Changing your name when you get married

[karen]

I don't know if this is an INTJ thing or a me thing but...

When I got married, I took my husband's name which nearly every woman goes through right? Well... I found it soooo distrubing! My name literally changed! It was almost as if something about my identity changed too. I had always thought of myself as one name and all of a sudden the name I heard in my head was foriegn to me (or I'd forget it had changed). When I explained this to my husband he just got offended. I still feel this way a little over a year later.

Any of you married women experience this? or any input?

[Astra]

ROFL:laugh:.

That's one of many reasons why I'm not married to my partner.

[Vortex]

I'm neither female nor married, but I've also thought about this issue. It would seem to me to be incredibly... boundary overstepping (can't find the right word atm :\ ) to have the audacity to supplant somebody's own name with your own. Hell, many of my friends just call me by my last name (used as both a slight honorific, but mostly notoriety).. I coudn't see myself ever giving it up for somebody else's.

If, God Forbid, somebody ever wanted to marry me, that ball would totally be in her own hands. She could keep it the same for all I could care.

[Colette]

Never really bothered me. I don't define myself by my name, so changing it is sort of a non-issue. It certainly hasn't detracted from my 'individuality' or strong sense of myself. Storm in a teacup, I say :P

[Uytuun]

I'm female, not married, don't specifically need to get married, but if I ever do, I'll keep my own name. I think it's beautiful and it's become a part of me.

My INTJ father is bothered by the fact that my mother so readily uses his name.

[Hoorurly]

I got married long before it was popular to keep your own name, so I took my husband's name and didn't think much of it. I've never had a problem with it because my name isn't what defines me.

[Zunite]

I'm female, not married, don't specifically need to get married, but if I ever do, I'll keep my own name. I think it's beautiful and it's become a part of me.

My INTJ father is bothered by the fact that my mother so readily uses his name.

I'm female and not married either. I won't say I don't want to get married, but I could definitely see never getting married - I like living by myself. If I do get married I'd keep my own name and add on his - earlier on in my life I would have just taken his name but I'm getting to the point in my career where I'm identified by my name and it's a bigger deal to completely change it.

[Danisty]

I took my husband's name and it's never bothered me. In fact, as a child, I was excited about the idea of changing my last name, not because I have any sort of problem with my family, but because my maiden name was 10 letters long and started with W. I wanted a short name that was closer to the beginning of the alphabet. I got both. :)

[yondyr]

I've done both, taken his name, then retained mine subsequently. There's a drawback like being lost forever if someone is trying to find you, like for reunions, etc. I prefer the name I was born with, for continuity.

[rwyatt365]

I am not female, but I am married. I always felt that the practice of name-changing for the female was somehow demeaning and I never insisted on it. To me it was akin to branding a steer – and that image was repugnant. However, my wife is very religious and a firm believer in the whole "two become one" thing so she was more than willing to change her name.

I've never been comfortable with the notion of "belonging" (as in being the property of) someone. Changing one's name (to me) is like changing ownership ("OK Mr. Wyatt, here's your shiny new wife. Just sign the papers and she's all yours!:thumbsup:").

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I don't know if this is an INTJ thing or a me thing but...

When I got married, I took my husband's name which nearly every woman goes through right? Well... I found it soooo distrubing! My name literally changed! It was almost as if something about my identity changed too. I had always thought of myself as one name and all of a sudden the name I heard in my head was foriegn to me (or I'd forget it had changed). When I explained this to my husband he just got offended. I still feel this way a little over a year later.

Any of you married women experience this? or any input?
I have never been married, however, if I ever do get married (which is an actual possibilty right now), then I will definately keep the name that was given to me at birth.

Why? Well......the tradition of taking your male partner's name seems to me to be extremely outdated. If women really want to be treated with equality, then this is one of the many steps we should be taking toward that goal.

If you asked any man (feminist or chauvinist) whether he would be willing to take his wife's name, I think we know the answer to that one!

However, having said all of that (and meaning every word), your last name belongs to your father (a man).

[thod]

What would you do if you didnt like his name. Suppose you were in love with a guy called Mr Anus or Mr Mucus. Would you still take his name out of tradition or keep your own.

[Uytuun]

I'm female and not married either. I won't say I don't want to get married, but I could definitely see never getting married - I like living by myself.

I find it curious that you seem to automatically link no marriage to living alone. I wouldn't like to be on my own for the rest of my life, but I don't put much value on the institution of marriage...

Yeah, I have a problem with the ownership idea.

[PortInStorm]

This is an issue I'm still dealing with, and I've been married almost 7 years. I though changing my name to my husband's was a "new start", but turns out, I hated losing the old start. I really did feel disturbed and lost with the new name, a situation only exacerbated by the fact that there were three women in my husband's family now with almost exactly the same name (even down to the middle name, with one of them).

I don't know how to describe it- I felt lost and devalued, even though it's probably exactly the opposite (I'm willing to have you identified by my name...I guess?). So I talked to my SJ spouse about changing it back to my maiden name and he was seriously offended and even angry- I think he thought I was considering divorce etc. So I informally changed it back to a non-hyphanated double last name, not legally. But it will be that way on my degree.

And yes, I did think of others from the past trying to find me. But I was also very proud of my family and all they stood for, plus, his family was pissing me off at the time, and I felt 'dirty' sharing a name with them. ;-)

[Colette]

I've never been comfortable with the notion of "belonging" (as in being the property of) someone. Changing one's name (to me) is like changing ownership ("OK Mr. Wyatt, here's your shiny new wife. Just sign the papers and she's all yours!:thumbsup:").

Back up the car a little here please. Taking on another person's name may have had historical connotations of 'ownership', but it doesn't have such connotations in this day and age (not even close). If there is any sense of 'belonging', it's in 'belonging together' (as a partnership, or marriage unit), while acknowledging parallel existence as separate and well-defined individuals within that marriage unit. I personally cannot see anything wrong, or demeaning, about that. I have one female friend whose husband has chosen to take her name in the marriage - it doesn't necessarily have to be the woman who does so. It also means that if the couple has children, the children can automatically take on, and feel connected with, the name that both parents share.

[rwyatt365]

Back up the car a little here please. Taking on another person's name may have had historical connotations of 'ownership', but it doesn't have such connotations in this day and age (not even close). If there is any sense of 'belonging', it's in 'belonging together' (as a partnership, or marriage unit), while acknowledging parallel existence as separate and well-defined individuals within that marriage unit. I personally cannot see anything wrong, or demeaning, about that. I have one female friend whose husband has chosen to take her name in the marriage - it doesn't necessarily have to be the woman who does so. It also means that if the couple has children, the children can automatically take on, and feel connected with, the name that both parents share.
I agree with you insofar as marriage 'ownership' is an antiquated notion. However, I think that the connotation still lingers in some minds (obviously, still in mine – as this bothers me like I stated). I prefer thinking of the marriage partnership as being just that – a partnership, two people coming together to bond and share. I don't see that changing one's identity (and, isn't one's name correlated with one's identity?) is a prerequisite for that partnership.

Viewed through centuries of cultural bias, the faint whiff of "me Tarzan, you Jane" still resonates (to me) through the whole name-changing thing. No, it does not have to be the woman that changes names (that's a new one on me!), but that seems more to me to be a direct assault on those biases ("I fling mud in the eyes of name-changing and take on my wife's name!") than anything else.

As an alternative, I would suggest that each retain their own name, and that any children would have hyphenated names until they reach some pre-determined age. At that time they would be offered the opportunity to; a) keep the hyphenated name, b) take on mom's name, or c) take on dad's name. that way, the "connection" that you spoke of is retained and by choice.

[Colette]

As an alternative, I would suggest that each retain their own name, and that any children would have hyphenated names until they reach some pre-determined age. At that time they would be offered the opportunity to; a) keep the hyphenated name, b) take on mom's name, or c) take on dad's name. that way, the "connection" that you spoke of is retained and by choice.

I can't stand double-barreled names. They sound pretentious, are unwieldy and difficult for the child and others, and I'd go as far as saying that I consider them vaguely insulting to both parents' sense of identity, both as individuals, and as a partnership :)

I took my husband's name when I married, and have kept it, even though divorced for many years. My children share that name, and it gives us a strong sense of 'family' identity. In no way has my choice to take another name, detracted from my sense of my own individuality, or 'self'.

[phoenix]

As a female, professional, academic, it was essentially impossible for me to take my partner's name after getting married. I did hyphenate, as it made things easier when dealing with my daughter to actually have her last name as part of my last name. But for most other purposes, I simply maintained my maiden name. It was the name on all my papers, my dissertation, etc. To change my name after all of that would be to lose the claim to that work.

In my opinion, this is a major reason that the female "traditionally" has been the one to change their name. In the past, when women were not a major part of the professional work force, losing that connection to your accomplishments was not a problem for the wife. With our post-modern civilization I think we're going to have to come up with something better, something that shows the relationship, but also helps maintain the connection to life pre-marriage.

Now that we are exes, I have custody and have reverted back to my unmarried name. This means I often have to prove my relationship to my daughter...to the extent where I keep a duplicate copy of her birth record on my person at all times in case of emergency.

I like the concept of the child maintaining the hyphenated name, but then at what point does the hyphen come off? At majority? At marriage? It seems like there should be a better way all around...

[yondyr]

I would suggest that the surname of the one who gives birth to the child should be the one the child uses - the action of getting pregnant was their choice regardless of where the sperm came from.

[phoenix]

I would suggest that the surname of the one who gives birth to the child should be the one the child uses - the action of getting pregnant was their choice regardless of where the sperm came from.

I like that idea, too!

[Lucid]

I'm not married, but I do plan to keep my name if I ever do marry. Partially because it seems like a major pain in the ass to have to do all the paperwork and get new IDs and credit cards and all the rest. File it on your taxes, etc. Also, my name is not my identity, so why change it when I get married? Then you have to get used to this new name and adjust to people calling you by it.
Most of all though, I happen to think that my last name is rather nice and that it goes well with my first name.

I would suggest that the surname of the one who gives birth to the child should be the one the child uses - the action of getting pregnant was their choice regardless of where the sperm came from.

I agree. For another thing, the maternity of a child can never be in question like paternity can.

[Pinkie]

I'd prefer to keep my name if I get married, just because my first name is incredibly Welsh, as is my surname, and a non-Welsh surname just wouldn't work with my first name. I also suspect that I'll always be [First Name][Current surname] in my mind, and would rather not have that brief culture shock when I realise that I'm not quite who I think I am.

[Danisty]

I have never been married, however, if I ever do get married (which is an actual possibilty right now), then I will definately keep the name that was given to me at birth.

Why? Well......the tradition of taking your male partner's name seems to me to be extremely outdated. If women really want to be treated with equality, then this is one of the many steps we should be taking toward that goal.

If you asked any man (feminist or chauvinist) whether he would be willing to take his wife's name, I think we know the answer to that one!

However, having said all of that (and meaning every word), your last name belongs to your father (a man).Actually, I know a guy who took his wife's last name. ;D

[PortInStorm]

Funny, my sister-in-law just had a baby, and I asked the new grandmother if they gave the father's last name to the baby, and she looked surprised, and said "[father's family name], of course". I'm more surprised that the person who does all the work to grow and birth the baby doesn't get to name the infant after themselves. And yet, the sister-in-law didn't change her last name when she got married.... go figure where the traditionalism starts and stops. And like phoenix said, it means losing credit for all the work you did before changing your name.

[stasis]

Actually, I know a guy who took his wife's last name.
Yeah. I'm a guy and have also been planning on doing this in the event of marriage. I have no attachment to my surname, do not particularly care for it, and meanwhile like the idea of having the same surname as a spouse for purposes of further integrating the marriage into my self-concept.

[WavesSootheMe]

In my opinion, this is a major reason that the female "traditionally" has been the one to change their name. In the past, when women were not a major part of the professional work force, losing that connection to your accomplishments was not a problem for the wife. With our post-modern civilization I think we're going to have to come up with something better, something that shows the relationship, but also helps maintain the connection to life pre-marriage.

I couldn't agree more. Nowadays the decision should be personal and based on what will work best for that couple/family. Continuity, connection to achievements, connection to children/family, and other personal issues/feelings should all be taken into consideration on an individual basis.

Personally, I have every intention of making a career for myself under my current name and thus keeping it that way. I don't see any real need to share a name with any future partner. A romantic relationship will be between us and only us. If it's not strong enough to last without symbolic ceremonies and unions of names, then why would I want to attempt to make it last longer via these vessels?

Children complicate the picture a bit more. I can see how may be more legally convenient to share a last name with your child. I don't know all of the laws surrounding names and I haven't raised any children, but it seems to me that hyphenated names (legally speaking), in which one name can be dropped at majority or older, could solve many of these issues. Parents could each retain their own name, yet the issue of proving the relationship would not arise unnecessarily. Hyphenated names can sometimes be burdensome, but the child isn't legally bound to write his/her full last name on every paper in elementary/middle/high school and it seems like a reasonable annoyance to side-step even bigger ones. Of course, the adults involved would have to be mature and not take the name drop at 18 personally and I would recommend that the child drop a name from the hyphen before they start to connect adult achievements to their name.

[Lucid]

Children complicate the picture a bit more. I can see how may be more legally convenient to share a last name with your child. I don't know all of the laws surrounding names and I haven't raised any children, but it seems to me that hyphenated names (legally speaking), in which one name can be dropped at majority or older, could solve many of these issues. Parents could each retain their own name, yet the issue of proving the relationship would not arise unnecessarily. Hyphenated names can sometimes be burdensome, but the child isn't legally bound to write his/her full last name on every paper in elementary/middle/high school and it seems like a reasonable annoyance to side-step even bigger ones. Of course, the adults involved would have to be mature and not take the name drop at 18 personally and I would recommend that the child drop a name from the hyphen before they start to connect adult achievements to their name.

I went to elementary school with many families who had hyphenated last names and with some of them the children chose, at 12 years old or so, whether or not they wanted to continue having a hyphenated surname or, if not, which name to drop. They seemed happy with it.

[WavesSootheMe]

I went to elementary school with many families who had hyphenated last names and with some of them the children chose, at 12 years old or so, whether or not they wanted to continue having a hyphenated surname or, if not, which name to drop. They seemed happy with it.

Legally or just around school? I was making a distinction, since some of the single mothers below have noted that having custody of a child with a different legal name than your own can make things a bit more complex.

[Firelie]

While I understand the point of view that changing your name upon marriage is a bit like transfering ownership of a woman from her dad to her husband...I am not against it. I'd actually like to have a different last name, as I kinda hate how common my last name is...yeah, I know I could change it myself, but that would create so many questions.

[Colette]

Yeah. I'm a guy and have also been planning on doing this in the event of marriage. I have no attachment to my surname, do not particularly care for it, and meanwhile like the idea of having the same surname as a spouse for purposes of further integrating the marriage into my self-concept.

Amen. Reason and sanity prevail :)

Phoenix: I can understand your very legitimate and compelling reasons for wanting to keep your own name; in the end it's personal choice. All I'm questioning is the seemingly blanket assumption on this thread that society views a woman who takes her husband's name, as having been stripped of her essential identity.

[INTJgal]

When I get married, I'm totally planning on taking his name.

I want the same name as my kids. I think it reiterates the "family" aspect of it. But, all the same, it's probably no biggie to me if some female wanted to keep her name the same and not share her name with her kids.

[Lucid]

Legally or just around school? I was making a distinction, since some of the single mothers below have noted that having custody of a child with a different legal name than your own can make things a bit more complex.

Legally, I believe. Although I was also 12 at the time, so I wouldn't swear to it.

Amen. Reason and sanity prevail :)

Phoenix: I can understand your very legitimate and compelling reasons for wanting to keep your own name; in the end it's personal choice. All I'm questioning is the seemingly blanket assumption on this thread that society views a woman who takes her husband's name, as having been stripped of her essential identity.

I'm reading the other posts on this thread very differently from the way you seem to be. I haven't read anything condemning the choices of other women about keeping their names or taking their husbands, only each person expressing his or her personal preference and stating their reasons for it.

[karen]

What would you do if you didnt like his name. Suppose you were in love with a guy called Mr Anus or Mr Mucus. Would you still take his name out of tradition or keep your own.

Ha! His [now my] last name is Kauk (pronounced cow-k)! Imagine the embarassing situations!

That wasn't my main problem though.. see, I did bring up (before we were married) the idea of keeping my maiden name... the ranting and raving wasn't worth mentioning again.

[phoenix]

Phoenix: I can understand your very legitimate and compelling reasons for wanting to keep your own name; in the end it's personal choice. All I'm questioning is the seemingly blanket assumption on this thread that society views a woman who takes her husband's name, as having been stripped of her essential identity.

Well, when I got married (in the deep south US almost 15 years ago) the concept of a woman NOT taking her husband's name was inconceivable to most. It was quite the family scandal that I decided to hyphenate. But since I was the primary breadwinner and he lived off my largesse, there wasn't too much they could say <evil chuckle>.


Ha! His [now my] last name is Kauk (pronounced cow-k)! Imagine the embarassing situations!

That wasn't my main problem though.. see, I did bring up (before we were married) the idea of keeping my maiden name... the ranting and raving wasn't worth mentioning again.

And that is unfortunate. I don't know why they (men) see it as emasculating if you don't take their name. The history of it is very plain...it was a matter of ownership. And with society changing the way it has recently (women's lib, women as professionals, etc.), it is unreasonable to expect us to forego our identities just to stroke their egos. It should be our *choice*.

[Colette]

Well, when I got married (in the deep south US almost 15 years ago) the concept of a woman NOT taking her husband's name was inconceivable to most. It was quite the family scandal that I decided to hyphenate. But since I was the primary breadwinner and he lived off my largesse, there wasn't too much they could say <evil chuckle>.

Well it was pretty similar for me really. I too was the primary breadwinner in my marriage, and even after I had children (due to the age gap, and differential in career status, between myself and my ex husband). However even though I'm in a professional field (where I hold registration and a practising certificate), I really had no issues with changing my name - it was slightly inconvenient for a while, but not hugely so.

I haven't had professional papers published in my maiden name though, so that could well have made a difference, had it been true for me. I am now well known and professionally recognized under my married name, so there is no confusion in my minds of people I advise, or otherwise deal with, professionally.

The history of it is very plain...it was a matter of ownership. And with society changing the way it has recently (women's lib, women as professionals, etc.), it is unreasonable to expect us to forego our identities just to stroke their egos. It should be our *choice*.

Yes the history of it is plain, but that doesn't necessarily mean it carries the same connotation in the modern age. As I stated earlier, the option is there for a man to take his wife's surname (and I know at least one couple who does this), or for both parties to adopt a double-barreled name, and share it with the children). For myself, my name seems to fit well with my husband's surname, and it was a nice name to be able to confer on our children too. Although I have been divorced for quite some time, I have retained the name, and like the fact that I still share it with my children. It gives us a sense of 'family identity', if you will.

[anul]

My wife didn't take my last name. She claimed it was "ugly", which I don't really care. My last name is fairly common, so it's not very special. To fix this small problem we have, we decided that if we are to have the same last name we'll just both change our names to something else entirely.

[Lucid]

My wife didn't take my last name. She claimed it was "ugly", which I don't really care. My last name is fairly common, so it's not very special. To fix this small problem we have, we decided that if we are to have the same last name we'll just both change our names to something else entirely.

Hey that's a good idea :)

[PortInStorm]

I knew a couple that did a similar kind of thing, though they both changed their name to the hyphenated one. And then, in a sudden jolt of masculine pride, he changed his name back to his original, leaving her hanging with this huge hyphenated name (then she gave their children his name). Shame!

My motto is "My uterus, my name"- I don't think I'll get a change to use it though (willingly).

[Aurelia]

Actually I struggle with the same thing. At first my husband didn't understand. We then discussed what it would be like for him if he changed his surname to my maiden name. He became more sympathetic. What do you think about hyphenating your last names?

[Santana28]

I kinda worked around that problem ;)

Actually, i hated my name and everything it represented so i did my absolute best to destroy it. My middle name was a combination of both my mother and father's middle names, so i made sure to change that as well.

I actually found my husband in a search for his name online. There was an actor on a soap opera, and his character was the arch villain INTJ mastermind type, and i adored him. So i was bored and i did a search for the actors name one night many years ago - it was 3 or 4 in the morning. A profile came up with a match of the name - it was a guy living 2 states away a couple of years older than me (then in high school) and he was finishing up his senior year before college. I didnt talk to him that night (he was on), but i remembered him and i caught him online later. He is the first and probably only random person i have ever sought out to talk to online. The first thing i ever told him was "I love your name." Now it's MY name. He happens to be an artist and uses the first letter of his last name as a little design for his signature. I made that letter my middle name - just a letter. I use the signature design as my own, and have it tattooed on my leg.

That being said, i took that name consciously because i wanted that name. Its mine now. We'll probably be divorced soon but to me i have no other name than the one i sought out and took as my own. To me, his name doesn't symbolize him - it symbolizes what it was that i was seeking out when i met him, and at that time i was searching for a new life of my own creation. I found it. Now i just have to make it better ;)

i really dont understand what the big deal is with keeping your own name, unless you are 100% satisfied with who you are and what you are and where you came from. to me, the name i was given was never my real name. my real name i had to seek on my own.

[richirare]

I've never really understood that thing about taking the husband's name. In Spain we have a name and two surnames (both our parents), with our father's surname first and thats the one you pass to your child, so with the next generation the surname passed by the woman goes.

Anyway, if I where a woman I wouldn't take my husband's name. And I wouldn't let my wife to take my name if I end up marrying an English or US girl.

I wonder, why can't anyone have a name of his/her own, like I'd like to make up a surname that I identifiy with, and also let my children do so, if they do not identify with their birth names.

[Sojourner]

I have never been married, however, if I ever do get married (which is an actual possibilty right now), then I will definately keep the name that was given to me at birth.

Why? Well......the tradition of taking your male partner's name seems to me to be extremely outdated. If women really want to be treated with equality, then this is one of the many steps we should be taking toward that goal.

If you asked any man (feminist or chauvinist) whether he would be willing to take his wife's name, I think we know the answer to that one!

However, having said all of that (and meaning every word), your last name belongs to your father (a man).

Two comments:

1. In Chinese culture, the wife retains her "maiden name" (although she may be addressed as Mrs. [husbandsname], her name is still [maidenname][name]) because she is not considered part of the family. Sexism can come in many forms.

2. I believe there was a newly married woman on the INFP forum who said that she and her husband were going to both change their names into something completely different. I found that an interesting solution.

[WavesSootheMe]

Creating your own last name doesn't address the issue of continuity that was raised below.

[Sojourner]

Creating your own last name doesn't address the issue of continuity that was raised below.

There's nothing below your post, but I assume that you are referring to the issue of genealogical records that was raised earlier in the thread. Please note that I made no claim about the effectiveness of the solution employed by the INFP couple - and that taking on the husband's name is equally destructive to the continuity of the wife's name.

A large-scale, permanent solution would be to ask all newlywed or to-be-wed couples whose last names follow the old tradition to choose new last names upon marriage, in the fashion of the INFP couple. The first generation of children would have their parents' last names, and for their children, a possible surnaming method would be to keep the mother's surname for the daughters and the father's surname for the sons - or perhaps give the children hyphenated surnames - but for the latter method to preserve "equality", the Hispanic method would not do, and the alternatives I've thought up are all quite convoluted and unwieldy.

[WavesSootheMe]

There's nothing below your post, but I assume that you are referring to the issue of genealogical records that was raised earlier in the thread. Please note that I made no claim about the effectiveness of the solution employed by the INFP couple - and that taking on the husband's name is equally destructive to the continuity of the wife's name.

A large-scale, permanent solution would be to ask all newlywed or to-be-wed couples whose last names follow the old tradition to choose new last names upon marriage, in the fashion of the INFP couple. The first generation of children would have their parents' last names, and for their children, a possible surnaming method would be to keep the mother's surname for the daughters and the father's surname for the sons - or perhaps give the children hyphenated surnames - but for the latter method to preserve "equality", the Hispanic method would not do, and the alternatives I've thought up are all quite convoluted and unwieldy.

Sorry I have my page flip-flopped so that the most recent post is on top and all previous posts are below. By "below" I simply meant by other posts in this thread. Also I wasn't commenting specifically on your post. There was a post before yours that mentioned something similar. I was just commenting on the overall idea. I was in a rush, so it was short and all of that was likely a bit ambiguous. You absolutely addressed the post that you quoted, and did so even more specifically in your response to my comment.

On a general note, I wanted to point out the possibility of an issue with continuity in regard to a person's body of work:

I'm getting to the point in my career where I'm identified by my name and it's a bigger deal to completely change it.

As a female, professional, academic, it was essentially impossible for me to take my partner's name after getting married. I did hyphenate, as it made things easier when dealing with my daughter to actually have her last name as part of my last name. But for most other purposes, I simply maintained my maiden name. It was the name on all my papers, my dissertation, etc. To change my name after all of that would be to lose the claim to that work.

Here the problem is with changing your name to anything. While creating your own last name to share may solve the issue of equality, it may disrupt the continuity of you as a name in your field of work.

This is obviously not a problem for everyone, but it is absolutely a concern for some.

[Colette]

I can't believe this thread has continued for so long.

Can someone come and deal a death blow to it, please, before I inherit a double-barreled or invented surname simply by virtue of hanging out here? ;)

[Rei]

Not married, but if I do (get married), it's unlikely I'll be replacing my name.

I might add my husband's name to the end of mine, but that's as far as I will go.
It's like... ownership verses "tagging as related" IMO. Besides, I'm the flesh and blood of MY parents, not my husband's. In fact, I'd be more likely to change/add my mother's last name than to replace it with my huband's.

[Thistle]

Clearly, there are many reasons for not adopting a partners name. The key reasons that I didn't adopt were:

- Snobbery - I have an upper-class surname and didn't want to change it for 'Smith' (this is not to say that I am upper-class, just that others can perceive you differently if you have a particular surname... which can or cannot be beneficial)
- His surname didn't 'feel' like it would ever belong to me. My own surname was as much a part of me as my teeth. I sensed that if I were to adopt his surname it would always feel awkward.

No issue for either of us... although his family insist in sending cards and letters addressed to Mr & Mrs Smith.....Grrrr!

[yondyr]

I would have trouble resisting replying using ... Mrs and Mr Mountbatten..or Chalmondeley..or Beauchamp..or.... grins

[Thistle]

I would have trouble resisting replying using ... Mrs and Mr Mountbatten..or Chalmondeley..or Beauchamp..or.... grins

When they phone the house, I have great pleasure in answering with my own surname..... Ah, the maturity of a 30 year old!

I'm sure there must be a culture where, traditionally, the female does not adopt the males surname....?

[Sojourner]

When they phone the house, I have great pleasure in answering with my own surname..... Ah, the maturity of a 30 year old!

I'm sure there must be a culture where, traditionally, the female does not adopt the males surname....?

As I have previously mentioned, Chinese culture dictates that the woman keep her surname, because she is not considered part of the family.

[PortInStorm]

Just a side question. If you do maintain your maiden name, must you adopt MS. to prevent being called Mrs. (maiden name), ie. my mother's name? I just think Ms. has such... unfavourable connotations.

In response to the Chinese approach that reflects the 'rejection' of a new wife by witholding the husband's name... I think that's the way many Ss think of it "I'm welcoming you into a pre-existing unit that I think is pretty fabulous, I'm offering it to you by giving you my name." I think they perceive they are giving us a valuable gift, and that's something to keep in mind when dealing with this. However, I have such a hard time communicating to them that a) I thought my family and previous life were pretty good too, and b) I don't want to be 'swallowed' by a new unit and c) I think getting married should create a whole new, unique unit from scratch.

[MintNut]

I'm not married, but would opt to keep my own name. All of my significant achievements are under my given name and, like the original post, I'd feel as though part of my identity was being stripped away. I really like my name - it's flow and cadence and the uniqueness of it, and I wouldn't give that up.

What do you think about hyphenating your last names?

If someone has hyphenated their name I usually assume that either the surname was of some importance to one of the partners, or they're trying to reconcile modern and traditional standards.

[Thistle]

As I have previously mentioned, Chinese culture dictates that the woman keep her surname, because she is not considered part of the family.

Wooops - sorry....

My lawyer friend has informed me that under Scots law, my maiden name legally remains after I am married. So, even if I wanted to adopt my husbands surname, in the eyes of the law I'd never be Smith.

On the subject of titles, I tend not to use any. If there is no option but to choose one, I'll opt for Mrs.

[JTG]

I'm probably keeping my name when i get married. Then again, i'm a guy... so... yeah

If she wants to keep her name though, no big deal. I never understood the custom myself. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet yeah? (even though i hate roses)

[Sojourner]

Just a side question. If you do maintain your maiden name, must you adopt MS. to prevent being called Mrs. (maiden name), ie. my mother's name? I just think Ms. has such... unfavourable connotations.
And "Ms." is also aesthetically unpleasing, at least for me. Certain people will pronounce it "Miz", and "Ms." just looks so truncated compared to "Mrs." and plain old "Miss" - but apparently "Miss" has some sort of negative, "you're just a girl" connotation, while "Madam" has a "you're really old" connotation. I say we reclaim "Miss" as a dignified title - or really, considering the whole "Madam President" thing, why not "Madam"?

In response to the Chinese approach that reflects the 'rejection' of a new wife by witholding the husband's name... I think that's the way many Ss think of it "I'm welcoming you into a pre-existing unit that I think is pretty fabulous, I'm offering it to you by giving you my name." I think they perceive they are giving us a valuable gift, and that's something to keep in mind when dealing with this. However, I have such a hard time communicating to them that a) I thought my family and previous life were pretty good too, and b) I don't want to be 'swallowed' by a new unit and c) I think getting married should create a whole new, unique unit from scratch.
Interesting. I never really thought about it quite that way.

[Allie]

I was actually looking forward to changing my name when I got married. I did not like my maiden name because it was soooo common and hard to spell and pronouce. What I hated most was when the teachers would call me out to help her/him pronounce it during roll call, back in school/college. Or when people would ask for my name and then I have to spell out my last name repeately because they got all the letters mixed up.

ARGGHHH. Just the thought of all that trouble still get to me today. I must be traumatized and didn't know it :-)

[stasis]

The conversation about driving in relationships has been moved here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[douleur]

I don't get the sense when the woman gets the husband's last name nowadays. I mean, if there is such a thing as "2 become 1" the husband must take her name, too. So they must carry 2 last names. I'm sure 2 last names aren't a problem to sign a paper. :thumbsup:

If I marry I won't get my husband's last name. First, it's ugly. Second, it has nothing to do with my name. Third, I would hate being called by his name, I would feel it's not with me. And also for me who deals with genealogy I don't like when women kill their maiden name because it's so complicated to find records of women's family. I can understand that years ago the main last name was always the man's one. But nowadays... no no no no. I also like the way Portuguese and Spanish countries do, usually children carry mother's and father's surname. It's up to the children which name they will choose to put on their children's name. Of course you can't carry all surnames of all your ancestors. Of course if you maintain a rigid lineage of a name you can always make its big story. But we're made of many surnames and to arbitrary choose only one is a bit cruel, for me, I think.

For me, surnames are related to blood. If I marry a guy, our children will have our last names. I won't have my husband's one or the contrary, just the children because they're are the mix. Sure there are exceptions like if you have adopted a child. You'll give your surname to a child that isn't your blood and that's okay, I guess it's the best thing to do.

I understand people who have common or ugly surnames and marry someone who has a strong surname; they would prefer to adopt it. I know a woman who married a "von-KKKK" and after divorce kept it with her... another case as a boring local famous woman which maiden name was Marcelino and after marriage became Goldschmidt-Rothschild and kept it after divorce. This name is good for her career. It add "status", "originality", etc...

Free choices. If a woman really want to get her husband's name for "tradition", ok. But I hope this kind of thing changes as time passes... of course, it's a matter of what I like or not. But "free choices" + good sense always. :) (I have a friend who has 7 surnames in homage to various grandmothers - poor girl, she suffered a lot in school..."

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I agree that a woman should not take her husbands last name. However, it is not because of geneology since we live in a patriarchal society (North America and most other parts of the world) and, therefore, your last name is from your father.

So........basically...........if we (women) continue to follow the tradition of taking a man's last name, then we continue to be nameless.

[JTG]

And even if you take your mother's maiden name, it's still going to be her father's surname anyway. It's just the way things work in our society. I think the issue is less one of pure feminism than of individuality and continuity. Women are raised in a certain family, with a certain name, and when they get married, they don't want to drop one of their biggest identifiers for the sake of convention only. I totally understand the desire to keep one's last name.

[Tom]

If I'm thinking right the name changing thing is allegorical and meant to teach people a message. God's name is exceedingly wonderful - a priceless inheritence for those who will.

p.s On a side note (if anyone even cares) I don't believe there is necessarily some "punishment" or ill will from God for any woman that wants to keep her maiden name. I am not even my own judge, much less someone elses...

[PortInStorm]

But what does that allegory say about the woman? A possession?

[Tom]

What it says is that she is the most precious companion any man could have - and worth laying his life down for. Remember it's allegorical. His name is an allegorical offering of ALL he has and is to her.

[PortInStorm]

I believe I share your faith, and that's exactly what a wife should be to her husband. However, the 'giving' of the last name is not from a biblical tradition, I don't think, and those unfamiliar with the text would not necessarily arrive at your conclusion when seeing a wife who takes her husband's name. Or maybe I'm not understanding your line of argument?

[WavesSootheMe]

If I'm thinking right the name changing thing is allegorical and meant to teach people a message. God's name is exceedingly wonderful - a priceless inheritence for those who will.

I'm confused. Do men represent your god?

[Tom]

If you're referring to my God, both men and women can represent Him. But in this instance if I'm right, allegorically speaking yes the man represents God and the woman represents the Bride of Christ.

This is just a though of mine and I don't present it as absolute truth regarding God's possible intention - but I do personally believe it.

[yondyr]

Tom:..What it says is that she is the most precious companion any man could have - and worth laying his life down for. Remember it's allegorical. His name is an allegorical offering of ALL he has and is to her.
Me: What it says is the he is the most precious companion any woman could have - and worth laying down her life for. Remember it's allegorical. Her name is an allegorical offering of ALL she has and is to him...

(deducting the layin down life bit, no way jose)

[Tom]

(deducting the layin down life bit, no way jose)

My guess is you are saying one of two things. Either -

You're saying the allogorical picture of a man giving his name to his wife does not represent a man laying his life down for his wife.

or

You're saying no way jose, men don't lay their lives down for their wives.


If you're saying something else by this I don't get it.


If it's the first case well I know names used to mean a lot in certain cultures. A name represented who a person was, and their name was their bond. I do think the name giving was meant to represent a man giving all that he has including his life if need be to his wife. The name used to represent an inheritance of sorts, a giving of all that one has. It's like a credit card that contains the reputation and figurative lifeblood of the giver.

If it's the second case well that is what is supposed to happen in a christian marriage. We all probably know cases to the contrary, but that still does not nullify what should happen. Just like we know when people cheat, steal etc that has no bearing on what should be the case.

[yondyr]

I think it was obvious what I said. I rephrased your statement to make it apply to both genders since genderbased stereotypes bother me, regardless of subject. And the second part, 'laying down life', sounds like an absurdity. A flowery attempt to impress with an event highly unlikely to occur.
Perhaps the female marriage lines should include.. Love, honour, obey, take your name and accept your death when I need it.

[WavesSootheMe]

If you're referring to my God, both men and women can represent Him. But in this instance if I'm right, allegorically speaking yes the man represents God and the woman represents the Bride of Christ.

This is just a though of mine and I don't present it as absolute truth regarding God's possible intention - but I do personally believe it.

Why Him? Why does this god have a gender? Why is there no recognition that such passages were written in a time of male domination? If your god's name is a gift, why then does this equate to the name of a man being a gift? Why is the woman's name not a gift?

[PRBori]

Worse mistake ever, and I just hyphernated his name... after the divorce it's a pain to change the name back to what it used to be..

Next time I get married, if ever, I will think carefully before changing my name...

[Friend]

I took my husband's name 5.5 years ago. My maiden name is difficult and very unusual, but I am in Canada and regardless of what I call myself, my maiden name is still a legal name. I can use either or both.

The strange thing to me is that now, both my new name and my maiden name seem foreign to me. I rarely use my maiden name (only on forms) and my married name still seems like it's my husband's name, not mine.

I will be embarking upon a new career in the next few years when the time is right, and when I do, neither of my names will be useful (both of my names in full are already associated with others in the field who have made their mark, and I'll be new- with something different to offer, so I don't want to deal with the possible confusion), so I am deciding whether or not to adopt a pseudonym. Of course, that name will also sound foreign to me, but I guess I don't really care all that much about my name; it seems like a label to me anyway, not my identity.

So I was thinking of reducing it to an initial... :laugh: Or maybe not.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Here in Quebec, by law, women are not permitted to change their last names when they get married. It's been like that since 1981.

Even women who got married before 1981 and changed their names (my mom, for instance) are still known by the government under their legal (read: maiden) names. So, for instance, an elderly woman who has lived most of her life with her husband's last name gets sick and is admitted to hospital, where she is known by the staff under her maiden name. Very confusing.

Even if you go to court to apply for a legal name change, you have to present a serious reason, or else your application will be rejected. Serious reasons include difficulty of use due to spelling or pronunciation, or bearing a name that is mocked or that has been made infamous, but not marriage. It doesn't count.

Incidentally, Quebec also has one of the lowest marriage rates (and highest cohabitation / common-law marriage rates) in North America. Though, judging by the number of my friends who've gotten hitched lately, you'd never know it.

Anyway, because of that, I guess I never really even thought about changing my name upon marriage. It simply isn't done here, and I don't see why I should want to change my identity if I get married, anyway. It doesn't seem logical.

[WavesSootheMe]

Here in Quebec, by law, women are not permitted to change their last names when they get married. It's been like that since 1981.

Even women who got married before 1981 and changed their names (my mom, for instance) are still known by the government under their legal (read: maiden) names. So, for instance, an elderly woman who has lived most of her life with her husband's last name gets sick and is admitted to hospital, where she is known by the staff under her maiden name. Very confusing.

Even if you go to court to apply for a legal name change, you have to present a serious reason, or else your application will be rejected. Serious reasons include difficulty of use due to spelling or pronunciation, or bearing a name that is mocked or that has been made infamous, but not marriage. It doesn't count.

Incidentally, Quebec also has one of the lowest marriage rates (and highest cohabitation / common-law marriage rates) in North America. Though, judging by the number of my friends who've gotten hitched lately, you'd never know it.

Anyway, because of that, I guess I never really even thought about changing my name upon marriage. It simply isn't done here, and I don't see why I should want to change my identity if I get married, anyway. It doesn't seem logical.

Do the children take the last name of the father?

[coffeeloverfreak]

Do the children take the last name of the father?

I had to look that one up. I knew it was mostly the father's name but I didn't know the stats. Anyway, according to Globe and Mail stats for 2005, 82% of kids born that year had the father's last name in Quebec. Only 12% had the hyphenated mother-father names. (Presumably, the remaining 6% were "other", either the mother's last name, or something else altogether).

It ebbs and flows though. Just a few years earlier, it was all the rage to hyphenate (22% in 1992). I think that petered out when people started to think about what would happen when all these hyphenated kids grew up, paired off and reproduced. Four last names for one person? Eight? Where does it end?

[Violet]

Yes, it bothered me a lot prior to getting married which is why I kept my maiden name, the only issue that arose from that was the childrens last names. Satisfactory compromises were made.
I have no regrets, I am very happy I am still "me".

[WavesSootheMe]

Yes, it bothered me a lot prior to getting married which is why I kept my maiden name, the only issue that arose from that was the childrens last names. Satisfactory compromises were made.
I have no regrets, I am very happy I am still "me".

Care to elaborate on your 'satisfactory compromises'?

[Nausved]

When my parents got married, they each kept their own last names. They also decided that all sons would get his last name and all daughters would get her last name.

I intend to keep up that tradition.

But I might relent if I marry a man who would like to change his name. I'm rather intrigued by the idea of selecting a new name together.

[acyckowski]

Okay, folks, I'm not following why this is such a big deal.

Like it or not, the SJ's define and continue the norms of any society. Since they're such a pain in the ass about changing ANYTHING, I don't see the point of picking a fight over naming conventions. It's really not a moral or philosophic issue, it's a hand-me-down from the British tradition, just like most of the American legal traditions are passed from British common law.

This one's just too old for the SJ's to give up. Since it's a pretty arbitrary and harmless tradition, I say we just smile vacuously, get inside the box, and play nice.

[Violet]

Care to elaborate on your 'satisfactory compromises'?

My daughter (from a previous relationship) has my last name and the two boys we had together have his, had we any girls together they would have had mine.

This one's just too old for the SJ's to give up. Since it's a pretty arbitrary and harmless tradition, I say we just smile vacuously, get inside the box, and play nice.

I don't place nice and my SJ has had to learn to deal with it, the rest will follow in time.:devilish:

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Okay, folks, I'm not following why this is such a big deal.

Like it or not, the SJ's define and continue the norms of any society. Since they're such a pain in the ass about changing ANYTHING, I don't see the point of picking a fight over naming conventions. It's really not a moral or philosophic issue, it's a hand-me-down from the British tradition, just like most of the American legal traditions are passed from British common law.

This one's just too old for the SJ's to give up. Since it's a pretty arbitrary and harmless tradition, I say we just smile vacuously, get inside the box, and play nice.
It's patronizing a patriarchy.........I'm tired of playing nice.

[acyckowski]

Well, you don't have to play nice if you don't want to, but beating your head against a brick wall doesn't impress the wall very much.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

But it feels so good? I suppose it's my own small way of standing up for what I believe. After all...........change has to begin somewhere. I do feel that giant brick wall though.

[yondyr]

Somehow a male saying let things stand as they are has less impact upon me that if a female had said it...

[Violet]

Well, you don't have to play nice if you don't want to, but beating your head against a brick wall doesn't impress the wall very much.

True, but with a sledgehammer or little dynamite that pesky wall will get out of my heads way fairly quickly.;)

[acyckowski]

Somehow a male saying let things stand as they are has less impact upon me that if a female had said it...

My wife, the classic ISTJ, God love her, insisted on changing her name from Robinson to the monstrosity you see after the "a". Because it's Tradition.

I dunno, tradition works. I shake hands firmly, wear trousers instead of a kilt, etc.....does any of it really matter? No. But fighting tradition is usually a waste of energy.

Look, 90% of the people out there aren't like us. They expect things to be a certain way because that's the way they are. There are thousands of stupid things perpetuated for that reason, but you've gotta know what's worth falling on your sword for. Surnames just ain't worth it.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

My wife, the classic ISTJ, God love her, insisted on changing her name from Robinson to the monstrosity you see after the "a". Because it's Tradition.

I dunno, tradition works. I shake hands firmly, wear trousers instead of a kilt, etc.....does any of it really matter? No. But fighting tradition is usually a waste of energy.

Look, 90% of the people out there aren't like us. They expect things to be a certain way because that's the way they are. There are thousands of stupid things perpetuated for that reason, but you've gotta know what's worth falling on your sword for. Surnames just ain't worth it.
I would say that it's up to the individual to decide 'what's worth it.' It makes sense that surnames are not worth it for you. It makes sense that surnames would be worth it for me.

However, I agree that you must 'pick your battles' because there are just too many battles out there for one person to attempt in one lifetime.

[PortInStorm]

Well, I just realized that I somewhat screwed myself.

For a long time I've wanted to change my name back to my maiden one because I've never felt the married one was 'me', there were two others in the family with my exact name, and there's no link with who I was in the past (it's hard for others to connect news about me with my maiden name). However, my husband was really upset, so I kept it and put my maiden name before it without a hyphen. Obviously this is not an ideal solution, one reason being that for succinctness, many admins cut off the first last name (mine).

Now I'm on the cusp of publishing my first professional article, and whatever name I pick to put on it is the name I'll have to keep forever, so that my professional accomplishments are always associated with me. For that reason, and because my original family were the ones who wholeheartedly supported me going back to school and are genuinely proud of me (my in-laws ask about it once in a while, but would rather I were having kids, and aren't really enthused about it), I'm leaning towards putting my original name on there.

So now what do I do when my husband sees it, and do I go and change all my official documents back as well? I have to get a new passport soon, so this would be the time.... I also realize this won't endear me to the traditional in-laws.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Well, I just realized that I somewhat screwed myself.

For a long time I've wanted to change my name back to my maiden one because I've never felt the married one was 'me', there were two others in the family with my exact name, and there's no link with who I was in the past (it's hard for others to connect news about me with my maiden name). However, my husband was really upset, so I kept it and put my maiden name before it without a hyphen. Obviously this is not an ideal solution, one reason being that for succinctness, many admins cut off the first last name (mine).

Now I'm on the cusp of publishing my first professional article, and whatever name I pick to put on it is the name I'll have to keep forever, so that my professional accomplishments are always associated with me. For that reason, and because my original family were the ones who wholeheartedly supported me going back to school and are genuinely proud of me (my in-laws ask about it once in a while, but would rather I were having kids, and aren't really enthused about it), I'm leaning towards putting my original name on there.

So now what do I do when my husband sees it, and do I go and change all my official documents back as well? I have to get a new passport soon, so this would be the time.... I also realize this won't endear me to the traditional in-laws.
Have you ever asked your husband why he gets so upset with the idea of you having your own name? And......Have you ever asked yourself whether you should indulge his unreasonable desire to take away your identity?

[jwp4]

My mother uses her maiden name in a non-hyphenated fashion, also. As far as writing you professional article, I would hope this would be a non issue to folks around you. The first thing that comes to mind is a "pen name". I know plenty of women who have professional names and personal names. It is useful when separating professional from personal life.

[PortInStorm]

@ Vaguely- I know, I really fought myself. He's a sweetie, but very stubborn about this because of what it mean to him- changing it indicates divorce, he is sure. And I think he's also a little embarrassed about what others would think of him if I changed it. I indulged him because although I tried every way I knew to explain how I feel it DID fool with my identity, he was firm on it, and I've rarely seen him so upset over something. He's not usually inflexible, so I wanted to put him first. But now the rubber's hittin' the road.

@ jwp4- excellent idea! A pen name.... Perhaps he wouldn't have a hard time with that.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

@ Vaguely- I know, I really fought myself. He's a sweetie, but very stubborn about this because of what it mean to him- changing it indicates divorce, he is sure. And I think he's also a little embarrassed about what others would think of him if I changed it. I indulged him because although I tried every way I knew to explain how I feel it DID fool with my identity, he was firm on it, and I've rarely seen him so upset over something. He's not usually inflexible, so I wanted to put him first. But now the rubber's hittin' the road.

@ jwp4- excellent idea! A pen name.... Perhaps he wouldn't have a hard time with that.
I thank you in advance for your patience with me. Can I vent a bit.......not at you in particular ..........just in general?

What the f*ck is the f*cking matter with f*cking women (breathing deeply now......getting myself under control........don't want to look like a SF).

To put the previous sentence in a more INTJ context......why do women think that if a man feels really strongly about something that is completely unreasonable and he's basically a nice guy and doesn't ask for that much.......that he should be indulged?
This is a ligitimate NOT-UNDERSTANDING on my part. I am constantly baffled by this.

[PortInStorm]

haha- don't want to look like an SF!

No problem- I see where you're coming from. Why should women cave in when a guy feels strongly about something? Each person's wants are equally important.

I feel that I'm giving (ie. I had a choice and I chose to keep the married name previously) what we NTs are always harping that we need- understanding and concession from our spouses re: our integral needs. I remember saying elsewhere that demanding that someone change what's integral to them isn't love. If I say I love him, and his strong reaction hints that this is integral to him, then I shouldn't put my desire for my old identity before his wants. I'm not being forced, I'm trying to be loving.

However, I cannot put only my married name on the journal. So now I'm in a little bit of a conundrum. However, the pen name may be the way to be loving and keep my identity in an area that's most important to me.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

haha- don't want to look like an SF!

No problem- I see where you're coming from. Why should women cave in when a guy feels strongly about something? Each person's wants are equally important.

I feel that I'm giving (ie. I had a choice and I chose to keep the married name previously) what we NTs are always harping that we need- understanding and concession from our spouses re: our integral needs. I remember saying elsewhere that demanding that someone change what's integral to them isn't love. If I say I love him, and his strong reaction hints that this is integral to him, then I shouldn't put my desire for my old identity before his wants. I'm not being forced, I'm trying to be loving.

However, I cannot put only my married name on the journal. So now I'm in a little bit of a conundrum. However, the pen name may be the way to be loving and keep my identity in an area that's most important to me.
Again, I thank you for your patience.

[wkvita]

I am a female, married ISTJ who took my husband's last name out of principle.
I would venture to have everyone consider where your maiden name came from. Most likely, it was your father's last name. You were given your father's last name because he was your guardian/protector/providor. When you get married in a traditional ceremony, your father 'gives you away' to your husband. This signifies that he is now entrusting your new husband to be your protector. Therefore, you leave your father's name and take your husband's name.

I can certainly see how this would seem demeaning, and implying of ownership. But, as a Christian, I think that it's beautiful. Having a protector doesn't mean that I am incapable of taking care of myself. It just means that he is going to love me and want the best for me.

[PortInStorm]

Yes, it was my father's name, but my point is that I had that name since I was born- it became MY name when I was born, the one that was associated with everything in my life until I was married. So it's not about patriarchy per se, but about maintaining the identity I had since birth.

And ya, the whole image thing about protecting etc etc is nice, but lemme tell you, never happens. Protector *snort of derision*. No one protected me, not my dad, not my brother. And my husband doesn't protect me now either. So he has no right to try to force me to change my name or guilt me into it. Sure, I do it now because I'm trying to show love to my husband, but it goes against every grain in my personality. I've yet to see a man who can maintain the love and wanting the best for the spouse that the Bible commands them to, past the first few years. But wives are often just as negligent to respect them.

My husband didn't "ask" my dad for my hand (I'd have been furious- I decide who I marry, not my dad), and neither did my father "give" me away like an object. Both parents walked up the aisle with me because they raised me.

So I agree- it should be beautiful. But since it doesn't happen, women soon learn to keep their identities and struggle on their own, protecting and providing for themselves.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

"Guardian/protector/providor" sounds like a parental role doesn't it? I wonder if men would find a woman guardian/protector/providor beautiful? Or if it would seem demeaning and that the woman owned them?

Being given away by their mother to their wife...........Beautiful...........yes.

[Jenny Penny]

I would like to change my name to something I like better than my current last name... but, I don't think I would change it if I had a strong aversion to the sound of the name...

[Jgib5328]

In my subjective mind/world I think that my future wife should take my last name. I'd be pretty upset if she didn't, I just feel as though that is how it should be. I can't really explain it, there is absolutely no logic behind it, other than the fact that subjectively, that's how I view the situation.

I do like some traditions a lot and like to keep them. Call me an ignorant ST all you want, but I just see it that way.

[yondyr]

And if you choose carefully, I'm sure she will..

[ceg6]

When I got divorced I did keep my married name. I had two sons without a dad in the picture and I felt, for them, it was best that I keep it. I remember them being suprised when we went to court. That I wasn't planning to change it back to my maiden name. At this point in the game, if I get married again I will take his name because the other choice is go back to my maiden name I haven't used for 20 years. I guess I see bigger, more important battles and I'd prefer expending my energy on those and not this.

[PortInStorm]

It really is about what's important to you. But it's true, if I was walking miles for clean water or scavenging for food, it may not remain important to me.

I just submitted an abstract for a conference, and did it under my maiden name. Hooray!

[vaguely dissatisfied]

It really is about what's important to you. But it's true, if I was walking miles for clean water or scavenging for food, it may not remain important to me.

I just submitted an abstract for a conference, and did it under my maiden name. Hooray!
You have just made my day!





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 3 minutes and 11 seconds later...

In my subjective mind/world I think that my future wife should take my last name. I'd be pretty upset if she didn't, I just feel as though that is how it should be. I can't really explain it, there is absolutely no logic behind it, other than the fact that subjectively, that's how I view the situation.

I do like some traditions a lot and like to keep them. Call me an ignorant ST all you want, but I just see it that way.
You're not an ignorant ST, just a victim of the society you live in. Many men would and do feel the way you feel. The fact that you realize that your logic is flawed in this decision is a step in the right direction. Perhaps with further reflection you will see that you don't need societies stamp of approval for how you choose to live your life.

[Fervency]

I just submitted an abstract for a conference, and did it under my maiden name. Hooray!

I'm glad you made a choice that is best for you. I appreciate that you brought up this topic because it is something I have thought about myself. I'm still not sure about how I would feel about changing my name and if I would associate it with my identity. But it's a topic that I find interesting and I would only change my last name to my future husband's last name if I truly decided it was what I wanted. What I'm trying to say is I don't want to automatically change my last name just because that is what society expects me to do.

[PortInStorm]

Ya, I was talking to an ESFP friend yesterday and she completely did not get what the fuss was about (and she's not traditional, just not 'big-picture' thinking, very S). She said "I don't get it, aren't you proud to have his name?" and it was like pulling teeth to explain it's about identity, not pride in my husband. "How would you like someone to call you Mrs. Smith the rest of your life?" I think that made her consider a bit...

[apresmoimelle]

I am never changing my last name. I do not care how "effin" fantastic his last name is or how much he wants it, I am sticking to my name because my parents named me in such a way that my name would only flow perfectly with my first. I have tried imagining myself with another last name, and I cannot even bring myself to write it out on paper.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I am never changing my last name. I do not care how "effin" fantastic his last name is or how much he wants it, I am sticking to my name because my parents named me in such a way that my name would only flow perfectly with my first. I have tried imagining myself with another last name, and I cannot even bring myself to write it out on paper.
You are fantastic!

[apresmoimelle]

You are fantastic!

Haha! I have to say, the feeling is mutual!

[acyckowski]

Okay, I'm chiming in again to say I still don't understand what's the big deal.

I guess what's baffling is all the emotion being thrown around under the name of Logic. If you want to look at this logically, then I suggest a premise check: the premise seems to be that a person's identity is defined by their name. While there is smidgen of truth to that--I wouldn't have near the repertoire of Polack jokes if I were asmith--it seems to be giving way too much emphasis to a tiny part of the overall person. Seriously, how many John Smiths are there? Are they all basically the same person?

My self-identity and self-worth are derived primarily from my relationships and accomplishments. My accomplishments had nothing to do with my name, and regardless of the name on the diploma/certificate/etc, I am the one who did it.

My relationships are primarily defined by family and friendships; in the relevant case of family, when we married, my wife and I broke off from our previous families and formed a new one. Although we had child roles in an existing family, we now share the parental role of a new family. Why shouldn't we share a name? It's largely symbolic, yes, and different customs work just as well, but since our culture calls for a patriarchical naming convention, why confuse things over such a minor point?

The importance of a naming convention is it allows for abbreviated and efficient communication, which contain certain implications established by society as a whole. To illustrate, look at standard units of measure. Both miles and kilometers are accepted standards of measure, mathematically related, and culturally-specific. Drive "100" in the US, you'll get pulled over and probably arrested. Drive "100" on the Autobahn, you'll get run off the road by other drivers. In each of these cases, the naming convention is implied by the context....this doesn't have to be true, but imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would be for everybody if speed limit signs varied based on the personal peference of the sign-maker and not on generally accepted mores?

Ultimately, ladies, it's your choice, of course. I just don't see the point of fighting so hard to make a point you're only going to have to explain over and over and over and over....................I would grant y'all the "what do you expect a guy to say" dismissals, except that I don't like my first name, in any form, and never have. I go by Ski, most of the time, just like my friend Leroy goes by his middle name, Dave.

[PortInStorm]

Well I certainly have no problem ceeding that not everyone is going to understand the feeling of a loss of identity. And I've gotten lots of sympathy from like-minded females here.

I guess the closest thing I can think of would be if your country (let's just assume the U.S.) and another (let's say Canada) were to amalgamate. You'd be asked to replace the U.S's flag, anthem, and name with Canada's. The U.S. would still have the same people in it, same government, same laws.... You'd just have the Canadian flag flying at the White House and a big ol' fat beaver behind the podium instead of an eagle

But wouldn't you question what right Canada had to impose a completely different identity on your country, why Canada couldn't be called the U.S. and take on its flag, anthem and name? If Canada said it was just easier that way... it'd be ludicrous. Taking on anothers' name etc obviously has a power-laden connotation and an implication of superiority. It's more of a take-over then, not a joining. If it were, there'd be a mutually chosen name for the newly-combined country.

Given your stance, you probably'd have no issue with it. I mean now that you're Canadian. You're still the same inside.... just Canadian, not American anymore. Fly 'our' flag high! Welcome to the family.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Okay, I'm chiming in again to say I still don't understand what's the big deal.

I guess what's baffling is all the emotion being thrown around under the name of Logic. If you want to look at this logically, then I suggest a premise check: the premise seems to be that a person's identity is defined by their name. While there is smidgen of truth to that--I wouldn't have near the repertoire of Polack jokes if I were asmith--it seems to be giving way too much emphasis to a tiny part of the overall person. Seriously, how many John Smiths are there? Are they all basically the same person?

My self-identity and self-worth are derived primarily from my relationships and accomplishments. My accomplishments had nothing to do with my name, and regardless of the name on the diploma/certificate/etc, I am the one who did it.

My relationships are primarily defined by family and friendships; in the relevant case of family, when we married, my wife and I broke off from our previous families and formed a new one. Although we had child roles in an existing family, we now share the parental role of a new family. Why shouldn't we share a name? It's largely symbolic, yes, and different customs work just as well, but since our culture calls for a patriarchical naming convention, why confuse things over such a minor point?

The importance of a naming convention is it allows for abbreviated and efficient communication, which contain certain implications established by society as a whole. To illustrate, look at standard units of measure. Both miles and kilometers are accepted standards of measure, mathematically related, and culturally-specific. Drive "100" in the US, you'll get pulled over and probably arrested. Drive "100" on the Autobahn, you'll get run off the road by other drivers. In each of these cases, the naming convention is implied by the context....this doesn't have to be true, but imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would be for everybody if speed limit signs varied based on the personal peference of the sign-maker and not on generally accepted mores?

Ultimately, ladies, it's your choice, of course. I just don't see the point of fighting so hard to make a point you're only going to have to explain over and over and over and over....................I would grant y'all the "what do you expect a guy to say" dismissals, except that I don't like my first name, in any form, and never have. I go by Ski, most of the time, just like my friend Leroy goes by his middle name, Dave.
If this is true than men would have no problem changing their name when they get married.

[malefide]

I'm not married and I do not plan to.

But.

If I did. If. I would not change my name. Simply put--there is no point. And I like my name. My mother didn't change her name. Her children's names are hyphenated.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I'm not married and I do not plan to.

But.

If I did. If. I would not change my name. Simply put--there is no point. And I like my name. My mother didn't change her name. Her children's names are hyphenated.
Groovy.

[acyckowski]

If this is true than men would have no problem changing their name when they get married.

Not so. The 10% of the NT's probably wouldn't have a problem with it, except that it's too much paperwork to be bothered with. Don't know if the SF's would care one way or the other, and you could probably frighten the NF guys into going along. The SJ's still pretty much set the rules about what is "expected," and they'd never go along with changing a tradition that old without a dire need to do so.

Methinks y'all miss my point: why so much EMOTION in this? The whole thing is so silly and trivial in the big scheme of things. The level of opposition/defiance leads me to believe that this is some sort of symbolic anti-patriarchal tantrum.

p.s. The U.S.-Canada analogy kind of falls flat. The U.S. has incorporated 37 states into the Union since forming, all of it voluntary, and with the exception of Texas pretty much everybody considers themselves American.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Not so. The 10% of the NT's probably wouldn't have a problem with it, except that it's too much paperwork to be bothered with. Don't know if the SF's would care one way or the other, and you could probably frighten the NF guys into going along. The SJ's still pretty much set the rules about what is "expected," and they'd never go along with changing a tradition that old without a dire need to do so.

Methinks y'all miss my point: why so much EMOTION in this? The whole thing is so silly and trivial in the big scheme of things. The level of opposition/defiance leads me to believe that this is some sort of symbolic anti-patriarchal tantrum.

p.s. The U.S.-Canada analogy kind of falls flat. The U.S. has incorporated 37 states into the Union since forming, all of it voluntary, and with the exception of Texas pretty much everybody considers themselves American.
Yeah.........it's just women getting hysterical again. Why in the world would women get emotional about living in a patriarchy? It's really very trivial indeed. There are so many more important things for us to concern ourselves with and I'm sure you'll let us know what they are. We really need to get ourselves under control like you men. I'm glad you're here to let us know when we're getting too emotional and throwing tantrums. It's so nice to have a calm voice of reason in this emotional turmoil of women.

[PortInStorm]

You absolutely have to be kidding me about all of the Union being voluntary. Latin America used to be a whole lot bigger, if you catch my drift, and ask the Native Americans if they wanted to have their lands taken over by you.

And besides, the point of the analogy isn't whether the union is voluntary or not. I need you to try really hard to engage the F here and put yourself in the position I described. You're still coming at it as an American that is 'incorporating others'.

I want you to picture the Canadian flag flying at the White House.
I want you to sing the Canadian anthem and embrace it as your new identity.
Picture yourself trading in your American passport for your new Canadian one.
Hear everyone calling you Canadian, kidding you about using 'eh' etc. etc.
Have someone laugh at you when you mistakenly call yourself American now and again.

And sorry, but who are you as a man who never has had to change his name, to tell me that this is silly and trivial?

Watch me burn your American flag and stomp on it, and I'll tell you it's just a piece of fabric, that you're getting too emotional about it.

[acyckowski]

Mexico started it. :D You're quibbling, unless you were married by conquest and not choice. No analogy is perfect.

Of course I'm coming at it as an American. I don't presume to speak for Canadian culture (eh?), Europe, Asia, or any such thing. In the U.S., it is normal for a woman to assume her husband's name when she gets married. It is abnormal to hyphenate, have the man change his name, etc. This is a factual observation, not a value judgment.

Bear with me as I point out the obvious, but 1) men and women are different, and 2) Society generates rules of behavior between them. Are these rules universally fair? No, of course not. Why should I hold the door for YOU? Why should I pick up the check for YOUR dinner? (Which you didn't even finish because you're on a diet). Why should I be cold because YOU didn't think to bring a coat? Why should I refrain from profanity and scratching myself in YOUR presence? Why don't YOU buy ME a diamond?

None of these rules hold up to scrutiny on their own, but to function as a society we need commonly understood standards of behavior. Which rules do we keep? Which do we throw away? Who gets to decide? In the case of surnames, it's ultimately a decision a couple needs to make, but don't pretend to be surprised that Society reacts negatively when you defy tradition. The guy who changes his last name has to know that other guys are going to think he's a wuss...fair or not, that's what'll happen.

If this were truly a patriarchy (it isn't), your opinion wouldn't even be heard. In a free society such as ours, women do in fact decide everyday to excercise their free will and conform to Society's expectations. Most of them aren't even held at gunpoint! I observe this and conclude that many women don't feel their identity or self-esteem is threatened by changing their name.

Taking this a step further, how would you define Margaret Thatcher? Was she a major player in the collapse of the Soviet Union, or was she just some guy's wife? On the American political stage, who is running for President? Senator Rodham, or Senator Clinton? Is this Nancy Pelosi character just a shill for Mister Pelosi, or is she really the Speaker of the House?

If you want to keep your maiden name, for whatever reason, then knock yourself out. Just don't insult your own intelligence and mine by claiming that you can defy social norms without social backlash. In the real world, if you thumb your nose at tradition, you evoke a response. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth it.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

acyckowski

"If you want to keep your maiden name, for whatever reason, then knock yourself out. Just don't insult your own intelligence and mine by claiming that you can defy social norms without social backlash. In the real world, if you thumb your nose at tradition, you evoke a response. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth it."

I don't believe anyone eluded to any sort of claim. I think that the perception was that you were telling women that they were being too emotional about the subject....that they were throwing a tantrum. You were also giving them advice about how they should feel, view, and react to the subject because your view is that we don't live in a patriarchy (do you know the definition?), life's not fair, and a woman changing her name when she gets married is a trivial subject.

If you want to tell these things to women knock yourself out. Just don't insult your own intelligence and mine by claiming that you can do this without causing a negative reaction. In the real world, if you thumb your nose at women's issues, you evoke a response. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth it.

[PortInStorm]

No fair- you changed the line of argument several times. I thought this was about women getting too worked up about losing their identity. Now all of a sudden there's
- the reaction and norms of society
- the differences between men and women
- the fact that not every woman thinks the same (shocker!)
- that those who changed their name can't have great impact on society (Mohican :-)

We can't discuss if we're talking past each other.

[yondyr]

I don't need to weigh into this discussion, vaguely and 2ndtimes are doing a fine job of carrying the sensible aspect to those that need to understand.

[bebegirl]

I never liked my last name; it was a source of teasing for me when I was younger; often mispronounced even though it is only 3 letters....so when I got married I was glad to take a nice generic Irish surname and forget about all the other stuff. I never thought about it as any kind of identity thing, only glad I was getting an easier name to live with...

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I never liked my last name; it was a source of teasing for me when I was younger; often mispronounced even though it is only 3 letters....so when I got married I was glad to take a nice generic Irish surname and forget about all the other stuff. I never thought about it as any kind of identity thing, only glad I was getting an easier name to live with...
This is a very common way of thinking among women.

[acyckowski]

No fair- you changed the line of argument several times. I thought this was about women getting too worked up about losing their identity. Now all of a sudden there's
- the reaction and norms of society
- the differences between men and women
- the fact that not every woman thinks the same (shocker!)
- that those who changed their name can't have great impact on society (Mohican :-)

We can't discuss if we're talking past each other.

No, I don't think we're talking past each other, but I realize I'm not making a succinct argument. I think this issue has inherently parallel lines of argument. Let me see if I can tie them together.

Any culture, of course, can be changed from within. Any change to a well-established social convention will encounter large amounts of inertia at best, and fierce resistance at worst. Passion for an ideal is necessary for change, but the logical question to ask is: is the ideal worth the passion?

In this case, we're considering changing a centuries-old naming convention in a culture descended primarily from the British Empire, an even older culture. The force arrayed against this change is about a millenia of inertia. Since the convention in question is no more or less arbitrary than many others like it, why does this one generate so much emotion?

I would submit that the difference between passion and rage lies in the worthiness of the cause, not the emotion itself. "Worthiness" is a matter of cost and benefits. In this case, the cost is a lifetime of mild disapproval from a group of people who resent your challenge to an old tradition. The benefit is an avoidance of administrative hassle. (Any benefit beyond this implies self-identity, which goes back to my original arguments.) Therefore, it's a minor issue, and I would categorize any strong emotion towards the matter as clearly disproportionate to the worthiness of the cause. Rage.

I also need to point out that I have not said, nor intended to imply, that this is about women being "hysterical": hysteria implies chaotic emotion without cause. I do not take issue with the soundness of the ideal, nor the orderliness of the emotion. Again, my issue is with the proportionateness of the response.

For what it's worth, it appears to me that the tradition itself will simply go away with time, as more women choose not to bother with it. Fifty years ago, it was unthinkable. Thirty years ago, it was regarded hostilely as some sort of feminist/hippie/countercultural statement. Today, the response is a condescending cluck from Grandma. It won't be long before it gets no response at all.

Corrolary:

My use of significant women was intended to illustrate the folly of the claim that a name implies individual accomplishment, or individuality itself. This was a theme in many of the early posts. My best example of the irrelevance of a name is actually a man, Karol Wojtyla, arguably one of the ten biggest players of the twentieth century.

Different Topic
If you believe the modern U.S. is a patriarchal society, then I highly recommend you get out and see more of the world. True patriarchy exists, but not in places with internet connectivity and indoor plumbing, if you catch my drift. But, for the record:

pa·tri·arch·y
–noun, plural -ies.
1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.
(from dictionary.com)

The only claim you have to patriarchy, by definition, is by applying the naming convention to "belonging to the father's clan or tribe," and that's clever but false logic. In matters of written and common law, both sets of grandparents have equal claim to a couple's children. In a true patriarchy, only the father's family would have claim.

[Nanashi]

My sister’s fiancé offered to change his last name to hers.

Oh, and, Thistle, one of my dance teachers mentioned that his foreign-sounding last name is Iranian or Arabian or something and that females' surnames are passed to children in his mother's culture.


Quotes from this thread:“As an alternative, I would suggest that each retain their own name, and that any children would have hyphenated names until they reach some pre-determined age. At that time they would be offered the opportunity to; a) keep the hyphenated name, b) take on mom's name, or c) take on dad's name. that way, the "connection" that you spoke of is retained and by choice.”
“I went to elementary school with many families who had hyphenated last names and with some of them the children chose, at 12 years old or so, whether or not they wanted to continue having a hyphenated surname or, if not, which name to drop. They seemed happy with it.”

It concerns me that the child would have to choose one name or the other. Could be being influenced by my parents’ divorce in my early childhood. It would seem like they have to choose between one parent’s heritage and family and the other’s. I favor the hyphenating until the child can choose her/his own unique last name. EEEETo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. doesn’t that cut off the family connection?
I don’t see a need for family names beyond having the same last name as one’s underage children in order to be obviously connected to them, but I even balk at that idea sometimes. Of course, since I’m planning on adopting my kids, and they won’t look like me or anything, I can see the benefit of our connection being easily recognizable to law enforcement, etc, but I get angsty and think that I really don’t have to name my kids a certain way because of the vague possibility of a custody dispute. Ugh. Your family connection has to do with eating picnics on a sheet in your family room in winter, or singing melodramatic songs together, or listening each to the other’s dreams in the morning, or having pillow fights, or encouraging the others to pursue their own excellence, their dreams, their interests, and their sustenance.

I get insanely angry when I encounter this viewpoint:
“When I get married, I'm totally planning on taking his name. I want the same name as my kids. I think it reiterates the "family" aspect of it. But, all the same, it's probably no biggie to me if some female wanted to keep her name the same and not share her name with her kids.”
WHY? Why is sharing a name with your kids automatically dependant on having your spouse’s? To me, it seems like an impotent, if loud, demonstration of power when a woman keeps her name but her kids take the guy’s name. Instead of this bleep of individuality, which is hedged on the one side by past years of male ancestors passing a name to only male babies and on the other side by her husband’s name being passed to only male children (unless the children with female parts also choose to retain that name), she could actually do something that truly honors her being. Does anybody notice the females are disenfranchised completely when it comes to bestowing family names? I feel like there’s this weird subconscious conversation going on between the spouses.
Female: “I’m retaining my personhood by keeping my name! But, oh yeah! Of course the kids will take your name! I I know I’m allowed to assert my independence to a certain degree, but ‘Society’ forbid I actually claim total, actual equality with my mate.“



I guess I may sound like an angry person. My personal experiences have shaped my strong view of this issue. I grew up around people who were sometimes logical, innovative, and imaginative and sometimes very patriarchaically-minded, gender-stereotype-advocating (my dad and step-dad were abusive in addition to that), and I saw it hurt people or felt it limit my natural bent toward supposedly historically male interests. I hope that explains the unbridled rage to the point that my argument won’t be completely cast aside.

I think traditions which remind us, as people, of pleasant times or family, etc, serve a purpose, but traditions often seem insidiously harmful to me because we as humans are so susceptible to subtle suggestion (and annoyed by alliteration) in social practices of platonic forms being alluded to, especially those social conventions which were designed in eras when human rights were ignored.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

"Therefore, it's a minor issue, and I would categorize any strong emotion towards the matter as clearly disproportionate to the worthiness of the cause."

You seem bent on deciding for everyone what is and is not a minor issue. Also, I don't think you understand what a patriarchy is. Although it is true that a patriarchy is the structuring of society on the basis of family units, where fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of, hence authority over, their families, since the feminine form of patriarchy is matriarchy, but there are no known examples of matriarchies from any point in history, we see that all societies that exist today come from patriarchies and retain many of the criteria for that type of society.

Also, the concept of patriarchy is often used, by extension (in anthropology and feminism, for example), to refer to the expectation that men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole, acting as representatives via public office, which you can clearly see is the case in the vast majority of cases. I hope this clears things up for you a bit.

[foroneonly]

I'm not married but when I do I will take my husband's name. For me it represents me recognizing that we are one and family and all that good stuff. But that is just how I was raised and what the act represents to me. My name isn't really something I identify with it in that it doesn't define me at all. However, I think that it is a personal decision so it should be up to each woman what she does.

[integratedvelocity]

Right now, I'm planning on hyphenating. Generally, I tend to be more socially conservative, but I don't like the idea of becoming some other person. I don't know who Rachel ______ is. Also, I'm planning on going into a professional field, making it likely that I will get married later in life after I have already successfully begun a career.

Unless, I happen to really like my future spouse's surname. But I feel a strong affinity for my last name. It has history and uniqueness. It's also enjoyable to know that everyone in the US with my last name is related to me (unless they are Indian).

[ShaiGar]

I'm female and not married either. I won't say I don't want to get married, but I could definitely see never getting married - I like living by myself. If I do get married I'd keep my own name and add on his - earlier on in my life I would have just taken his name but I'm getting to the point in my career where I'm identified by my name and it's a bigger deal to completely change it.

In the Two Rivers they have a naming custom that you might enjoy

Nynaeve ti al'Meara Mandragoran
Nynaeve = Given Name
ti = To indicate Marriage
al'Meara = Fathers House
Mandragoran = Husbands House


and from Saldea
Zarine ni Bashere t'Aybara
Zarine = Given Name
ni = To indicate that she is from
Bashere = Fathers House
t' = To indicate joining through marriage
Aybara = To indicate Husbands house.

[Serket]

Why not use arabic naming convention?

Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti

Saddam=individuals name
Hussein Abd al-Majid=father's name
al-Tikriti=from location of birth

(always found it funny to call him Saddam Hussein!)

Then when a son is born of a marriage, lets say Ali, the mother gets called Umm Ali and the father is Abu Ali. (For those in AU think Abu Bakhar Bashir)


Not so long ago Swedish naming convention was to make the child "child of the father"
eg Gunnarson or Gunnarsdotter, so surname changed each generation.

[mkay]

I kept my name when I got married. Never considered otherwise. My thinking: I didn't become someone else when I got married, so why would I change my name?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I'm not married but when I do I will take my husband's name. For me it represents me recognizing that we are one and family and all that good stuff. But that is just how I was raised and what the act represents to me. My name isn't really something I identify with it in that it doesn't define me at all. However, I think that it is a personal decision so it should be up to each woman what she does.
This actually makes sense to me because your name is your father's and his father's and so on. So.......it really doesn't define you, but basically ignores you.

[PortInStorm]

Why not use arabic naming convention?

Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti

Saddam=individuals name
Hussein Abd al-Majid=father's name
al-Tikriti=from location of birth

(always found it funny to call him Saddam Hussein!)

Then when a son is born of a marriage, lets say Ali, the mother gets called Umm Ali and the father is Abu Ali. (For those in AU think Abu Bakhar Bashir)


Not so long ago Swedish naming convention was to make the child "child of the father"
eg Gunnarson or Gunnarsdotter, so surname changed each generation.
Nice switch, but still relies on a the male component. And what's with changing the mom's name once she has a son??? That's wrong to me on so many levels: so now she's valuable because she's had a child, a male child at that, and she changes her identity to suit someone of much less knowledge, skill etc. just because of his gender. Blech. :yuck::thumbsdown:

[Beery Swine]

I'm a man, but if I could offer some advice, if you're not comfortable with a different name just go back to your birth name, or whatever name you feel like. Try and make him understand how uncomfortable this is for you and hopefully he'll see how silly getting upset over it is. Also, and I'm not suggesting that your husband would do this, but if something as insignificant as a name is a deal-breaker for someone, you gotta wonder how committed to the relationship they are.

[PortInStorm]

Sorry Beery, was that advice for me?

[Beery Swine]

Sorry Beery, was that advice for me?

No, it was for the thread starter, and you can't look at it anymore. :p

[azelismia]

I kinda worked around that problem ;)

Actually, i hated my name and everything it represented so i did my absolute best to destroy it. My middle name was a combination of both my mother and father's middle names, so i made sure to change that as well.

I actually found my husband in a search for his name online. There was an actor on a soap opera, and his character was the arch villain INTJ mastermind type, and i adored him. So i was bored and i did a search for the actors name one night many years ago - it was 3 or 4 in the morning. A profile came up with a match of the name - it was a guy living 2 states away a couple of years older than me (then in high school) and he was finishing up his senior year before college. I didnt talk to him that night (he was on), but i remembered him and i caught him online later. He is the first and probably only random person i have ever sought out to talk to online. The first thing i ever told him was "I love your name." Now it's MY name. He happens to be an artist and uses the first letter of his last name as a little design for his signature. I made that letter my middle name - just a letter. I use the signature design as my own, and have it tattooed on my leg.

That being said, i took that name consciously because i wanted that name. Its mine now. We'll probably be divorced soon but to me i have no other name than the one i sought out and took as my own. To me, his name doesn't symbolize him - it symbolizes what it was that i was seeking out when i met him, and at that time i was searching for a new life of my own creation. I found it. Now i just have to make it better ;)

i really dont understand what the big deal is with keeping your own name, unless you are 100% satisfied with who you are and what you are and where you came from. to me, the name i was given was never my real name. my real name i had to seek on my own.


Santana, I have never changed my middle name, it's not worth the effort of changing ALLLLLL that paperwork but My middle name turned out to be the name of a hooker in germany my dad liked while he was in the army. I found out when i was 8. I was in a BIG hurry to lose his last name. I'd never ever take it back under pain of death. One of these days, probably if I do get married again, I'll be ditching the middle name too. I don't know to what but it will be gone.





azelismia added to this post, 5 minutes and 10 seconds later...

Mexico started it. :D You're quibbling, unless you were married by conquest and not choice. No analogy is perfect.

Of course I'm coming at it as an American. I don't presume to speak for Canadian culture (eh?), Europe, Asia, or any such thing. In the U.S., it is normal for a woman to assume her husband's name when she gets married. It is abnormal to hyphenate, have the man change his name, etc. This is a factual observation, not a value judgment.

Bear with me as I point out the obvious, but 1) men and women are different, and 2) Society generates rules of behavior between them. Are these rules universally fair? No, of course not. Why should I hold the door for YOU? Why should I pick up the check for YOUR dinner? (Which you didn't even finish because you're on a diet). Why should I be cold because YOU didn't think to bring a coat? Why should I refrain from profanity and scratching myself in YOUR presence? Why don't YOU buy ME a diamond?

None of these rules hold up to scrutiny on their own, but to function as a society we need commonly understood standards of behavior. Which rules do we keep? Which do we throw away? Who gets to decide? In the case of surnames, it's ultimately a decision a couple needs to make, but don't pretend to be surprised that Society reacts negatively when you defy tradition. The guy who changes his last name has to know that other guys are going to think he's a wuss...fair or not, that's what'll happen.

If this were truly a patriarchy (it isn't), your opinion wouldn't even be heard. In a free society such as ours, women do in fact decide everyday to excercise their free will and conform to Society's expectations. Most of them aren't even held at gunpoint! I observe this and conclude that many women don't feel their identity or self-esteem is threatened by changing their name.

Taking this a step further, how would you define Margaret Thatcher? Was she a major player in the collapse of the Soviet Union, or was she just some guy's wife? On the American political stage, who is running for President? Senator Rodham, or Senator Clinton? Is this Nancy Pelosi character just a shill for Mister Pelosi, or is she really the Speaker of the House?

If you want to keep your maiden name, for whatever reason, then knock yourself out. Just don't insult your own intelligence and mine by claiming that you can defy social norms without social backlash. In the real world, if you thumb your nose at tradition, you evoke a response. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth it.


you are very sensible on this.

[mkay]

If you want to keep your maiden name, for whatever reason, then knock yourself out. Just don't insult your own intelligence and mine by claiming that you can defy social norms without social backlash. In the real world, if you thumb your nose at tradition, you evoke a response. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth it.

Personally, I kept my name because I didn't want to change it. To me, it wasn't a feminist thing. If I were a man, I wouldn't want to change my name either. ... I'm curious what you mean about thumbing your nose at tradition and evoking a response. I haven't had any problems with not having changed my name.