Apparently I can't be a feminist because I changed my name when I married.

[dustandfluff]

I heard someone (a feminist writer dunno who) on Radio 4 a few months ago saying women who change their names when they get married are not feminists.

. I have long been interested in feminism and women's rights. I appreciate the feminist arguments against changing your name. I had my reasons but I don't think that's relevant here. To me this sounds as though to "be" a feminist you have to meet a particular standard.

I think this is the kind of thing that puts a lot of women off the movement.

Opinion s anyone?

I did prioritise dh's family name over mine for the reasons already given. However I chose to use the title Ms rather than Mrs as I didn't see why my marital status was relevant.

The problem with subjects like changing your name when you get married is that although, in theory, it is damaging to equality, it's rarely quite as black and white as that.

Maybe it would be better if we all provided a united front, it would be a huge symbolic gesture. And in terms of equality it would be the "right" thing to do. But in personal terms in might not be the "right" thing at all.

Should the individual give up on what is right for them in order to satisfy the needs of the majority?

Hit post too soon.

Does having different "needs" to the majority, or even the ideal, in a smaller issue like this really make you anti feminist? Does it negate any agreement you may have with the bigger issues?

(By bigger issues I mean women being given equal opportunities/rights as men)

No the individual shouldn't give up what is right for them. It is all about choice. My SIL kept her ex DHs name and didn't take my brother's name. I presume she just liked it. It is no big deal. I changed mine, there is no necessity for me to justify it. It is my choice, not up for judgement and trivial.

"Getting married is nice for the couple involved but it's not like climbing Everest or graduating with a first or anything."

Are you sure about that now? Plenty of women say they're "proud" to be married, and to be known as Mrs.

The fact that a couple of posters have said it's harder for a man to change his name is proof of outdated patriarchal assumptions.

In England, a woman can 'prove' to her bank and other organisations that she's changed her surname by showing them her marriage certificate or decree absolute. It's not the same for men. This must be the reason people assume it's easier for the woman to change her name.

In reality, anyone can change their surname just by doing it. It's legal to go under several different surnames as long as you're honest and consistent in their usage. Banks might say you need a deed poll, but that isn't true either: they can demand one, but there's no legal requirement.

If Mr Jones and Ms Smith decide to change their name to Mr & Mrs Very-Posh upon marriage, all they have to do is give the registrar a statement. They can carry on using their old names for work, if they want, and can name their children Smith-Jones if they like. It's not the big deal that most people (patriarchally) think it is.

"Getting married is nice for the couple involved but it's not like climbing Everest or graduating with a first or anything."

Getting married is the easy bit, staying married happily, equally and lovingly, is the hard bit. In my humble opinion, getting a first is easier, if you are intellectually inclined, than negotiating the thorny path between retaining an independent sense of self and forming a working and lasting partnership with someone who society accords more value/privilege than you.

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2012/nov/22/travel-troubles-not-sharing-childs-surname

I wonder if the writer is a MNer and was inspired by yesterday's discussion?

Bue, the comments on that article - I got as far as the second one:

If it's too much trouble for a person to align the names of their children with their own last names, and there are many possible ways of doing it, you've got to wonder what other aspects of their parental responsibilities are too bothersome for them, too.

Never read the comments.

I have a different surname to my dc and in 15 years of travelling all over the world with them have never ever ever ever ever had a question, let alone a problem.

I have a different name from my DS and have never had a single question-as I keep saying it is unimportant.
I find it odd that if it is pointed out that people have their father's name they say 'it doesn't matter it is my name'. I have DH's name-I have now had it longer than I had my father's name-it is my name and I fail to see the difference!
It is personal choice-up to the individual and nothing to do with anyone else.
I know I am equal-I don't need a name to prove it-I refuse to get bogged down in trivialities.

Exoticfruits I find it very telling that you keep popping up to tell people how unimportant this subject is.

And quite amusing.

That is your OPINION exoticfruits

It has little to do with the FACT of what changing one's name denotes historically and why it still carries those associations.

It sounds a bit desperate to keep saying it's unimportant, when women know that not doing it always causes comment and in some cases, actually causes resentment.

How does that happen, when it's oh so trivial? Why do people's MIL's and relatives make such a fuss about it, don't they know it's unimportant?

I can't say why they make a fuss- as I said SIL hasn't taken my brother's name- it hasn't bothered anyone. I am happy to amuse people- it is better than irritating. I can't really see why anyone is in the least interested in what I say. Everyone is free to do their own thing.

Yes everyone is free to do their own thing, but not without comment from everyone else.

If you don't change your name on marriage when you're a woman, it's amazing who feels they have the right to comment -sometimes adversely - on it.

While that's still the case, it clearly still matters.

This is my only comment-that it is personal. I don't ask why or comment, it isn't my business- I just call people what they wish to be called.I have never asked my SIL why she kept her ex DHs name, it would be very rude-I suspect it is merely because it is an attractive name, rather poetic; but it may be another reason entirely. She is free to do whatever she likes-as are we all.
It seems to me that I am supposed to be pressurised by the women, who happen to be the noisiest about it, to fit in with what they think. We keep having the bizarre idea that feminism can't be about choice-we have to do as we are told by other feminists.( Or we are patronisingly told that we changed it because we didn't know any better!)

Exotic I don't think anyone has said you have to do as you are told by other feminists.

The personal is political

Good, theDoctrineofsnatch- we can just accept that you can be a feminist and change your name then.My personal is just that- nothing more and nothing less.

I think you can change your name and hold other feminist views, but I don't think you can call yourself a feminist if you change your name thereby subscribing to a patriarchal practice that helps to uphold the status of women as second class.

It simply isn't logical.

personal is political got to be most vapid statement ever
essentially where does it go?that one has to modify actions to fulfill political ideology
I personally think housewife is a deeply patriarchal role and enacts wee wifie status.don't expect anyone to change their actions because of this opinion.

it would be be more accurate to say ideology is political

the personal is political is a succinct summing up of the fact that no woman is an island.

are you reading the almanac of cliche tonight hilly