).

Curiosity, given the concerns you expressed earlier, you may be interested to know that in 2007 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a discrimination lawsuit against the state of California on the grounds that the obstacles facing a husband who wishes to adopt his wife's last name violated the Constitution. This was because the process required to be followed did not explicitly allow a man to change his name through marriage with the same ease as a woman. As a result of the lawsuit, a bill was introduced in California to put a space on the marriage licence for either spouse to change names.

I have to say that I just LOVE the fact that American men are fighting for the right to change their names to that of their DWs!! Like I said earlier - we all want equality!

stillstanding, that information about changing your name in the UK is really interesting. The UK deed poll site recommends that men don't rely on the marriage certificate so yes, it seems institutions are rather archaic on this subject. There are definitely a few issues that seem less like women's rights and actually encompass both sexes, this is one of them (because the process should be equal). The other one that springs to mind is paternity leave which is just so upsetting.

I could have gone through a whole class list and found everyone's married name in a couple of hours-for free. It is very simple if you know how. The traditional naming pattern makes life simpler for the genealogist-not that a change would really matter. It is thanks to the early feminists that we now don't have to bother about a name-it isn't important.

So let me get this straight. A new reason that I should not have changed my name is because people I used to go to school with that I have not seen for 20 years may wantr to get hold of me to invite me to a reunion.

This just gets better.

Re the cartoon thing, something similar which always bugged me was that in any chase scene, the woman always fell over screaming and had to be rescued by a man - wtf was that all about. From what I remember its ine of the reasons why Joss Whedon(I think() came up with th eidea of Buffy the Vampire Slayer - finaly a woman who could kick ass!

But that has nothing to do with me changing my name or title. If I was told that I had to because thats how things were done and I was now the property of my husband there is no way I would have done, but that isn't what happened, I made a decision that I would like to change my name.

I'm not saying this is a trivial matter, it makes for an interesting discussion, however I think that there are far more important issues to do with re equal rights - education, inheritance (eg why should everything go to the first born son even if he has 7 sisters), voting, equality in the workplace, the fact that woman should be safe, not raped and abused or sold into slavery - these are issues worth fighting for and us arguing about a name change/keep in my opinion takes us away from those bigger issues.

However saying that I do understand that this is a big issue for some people and they have the right to keep their name in the same way that I have the right to change mine without being ridiculed for it. That is all I'm asking, not for you to join me and change your name but accept my choices and don;t have a go at me for them.

I like having my husbands surname and i like my children havign his name. I dont think of myself as his property at all but I like that we are "joined together" (soppy) like that.
BUT then again we are a very traditional family. He works I stay home etc etc.

If someone wants to call herself "weathergirl" fine, although frankly, I think its akin to grown women talking in baby voices in an attempt to get men to do what they want. But what I object to very strongly is other people choosing to call me "girl" or expecting me to behave a certain way because I am a woman. And I would not support anyone's right to refer to a group of women in such language and will continue to blatantly not make the tea in a meeting where there is someone more junior than me, man or woman. And to suggest that I don't have to take on board what other people refer to me as, misses the point completely that I dont' feel undermined or demeaned by being referred to as a "girl" but I do feel it represents a view of society and of the person making the comment that I find offensive.

And Curiosity, I think you are living with your head in the sand if you think pay gaps don't exist. Even your example demonstrates that - it is in fact proven that people staying in the same jobs for longer earn less than newer colleagues joining the firm. The best way to up your salary is to move jobs. But notwithstanding that, even if two people start at a company at the same time and do the same job, statistics show that the woman is likely to earn less than her male counterpart within a few years (if not from day 1).

Like you seeker, I can't keep away.

THank you for an apology (not that I think it was specifically aimed at me!) but I do appreciate it.

I still don;t agree with you but can appreciate where you are coming from and hope that you can appreciate where I am coming from.

[also can't keep away emoticon]

Hear hear seeker, nicely put. Language will eventually reflect social change; I suspect it hasn't happened yet because there isn't that genuine, widespread, grassroots acceptance of this bit of social change yet, in spite of huge progress. In the great scheme of things we're only talking about a few decades in which anything near equality has been achieved, so it could be a few more decades before the naming and marital status systems change. Meanwhile, while I'm waiting, I'm trying to perfect that most womanly of virtues - Patience

When I married, my husband and I jointly changed our name by deed poll to a double barrelled version of our two surnames (mine first).

Mainly because mine was an unusual name and I am one of 2 sisters and his was very ordinary. But then we ended up actually using each other's bits of the name.

Seeker, ermintrude, but this is not just about language - there is a very practical reason for a woman changing her name (or for them to both change or for him to change) - so that the whole family has the same name.

I would have thought it odd if my mum wasn't called the same name I was. And I want my kids to have the same name as me and my husband.

So although the traditions of name-changing may have been about becoming the husband's property, NO ONE sees it that way anymore. So the origins of it are not relevant. And just because it used to be an oppressive system doesn't mean it is not valid now for different reasons.

I agree that language is important, earlier there was a discussion about whether Sian Lloyd should call herself a 'weathergirl'. I agree she should not because language we use is important and 'girl' demeans her - you wouldn't see Michael Fish referring to himself as a weatherboy.

But changing your surname after marriage is just not the same, it is not demeaning at all. It is just practical.