Turn on thread page Beta

Girls, would you change your surname to your husband's when you married? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Girls,would you change your surname?;Guys, do you expect your wives to change theirs?
    Yes
    237
    71.82%
    No
    93
    28.18%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thats like changing your whole identity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cicerao)
    How would you feel about having 3 names, or taking one as your middle name? (If you can.) I find this interesting because my other half is also from a similar two parental surname culture, yet wants to add my name to the end. So, Mr FirstName Mother'sName Father'sName MyLastName... I think it's nice in intercultural marriages because it reflects your own heritage and the heritage of your spouse. Although it's a huge mouthful, I guess...
    Your other half is from somewhere in the Portuguese world, right?
    (The order of surnames plus your username... )

    I don't know... I kinda prefer that both parts keep their own names. It may be nice, but still, to reflect the interculturality of those marriages, there are children. I dunno.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dring)
    It can both be an important issue to you and be petty.
    True, but only if the fact that it is important to them is something irrational. It is not clear to me that, in this instance, this is the case. I would say that the concerns were both of significant importance and legitimate.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kerily)
    Not sure what's wrong with that tbh - it's my opinion too.

    I'm not changing my name, and yes, I am a feminist. There's no need to change your name, considering that men don't have to change theirs. I don't see it as a sign of 'not being committed' - just as a sign of wanting to hang onto my identity and not to take a step that used to symbolise becoming someone else's property, even if it doesn't have that meaning any more.
    Yeah, I wasn't really expecting that post to be controversial

    (Original post by Cicerao)
    You realise that it symbolised now being your husband's property instead of your father's? So if you have the same name as your father, you're still "being someone's property", you still have a man's name. And I don't know if this applies to you but I don't understand people who would marry but are totally against taking someone's name because of what happened about 1000 years ago. Marriage was practically a transaction back then so why don't people take issue with the past of that? It's not consistent at all.
    My last name is my father's name because of a choice my mother made (and having been married three times, she's gone through four last names)- this however, is a choice that I can make to actively reject a patriarchal tradition and not to do something just because society expects it. It's not about what happened 1000 years ago, but the fact that in this day and age a man gets to keep his name and title throughout his life, whereas a woman's changes on the basis of whether she's married or not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SergioMZ)
    Your other half is from somewhere in the Portuguese world, right?
    (The order of surnames plus your username... )

    I don't know... I kinda prefer that both parts keep their own names. It may be nice, but still, to reflect the interculturality of those marriages, there are children. I dunno.
    Good observation... :] I suppose it depends if you want/can have children or not as to whether that's a viable option. I think it's nice to take on parts of each other's culture but names aren't essential to that, of course. I just personally think it's quite a fun idea.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    That's the least of my worries, I expect her to be in the kitchen making my sandwiches whilst I bring home the Bacon like the good old days.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Mine is boring, I'd probably take her's
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    I wouldn't change my surname, it's Hungarian and it's part of my family history that I'd rather not lose if I get married. Also, I'm one of two girls and would like to keep the family name going. My sister feels exactly the same way. I'm quite feminist, so the notion of being "owned" by my husband and the patriachal nature of taking a man's name bothers me (that part doesn't bother my sister in the slightest and would make her roll her eyes at me). I don't have any problem with other women choosing to take their husband's name, as long as it's their choice and not forced by the husband or his family.

    I'd think about double-barrelling, but because my surname's fairly unusual, it doesn't tend to go well with other people's surnames. Also, I don't think anyone's mentioned this, but it costs you to get your name changed by deed poll to double-barrel or to use your maiden name as an extra middle name - it doesn't cost to keep your name as it always has been or to take a husband's name, and it's quite a hassle changing all your documents to feature your married name should you choose to change it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, certainly- in fact that's what I did when I got married
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riotgrrl)
    My last name is my father's name because of a choice my mother made (and having been married three times, she's gone through four last names)- this however, is a choice that I can make to actively reject a patriarchal tradition and not to do something just because society expects it. It's not about what happened 1000 years ago, but the fact that in this day and age a man gets to keep his name and title throughout his life, whereas a woman's changes on the basis of whether she's married or not.
    I still don't see your point. Marriage in itself was always a patriarchal idea, it was founded for the very reason of men being able to stake a claim. So why on earth would anyone reject changing a last name on patriarchal grounds yet get married? If you can't change what changing a name means over time then I don't see how you can arbitrarily decide that marriage now means something different. At least those who are viciously against marriage are consistent about it.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I did - My husband calls me Mrs Wilkinson when he is being all lovey-dovey because it shows the bond between us but i fully support those who choose not too ... it is the choice of the individual
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I voted yes, although now that I think about it I wouldn't mind my wife keeping her name although I'd want the kids to have my name.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Yup Unless his name with my first name made a pun or something lmao!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm in two minds about it, because I love the idea of taking his name, but his surname doesn't suit my first name at all!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I don't see why I wouldn't. Not just cos it''s traditional but because it just works out easier and better, especially when having children as I'd like everyone in my immediate family to have the same surname . I also don't really like double-barrelled names, and my own surname would look quite bad hyphenated with anything else lol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    I don't think true commitment is sensible collateral in marriage. I'm talking about the perception or illusion of commitment generated by placing too much importance on this tradition.
    But it isn't entirely illusory. It IS a commitment. Admittedly not a commitment that men are expected to make, but a commitment nonetheless. Furthermore, it is a commitment that some women make, and others do not.

    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    I don't think it is harmless. I think traditions, expectations and social norms that reinforce social injustice are not harmless, even if there isn't an obvious, cast-iron link between a specific tradition/norm/expectation and some obvious and tangible harm. Marriage may not be as much of an economic or social restraint for many women these days, but it still is for some and in some more subtle ways for most. The state still gives 'rewards' to married couples, people are treated differently based on their marital status, many people feel that non-monogamy in marriage is unacceptable or strange, etc.
    What inequality is this reinforcing? It certainly isn't a legal inequality. A social inequality perhaps, but one that is so slight as to be unworthy of attention when compared to the significant social inequalities that do exist in this country.

    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    Even if it is harmless, it is also pointless. "Oh why not" isn't a good reason to do something. If it's so harmless and so unimportant and doesn't indicate an imbalance between men and women, then why do so many men still put so much emphasis on it?
    My point was that the message of commitment it sends to a prospective husband is, and should be, more important with regards to a marriage than a relatively abstract and unimportant principle.

    Don't forget that in many of these situations, the groom will have saved three months wages and purchased the ring, a sign of commitment based upon tradition.


    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    Why do they need to present a united front?
    Because that is what a marriage is. Surely.

    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    Why should she base her actions on how some narrow minded idiots will percieve someone else? Again, it's an irrational concern. I was worried as a child that my friends would think my mum and dad were bad parents because they wouldn't get me a TV and a Playstation. I never got the TV and Playstation


    Women are expected to be sensitive and considerate when it comes to male body image. In fact, I think this is a basic standard for being a nice person. It's not a tradeable concession that man are expected to make to women. Secondly, a woman is in charge of her own body. It's not as though her husband has to do (or not do) things in order to protect her body image in the eyes of others.
    If I did present it as a concession then that was certainly not my intention. I simply meant to illustrate that it is incumbent upon an individual in a relationship to be sensitive to an individual's fears about how he or she may be perceived, even if we might not deem such fears to be important. I choose this particular example because I am someone who is not particularly bothered by how my body is regarded by others, and find it silly that others do. However for other people it IS significant and important, whether I want it to be for them or not, and so I try to be sensitive and empathetic on the issue.


    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    Again, I disagree. I think the choices we make and the reasons we make them can be as powerful as the obligations and demands we face. Choosing to stick with tradition for fear of breaking it is as nearly as toxic a thing as being forced to conform to tradition. It still represents social inequality, as this conversation demonstrates. A woman is entitled to all the same conerns as her partner, in terms of whether he loves her enough to take her name etc, but strangely the man's concerns seem to be given more recognition. That is social privilege and social inequality.
    I agree with your general principle about tradition here. But I'm saying that the only motivation for changing the surname be not for fear of breaking tradition, but rather as a concession (one that indicates sensitivity to the feelings of the groom and a willingness to commit) to an institution that one could feel justified as valuing as more important than any feminist stance on the issue.

    Yes a woman might well be entitled to the same concerns, but BECAUSE the tradition exists, they are less likely to harbour them as a result of this issue.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    As long as it's not one of those dodgy ones I would. I don't really see how not taking your husbands surname is feminism, real feminism is more practical than just a name. But I also don't see it as an "honour", that sounds arrogant to me, more a tradition and a symbol of union.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Considering I really don't like my last name then I would change it, also if we had kids I'd want them to have his name
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cicerao)
    I still don't see your point. Marriage in itself was always a patriarchal idea, it was founded for the very reason of men being able to stake a claim. So why on earth would anyone reject changing a last name on patriarchal grounds yet get married? If you can't change what changing a name means over time then I don't see how you can arbitrarily decide that marriage now means something different. At least those who are viciously against marriage are consistent about it.
    My point is it's not about that history. In this day and age, you can have a marriage (and a wedding) that is equal. The fact that I, as a woman, am expected to change my name and my boyfriend, as a man, is not, is inherently unequal, no matter the history behind it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by diving_queen)
    Its something I personally would find very difficult to consider. I guess if I met the right guy, was deleriously happy he might...might just be able to persuade me but that would take a hell of a lot of workd. To be honest I just don't want to get married.

    I also kind of oppose its existence as an instituion...if I have interpreted that correctly. Like I have said in another reply it creates a mentality of 'no freedom'. Not that the individual people in the couple would ever cheat if they weren't married but once the ring goes on it becomes 'restricting'..get me?!

    It works for some, and not for others. Those that it does work for live very happy lives, and thats brilliant. But theres a hell of a lot that it doesn't work for. And divorce is messy.
    By viewing marriage as a set of restrictions you are, I think, choosing to view a double edged sword from one perspective. It is simply a commitment not to cheat, and a likewise guarantee from your partner.

    Given that most married couples yield a family, shouldn't we view these "restrictions" as a good thing? If I have a kid, shouldn't it be the case that I have an obligation to stick around, and not just up, take all wealth and start a new life somewhere else without leaving someone with any means to take care of the child?
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.