Surname change after marriage
Why do men assume a woman does not love them if she does not want to take up his last name after marriage?
If it was a case of not loving them, why is it that men get so disgusted by the idea of taking up their wife's last name?
I understand that my last name is my dad's and it comes from a long line of men behind him, not women, however it is as much mine as it is his, because I was born with it.
I want my surname to pass on to my own kids. Why is this a bad thing that is looked at as woke or feminist? Its just natural?
If it was a case of not loving them, why is it that men get so disgusted by the idea of taking up their wife's last name?
I understand that my last name is my dad's and it comes from a long line of men behind him, not women, however it is as much mine as it is his, because I was born with it.
I want my surname to pass on to my own kids. Why is this a bad thing that is looked at as woke or feminist? Its just natural?
Scroll to see replies
Reply 1
You presumably know that the tradition of the wife taking the husband's name is a patriarchal one that signified a change of ownership. Whilst I don't think it's credible to say that that line of thinking has survived for the most part, the tradition obviously has. But I don't think it's right to say that men assume that a woman doesn't love them if they don't want to take their the man's last name. nor do I think it's right to say that it's generally viewed as a bad thing, or labelled as woke or feminist (as it happens, it is both woke and feminist strictly speaking, though those who label it as such generally don't mean it in a complimentary way). Some men will not react well to it for a variety of conscious and subconscious reasons, but I expect an increasing number won't have an issue with a woman deciding not to take her husband's name.
The reality is that it is for every person, both men and women, to decide what they want to be called, and whether or not they wish to change their name after they get married. Some women recognise the name change as a patriarchal tradition, but do it for practical reasons, such as having the same surname as their children. Others just don't feel strongly about it. Others do, and want to keep their own name, double barrel their name, or keep their name and double barrel their children's names. All perfectly valid options, and they are options that people have used to one degree or another for a long time. I actually forget their names as I'm writing this, but I was listening to a podcast on the history of the suffragettes recently, and there was a wealthy couple who funded them in their early years who actually both changed their surnames to double barrel them on marriage. Which was obviously a pretty unusual thing to do in the early 19th century, but it did happen.
If you're a woman who is concerned about the reaction of your other half to you not wanting to take their name, the way to approach it is the same way you approach anything controversial in a relationship; you talk about it. My wife took my name, but I would have had no issue at all if she didn't want to. Honestly, if you're a woman who doesn't want to take a man's name after marriage, I strongly suspect that you'd be generally incompatible in more ways than that with a man who would be vehemently against it. So in practice I doubt it will be a significant issue for many people.
The reality is that it is for every person, both men and women, to decide what they want to be called, and whether or not they wish to change their name after they get married. Some women recognise the name change as a patriarchal tradition, but do it for practical reasons, such as having the same surname as their children. Others just don't feel strongly about it. Others do, and want to keep their own name, double barrel their name, or keep their name and double barrel their children's names. All perfectly valid options, and they are options that people have used to one degree or another for a long time. I actually forget their names as I'm writing this, but I was listening to a podcast on the history of the suffragettes recently, and there was a wealthy couple who funded them in their early years who actually both changed their surnames to double barrel them on marriage. Which was obviously a pretty unusual thing to do in the early 19th century, but it did happen.
If you're a woman who is concerned about the reaction of your other half to you not wanting to take their name, the way to approach it is the same way you approach anything controversial in a relationship; you talk about it. My wife took my name, but I would have had no issue at all if she didn't want to. Honestly, if you're a woman who doesn't want to take a man's name after marriage, I strongly suspect that you'd be generally incompatible in more ways than that with a man who would be vehemently against it. So in practice I doubt it will be a significant issue for many people.
Reply 2
Never met a guy with this mindset.
Reply 3
Original post
by Admit-OneNever met a guy with this mindset.
Ditto, I'd mock them If I did.
Reply 4
21
I don’t think men do think this way. I do struggle to understand why this patriarchal tradition persists. I suppose it is because in some way it is a compliment to someone you love and it can be fun to change your name, particularly if you don’t particularly like it anyway.
Reply 5
My mother didn't change her surname when she got married. She goes by different names depending on the context, so sometimes she uses my dad's surname when it isn't a legal matter, and occasionally she uses a double-barrelled surname. Not changing her surname did cause issues though, as she'd need to carry my birth certificate with her when we were going abroad to prove that I was, in fact, her son.
I've never met any man who has had an issue with a woman not wanting to change her surname, although most of the women that I know who have been married did change their names out of tradition. The meaning of a tradition can dilute over time even though the tradition itself remains.
I've never met any man who has had an issue with a woman not wanting to change her surname, although most of the women that I know who have been married did change their names out of tradition. The meaning of a tradition can dilute over time even though the tradition itself remains.
Reply 6
Original post
by AnonymousWhy do men assume a woman does not love them if she does not want to take up his last name after marriage?
If it was a case of not loving them, why is it that men get so disgusted by the idea of taking up their wife's last name?
I understand that my last name is my dad's and it comes from a long line of men behind him, not women, however it is as much mine as it is his, because I was born with it.
I want my surname to pass on to my own kids. Why is this a bad thing that is looked at as woke or feminist? Its just natural?
If it was a case of not loving them, why is it that men get so disgusted by the idea of taking up their wife's last name?
I understand that my last name is my dad's and it comes from a long line of men behind him, not women, however it is as much mine as it is his, because I was born with it.
I want my surname to pass on to my own kids. Why is this a bad thing that is looked at as woke or feminist? Its just natural?
Men are just used to giving the surname to the woman after marriage. It's a patriarchy thing, I guess. My biology teacher got married and her husband took her surname. I just read a book about feminism and the stereotypes around it and I completely understand your confusion. If you disregard a common societal standard as a woman, you are automatically labeled as a feminist. it's not bad to not want to take your husband's surname, it's just how you feel about your own morals. I understand. Really its just societal norms and male authority.
Reply 7
19
I haven't changed my surname, although I must admit I was quite insistent that I wouldn't do. our children use his though.
Reply 8
21
Original post
by AnonymousWhy do men assume a woman does not love them if she does not want to take up his last name after marriage?
If it was a case of not loving them, why is it that men get so disgusted by the idea of taking up their wife's last name?
I understand that my last name is my dad's and it comes from a long line of men behind him, not women, however it is as much mine as it is his, because I was born with it.
I want my surname to pass on to my own kids. Why is this a bad thing that is looked at as woke or feminist? Its just natural?
If it was a case of not loving them, why is it that men get so disgusted by the idea of taking up their wife's last name?
I understand that my last name is my dad's and it comes from a long line of men behind him, not women, however it is as much mine as it is his, because I was born with it.
I want my surname to pass on to my own kids. Why is this a bad thing that is looked at as woke or feminist? Its just natural?
Because the point of a man having children is continue 'his' family line. It's like asking why adoption is not popular when we have a surplus of adoptable children.
I would also say that there's a respect aspect too. If I'm paying 10k to give you the wedding you want to symbolise our love, you can damned well symbolise your love by taking my name.
Finally in some cases there's probably a submission aspect. A women who marries me for example is joining 'my' life path, I have no great interest in changing my goals and joining hers. In that sense adopting my name could be construed as fitting with that. I'm aware of course that different people have different relationship structures and some men are happy to have a career wife on her own journey and just walk in parallel.
Reply 9
Original post
by Rakas21Because the point of a man having children is continue 'his' family line. It's like asking why adoption is not popular when we have a surplus of adoptable children.
I would also say that there's a respect aspect too. If I'm paying 10k to give you the wedding you want to symbolise our love, you can damned well symbolise your love by taking my name.
Finally in some cases there's probably a submission aspect. A women who marries me for example is joining 'my' life path, I have no great interest in changing my goals and joining hers. In that sense adopting my name could be construed as fitting with that. I'm aware of course that different people have different relationship structures and some men are happy to have a career wife on her own journey and just walk in parallel.
I would also say that there's a respect aspect too. If I'm paying 10k to give you the wedding you want to symbolise our love, you can damned well symbolise your love by taking my name.
Finally in some cases there's probably a submission aspect. A women who marries me for example is joining 'my' life path, I have no great interest in changing my goals and joining hers. In that sense adopting my name could be construed as fitting with that. I'm aware of course that different people have different relationship structures and some men are happy to have a career wife on her own journey and just walk in parallel.
The point of both men and women having children is to carry on our family lines. This is not a difference between us. Of course, there is also the even more significant aspect of wanting to have a child to love. Unless you are saying men only have children to continue their lines and not out just wanting a child?
Most marriage ceremonies do not include the man only paying the 10k, not even if we look back years ago. The man's family and the woman's one usually come together to make this happen.
Why are you framing it as you giving a woman a wedding just because she wants it? Do you not want the wedding too to "symbolise" your love?
With this final point you make, I have tried but failed to understand any rational ideas. Do you not see a women as an individual who has also had a life path up until your marriage to her, and will continue her own life path even after this marriage? Although your life paths now merge in some ways, you still have your own separate ones. She is not joining your life path, your individual life paths are now tangling in with each other. Your goals or hers would not be changed with your life paths now being related. Or would you see your wife as a secondary being who did not have purpose other than "joining" with your life path before her marriage to you, and definitely no purpose other than your goals after this marriage? Do you think women should give up her own goals for a marriage?
Reply 10
21
Original post
by AnonymousThe point of both men and women having children is to carry on our family lines. This is not a difference between us. Of course, there is also the even more significant aspect of wanting to have a child to love. Unless you are saying men only have children to continue their lines and not out just wanting a child?
Most marriage ceremonies do not include the man only paying the 10k, not even if we look back years ago. The man's family and the woman's one usually come together to make this happen.
Why are you framing it as you giving a woman a wedding just because she wants it? Do you not want the wedding too to "symbolise" your love?
With this final point you make, I have tried but failed to understand any rational ideas. Do you not see a women as an individual who has also had a life path up until your marriage to her, and will continue her own life path even after this marriage? Although your life paths now merge in some ways, you still have your own separate ones. She is not joining your life path, your individual life paths are now tangling in with each other. Your goals or hers would not be changed with your life paths now being related. Or would you see your wife as a secondary being who did not have purpose other than "joining" with your life path before her marriage to you, and definitely no purpose other than your goals after this marriage? Do you think women should give up her own goals for a marriage?
Most marriage ceremonies do not include the man only paying the 10k, not even if we look back years ago. The man's family and the woman's one usually come together to make this happen.
Why are you framing it as you giving a woman a wedding just because she wants it? Do you not want the wedding too to "symbolise" your love?
With this final point you make, I have tried but failed to understand any rational ideas. Do you not see a women as an individual who has also had a life path up until your marriage to her, and will continue her own life path even after this marriage? Although your life paths now merge in some ways, you still have your own separate ones. She is not joining your life path, your individual life paths are now tangling in with each other. Your goals or hers would not be changed with your life paths now being related. Or would you see your wife as a secondary being who did not have purpose other than "joining" with your life path before her marriage to you, and definitely no purpose other than your goals after this marriage? Do you think women should give up her own goals for a marriage?
On the first point I think it's a combination of both. Men do have a genetic urge to be a father but do almost always prefer their own and while that's true of a woman, that's not generally a conscious thought in the male mind. When it comes to sex and food, humans are exceptionally self interested (as are most animals). In that sense the fact that 'she' is also continuing her family line is a bonus but for most of history, women have been property.
While women are free to chose today, I would say that the majority of people are driven by self interest at an instinctual level and not the whole. Indeed, as I alluded to before, becoming a step father or adopting while acceptable is almost never a preferred solution, it is almost always something a man is accepting to be with a particular woman.
It's true that historically the family paid for the wedding however this is not the case today because commercialised weddings (even church weddings) mean that even relatively poor people now pay close to five figures for a wedding. This was not the case historically where the poor would have a 'poor persons' wedding. Typically, thanks to double standards and chivalry, men are expected to pay more often than women for a wedding.
Personally I actually do want marriage and a wedding however I'm actually on the more pro marriage end of things probably due to being a small c Conservative. Marriage rates are falling in no small part because it's often a pretty raw deal for men (women in the UK initiate 68% of divorces, especially for non cheating reasons and the divorce law currently provides a financial incentive for women to do so).
So your last point is where I probably disagree with you. I have life goals that include home ownership, business ownership and investments along with having the wife and children and yes, while I would be flexible to some degree, I expect a wife to put the family and me before her own life goals and essentially join my path. While I do date 'careerist' women, I'd go as far as saying it's somewhat undesirable to me if a woman I'm dating has clear corporate career aspirations because that represents a significant time investment on her part that is less likely to be compatible with a focus on family life (albeit I'm not against her pursuing a source of income via a part time job or entrepreneurship - selling buns or cutting hair or something).
Reply 11
Original post
by AnonymousWhy do men assume a woman does not love them if she does not want to take up his last name after marriage?
If it was a case of not loving them, why is it that men get so disgusted by the idea of taking up their wife's last name?
I understand that my last name is my dad's and it comes from a long line of men behind him, not women, however it is as much mine as it is his, because I was born with it.
I want my surname to pass on to my own kids. Why is this a bad thing that is looked at as woke or feminist? Its just natural?
If it was a case of not loving them, why is it that men get so disgusted by the idea of taking up their wife's last name?
I understand that my last name is my dad's and it comes from a long line of men behind him, not women, however it is as much mine as it is his, because I was born with it.
I want my surname to pass on to my own kids. Why is this a bad thing that is looked at as woke or feminist? Its just natural?
For many men, the assumption that a woman doesn’t love them if she doesn’t take their last name might come from a societal narrative they’ve absorbed over time. Historically, taking a husband’s last name was seen as a symbol of unity, loyalty, and commitment in a marriage. So, when a woman chooses not to do so, it can feel (to some) like a rejection of that tradition—and, unfortunately, some might internalize it as a rejection of them. Of course, that’s not what it means at all, but these traditions can be deeply ingrained and without open and honest conversations.
On the flip side, it’s really interesting how some men balk at the idea of taking their wife’s last name. This reaction often stems from the same cultural expectations. Society has long associated masculinity with legacy and lineage, and for many men, their last name feels like a core part of their identity. To them, taking their wife’s last name might feel like losing that identity or going against societal norms. It’s less about disgust (in most cases) and more about how society has shaped our understanding of gender roles and family structures.
I don't get this attitude too. It is stubborn to insist on a last name, just because it was a previledge for men to keep it after a marriage. The perception of women changed, they are emancipated more than before (compared to my parents and grandparents generation) and that for decades. We should respect it.
(edited 1 year ago)
Reply 13
Maybe it’s just because it gives a sense of family history and filiation. If a wife keeps her name and the children take on a double barrel ed surname, when they in turn marry and do the same thing ( most countries won’t allow more than simple double barrelling) so that they keep half of their name and take on half of their spouses name, the link with the past and your history becomes diluted and harder to follow.
Women keeping their maiden name makes sense in the job market. If you are known in a profession under one name then changing it when you get married can be a set back, but in the private family sphere if everyone has the same name it gives a feeling of belonging and solidarity.
Women keeping their maiden name makes sense in the job market. If you are known in a profession under one name then changing it when you get married can be a set back, but in the private family sphere if everyone has the same name it gives a feeling of belonging and solidarity.
Original post
by Admit-OneNever met a guy with this mindset.
I would never meet a woman who agree with this mindset. A functional and loveable relationship is more important to me than a name.
Reply 15
Original post
by AnonymousWhy do men assume a woman does not love them if she does not want to take up his last name after marriage?
If it was a case of not loving them, why is it that men get so disgusted by the idea of taking up their wife's last name?
I understand that my last name is my dad's and it comes from a long line of men behind him, not women, however it is as much mine as it is his, because I was born with it.
I want my surname to pass on to my own kids. Why is this a bad thing that is looked at as woke or feminist? Its just natural?
If it was a case of not loving them, why is it that men get so disgusted by the idea of taking up their wife's last name?
I understand that my last name is my dad's and it comes from a long line of men behind him, not women, however it is as much mine as it is his, because I was born with it.
I want my surname to pass on to my own kids. Why is this a bad thing that is looked at as woke or feminist? Its just natural?
No offence, but i think it is ludicrous for a woman not to take her husband’s name after marriage.
There are so many benefits to taking his name including clear assimilation into the family, everyone having the same surname (with their children), demonstration of love and tradition etc
I am more on the traditional side of social values, so some modern folk could see my position as being ancient but I would take it as a massive red flag if she refuses to take my family name.
Reply 16
Update: I've now encountered one person with this ancient mindset.
Spoiler
Reply 17
Original post
by Admit-OneUpdate: I've now encountered one person with this ancient mindset.
Spoiler
Reply 18
Original post
by Wired_1800No offence, but i think it is ludicrous for a woman not to take her husband’s name after marriage.
There are so many benefits to taking his name including clear assimilation into the family, everyone having the same surname (with their children), demonstration of love and tradition etc
I am more on the traditional side of social values, so some modern folk could see my position as being ancient but I would take it as a massive red flag if she refuses to take my family name.
There are so many benefits to taking his name including clear assimilation into the family, everyone having the same surname (with their children), demonstration of love and tradition etc
I am more on the traditional side of social values, so some modern folk could see my position as being ancient but I would take it as a massive red flag if she refuses to take my family name.
I can barely comprehend the size of the can of worms I'm about to open, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Why would you not take your wife's name? As far as I can see, the practical benefits you list of assimilation into the family, same surname as children and demonstration of love would all still apply. Or, indeed, both change to double barrelled names? You mention assimilation into the family, but on a name basis at least, her taking your name erases her family entirely. If you both changed to double barrelled names, that would keep your children's connection to both families while keeping consistency between them and you as parents.
You can, of course, just fall back on the answer of 'because it's traditional'. And that's fine, but I don't think it's controversial to say that in this situation that tradition arises out of patriarchal concepts of ownership, which really isn't applicable in the modern world. So this might make no difference at all, but I'm just seeing if you'll interrogate those feelings a little to see if you're still comfortable with what they are rooted in.
Reply 19
Original post
by Crazy JamieI can barely comprehend the size of the can of worms I'm about to open, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Why would you not take your wife's name? As far as I can see, the practical benefits you list of assimilation into the family, same surname as children and demonstration of love would all still apply. Or, indeed, both change to double barrelled names? You mention assimilation into the family, but on a name basis at least, her taking your name erases her family entirely. If you both changed to double barrelled names, that would keep your children's connection to both families while keeping consistency between them and you as parents.
You can, of course, just fall back on the answer of 'because it's traditional'. And that's fine, but I don't think it's controversial to say that in this situation that tradition arises out of patriarchal concepts of ownership, which really isn't applicable in the modern world. So this might make no difference at all, but I'm just seeing if you'll interrogate those feelings a little to see if you're still comfortable with what they are rooted in.
Why would you not take your wife's name? As far as I can see, the practical benefits you list of assimilation into the family, same surname as children and demonstration of love would all still apply. Or, indeed, both change to double barrelled names? You mention assimilation into the family, but on a name basis at least, her taking your name erases her family entirely. If you both changed to double barrelled names, that would keep your children's connection to both families while keeping consistency between them and you as parents.
You can, of course, just fall back on the answer of 'because it's traditional'. And that's fine, but I don't think it's controversial to say that in this situation that tradition arises out of patriarchal concepts of ownership, which really isn't applicable in the modern world. So this might make no difference at all, but I'm just seeing if you'll interrogate those feelings a little to see if you're still comfortable with what they are rooted in.
The only problem with double barrelled names is what happens in the next generation. When they marry, potentially with someone with a double barrelled name there are the 4 names to stick together. Whether the family takes the husband’s or wife’s name in today’s world should be a question of choice. The patriarchal system is outdated and doesn’t reflect the reality of today’s world.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Funding issues
- How to Contact Air Canada for Flight Booking and Reservation Assistance
- (HELP) My man wants me to wear a hijab so he can marry me. (We’re both Muslim)
- My bank account has a middle name but my SFE bank name details does not
- Ucas application and DBS informations
- Oxford Msc Global Governance and Diplomacy 2026/27
- Make her my wife.
- Moving on from this
- Was I Just Used? (Muslim Brothers and Sisters Please Also)
- Is “Wang Ming (王明)” actually a good Chinese name? My teacher gave it to me, but I don
- Muslim Brothers and Sisters Please
- URGENT: Oriel application and PMQ surname discrepancy as an IMG
- change of name at SFE
- Should I change my name on the degree?
- A level English Lang + Lit essay plan advice!!
- Is a relationship good or not
- Change last name uni
- UCL psychology bsc
- URGENT: Oriel application and PMQ surname discrepancy as an IMG
- marrying back home vs outside the family
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 months ago
What food item are you currently craving?Last reply 4 months ago
Domino's pizza personal size vs small sizeLast reply 6 months ago
Am I the only one who hates holidays especially the summer holidays?Last reply 7 months ago
Anyone else been out of work for 9 years in a row?Last reply 7 months ago
parents wont let me take the course i want to takeLast reply 7 months ago
How do I tell my instructor I don't want lessons with her anymore?Last reply 7 months ago
Where can I find good-quality alternatives to luxury fashion clothing?Articles for you
How The Student Room is moderated
To keep The Student Room safe for everyone, we moderate posts that are added to the site.
