Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

811 replies

tealight · 19/10/2009 23:05

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?????

OP posts:
BrokkenHarted · 23/10/2009 00:11

No you just imply we are all idiots because we don't change our surnames

nooka · 23/10/2009 00:12

Why is it awful? My father had a really interesting job, well paid and diverse, and a happy family well cared for by my mother. Seems like a pretty good set up to me. I've not achieved it yet (need a slightly better job), but I'm not doing so badly.

I've always believed that my mother could have succeeded in whatever she chose to do to (she is very successful in running her charity right now, winning grants from all over the place, which is quite a skill). But she maintains that she was at her happiest being a SAHM.

I'm not quite sure why you think my dh could claim a better rate of pay than I do, it's not happened yet! In my experience pay is related to skills, experience and qualifications, and in my field dh has none of those (likewise I wouldn't do terribly well in his field, but as I get paid better in mine why would I?).

Yes there is a pay gap between men and women taken as a whole. And yes it should be disputed, and where discrimination occurs it should be fought. But there are many fields where there isn't a pay gap and it's pretty stupid to say that all of our husbands earn/could earn more than we do, because that's not going to be true.

As to walking out on your family and not paying maintenance, well any parent can try to do that can't they, and the CSA etc will do their best/worst to chase them.

nooka · 23/10/2009 00:14

Sorry, started that a while back. It was a response to ninagleams from a little while ago

BrokkenHarted · 23/10/2009 00:15

Yes i was aware. It is all very well for you to say it is us that is not happy with people digagreeing but your whole point is about people not agreeing with you. About the women that chose not to go along with your way of thinking. What you are striving for if for people to agree and things be changed. What we strive for is to not be made to feel like let downs that are too stupid and unaware of what is around them when we make our own decisions. You contradict yourself.

LovelyKay · 23/10/2009 00:21

I don't think I have called anyone an idiot on here? In fact said earlier that I would not be likely to think that type of thing as most of the women I know (including family) have changed their names on marriage.

Doesn't mean I mightn't have preferred a world in which they hadn't. Not up to me though is it? What is up to me is to consider my own views and give them if, as in the OP, I am asked for them. I am also happy to answer questions of a practical nature, such as you asked Brokkenharted, as to my thoughts and deeds. I like the to and fro and it is interesting to see the points people raise in support of their views

If someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean they think you are an idiot. I don't think Jack Straw/Tony Blair/David Cameron are idiots; doesn't mean I agree with them.

LovelyKay · 23/10/2009 00:28

I can't see the contradiction in what I have said. But then I suppose I wouldn't. Perhaps if all the name-keepers views are conflated there are contradictions?

Similarly if you take curiosity's point and combine them with your there would be contradictions.

I find it is hard to unravel the various voices at times but individually I think I've been fairly consistent and so have you.

BrokkenHarted · 23/10/2009 00:29

No again LKay i will say, it is what you are saying implies. No matter how you try and put a spin on it. What you IMPLY by what you are SAYING is that women who dont keep their surname can not see what they are doing/ dont know the implications/ haven't thought it through/ are robots following a tradition. Whatever way you wanna say it. You are IMPLYING that I am not as wise as you because of the choice i made. Whereas in actual fact my decision to keep my hubbys surname is quite legit.

stillstanding · 23/10/2009 00:30

No, you're right, curiosity it's not an automatic change legally. The suggestion is that some women don't give changing their name a moment's thought and change to their DH's name without thinking about why they are doing it or whether that is the right name to change to etc etc, ie automatically. I don't think that is true of many women (as I think I said at around page 3!) but if they do do that then that is sad - people should think about it and not just follow convention purely because it is convention.

LovelyKay, for what it's worth, I think you have been very calm and measured and have put your arguments across in an inoffensive and productive way.

As a complete aside ... on the "quietly" point that was raised earlier which I think you didn't like, I don't think that it is possible to be "quiet" on an internet forum: you just put your opinion out there in a hopefully measured and inoffensive way but it can be misinterpreted and sometimes I think people think posters are shouting when actually they are just typing and then everyone gets offended and it all kicks off ....

But I do think that in RL this is a bit different. Goes to the issue which also came up earlier of people being "militant" too. I'm not saying that someone shouldn't express their opinions or argue their case or anything remotely like that. We all need to be challenged in our views and life would be terribly tedious without lively discussion. But it can be terribly boring when you are at, say, a dinner party and someone is banging on and on about, say, name-changers being the death to feminism or their parenting style being the only way forward or whatever thing they feel passionately about. There comes a point when you realise that that person isn't debating or discussing the issue with you, they are just ranting which is very tedious and not a little counter-productive.

BrokkenHarted · 23/10/2009 00:31

And the contradiction was that you are happy for people to disagree but your whole fight is to get the world and our society to agree.

curiositykilled · 23/10/2009 00:32

I think the trouble is that several name keepers have been telling name changers what they should do and/or what they think or have done. This is not really just expressing an opinion. It's an attempt at conversion or oppression of choice.

It is actually what is being complained about IMO. I think it's no different, as a woman, to be oppressed by a husband telling me I have to change my name or a feminist telling me I have to keep it. It's all the same thing. I've not seen a name keeper be told once (although may have missed it) that they should change their name to avoid being oppressed by feminism through keeping their name. That would be the equivalent opposite argument wouldn't it?

Perhaps some people may have occasionally made passive aggressive attempts of the 'I love my husband' kind, although whether this implies they feel you don't I'm not sure - it could equally be interpreted as I am using this to express my love for my husband and not a comment on anyone else's choice, but only after being prodded and needled about having perpetuated the oppression of women or asked to justify their choice.

curiositykilled · 23/10/2009 00:35

gah, I can't read or write anymore. Off to bed! Maybe babies will come tonight!

shockers · 23/10/2009 00:41

When I married, I wanted a friend, a partner, a family... The way mine came about is by adoption rather than birth but I love that my children are proud of being shockers.... I too am proud of being shockers... It's MY family unit in OUR name that I willingly took on when I married the wonderful man who was my partner through fostering and ultimately adoption even though we could have had biological children. OUR family LOVES the name we have because we love HIM and I make no apology for that!

stillstanding · 23/10/2009 00:48

Brokken, I think you are being a little harsh on LovelyKay on this one. Some posters were saying all women should name-keep but she wasn't one of them. You can't be cross with someone just for having an opinion that is different from you provided they respect your opinion. If I say, for example, that in my opinion bfing is best and I won't be giving my baby formula it is (or at least should be) perfectly acceptable for me to express that opinion even though it implies that I don't like formula. It only gets offensive/unacceptable when I start to get judgey on other people's decisions to give their babies on formula iyswim.

More often that not I don't think anything passive aggressive is meant by "I changed my name because I really love my husband". I'm probably being a bit patronising but I often think women just say that as a way to express (albeit not terribly well) the desire for a family unit name and aren't really thinking through what they mean by that statement.

BrokkenHarted · 23/10/2009 00:48

Aww. Glad you could create such a happy family shockers.

stillstanding · 23/10/2009 00:52

Me too, shockers - sounds like a lovely family!

seeker · 23/10/2009 07:20

Am I allowed to be just a little bit cross at the implication that those of us who keep our own names don't love our partners or want stability for our children as much as those who do?

piscesmoon · 23/10/2009 07:56

I don't think that the fact you keep your own name signifies anything about love or stability. I just dislike the implication that I am letting feminists down and am subservient to my DH. I freely chose to take his name and I much prefer us to be a unit, rather than be a unit with my brothers and parents. (I still think of myself as that name, I still think of myself as my name inbetween-I am the same person). I can only think that people are insecure if they want everyone to follow their own path.

seeker · 23/10/2009 08:06

"I can only think that people are insecure if they want everyone to follow their own path. "

Ouch!

I don't want everyone to follow my path. I just don't want people to follow the traditional path without thinking about the implications.

And it that makes me a the personal1is1political, bra-burning, base-embracing, night reclaimimg,Dr Martin wearing, strident, radical feminist in your eyes then so be it.

BrokkenHarted · 23/10/2009 08:38

I totally agree with pisces

I have not once said that YOU should change your name. I just dont want to be put down because I chose to change mine. I did think about it and gave the reasons for my decision. I have no issue with others wanting to keep their name.

Amazing how long a debate can go on when it is between so many strong headed and, let's face it, stubborn women

BrokkenHarted · 23/10/2009 08:40

I should point out my last sentance was a joke. Aparently my jokes on here don't come across as jokes

ABatDead · 23/10/2009 08:45

Ooh look, I've just name changed.

BrokkenHarted · 23/10/2009 08:47

haha. Do you know? I read your name as 'ABetaDad' at first anyway :P

ABatDead · 23/10/2009 09:02

Imagine the fun that could be had if it became fashionable for couples to start making anagrams out of their joint surnames when they get married.

Problem solved!

piscesmoon · 23/10/2009 09:06

'I don't want everyone to follow my path. I just don't want people to follow the traditional path without thinking about the implications'

I think that this is the hub of the whole thing. I have thought deeply about the implications and I think people can do what they like-it just upsets me that it is assumed that I am a sheep who follows the traditional path.

  1. My mother was brought up in a very matriarchal society. Her mother was a strong woman-even when she worked as a shop assistant aged 18 she got the manager to treat her with respect, she wasn't subservient to anyone. Her grandmother was also a strong, working class woman. My mother was an equal partner and I was brought up as an equal to my brothers.At no point was it ever suggested that there were things that they could do and I didn't. They had to take equal turns with the waashing up for example. My whole example has been women who had the view that they were equal and proved it.
I find the whole man's property view out of date-I never knew my great grandmother, but I think that she would have found it laughable too.
  1. My hobby is family history and I love the tradition of it, I wouldn't want to be the one to break the pattern. I still feel that I am a member of my birth name family. I count as one to genealogists. Two complete strangers have phoned me up-they were doing one name studies and they have me down with my name, place of birth, date and place of first marriage, date of 1st husband's death, date and place of second marriage. I still count completely as my maiden name, even if I don't use it.
  2. My DH1 died very young-I loved having his name and would have really regretted being a widow with my 'own name'.
4.If, as a family, we were in some sort of disaster I would like to be listed together and for people to know that we were a unit.
  1. It is convienient. DS1 has a different surname and while I would be very upset if it was changed has been mildly inconvenient over the years.
  2. As the mother of DSs I think that the man's family gets a raw deal. (maybe this is just reading mumsnet rather than RL).But it appears that many women want the partner without his parents, great aunts, siblings etc etc. They rather grudgingly say that it is nice for the DC to have a relationship, but the whole impression is that the female side is gaining a son and the male side is losing one. It is a bit sad if they don't even want the name!
7.The name change gets me nearer to the front of the alphabet-a distinct advantage!!
stillstanding · 23/10/2009 09:13

"I don't want everyone to follow my path. I just don't want people to follow the traditional path without thinking about the implications."

I couldn't agree with that more, seeker - and it is hardly radical feminist stuff. But quite a few pages back you suggested that a woman taking her DH's name was "subsuming her identity" into that of a man and that following the name-changing tradition equated to her subsuming her identity which is obviously not quite the same thing as what you said above and is tending towards the more "extreme" (your word, not mine!).

As for "Am I allowed to be just a little bit cross at the implication that those of us who keep our own names don't love our partners or want stability for our children as much as those who do?":

Yes, you can (because I say so! ). It is obviously ridiculous to say that name-keepers don't love their partners or want stability for their children. I completely understand why you would get not just a little bit cross at that implication and I wouldn't never say that. I do think though that some women say those things not meaning to imply lesser love/stability of name-keepers but rather just to express their desire for the family unit name. Different people like to show their love and desire for stability in different ways and some people like to express it by having the same family name. Certainly doesn't mean either a name-keeper or a name-changer has any more love or stability.