Note that it's almost always women who did relinquish their family names on marriage disparaging other women on the pretext that they 'have more important things to worry about'. The subtext to that, of course, being that women's issues are of lesser interest or importance, and are just not as worthy as concerns affecting men.
No - that is wrong. Names do matter. Names reflect identity. They certainly matter to men, and women's identities do not matter less than men's. To respect a woman's correct name and title is the most basic and common of courtesies. Yet I've found in my day-to-day interactions that common courtesy isn't necessarily common. I've also noticed that it's nearly always women who try to put heretics like me, who dare assert their own preferences of identity, back into our box.
The second predictable objection is that keeping your own name and title is not in any way unusual or 'special'. I couldn't agree more. But if everyone really did hold that attitude, the issue would pass unremarked. Look at any variation on this thread on MN and you'll find legions of non-name-changers citing the same experience. It is an issue when a woman refuses to kowtow to social expectation, even in such a minor way as this.
Then there's the BS about men always owning their names, but a woman's name is never truly hers. I've owned my name since birth; it's the name I've always used; it's as much my name as my brother's is his. And much as I don't compute why a woman would take on someone else's family name on marriage, that is now her name. By right. It's not an object on loan to be handed back should her association with that man end.
Women are not adjuncts to men.