A woman's right to a surname

It is workable, as it has worked for many generations.

Women predominantly take the name of their husband in heterosexual marriages, does this contradict contempory women's rights?

I've made this exact same argument when people suggest "just double-barrel your surnames" to me regarding my marriage.

To go one further, what happens when Mary Fitzwilliam-Jones-Thomas-Jenkins meets John Smith-Bloggs-Brown-Ramzan? What about their kids? The amalgam names would be even more hilarious. Perhaps take the first letter from each name?

It gets very ridiculous very quickly.

Having precisely this problem right now. My fianceé and our families don't seem to share my concerns about double-barrelling and it's becoming difficult to find an alternative agreeable to all... double-barrelling just cannot work as a long-term solution lol.

Women predominantly take the name of their husband in heterosexual marriages, does this contradict contempory women's rights?

Double barreled surnames have not worked for many generations, otherwise we'd have the ridiculous octo-barreled names mentioned earlier.

Oh, I might of misunderstood, but to simple things out,the woman should take on a single surname from her husband.
And thus the children shall inherit the single surname

Why can't the husband take the wife's name?





I agree that having a single surname is practical and many people are overlooking this practicality when discussing keeping different surnames or double barreling them. But why does it have to be the woman who sacrifices?

Because the husband is expected to propose, because the husband is expected to finance the wedding.

If i get down on one knee and propose to you,and you accept, so you already accept circumstances of marriage, and therefore should have no problem in taking my surname

When you adhere and follow the mental and physical virtues of marriage,it just makes little sense in questioning.

Sacrifice?

Chances are that you get assets and spousal support if a divorce occurs

Traditionally the father of the bride pays, not the husband. At any rate, the entire concept you spouted is rather backwards - women are perfectly able to propose and most couples jointly fund their wedding these days.



The circumstances of marriage are that you make a lifelong commitment to each other. Anything beyond that is just what you have decided to tack on and in no way suggests the woman should be secondary in the partnership.



I'm also sure what divorce has to do with giving up your name, but incidentally, assets gained through the marriage are typically split roughly 50/50, so whether the woman gains or loses is entirely dependent on their earnings vs the man's. Likewise the husband could be the primary caretaker if there are children and she would have to support him.

How would a woman propose to her boyfriend?

In much the same way that a man would propose to his girlfriend I would imagine. She might get on one knee, she might arrange a ridiculous flashmob to sing bruno mars, she might have a plane fly the question in the sky.



I think you lack imagination.

I do not lack imagination, but the truth is most women expect the man to make the first move when it comes to courtship and marriage.
But tbh I would feel robbed if my gf proposed to me.

I'm not going to pretend male proposing isn't the norm, but it's perfectly possible for a woman to propose.



Realistically though I doubt you would end up with the type of woman who would be likely to propose to you - I suspect you'd kill each other before you got anywhere near that far. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, we're not going to be compatible with everyone (or even most people).

Women predominantly take the name of their husband in heterosexual marriages, does this contradict contempory women's rights?

It's tradition - I would expect the wife to take my surname to be honest.

Exactly, it makes sense,why break tradition?

Exactly, it makes sense,why break tradition?