I'm a newly married man and agonising about what we should do about surnames.

[MaleMan81]

My wife and I got married a few months ago. She hasn't changed her surname to mine, and I've been saying to her that I'm not sure I agree with the idea of a woman taking a man's name. And that's how we have left it.

I think we both would be very happy with this decision if children were never going to be part of the picture.

However she recently became pregnant, and although we are both thrilled and excited, I have started to think that if we are going to become a family it would make us all feel more united if we both had the same surname as our child. My wife agrees with this.

So the options as I see it are - she takes my name, I take her name, or we do that terribly modern thing of meshing together our surnames to make a whole new name!

Now I would like to think of myself as a thoroughly enlightened man who is a feminist, but the problem I'm having is that her surname sounds a tiny bit silly, and is the kind of name that would be gift to bullies in any environment. I don't want to write her actual name, but a surname that would provoke a similar reaction might be something like "Awkwardly". What is worse is that my first name rhymes with her surname, which would give me a name which would at the very least cause raised eyebrows I imagine.

In comparison my surname is more normal with no real meaning, and is something along the lines of "Bailey".

The only meshed version of our names that really scans property actually sounds even worse than her surname, and not something I would want to saddle a child with.

So that leaves me favouring my own surname simply because it sounds more normal, and works better with both our first names. And to be fair my wife has said that she was a bit embarassed by her surname as she was growing up, although now she is fine with it.

I would like to think that if it was her with the normal sounding name and me with the odd name, then I would be happy to change my name to hers. But I'm worried that subconsciously I am simply imposing my name on her as is "tradition" and automatically favouring my own name.

I am also aware that her taking my name is the "normal" and "expected" thing to happen, and is the easy option in terms of acceptance in society. And I must also admit that I am generally a quiet person who doesn't like to draw attention to myself - which is exactly what would happen if I did what is seen (by society at least) as something reasonably radical like taking my wife's name.

I'm just confused and going around in circles now. What have others done?

So you made the decision that she is going to take your name? And go by Mrs a lot of the time.
Seriously why even post if your just going to make the decision to go by convention? Another woman losing her identity now that a man owns her ...

Thants

and why would you post just to say that?
useful as paper wellies

I find it odd that it is a "we" decision at all - "we" can decide to get married, but only "she" can decide to change her name.
Or do you also say "we are pregnant" as some like to do!

I had an easy to spell, difficult to pronounce properly maiden name, which, along with my given name apparently made me sound asian, This didn't worry me, but seemed to really mess with some people's chi, especially prospective employers. When I married my first husband, it just seemed easier to take his name, although, I wonder if I'd have got away sooner had I refused and seen what a violent wanker he was when crossed. For whatever reason, I retained that surname after we divorced, I think I was so relieved that he'd gone, it was the last thing on my mind.

When I married DH, I toyed with the idea of not taking his surname, but in the end I did. I suppose I could have gone back to my maiden name, but retaining my 1st husband's surname just seemed ridiculous. This is in spite of the fact that, despite DH's surname being a lovely old English one, no one can ever pronounce it or spell it.... so back to square one really!

I always wanted to change my surname, therefore I took up my husband's surname after we got married. My MIL has her maiden name-married name.

Would anyone mind if I stole "maiden name" and replaced it with "birth name" or something?

In this day and age, I'm guessing most lose their maidenhead prior to any opportunity to change names or not on marriage...

I'd mind. I like maiden name

Why, Zing?

coz I do

Go for it Doctrine, sounds more likely anyway, especially given that I was hardly a maiden at my first wedding anyway!

It's a complete throwback.

It's common parlance, Doctrine. If we cut out every term with historically oppressive underpinnings, we'd be too busy redesigning the language to get anything else done.

If you insist, though, I think you should go for something like "father's name" as birth name doesn't cut it for the adopted or for people who inherited their mother's surname. We already have "family name" ...

Zingchoirs because the whole point of the thread was to work out how they can do something positive, progressive, based on equality and now the op has decided they will just go with the sexist convention. Don't you think that's just so predictably sad? That even people who question sexist traditions are still too afraid to actually challenge them ?

To answer the OP only because, well, I have to get to sleep eventually, DH and I kept our own names, and our children have my surname as their 3rd first name, and DH's surname in the conventional way as their surname. It has always been easier having my surname in there as well when travelling alone with them. We didn't really want to double-barrel, nor did we want to lose my very unusual surname, but a fair few of of DH's family and probably mine as well would have been very upset by the notion of our children not having DH's surname.

Plus they were in all likelihood going to be the only have children or were likely to and it seemed a shame to allow this branch of DH's surname to just wither. Whereas my family has form for breeding like rabbits and my sisters have also given their children our surname.

Garlic, I disagree with that argument, or "Ms" and "firefighter" wouldn't have been introduced.

I wouldn't want to use "father's name" as the whole point is that it is my surname, from birth to death for me.

I think forms refer to it as "previous surname, if any" - that'll do me.

Things would be easier if the Spanish or Icelandic traditions for surnames was more recognised in the UK. They're eminently sensible.

As mentioned before, DD has DP's surname, not mine. When I have mentioned that just maybe any DC2 might have my surname, this has been greeted as if it is the maddest, stupidest suggestion ever. The kids, apparently, won't be able to cope

The icelandic system is still about the father!!!!

Women don't change their name on marriage but children are still generally either father'sfirstnamedottir or father'sfirstnameson.

They have only changed the law in very recent years to allow parents to choose a mother's first name as the first part of the surname (if the father). Prior to that the Icelandic naming laws were so tight there was no choice about surname traditions.

Not to mention first names still have to be on an approved list of Icelandic names. No unusual names allowed unless they go before an approval board who decide if its Icelandic enough or not. So you don't have much freedom over naming your children.

I love the Quebec system: women keep their own name on marriage, partnership etc. The children get both father's and mother's. When they marry, they can choose which to keep for their children.

It also makes things a lot simpler administratively on all sorts of fronts. A child born into an abusive relationship, say, can be assigned the mother's name rather than the father's if all contact is broken, by simply using it.

It broke my heart as a teacher in this country to see children's surnames changed willy-nilly as their families broke up and reformed (yes, it did happen, even in secondary age children). They ought to have one thing they could rely on.

"previous surname, if any" - that'll do me - Yep, sounds good!

Words like firefighter and chair(person) are a different kettle of fish, Doctrine, since they were gendered "man" titles for roles that women also fill. It felt odd to call a woman a fireman. Maiden name's a bit different, as only women have them. It no longer means you were a virgin all the time you had that name! But meh ... I never did use that term for myself while married, though I didn't bother arguing when other people asked for it.

As far as I know, the UK is far more laissez-faire over naming than most other countries. We kind of take it for granted, as we do our freedom to bequeath our assets as we like. So we don't notice how peculiar discussions like this may sometimes look, to others from societies which regulate such matters.

Another woman losing her identity now that a man owns her ...

Seriously?

I took my husband's surname when we married, I didn't lose my identity, because I'm still the same person. My identity is made up of my characteristics/traits, my likes and dislikes, my interests, and all the other things that make me me.

To me, my name is just a label, my identity is made up of so much more than that. The only way I'd lose my identity, is if I changed as a person, and I certainly haven't done that.

The right to a name is one of our human rights. If you were deprived of a name, you wouldn't see it as a mere label. Not saying this is the same as choosing to change your name, but I cannot agree that a name itself is unimportant.

This article suggests giving the mother's surname is very uncommon:
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/dec/28/why-shouldnt-children-have-mothers-surname

I wouldn't have expected as low as 4%, tbh. Find that a bit surprising.

I married and took my DH's last name because I wanted to - because it mattered to him and don't bother me. You can be a feminist and do something that is traditional (marry in white etc) as long as you are making a choice.

But to be a feminist you would understand entirely why that choice would be questioned and would understand why seemingly innocuous acts like marrying in white or taking your husband's name are rooted in a tradition that goes against women's liberation and continue to do harm to society's view of women.

Look at how marriage proposals work - it's lovely and romantic and we judge our partners by much effort they put it, how creative they are. When in reality, we're allowing men to dictate whether or not women get married. Women need to wait until they have proved themselves or the man is ready. Or they get left on the shelf, pitied and looked down upon. Look at how women compete to outdo each other with proposals stories as if a marriage proposal somehow confirms their worth as a person. And yet there was a thread on MN recently where a considerable number of women admitted that it was a joint decision, no false romance, no nonsense, just two people in love making a commitment to each other as equals.

The fact that taking a husband's name because it matters to him and doesn't to you is very much evidence that his needs and desires are being put first. Maybe I just don't understand why any man feels pride that his wife takes on his surname but to me, it smacks of something that I don't want to be part of.

And fwiw my feminism has never been about a choice - it's about improving the lives of women, many of whom will never be fortunate enough to have any choice to make.

No. It mattered to him to keep that name because it is unusual. It neither mattered to me what name I had, nor did it matter to me to keep my maiden name. I married in white because I chose to, not because I was told to.

Truly, I know all that you are saying to be correct. But, I have total autonomy to choose my name, clothes, etc and so chose to stick with the ways of my (strong female) ancestors.

As for proposals - we agreed to marry. I told him the answer would be NO if he dared to ask my father's permission.

I didn't think how I married made much difference to the view of women but, FWIW, I made a speech (the best one!) and did everything in the way that suited me /us - blending traditions with our own / my own choice.

Yes, I am aware of (and wary of) the patriarchy. However, I was just saying that you can make a choice and take a name other than the one you were given by your parents - that too can be a feminist choice. (Post- feminist?)