welshgirl it is the LAW that is patriarchal, until the late 19th century, women were seen as the property of their father and then their husband. Historically, the law exists to protect women in marriage (and divorce) - whether any protections are afforded by keeping your married name after marriage, I don’t know. But I think it is right that if the law and society makes provision for a woman to change her name on marriage and expects her children to take their father’s name, she should be able to keep it? It is her married name.
Patriarchal is saying the husband’s name belongs to him, she can only use it when married to him (it’s his remember) even if their children have it (patriarchy), and she must cease to use it when they divorce and he remarries so he can bestow it on his next wife. It’s his, remember.
The expectation that a woman take a husband’s name is patriarchal. That it remains her thereafter is a logical consequence of that. But she (the woman) has a choice in law whether to retain the name or revert to her married name. That protects her.
Do women need protecting by being called Mrs X and having the same name as their children? Arguably not. Until you get stopped at immigration and asked for every document relating to their birth, residence with you and letter of permission from their father. Until people make judgements based on the different surnames. You get called Mrs X every time someone rings to talk about your child (school etc). If you were married to Mr X and your children are Children Xs, you will be Mrs X in many people’s minds.
I have never taken my children’s father’s name, we are separated and all the things above happen. This thread has made me wonder if I should avail myself of my legal surname on my passport and call myself Katara Y X. It would make travelling easier if nothing else. But that apart, nope, no desire to be called Mrs X. Doesn’t mean everyone feels the same, though.