Surnames - is this a step forward or the state taking on the role of domineering husband?

[TouTou]

Just interested in your thoughts really. As feminists, like. ()

I moved to Quebec and have been forced (yes, literally forced) to take back my maiden name. I am not allowed to take on my DHs name (which I've had for several years,) in the interest of 'equality'.

I consider myself a feminist. It took my 10 years for me to finally marry DH and after that I kept my own name for 3 years.

When we had DCs I wanted the same name as them, (I've worked in healthcare and have seen several times problems with obtaining consent caused by family members having different names). My DH, again, felt really strongly that he wanted them to have his name as he is the only son of an only son (ie, the last of his name) and I have siblings to carry on my name. Also, he is very attached to his family and I don't really respect my Dfather, so again, not didn't feel as passionately about it as he did. It took me a while and much chin stroking, but in the end we all became 'The TouTous'.

In other words, I wasn't forced into having his name, but came about taking it through long consideration.

But, because Quebec is very much an 'equal' province, women are not allowed to do this. And because DCs still seem to take on the fathers name (just shows you can't grow equailty in a day), most of the DCs have different names to their mums.
I'm pissed off about having a different name from my DCs (again, it causes problems at border crossings with the USA etc) and the state having a paternalistic attitude that women are so put upon that government should tell them what is best for them.

What are your thoughts on this?

I had no problem in not taking my DH surname, frankly I found the very idea of changing my name ridiculous. But my DS has his surname, I have a different one, it can be a bit confusing especially because school can't quite work out that DS and I have different names so keep labelling his books wrongly

I think the main societal pressure is around the naming of children - it didn't even occur to me that DS could take my name, but then I'm not particularly attached to it and have no relationship with my father, I only kept it because I thought changing would be silly, IYSWIM.

I would be very uncomfortable with the state telling me either I had to keep my name or change it. That's just another form of patriarchy telling me what to do IMO.

Toutou, I LOVED that about Quebec. Utterly my decision not to change my name when I married. Plus the bilingualism thing. Gosh I felt so at home there... Really jealous of you living there.

FWIW our children have my surname as their 3rd first name, and my DH's surname as their surname. It was a tough decision, but we didn't want to double-barrel. I feel it's a bit of a compromise but at least my name still figures in there, unlike my sister's children who bear no witness to their [mysurname] ancestry at all.

FWIW, nobody is forced to take their husband's surname in the UK. Many women think they have to but it is a choice. I just wish that more people were made aware of it- maybe registrars and vicars should mention it, or hand out a leaflet.

I would be pretty furious if I was forced to take back my fathers name. Its a bloody awful name and he was a bloody awful man. DHs name is lovely and his family huge and I like having the same name as everyone else. I didn't take DHs name because i am too weak to stand up to him, I took it because I wanted it. If I wanted to change it if I got divorced or something I would probably chose my mothers maiden name.

My mum was when I mentioned I wasn't changing my name, and insisted that it was illegal for me not to . I was equally amazed that anyone would think that, but there you go. She also thought it was disrespectful to DH and his family and wondered what 'people would think'. It has been a complete non-issue though, most people accept it as perfectly normal these days, and I don't think it had even occurred to DH that I might consider changing.

We don't have a child yet, but if we are able to, they're likely to have my surname (with possibly DH's as a middle name). I imagine there will be plenty of 'disapproving' looks from parents and (especially ILs) but then we're not children and we don't require parental approval for everything we do!

There is tremendous societal pressure around naming children.
Men as well as women feel it. DS is a boy, the only male grandchild of DP's parents, they made a big deal of him being a boy, and completely fail to address DS by his DPname-MyName hyphenated surname, using only DP's.

They care not a jot that their dd changed her name, and gave her dd's her DH's name - the patriarchal line is all.

Blu is right, it is because of the societal pressure on men that I knew DH would never back down when it came to naming the DC. I absolutely did not have an entirely free choice when it came to changing my name and I'm astonished that anyone thinks there is an entirely free choice. You may well have been only too happy to choose to take your DH name, but you can't seriously tell me it was a complete free choice with nothing in particular to influence you either way.

At least part of the reason women are more prepared to accept DH name for DC could be tied up to societal approval as compensation for deferring to traditional gender rules. Historically, married women had higher status and arguably they still do - you will recall the thread about doing away with the titles Mrs and Miss and all the responses saying gosh I would want to retain Mrs for all sorts of reasons which have nothing to do with the patriarchy. And virtually no one saying the same about Miss.

I think it was a completely free choice for me to keep my name, for me it was just the default option because it was easier for me not to change, and I don't remember there being any particular pressure or influence either way (yes there was my mum's comment mentioned above, but it never occurred to me that that would influence my decision, or that it was anything other than my mum being daft, she has all kinds of odd notions!).

I accept that is not the case for everyone, of course, though it's curious how some people seem to be more influenced by these 'societal pressures' than others - I wonder why.

I do remember that thread (or one of them) about women being 'proud' to be a 'Mrs', I found it very odd tbh.

Since I went into co-parenthood with an (achieved) vision that DP and I would share hands on parenting 50% as we share all other contributions to our household (domestic tasks, financial contribution, remembering relatives birthdays etc), we actively wanted our baby to have both our names. DP still found it hard to accept that the name sounded better HisName-MyName as he had a feeling that the second name would be the 'real' or most powerful part of the surname, and that he was somehow allowing his name to be downgraded. My only concern was that it 'scanned' well and was easy to say. In the end I allayed his fears by pointing out that DS would always be filed under the letter which begins HIS name, that it would be his name which gave him his place in alphabetised lists etc.

I think many men see the name as the indellible way in which their identity is stamped on the child - it replaces the act of pg and birth in signalling parenthood of the child. This enthusiasm or drive is no bad thing, per se, IMO.

And that many women give a child the father's name even when it is not the woman's name for the same reason - to 'stamp' the child as his - to ensure ongoing support, publicly link the child to him.

I would never have thought that I would change my name on marriage.
However we intended to have children and for me, personally, I wanted a family name to share with children.

I think there is huge society pressure for DCs to have their father's name at least in part for their children. Coming from the fact that you can be pretty certain who the mother is but less so the father! And so the naming marks out the children as his. Certainly in the past the woman and children were certainly property. But still even these days I don't think you'd find many men who would be willing for children and mother to share a family name (hers) and him have a different name.

I didn't expect that DH would want to change his name to my name, and I didn't ask him that the DCs should have my name and him a different one as that goes so strongly against society norms. For an easy life we all have his name.

I suspect the rule in Quebec is to do with fraud, rather than feminism? After all as I have pointed out many times () and jollyrancher points out, what is feminist about having to have your father's name? Nothing.

TouTou, I think I see why you aligned it with the face veil. A ban makes the statement that "this society abhors this oppressive practice" (or summat like that!) Once a society makes its opinion that clear, it can't go round making exceptions willy-nilly. I realise this is now a question of personal choice versus principle. With apologies for your quite understandable annoyance, I'm now thinking I quite like it.

It doesn't look the same as the niqab law to me because my (UK) society doesn't bother all that much about names, unlike the veiled Frenchwoman's society which applies huge moral pressure in favour of niqab. But, reading other replies on your thread, it's clear women DO feel pressured to change to their husband's name. That would certainly be a significant patriarchal pressure, so perhaps it does merit anti-patriarchy legislation.

Leftwingharpie, I'm kind of unclear as to why you HAD TO change your name? Sorry if I've missed it.

I am increasingly of the opinion that using titles or family names is completely unnecessary. People who know you know what your relationships are, and it is no business of anyone else.

I can see that for census forms the govt may want to know who lives in a house and how they're related, but otherwise why does it matter?

Anything like registering your child for school etc can be taken care of another way. Just cos you have the same last name as someone doesn't prove a relationship at all.

My main concern would be that feckless wonders would see NOT having their kids named after them as an excuse to be less involved, but I suspect that anyone with that attitude would find any excuse.

I just love the idea that each person's name is theirs, makes them unique and doesn't tie someone to any kind of ownership.

It may be a rad fem idea, but a lot of torsional family values are about upholding the patriarchy, and family names are part of that

SardineQueen - it only takes one generation for a woman's name to be her mother's name, or a combination - or an equal likelihood of either.

My SIL's sister gave her dd her name rather than her DH's name, and they are happy about it. She didn't change her name on marriage, and she is one of 3 sisters - the other two changed their names and gave their children DH's names, so maybe she and her DH were prepared to be the family to 'carry on' her name? I don't know, though.

www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/20101206FamilyBreakdownIsNotAboutDivorce.pdf here's the source 48% of DCs born now will not be living with both bio parents on their 16th birthday. Since 90% of resident single parents are the mothers I think it is crazy to automatically give DCs the fathers name instead of the mothers.

If we change the naming culture of DCs then the naming of married women will be a fait accompli.

I do think that the name a child ordinarily uses is interesting as well. I have three sisters. All four of us have children. All four are in very different types of relationship with our children's fathers. The children's names reflects that.

The children of one of my sisters use only their mother's surname although their father's surname is on their birth certificate. This father is a feckless wastrel utterly uninvolved in his children's lives since they split up.

Another sister has three children, of whom one has a different father. They all live with the father of the next two. All three children have both their father's and mother's surnames, double-barreled, which means that their surnames all start the same way with my sister's surname. This blends the family in my opinion.

Another sister has chosen not to leave any trace of her surname in the children's.

My children all have my surname as their 3rd first name, which means that actually it doesn't impact much on their day to day life at all, although it is still there.

My surname is a rare surname and I'm very glad that at least three of us decided to preserve it in our children's names. My brother does not have children yet. He probably will one day (if he ever meets the right woman). It will be interesting to see what he chooses.

You can't keep adding names together indefinitely though Blu!
DH was already double-barrelled and I was single and 3 names was silly!

I really do think you would be hard-pressed to find many men who would have their children with a different name. I knew one couple were they were all going to take hers but in the end they didn't, they did it the traditional way around.

The naming convention for children's surnames has to change through the whole of society, or enough to provide a critical mass, I reckon.

Maybe a system where everyone picks a brand new family name would be the best one

I didn't change my name when I got married and my dds have my surname - at dh's insistence, largely because he like to disagree with any societal convention that comes his way I'm surprised it's so rare tbh.

DS can do whatever suits him and his partner best when he grows up - I certainly won't put pressure on him. Maybe he will go for the new invented name!

atm he LOVES having a name from each of us as his surname.

I never got the argument that if you give children double-barrelled names they'll somehow have to do the same when they have a child and in a few generations some poor child will have 20 surnames. Surely they'll be able to make a sensible decision!

If anything I think we need to get away from this idea that there has to be one 'correct' system or convention that everyone follows.

If my child grows up unable to make a a sensible decision based on his own thoughts and communication with a loved partner I will have failed in a far more important parenting decision than what to call him!

I made a choice re names which was different from the choice my parents made, and will be happy for him to do the same.

Hotheadpaisan in Spain the mother's name survives just one generation. As soon as the DC marry, they create a new double barrelled name using their respective fathers' surnames, with only a very few exceptions.

Garlic clearly I didn't have to - in fact DH would have been happy for me to keep my name. However for whatever reason, "rightly" or "wrongly" I wanted to have the same name as my DC and I knew DH would never yield willingly on that one. I realised I wouldn't be willing to dig my heels in with a new baby in the mix and capitulated early on.