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?????

ninagleams - I have my family's blood and I was called my family name for 24 years. I am joining my husband's family and want to recognise the joining by taking the name. I feel nice about it, it doen't mean you have to. Why can't I choose my own way? I feel people must be insecure in their own choice, whatever it may be, if they are worried about other people's descriptions of them. That's all they are - descriptions.

You're all just as bad because you're effectively trying to portray women who take their husband's surname as lesser. This is the very thing you are complaining about. Just make your own choices and stop worrying about what other people think or assume.

I am happy that we live in an age where women have the right to choose. I chose to become Mrs DHsname, even though for a while we considered double-barrelling.
I love being a Mrs and I love that DH, I and our daughter all have the same sirname. To me that defines us as a family, not as DHs property and he agrees.

BUT I know lots of women disagree and therein lies the reason why its great that its now a choice, not an obligation.

Who knows, were it still an obligation not a choice, it might not have felt so great to me to do.

"You're all just as bad because you're effectively trying to portray women who take their husband's surname as lesser." I don't think that's true at all and I don't think anyone has said that? One or two people have pointed out that they believe it says something about our society that women almost always take men's names but certainly not all the people on this board who've refused to take their husband's name or who prefer to be referred to as Ms have made implied that other women are "lesser".

The Criminal Records Bureau REALLY panics about this.

Every time I get a CRB check I have to answer ancilliary questions about being 'Ms'. The last time (2 weeks ago) I had to provide my marriage certificates and divorce paperwork for a 15 year old marriage, which I couldn't even bloody find!

I AM NOT A LESBIAN TERRORIST. NORMAL WOMEN USE THIS TITLE. PLEASE RELAX.

Beveridge - a friend of mine did have someone change her first name - her auntie called her Joyce because she thought her real first name was "too tarty" - I don't think that Joyce figured anywhere in her given names.

The DCs have DH's last name because it's nicer. I always have to spell mine several times (and it's not even very long) and it's a bugger to find first names to go with. It's my name and I'm not changing it, but I wouldn't inflict it on anyone else. Mine is a noun and DH's is an adjective so they sound extremely silly double-barrelled and that wasn't an option.

I don't see anything odd from a feminist standpoint about the fact that my last name is also my father's name. The significant thing for me is that it's the name I first learned when I was learning to talk and what my name was, it's the name I learned to write in big straggly letters when I was learning to write, it's the name my childhood friends used, the name under which I was educated, the name under which I sat all my exams. That's why I'm attached to it -- because it and I have a long history together, not because of anyone else I share it with.

As it happens I would far rather have had my mother's original name, which was unusual and much nicer than mine. And had that been my last name, I almost certainly would have given it to my DCs, at least in a double-barrelled form. But it didn't happen that way.

I didn't take me husbands name and refer to myself as Ms Pushme, but am not militant about it if people I don't know call me Mrs PushmesDH. He gets's called Mr Pushme 50% of the time as well . Our DD has his surname, but my name as a middle name.

I kept me name because a) I'm a professional and have publications in my own name b) DH's surname sounds pants with me first name (and indeed most first names!) and c) I just couldn't imagine feeling like 'me' if I changed my name.

I think that to say why keep your father's name rather than take your DH's name misses the
point a bit as it confuses generations - either the names are mine/DH's or my father's/his father's iyswim.

lots of things people have said are looking down on women who take their husband's name. Things like 'to the detriment of women' and 'giving up your family ancestry'.

In fact the OP implies that women cannot achieve equality if they carry on taking their husband's surname.

I never even considered taking my husband's name. It seemed pointless and unnecessary, so not something I wanted to do. However socially people do refer to me sometimes (like in letters from the dc's school etc.) as MrsHusbandofMegapixels and I have no problem with that. It's an assumption, but not an offensive assumption so I don't mind at all.

My children have their father's name. Again I never considered them having anything but dh's name - in our culture not having the father's name means the child is illegitimate. And it's also his first name that is their surname, there is no family name that is carried on. So dh, the kids and I have different surnames. Dh's is his father's first name, mine is my father's first name and the kids have dh's first name.

I also chose to keep my own name, partly for professional reasons and partly personal preference. For me, it is part of my identity. Some people do find it quite confusing, my own parents included, who have often addressed cards, etc to loobymarried name, instead of loobymaiden name, even though I have told them that my name is still loobymaiden name! Our children do have my DH's surname and I perfectly happy with that (although my surname is nicer)

I don't think either of the things you quoted is "looking down on women who take their husband's name", when you look at them in context. ninagleams in particular was responding to your statement that you weren't keeping your name because you were "separate from my parent's family" by pointing out the potentially implicit corollary that your DH was keeping his name (and you were changing to his) because your family wasn't separate from his parents' family. Which I don't think is how you actually feel about it, but if "being separate from parents' family" is an reason for not using the woman's name it is just as good a reason for not using the man's name (doesn't mean you shouldn't use the man's name, just that it doesn't make sense to use "being separate from woman's family" to justify it unless you really are seeing it as putting aside the woman's ancestry in favour of the man's).

I still haven't seen anything to justify your assertion that "You're all just as bad because you're effectively trying to portray women who take their husband's surname as lesser."

And OP implies that women in general can't achieve equality if women in general keep taking on husbands' names, not that women who take on their husbands' names can't achieve equality. She isn't to any extent suggesting that women who take on their husbands' names are "lesser".

She is suggesting that gender inequality is largely the fault of women who take on husbands' names, which I don't think I agree with and I could entirely see your objecting to strongly, but there isn't a suggestion of "lesser".

What is this ridiculous idea about "your father's name" not being your "own" name? As this is somehow comparable to making an active choice to take your husband's name?
Do women have no ownership to their ancestral line? That is a dangerous implication.
The name you are given at birth or adoption becomes your name. Just as it became your father's name when he was born. He has no more ownership to it than you.

But it's not 'the woman's' it is mine. There was no 'the woman's' in anything I was trying to say. That post was addressed to ninagleams who was attempting to describe my reasons for my own choices inaccurately.

My general point is that everyone feels differently about it and there is no one 'superior' choice other than choosing what is right for you. Trying to interpret my own choices and feelings about myself and my names into arguments for and against what is the 'superior' choice for 'women' in terms of gender equality is what the OP is complaining about in the first place.

It's funny how it's always the people who are toeing the cultural line who bleat so much about being called 'silly', when it's the people who want to define themselves according to their own principles who get all the crap. As so many on this thread have said, if you're a Ms or keep your own name after marriage (or, indeed, are SINGLE and a parent and have never been married) you are almost constantly having to go, 'No, it's not Mrs (DC's dad's name), No, i't Ms, not Miss or Mrs'.
ONe of the things I like about DS' school is that they haven't batted an eyelid about DS dad and DS having different surnames, or the fact that we don't live together - DS dad having just been elected a parent governer. So some people are sensible about it. It's mainly the CRB who are complete dicks, not only have they made up their own definition (MS = bitter divorced feminist) but they seem to find it impossible to accept that women do, actually know what their own names are, can read forms and do not just happen to forget that they might have been married.

strange to assume anybody's choice is 'towing the cultural line'. It is surely just someone's choice. If it happens to be the cultural norm that doesn't mean that's the reason the choice has been made.

I think ninagleams (who I keep visualising all in black and wanting to call ningaleams) was more trying to point out a logical inconsistency in the way you had expressed your reasons for your own choices. That might have been because there was a logical inconsistency in your reasoning or because of a misunderstanding over how you had expressed it. Again, no suggestion of your being "lesser". Either way you are free to decide for whatever reasons you like and express it however you like.

Then everytime a form askes - put Me or Iam

You can't spot a 'logical inconsistency' if you don't know the logic. This is really all my original point. No-one knows the logic behind anyone's decision, other people will only be able to apply their own logic to it. Making a choice for yourself is the only choice because if you make a choice in order to 'make a statement' it will always be judged by someone else's logic. Your own definition of yourself is all that is important. Someone else's definition only says something about them.

You could argue, for example, that my husband has missed out on an opportunity to express his joining to my family by keeping his name and not taking mine. It's all just swings and roundabouts, people judge you by their own standards.

My name is not My 'Father's name' it is mine.
I share a surname with my father, brothers and mother, which is nice. I would have preferred it if my mother had kept her name, as she wanted to, (not that common in 1979, she stopped fighting it a few years in) but my name is now mine. I couldn't give two hoots where it came from, it's nice to be able to trace family history through the name but I'm equally interested in mum's side, mostly down her mum's side, so they all have different surnames but equally my antecedents.

Stop suggeasting that women only have a choice between the names of two men - the choice is between the name of their husband or their own name.

There was a newspaper article a while back about a woman who decided that she didn't want to take either her husband's name or keep her father's (ie, her maiden surname), because both had been decided in a patriachal way, so she changed by deed poll to just "Jane" (or Sue or Claire or something - can't remember!) Anyway, the upshot was that nearly everyone was fine with it except for call centre operators because "computer says no" to people with only one name!

A slightly extreme example, I own, although it got me thinking. I have retained my maiden name, but our kids have DH's name, mainly because it's a nicer sounding name than mine! So for all my principles I eventually caved in to what sounded nice!

God, what a relief to see some other women remotely bothered about this. I think OP and ninagleams and loads of others have said it all, really. Most of my friends have simply taken their husbands' names for themselves and/or their DCs, and that's their choice, but I am sometimes made out to be a bit of a nutter for thinking any differently, and it's hard to explain my own reasons without sounding like I'm passing judgement on others who choose differently.

I too did a PhD and then spent about 2 years gleefully saying 'it's DOCTOR, actually' whenever the inevitable 'is that Miss or Mrs?' question came up, but then started to feel like a bit of a ponce once the excitement wore off. So, back to Ms, which hasn't been a problem but then I haven't needed a CRB check. But I'll fight the good fight with them, if I ever do need one.

I have my mum's 'maiden' name because when my parents divorced she switched back and I switched with her, and I have no wish to change it ever again. DD has a double-barrelled name, which DP was actually more bothered about than me - he was quite affronted at the idea that my name would simply wink out of existence for our children. We aren't married

(CAUTION: UNWED MOTHER ALERT!!)

but if we were, I would still be Ms Ourraquel, and our children would still be double-barrelled. I agree it's not an ideal option, but it's the best one we could come up with.

FWIW, some friends of ours combined their surnames when they married, to make a new surname which everyone could have. We tried that but it sounded either like a porn mag or a budget supermarket depending which combination you went for. And a male student of mine did take his wife's name when they married. Although his wife's name is also a very nice woman's first name, so when I was told that he'd changed his name to very-nice-woman's-first-name, I spent a very confused week thinking he'd had gender reassignment surgery. But that's another story. And I think he is a hero for taking his (lovely) new name.

Also FWIW, my DD loves having both of our names as her surname, and even though she's only 2 she will proudly tell it to passersby and explain that it means she is 'a bit Jewish and a bit Scottish'.

I'm sure she'll hate us for it when she's older, mind you. But they have to get their ammunition from somewhere.

Yes, then don't try to explain your choices. "I chose to do it this way because I wanted to" is fine. If you start explaining why you've done something then people feel justified in pointing out if what you've said doesn't seem to make sense -- not just on this issue but in general (take a look at any Mumsnet thread ).

But (as you did say it and then after a chance for reflection came back and reasserted it in another post) I still can't see any evidence of all the posters here trying to portray women who take their husband's surname as lesser.