Male colleague - views on changing name

[Sailinghappy]

Just interested in what people think about this scenario.

Yesterday my male colleague (totally randomly) asked me if my surname was on my birth certificate. I said no, it's my surname through marriage. He openly laughed and said he was disappointed in me for taking my husband's surname at marriage. He said he thought he was "a better feminist" than me and that taking my husband's name is sexist. I told him I certainly am feminist and that I support women's choices, to do whatever they like. I wasn't forced to take his name, it was my decision and I'm happy with it!!

Do other people agree with my colleague or is he in the minority?

Is your colleague married?

Did he take his wife's name when he did?

If he didn't, there is no basis to his claim that the's a better feminist than you.

Also, there's no claim anyway, he sounds like a nob.

Offred - for one thing, it teaches my daughter that her own identity is just as real and important as her brother's.

It prevents the erasure of my ethnic group in the UK.

It means I have a consistent professional profile throughout my life and that materially helps me to find work as a self-employed woman.

It makes it easier for other women to make the same choice in future.

I'm about to get off the tube with my kids so will return and add more later.

Just because these changes are small doesn't mean they don't matter.

I’m not saying they don’t matter.

I’m saying they do matter.

I’m saying they matter very much to the indivuals and those directly concerned.

What I am disputing is that a certain decision made by an individual woman re that individual woman’s private life can be categorised as ‘objectively feminist’ and other decisions ‘objectively non/anti feminist’.

I am urging people to consider the consequences of categorising complex and individual calculations re negotiation with patriarchy as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ for all women when these individual decisions have real social and economic consequences for individuals but virtually zero effect on women’s material conditions as a group.

The result of that is that feminists mirror patriarchal oppressive behaviour by making individual women accountable to feminism for individual and private decisions concerning only themselves and their families in the same way women are expected to be accountable to patriarchy.

I don’t have dds but when my sons grow up they are less likely to have any expectation that future wives will change their names on marriage, and that doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me.

It was easy for me to keep my name as I married late and had noone close to me pressuring me to change, so I’m not claiming any special virtue. I also made the unfeminist decision to give my dcs their dad’s name (albeit with mine as a middle) which I wish I’d thought more about.
But every woman who keeps their name or double barrels or does this for their children makes it a bit easier for the next woman to do so.

It’s not a ‘bad thing’.

What I am saying is it doesn’t justify categorising certain choices about private life as ‘objectively feminist’ and others as ‘objectively non/anti feminist’.

Whatever decision a woman has made you can guarantee it will have been made as part of an ongoing negotiation with patriarchy (even if she doesn’t believe there is a patriarchy), that it concerns what she has determined is the best fit for her if she has thought about it.

For keeping names to be easier you would need to be dismantling the social and economic sanctions women face when they do not comply with patriarchal standards.

It might make give other women who are likely to face relatively fewer social and economic sanctions a reason to consider it rather than just blindly following tradition but it does not make it possible for women who have no power in their relationships and who have the greatest level of benefit from signalling belonging.

offred I disagree that these decisions have 'virtually zero effect on women’s material conditions as a group.'

There is a collective, ongoing shift in women's status and part of that is signalling that an increasing number of us refuse to be defined as the wholly owned subsidiary of a man.

Just because you have tried to signal that through your choice over your name does not mean that patriarchy has interpreted it that way or that it has contributed to any meaningful change for other women. It’s nice and easy to self soothe by saying your birth name is your father’s name and for this to be true given names are inherited from fathers as standard.

Men complaining about women keeping birth names are complaining that ‘their’ woman is rejecting signalling they are owned by them, not because they see keeping a birth name as particularly problematic re patriarchy in general.

I think society is changing, and you can tell by the way patriarchy and masculinity are changing, as a result of divorce and increasing numbers of cohabiting rather than married couples (not all of which are down to feminism) but what shift has occurred due to naming decisions?

Getting married but keeping your birth surname is not really that important to patriarchy, though it may be important to individual men. It hasn’t caused any kind of backlash or adjustment in masculinity since some women have kept birth names for an age and men have always had varying degrees of success in squashing this depending on how much a woman needed to be married or not.

You changing your name was not feminist, but neither was him even asking you, let alone passing judgement in that way. Men thinking they're qualified to make assessments about feminism is skeevy as fuck. He ought to have stayed in his lane.

Also those of you saying it's only your fathers name you give up when you change, try applying that logic to your husbands. You aren't taking their name. You're taking your FILs.

It also won't do to suggest women pointing out that name changing is unfeminist aren't applying the same standards to marriage itself. Because for that argument to hold good, we'd have to live in a society where marriage didn't offer women as a class (not all women) more economic benefits than not marrying. We don't live in that society.

I took my husband's surname because his surname is a lot less commonplace than my father's surname. Before I married, I knew, personally, at least three other people with exactly the same name as me. Taking on my husband's surname meant I'm the only one on google with my name.

I did have a think about it, before committing - the implications - and I made my own choice. Thirty-odd years later, I still think that my decision to change my name was correct, for me. Your Own Mileage May Vary!

I find naming traditions very interesting. My friends from Quebec all keep their own names on marriage, but their children take their father’s names, leaving the mother the only one in the family with a different name. I don’t know the rationale as to why the children take the father’s name. They just do.
I like the literality of some of the Icelandic cultures ‘x’s daughter’ ‘x’s son’.
Naming is fascinating.

And also, OP - your male colleague is an arsehole, if he said that.

Keep a diary of his bullying comments, just in case. He obviously feels threatened by you, professionally, so he seeks to sap your confidence and focus.

Sailinghappy 'He said he thought he was "a better feminist" than me and that taking my husband's name is sexist.'

He's a bloke, not a feminist and I would laugh back in his face.

I also took my husband's name and am very happy with it.

Totally agree with BlackAmericanoNoSugar 'I don't think the name thing is the issue at all tbh. The male colleague couldn't give a toss about her name, he was just looking for something that he could use to bully her.'

and

Branleuse 'he's trying to trip you up. Don't even engage'

Reminds me of all the lefty men on social media that think they're so fucking woke when they tell women how enlightened they are, especially when they support the sex industry.
'

I took DH’s name when I got married and I actually really regret it. I’m a feminist and I do think I shouldn’t have. It’s nice that DG, DS, and I all have the same name but this isn’t how I would have achieved that if I had my time again,

"I am a feminist and plan to take my DPs name."

Is it OK to ask why?

OP, your colleague sounds like a bit of an arse and certainly not a feminist.

Having said that, I don't regard taking your husband's name as a feminist choice as such. If it were truly about the family unit, surely we should be looking at a roughly 50/50 split in terms of who takes whose name - or at couples choosing an entirely new one upon marriage.

That's okay - we all make non-feminist choices all the time. It doesn't negate who we are. (I'm typing this on my way to a meeting wearing very high heels because they look good ...)

In all fairness: I secretly plan to estrange my colleague from his wife, marry him and take his surname. She can have him back after I divorce him; I just want the name, which is gorgeous and would go very well with my first name.

Interesting discussion, has made me think.

I took my first husband’s name because I didn’t think not doing was really an option; I didn’t know anyone who had and both families quite traditional and would’ve kicked off.

I didn’t want to go back to my maiden name post divorce; it had a few bad associations for me. I did think about deed polling myself a new name of my choice, but couldn’t think of anything I liked enough.

Took second husband’s name too; I like his name much better, it’s a bit more unusual and (now I’m tentatively setting up my own business) it should help people find me online etc.

I guess it isn’t a particularly feminist choice, but I very much consider it my name and mine by my choice. If he’d had a name I didn’t like or didn’t go well with my first name, i’d have decided we were fundamentally incompatible and found another bf/gf not taken his name.

Lot are of interesting points raised! For those asking, no my colleague isn't married and he says he doesn't believe in marriage at all. He's actually created quite a few uncomfortable situations, sometimes by being overly complimentary towards me, sometimes by being overly critical of me.... none of which are suitable in a work environment. He's leaving soon thankfully, was just intrigued as to what others think of his comments and it seems I'm not alone in thinking he's rude! Thanks everyone!

I certainly think it's preferable to not take one's husband's name. I think that's the choice which makes a contribution - no matter how small - to the feminist cause.

Personally I won't deride anyone for not doing it; we can't all contribute every time the collection tin comes round. I don't really see it as undermining; women didn't build the structure of their own oppression. We didn't make the church roof crumble in, and sometimes (as individuals) we might feel we have the means to put a few pennies towards its rebuilding, and sometimes our pockets are empty.

Saying that, we do all know that we need to put our hands in our pockets for feminism as much as we possibly can if we want to achieve some small part of our aims, and sometimes that isn't going to be comfortable. But at the end of the day who am I to say if someone else can afford it?

I think that's the choice which makes a contribution - no matter how small - to the feminist cause.

I agree, and that was one reason that I did not take my husband's name when I got married 30 plus years ago.

The other reason is that I really like my name. It had been mine for more than 30 years when I married and the notion of changing it just seemed really odd to me.

I agree with the last two posts. And with the not being able to contribute every time the tin comes round is an excellent analogy. Followinv that analogy, I think some contributions cost very little or nothing and not changing your name is one of those. If enough women did it then it would make a difference.