@BloodAndFire I think you're just trying really hard to be difficult tbh! And succeeding!
Like this accusation coming from nowhere which completely boggles my mind: "Funny how it's always the man's surname which is more aesthetically pleasing, isn't it?"
I literally mentioned a Mr Hardcock and a Mr Assman, plus said: "In fact, if you don't go double barrelled or keep your own surname, maybe the man and woman can pick the one they like best out of the 2." I also said hopefully: "And maybe in time this option will be open to men too!"
Other posters have mentioned (male) people being hesitant to jettison their adoptive family name due to fears of hurting them, so it's obviously a real dilemma.
We clearly just have different personalities/cultural ideals, so I don't think you have to keep trying to frame me as some dyed in the wool misogynist, possibly also because of stereotypes you have about people from other cultures (interestingly, you're not engaging other posters on this thread acknowledging the social and other difficulties of name changes).
I don't care if a man or woman wants to go scorched earth, change their name loud and proud and unprompted, have to try to repair family's hurt feelings, have to explain themselves repeatedly to all and sundry socially + professionally/while networking (especially if established in your career under old name), have to justify themselves officially in paperwork + interviews (and for me as someone globally mobile, the name change history might look suspicious on + slow down visa applications), and so on.
That is totally valid and great. And for women who have been socialised into niceness, doubly great. But great for men too – not many men with surnames they hate are able to do that either.
For me though, whether I were a man or woman, I would just prefer a more natural transition if possible. As I've said, it would be great if men could subtly change their name through marriage. The current practice in Britain is that women change their surnames, which is why I referenced that. And - surprise surprise, OP's daughter is a woman, as far as we know. It's not a recommendation. It was a casual observation of options available to her, if she somehow gets to that point without having taken action on the particular matter of her surname.
You're so adamant that she must keep her own (family or newly chosen) surname upon marriage, but that's entirely her choice. Just as it is her choice to get married if she wants to, rather than not buy in to the misogynistic institution of marriage.
Yes, marriage doesn't have to be fundamentally misogynistic if some elements are improved. Neither does a marriage name change. As I've mentioned before, I think it would be a nice idea for the "women takes surname" tradition to evolve with a married couple picking 1 name between them, whether out of their existing family names, or a newly and mutually created one.
Oh and fwiw, I am not a fan of white dresses, being 'given away', wedding rings or any other patriarchal trappings of marriage
Great, go troll other wedding threads then, instead of creatively inventing things I haven't said.
I have no doubt you'll find a way to twist what I've written so let's not engage further!