The Student Room Group

Why shouldn't I take my wife's surname?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Implication
Indeed, but then nothing would change!


We don't need this to change.
Original post by KyleH123
I can smell a sheep.


Just normal, if it doesn't need to change don't change it. Benefits no one.
Original post by ABsoluteX
We don't need this to change.


I contend that it would be a good thing if it did.
Just take your wife's surname if you want to and be done with it. If anyone doesn't like it then that's their problem, not yours :smile:
Original post by abc101
I don't see why anybody should take either's surname. The person you are doesn't change when you get married. I've been who I am my whole life, I'm not changing my name for any reason. It's a good point you raise that it's just seen as standard for women to change their names so it shouldn't be an issue for a man to but tradition has a lot of answer for I guess. The changing name thing reeks of women being transferred as property from one man to another and I hate it.


I suppose it makes things easier for when children become involved. I mean, you could hyphenate the child's surname, but then I imagine a situation where a bunch of children have hyphenated surnames, and then when they have children, their children have quadruple-hyphenated surnames. :tongue:
I don't see any problem with it!
Personally I would want to take my husbands name, not for any particular reason. Although in the past it was all about seeing women as property, women are no longer regarded as such so it shouldn't matter who takes who's name. It's unusual for the man to take the woman's name but I think it's great! Do whatever you want and I wish you both a long and happy life together :smile:
Original post by ABsoluteX
We don't need this to change.

You might feel differently if it was you who was expected, after say 30 years of being Mr Bertie
Higgins, to become MrS Bertie Atherton, for no good reason other than a pretty ghastly historic tradition. Yes, boys take their father's names too but the expectation is that they will pass the name on thus ensuring it lives on but for the girls - it's they themselves who will be passed on. I don't want any part of that.
Reply 47
Avatar for whorace
whorace
2
I'll go for whatever name sounds better because i'm curious about public office (first thing i'm going to do is order TSR to give me the IP address of my very small amount of critics and send greatguy round to beat them up)

Preferably an Anglo name for this reason but idk cus most girls I date aren't English :lol:
If my future partners surname sounds nicer than mine, I'll take it. If it's not or too common I'll keep my own
Original post by Implication
I contend that it would be a good thing if it did.


What is the benefit?
Original post by ABsoluteX
What is the benefit?


A reduction in gender-based prejudice. Greater freedom for the people. In my case specifically, I would feel able to be known by whatever name I choose without judgment.

I genuinely cannot see a disadvantage in greater personal choice when it causes no problems for anyone else.
Original post by MsTabitha
You might feel differently if it was you who was expected, after say 30 years of being Mr Bertie
Higgins, to become MrS Bertie Atherton, for no good reason other than a pretty ghastly historic tradition. Yes, boys take their father's names too but the expectation is that they will pass the name on thus ensuring it lives on but for the girls - it's they themselves who will be passed on. I don't want any part of that.


I realise that taking your husband's surname may be difficult for some women. It's just a simple tradition and saves arguing over whose name to take. I personally wouldn't take my wife's surname. Both my brothers are married and their wives had no problem with keeping with tradition.
Original post by Drewski
Either it matters equally to both parties or it doesn't matter.

If it's not OK to do it one way, it's not OK to do it either way. Believing in one rule for one and another rule for someone else is the dictionary definition of inequality.


Don't you think it's a little more nuanced than that? I mean we're not looking at 'rules'; we're looking at someone who would be unhappy taking their husband's name because it's historically been a symbol or tool of oppression etc. of women. I don't see that there is a double standard in them saying there's no good reason I shouldn't take my wife's name, firstly because it hasn't been a symbol of oppression of men, but also because that's just her preference. She wasn't saying 'it's wrong for women to take their husbands' names, but not for men to take their wives'.

Importantly, I don't think the poster ever said (as you claim) 'taking someone's name is demeaning and bad and wrong', so I really don't see the double standard!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Implication
A reduction in gender-based prejudice. Greater freedom for the people. In my case specifically, I would feel able to be known by whatever name I choose without judgment.

I genuinely cannot see a disadvantage in greater personal choice when it causes no problems for anyone else.


I think we are past it being done because a woman is inferior to a man. It is simply tradition in marriage. I'm not sure exactly what proportion of women choose to keep their name but I'm guessing it is pretty low.

I'm all for choice though so if a woman want's to keep her name then so be it, although personally I would keep my own name.

I have had this conversation with my girlfriend and she agreed that she would take my surname.
Reply 54
Avatar for abc101
abc101
17
Original post by Abstract_Prism
I suppose it makes things easier for when children become involved. I mean, you could hyphenate the child's surname, but then I imagine a situation where a bunch of children have hyphenated surnames, and then when they have children, their children have quadruple-hyphenated surnames. :tongue:


I always wonder how ridiculous it must be if two double-barrelled people get married and have quadruple-barrelled kids 😂

I'd like my kids to have my surname as one of their middle names, and their dad's as their last name. I don't like the sound of double-barrelled names and think it's a bit silly for the reason you've mentioned, but I'd quite like them to have my family name in there somewhere. I guess being completely against partners changing their names yet wanting my children to take their father's name is a little incongruous but there we go 😝
Original post by ABsoluteX
I realise that taking your husband's surname may be difficult for some women. It's just a simple tradition and saves arguing over whose name to take. I personally wouldn't take my wife's surname. Both my brothers are married and their wives had no problem with keeping with tradition.

Saying that your sisters-in-law changed their names & your girlfriend would change her name isn't a compelling argument for the practice nor indeed is saying it's "a simple tradition". Gentlemen traditionally settled disagreements by duelling & we wouldn't consider that a good idea now. When we know better, we do better ... or at least we should try to.
Original post by Implication
we're looking at someone who would be unhappy taking their husband's name because it's historically been a symbol or tool of oppression etc. of women


Understood, but I really think that's a silly argument for any circumstance. I don't believe that a woman would think that her husband was trying to oppress her by expecting her to take his name; just that it's a tradition.

There's a great scene in The West Wing where the chief of staff wants to appoint a young black man to be the president (Martin Sheen)'s personal aide. He's apparently uncomfortable to appoint a young black man to wait on an old white man. In the end, the (black) chairman of the joint chiefs gives his opinion, saying as long as they are going to treat him with respect and pay him a decent wage, that's all that matters. "I'm an old black man, and I wait on the president".

People these days are, in my opinion, quick to assume that just because something happened before for an entirely wrong reason, the same reason is being applied again.
Original post by MsTabitha
Saying that your sisters-in-law changed their names & your girlfriend would change her name isn't a compelling argument for the practice nor indeed is saying it's "a simple tradition". Gentlemen traditionally settled disagreements by duelling & we wouldn't consider that a good idea now. When we know better, we do better ... or at least we should try to.


Comparing those things is pointless. Sticking with the tradition of a woman taking a man's name does no harm.
Does that mean your kids will take her name too?
Sorry, but I wouldn't stand for it. Marriage is already pro-women enough.

If it doesn't bother you, fine, but it's a strange request.
Reply 59
Avatar for Pride
Pride
21
With your logic, why bother getting married? You're following one meaningless tradition, but ditching another one, and thinking yourself very clever for doing it.

My view on this is that the idea of taking the wife's surname is only on the cards because the entire institution has been picked apart, as the culture ditches its previously religious affiliation. I mean, just look at the whole gay marriage thing. Should either man take the other's surname? Clearly these questions are ridiculous. The only reason why we ask them is because we have taken the traditions far beyond what they were designed for in the first place. The institution is meaningless self-satisfaction now.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you