Turn on thread page Beta

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

  • 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:
    (Original post by Its A Catch 22)
    I don't know what your point is.
    So why did you respond at all? Just to point out a spelling mistake? Bizarre.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Disco)
    2. I agree with 2. But the matter is relatively unimportant whilst the capacity to cause upset is quite high. There is a thin line between "principled" and "petty". This is not about economic or social equality.
    I disagree. Doing what is right sometimes comes with collateral. Doesn't make it less right. Refusing to reject sexist traditions because 'some men will get upset' is absurd.

    3. Why is it an "excuse" to get upset? Even if it isn't necessarily rational, why can't the upset be genuine on the part of the man? Such a refusal could well be interpreted as a lack of genuine commitment and respect.
    Perhaps 'excuse' is the wrong word, but I don't doubt it is appropriate in some cases. The upset may be genuine, but that doesn't mean the woman should change their behaviour as a result. A child gets upset when it isn't allowed sweets and junk food like all of its friends, but that doesn't mean the parent should stop feeding it fresh fruit and veg If the man is a decent, open-minded and fair individual he will understand that the upset he feels is irrational and shouldn't be used to blackmail or coerce his partner. If he still maintains that being upset is justified and continues to irrationally attribute lack of respect and committment to his partner's wish to keep her own name, then he's a pig.

    It also smacks of a man who doesn't really know or understand his partner all that well.

    By the same token, a man who demands that his wife takes his name could well be interpreted as having a lack of genuine committment and respect for his wife.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dring)
    I think your hypothetical man has definitely fallen on the 'petty' side of the fence.
    Why though? If you see it as indicative of commitment why wouldn't it be an important issue to you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blu tack)
    So why did you respond at all? Just to point out a spelling mistake? Bizarre.
    Even after your edit, your post still has no point. It consists of you answering your own question and laughing to yourself at something you disagreed with.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No. My boyfriend isn't happy about it, but it's my name, so it's my decision. I'm not against women doing it though. You should be able to do what you want with your own name.

    I get a little peeved when people judge men/women for going against tradition. If you're having sex before marriage or if the man isn't paying for everything etc etc, you shouldn't be judging anyone for going against tradition.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    It's tradition for the woman to take the man's last name so no, the man isn't being spoilt. It's out of the ordinary for a woman to not take the man's last name, so the man would be within his rights to question his wife's love for him.


    .
    Just because people have been doing something for years doesn't mean it's right.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    There is no male privilege!

    The man is welcome to take the woman's name and the woman is welcome to keep her own name, but I'd definitely question a woman's love for her husband if she refuses to, and I think it's spoilt and kicking up a fuss for the sake of kicking up a fuss, and I will definitely take my boyfriend's last name when we marry because it is tradition and as his wife, it will show I'm part of his family now.
    You've contradicted yourself. You say men have no special privileges, and in the same breath say that you would judge a woman for refusing to take her man's name. The man is free from judgement when he keeps his name and the woman is judged for keeping hers. Freedom from judgement is a kind of privilege, especially when it is uneven or unbalanced in this way. It may not be enforced as a social rule, but it's still there.

    Why don't you question men's love for women when they want women to take their name? Why shouldn't he show that he is part of your family as your husband? Why is it not spoilt for men to want to keep their own name and ask women to adopt it?

    And what on Earth are same-sex couples supposed to do?

    Traditions should not go without criticism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I voted yes, because I would want to, unless it's a really bad surname (like Pratt).

    If that's the case, I'd be keeping mine, and any children would be having my surname too!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lekky)
    no! my surname is awesome tbh.

    I've also worked really hard using this name. When I graduate I want to be Dr Lekky, not Dr someone-elses-name.
    I'm the last one in my line (in England), I don't want the name to die out.
    And I do love my last name.
    I'm gonna win your love and as a favour to me, I'm gonna gently request you take my surname mwhahaha
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't really care if she wanted to or not, doesn't matter much to me. Heck, if she had a good name maybe I'd even want that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I like the idea of sharing the same surname, but I wouldn't want to lose mine. And if I ever married my current boyfriend I would never change my name to his, because it's Jones, and I would rather keep my name than have the same name as a million other people in the UK. Sorry.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    My culture doesn't do name changes anyway.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LadyRowena)
    Yeah, I'm hoping I don't fall for someone with a surname like that and end up with a worse name than I was born with. :')

    I have a friend whose surname is ****. D:
    Apologies if I'm not the first to say it, but marry him, keep your name and people can refer to you as **** and Ball.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In most circumstances, I wouldn't. My last name is pretty rare in this country (it's an old somewhat Germanic surname). My older sister would probably change, but then she has a (relatively) common first name, which goes with most surnames (and her name can be shortened as well). My first name is a bit more difficult. I would only consider changing if the man had a rarer surname than mine, and it went with my first name.

    If the guy I was going to marry insisted on me changing my name and arguing with me about it, then I'd call the engagement off. If he couldn't respect me on something as small as that, then there would be bad omens for the marriage.

    To the poster who asked, if you get married yet keep your surname, iirc you are still called Mrs. In my particular case I would go by Ms, as Mrs is a bit of a mouthful combined with my name.

    Although, if I did change my name, then I would request that any children we had take my surname as a middle name.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    I disagree. Doing what is right sometimes comes with collateral. Doesn't make it less right. Refusing to reject sexist traditions because 'some men will get upset' is absurd.



    Perhaps 'excuse' is the wrong word, but I don't doubt it is appropriate in some cases. The upset may be genuine, but that doesn't mean the woman should change their behaviour as a result. A child gets upset when it isn't allowed sweets and junk food like all of its friends, but that doesn't mean the parent should stop feeding it fresh fruit and veg If the man is a decent, open-minded and fair individual he will understand that the upset he feels is irrational and shouldn't be used to blackmail or coerce his partner. If he still maintains that being upset is justified and continues to irrationally attribute lack of respect and committment to his partner's wish to keep her own name, then he's a pig.

    It also smacks of a man who doesn't really know or understand his partner all that well.

    By the same token, a man who demands that his wife takes his name could well be interpreted as having a lack of genuine committment and respect for his wife.
    You talk of "collateral", but if a woman believes that "commitment" is justifiable collateral damage then perhaps marriage is not an appropriate institution for them. It might be a "sexist" tradition, but it is also fundamentally harmless, it is indicative of a time when marriage was an economic and social restraint on women, but that is no longer the case.

    You provide a compelling argument that no male should insist that a bride change her name. And I agree with you.

    But there are genuine and valid fears about the effects of not changing the surname, particularly with regards to presenting a unified front.

    There is also a selfish motivation about the worry about the way in which his marriage will be viewed. But why shouldn't a prospective wife take this selfish motivation into account? A man is expected to be empathetic with regards to a woman's body image, and how she is viewed in the world depending on the shape of her body.

    Ultimately I'm just not convinced that the feminist argument should be enough to deter a woman from taking her husbands name, because I do not believe that it is enough of a feminist issue; it is hardly a cause of a lack of social or economic inequality. It is further reduced as a feminist issue of genuine interest in virtue of its being a choice, rather than an obligation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Its A Catch 22)
    Even after your edit, your post still has no point. It consists of you answering your own question and laughing to yourself at something you disagreed with.
    Okay fine- but correcting someone's spelling for no reason is such an obnoxious habit, that's all I was saying.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to take my husband's name (if I marry my current boyfriend our names would sound silly hyphenated). It doesn't offend my feminist values at all. But at the same time, my name is quite rare and I have no brothers. I'd be sad if my line ended with me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ras17)
    I'm gonna win your love and as a favour to me, I'm gonna gently request you take my surname mwhahaha
    Aint gonna happen

    Genuinely though - this could potentially be a deal breaker for me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poudlardaise)
    I don't know about a thousand years ago. Women couldn't vote until 1918 you know. The idea of women as their husbands' or fathers' property isn't that far behind us in history, and the idea that women need to be guided by their husbands and subservient to them was certainly common in, for example, Victorian times, and even later than that. Even during much of the 20th century the husband was viewed as naturally head of the household, and in some places still is. I actually did consider objecting to marriage altogether, but I think that it's unecessary. As women become self-sufficient economically an equal relationship between the sexes has become achieveable, and I feel that marriage can be reimagined to reflect a true partnership rather than an unequal bond. I personally don't feel it's necessary, but in the right circumstances I would like to get married, as it is a pleasant way to celebrate your relationship in the presence of your family and friends and to make a clear statement of your committment to each other. If you remove the patriarchal trappings, it's quite nice really
    But it's still founded on a sexist principle, is it not? If you can "reimagine" the whole idea of marriage into something romantic and forget its past, why not the same for taking someone's name if you so choose? The logic seems extremely inconsistent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scout-)
    If it's only a name, then why the fuss? Why is it such a big issue then for the husband to make sure that his wife should distinctly "show her respect" for him by effacing her identity? And if respect is such a big issue here, honestly, I don't think the man is helping his case by harping on about "just a name".

    Okay, what about matriarchal societies? If a guy from a patriarchal society marries a girl from a matriarchal one, by your argument, neither of them would be "respectful" of the other as they'd both want to follow their ancestral traditions.

    The simplest way out is always the most opposed. Just let the woman's name be or let her change it if she wants to but don't sit and moan about "respect" and "honour" and "traditions" if she wants to keep her opinion and her name.
    Wow, just wow. Did you even read my posts?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.