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?????

might be getting confused with countries - in France your maiden name is always your name, even if your "everyday" name is your DH's. Thought is was the same in the UK, obviously not.

Conga:

Or... let's go for a radical concept here... people can call you what you prefer to be called.

If someone is named Elizabeth, you try calling her Liz, and she says "No, thank you, I prefer Elizabeth" it is Rude to keep calling her Liz. That's just accepted good manners.

So why is it suddenly fine that if you try calling her Mrs Smith and she says "No, thank you, I prefer Ms Jones" you should say "If you feel so strongly about it you should have stayed single and kept your name" or persist in calling her Mrs Smith?

I don't get it. Manners is manners.

Professor - that's exactly what annoys me so much and why I'm going to find myself in ridiculous situations in the not too distant future as I keep having conversations like this (we're fairly recently married).

Friend: Hello Mrs Bling'sDH

Me: Haha.
Friend: I know how much it irritates you. But if the rest of us changed our names and are Mrs, so you have to be too
Me: You can call yourself anything you like but I like being Ms Bling Loving

It's going to get messy. The lighthearted banter will turn to strong words. And it's ridiculous, why can't I just call myself whatever I freaking want to?

professorlayton - I get quite a lot of letters referring to me as 'miss x' or 'ms x' or even 'mrs x', I get some letters/cards/postcards to 'mrs husband's initial y', 'mrs my initial y', people call me ds's mum or dm/f/g's daughter or grandaughter in the playground or at appointments often or send postcards/cards/letters to me as one of these names.

I don't really mind, to those people I am those things, I feel they are all pieces of who I am. I also feel comfortable in my own definitions of myself and like I don't have to constantly impress on other people what exactly I would choose to be called.

My children have their father's name and I have my husband's name, my twins will have their father's name (my husband's name). I often get called 'mrs xp's name' by teachers at school because of ds having his surname.

None of this bothers me. It is a religious school it's not a crime to assume me and ds have the same surname or that I am married. All these expressions are just reflections of the person or institution making them, they don't change my definition of myself or how I define myself within society.

You don't actually stop being your maiden name. I am doing family history (people changing tradition would be a nightmare for research!) and 2 complete strangers, doing one name studies have approached me. They know that I am a Jones (as a random name)and they know what my husababd's name is. I am equal on their chart to my brother. I tell my DCs that they are as equal a Jones as their cousins (my brother's DCs). It is just convenient to have a system. I may be Mrs Moon but I know that I am also Jones-it is unimportant.

Sorry-typing in haste -husband!

Some people get married because there are legal ramifications if you don't. Basically you are not recognised as next of kin which is very significant if one of you keels over suddenly.

Also Professor is right, a man must apply via deed poll for a name change, a woman can change hers automatically when she marries.

(playing devil's advocate) next of kin isn't as important as it's sometimes made out to be, though -- it's interesting to read up on the legal background to it. Widowed parent's benefit is not at all insignificant for those with children, though, and not available to unmarried partners.

Morloth -- no. Or, at least, not a few years back when I last checked. There's always lobbying going on over it, though, as it's clearly barking an interesting legal position, so it could change.

just wanted to post link that I spotted in Salon today for an interesting perspective

ok - completely unlikely ... and probably mad and paranoid

.... But .... If we all died in an aircrash / got taken to a concentration camp / were involved in some other disaster

I would like to be listed with my huband and children in the alphabetical list that commemorates the disaster and not as some random woman off on my own on another part of the list.

Each to their own, I would say, and we have to respect each other's preferences. I am Mrs, I see that as showing that DH and I belong together, not that I am his chattel. If you choose to be Ms, then it is unreasonable of your friends not to respect your wishes. But it's also unreasonable of you to blame those of us who are quite happy to be "Mrs" for the lack of equality for women.

And people changing tradition works perfectly well in family history research in the Internet era. Even in the nineteenth century surnames change and mutate in ways that would be unheard of today without a paper trail. DH's gg grandmother quite deliberately changed the spelling of the family name halfway through her quiverful of children because she thought the revised spelling looked nicer, for example. Somehow we have coped... (and she was probably right, although DH's great-grandmother got the less attractive early version). And my own great-grandfather couldn't remember exactly what his own children's names were after his wife had died (I come from a line of excellent parenting material, as you may judge).

Professor "Morloth -- no. Or, at least, not a few years back when I last checked. There's always lobbying going on over it, though, as it's clearly barking an interesting legal position, so it could change."

THAT is outrageous and sexist and needs changing.

PeachesMclean Iam afraid you sound bitter. If you wish to generalise about women taking their DH'S name then I will generalise by saying all those whos choose to use the title Ms are "bitter twisted feminist harridans".

Okay, let's take a tangent... Here's the naming thing that really really gets me (and is totally contradictory on so many levels if you know me!).

... when Queen Elizabeth is queen but Philip has to be Duke. But, if William marries Kate, she will be queen. Why? Because KING is automatically above Queen. [we can debate merits or not of monarchy seperately, that doesn't feature in the feminist debate! ]

And, for my money, I cannot support a new King/Queen of England until at the very least the laws of progeny are changed - whichever gender William's wife pops out first should be the monarch after him.

Hmmm... actually, come to think of it, the queen and philip have different names and he had to change his!

Peaches it obviously DOES wind you up coz you have called all women who take their DH's name idiots!

i have never changed my surname.children have both surnames.

my name is very important to me
it is who i have always been.emotionally attached to my surname!

i am known professionally by name

it is a personal choice whether or not to take your partners name.don't think it equates to subjugation or selling out on the sisterhood

people should do what they want.

Bravo! Well said ScottishMummy the voice of reason again!

Ermintrude, you say that a woman changing her name "represents one family signing over their daughter as a chattel to a man's family. It defines women by their married status while men are not. It defines the woman and the children as property of the man and the man as the head of the household. It loses the female line to history - ask any keen genealogist - and maintains women's second class citizen status."

I appreciate that in the past this may have been true but it isn't now. You say that women who change their names come up with ridiculous arguments for their decision but if these are the arguments for keeping your name, then they are equally ridiculous. Changing your name doesn't make you a chattel or define you or make you a second class citizen. Just like keeping your name doesn't make you a feminist.

Peaches didn't call all women who take their DH's names idiots.

In response to SGB's post that "some people interpret Ms to mean 'bitter feminist divorced harridan" she responded "But some people are idiots."

i.e. People who interpret Ms to mean 'bitter feminist divorced harridan' are idiots. NOT "all women who take their DH's name are idiots".

stillstanding You think it's okay to define women by their married status but not men. ROFL.

Am (genuinely) confused, ninagleams - where did I say that?

ninagleams - not sure where you read that in what stillstanding said!

As Morloth correctly identified men are denied the opportunity to 'define themselves by their married status'. Men are not able to identify themselves as married or single through the adoption of a different prefix or automatically change their surname after marriage. They are denied these opportunities to express their joining together with their wife's family even if they feel strongly that they want to.

I am proud to be a Miss. If people look down their noses at me for being single that's their issue. I do however circle Ms on job application forms and the like as I don't thiink that it has any relevance on my ability in the work place.
If I ever do get married I will be proud to be called a Mrs so and so.