What changing name means to you.

Tupins

Hi There,

This post is mainly directed at women but I'd be interested in hearing from any men if you're reading.

I got married last year and I made the decision to change my name to my husbands name. This was a personal decision and unlike most big decisions I made it myself and didn't even discuss it with my husband as I thought it was more personal to me as an individual. I have a few (what I consider very good) reasons for changing my name. (I will explain if you like but I think that's not the point for the moment.)

Anyway, my problem is that while most people accept this without question, there are a few people (mostly women) who seem to think that it's ok for them to completely look down their noses at me for changing my name. For example, today I went to the garda station to get my passport application form stamped as my old one is out of date. The garda who was serving me was a woman in about her 40's. She was filling out a book with my name etc. I explained that I was applying for my passport in my new name and showed her my marriage cert etc. So she continued filling in her book etc and she said "So you're not keeping your own name then?". I said no and without even looking at me she just said "Silly girl", in a really derogatory way. I was really taken aback by this and was debating whether or not to say something but as she hadn't yet stamped and signed my form, and I was in a hurry, I decided against it in case there was an argument and she would refuse to complete the form.

But really I was very shocked and annoyed by what she said. I realise that some women would choose not to change their names after marriage. I totally respect their decision and thankfully we all have a choice nowadays. But doesn't our freedom come from having that choice? Surely, pressurising someone NOT to change their name is as bad as putting pressure on them to change it. Like I say, I can understand a womans reasons for keeping her own name but even if I didn't thats their choice and they shouldn't have to justify it to anyone.

This guard is just one example. One of my friends also got quite annoyed when I told her I was changing my name.

I'm sure a lot of women presume that if you change your name you immediately become a 1950's housewife running around after your husband and losing all individuality and independence. I'm sorry but I think you're wrong. I certainly have not lost either my independence OR my individuality. Just because I've changed my name doesn't make me a different person, and certainly not a lesser person than if I had kept my own name.

If you choose not to change your name then that's your choice and I'm glad that we have it but don't take away the choices of other women who don't go the same way.

Aquitaine

I think its a personal choice and people should respect that. i didnt change my name and get a few people who contiunously bug me about it. my sister insists on referring to me as my husbands name when addressing a letter etc. i doesnt really bother me but i do wish she would respect the fact that i have kept my own name. to he honest op this is one of those things that some people will have an issue with whether you change your name or not :-)

babaduck

It is completely personal - but I found it rather hard to lose what I considered my identity as Ms X and change lock stock to Mrs Y - so after a discussion with Hubs, I'm Mrs XY. Might be a bit poncy for some, but I get the best of both worlds (or as the lads in here pointed out, I have two names to hide behind!!!)

Most of my friends have changed over to their married names, some with rather indecent haste IMHO, but I took the slowly slowly approach & only changed stuff when necessary - we're married 3 years, but drivers licence only got changed this year, as with the bank accounts (due for renewal). Passport can just wait another 2 years until it runs out as I'm not stumping up €75-ish for the priviledge

Sesame

Not married yet but will be very soon.
We've talked a lot about this. I do like the idea of sharing a name. To me, it makes the marriage more meaningful in the sense that we would share a name as well as our lives, children, etc.
But what I don't get is why the woman is assumed to give up her name???!! That might be traditional but I can't see any other reason for it other than its how it's always been done.
So we have decided to go done a slightly unconventional route.
I'm taking his name by hyphenating with my own. So it will be Mrs. X-Y
And he is also going to be Mr. X-Y. That we we both gain the other's name and share the same surname.
I was plesently surprised when he suggested this to be honest. Even though hyphenating does get bad press, I think it is the best way to go for us.
Regarding children, it's still up for debate when the time comes. But the idea at the moment is to give them the surname X. (My name) Simply cause I don't want to burden them with the hyphenated name and it's going to die out otherwise whereas every second person in the area we live has the surname Y.
Anyone else doing something similar?

Tupins

Fair play to your h2b for suggesting this. A lot of men would feel threatened by this as it would go against their 'macho' image. He's obviously very secure in himself and also respects your point of view. You've found a good guy there :-)

Best of luck with the wedding.

Sesame

Thanks, I suppose he is!!
My only worry now is what his family will think. And if they will talk him out of it. We haven't told anyone yet.
BTW I think what that garda said to you was unprofessional. She sounds like she might be bitter about something.

Abi

OP I would have said something to her. Not nessesarily in an argumentive fashion, just to let her know you found it offensive.


Im in two minds about the names myself.

It seems like the natural thing do, to take the OH's surname. But I've great pride in my own family, and dont like the idea of losing the surname.

To me, choosing one or the other would bother me a lot. Im more than likely going to double-barrel. My concern with that was it seemed like a mouthful.

When you double barrel a name and someone goes to address you by Mrs, do they naturally shorten it to your husbands surname, or do they come out with the lot?

hunnymonster

I would not change my name. It has been part of my identity since I was born (even before I had a first name!) so why on earth would I change it? That said whatever other people want to do is fine by me and I do think the Guard was out of order to pass judgement on your choice.

On the subject of titles, it's quite funny when I book tickets or hotels. As I'm a "dr" rather than a "ms", we quite often get things sent to "Dr and Mrs" X that are meant for me and my (male) partner. That's a whole lot of assumptions made on the part of the sender.

onewoman

Tupins, I'd be interested in hearing your 'good reasons' for changing your name.

To be blunt, I completely disagre with the idea of a woman changing her name upon marriage: it simply reinforces a tradition whereby a woman was basically transferred from one man (father) to another (husband) and given the respectie name. Clearly, that is not how men and women in civilised societies treat each other these days - in which case, why follow such a sexist practice?

The main reasons people tend to give for changing their names are these (and although yours may be different Tupin, I'm not at all convinced that the usual ones are justified):
1. They want to have the same name as their partner:
If this is the case, why can't you both come up with a new name or hyphenate? It's common practice in some countries, such as Spain.

If it's the man who particularly wants his wife to have the same name as him, it's completely unfair of him to expect that naturally the woman will be the one that has to compromise.

2. They want any children to have a non-fussy name and for it to be the same as the parents.
This is a bit tricky, but again the hypehnated name could work (and if the children grow up and want to marry and change names they can decide which of the names to drop, if any, etc, etc).

3. One of the sillier reasons I've heard for name-changing is that the woman prefers how the other name sounds or just likes it better.
This is ridiculous: there are patently a substantial amount of men in the world with less than ideal names too, but you don't see them rushing to compromise their identities.

What saddens me about the whole issue is that it's usually just women who are forced to consider the consequences, women who are encouraged to think about the ramifications if they don't go with what's expected, and women who take responsibility for structuring the family identity.

And don't even get me started on the reluctance of some places to embrace the use of 'Ms' instead of Miss or Mrs. The whole purpose of Ms is that nobody can know a woman's marital status, thus placing her on an equal rung with a man. I can't believe, though, how today so many women can't wait to be identified by their relationship, not only through a name change but also through going by the title of Mrs. Whatever happened to being an individual?

/rant

onewoman

Tupins wrote: »

I realise that some women would choose not to change their names after marriage. I totally respect their decision and thankfully we all have a choice nowadays. But doesn't our freedom come from having that choice?

Tupins, sorry if this feels like a personal attack on you - it's not, lots of people say it, but I'm just picking up on what you've said here.

Your use of the word 'choice' is slightly misleading: choice is generally considered a good thing (especially with these kind of feminist issues: think of a woman's 'choice' to stay at home). These choices were completely unavailable to men for a long time, and are only availed of to a limited degree today. Therefore, choice does not mean male-female equality: it simply means that women are usually the ones forced to make a choice: the automatic male rights to retain original named identity (and job after children come along) are not granted to women.

So can we stop pretending that all choices are good? thanks!

tSubh Dearg

Funny you should say about people changing to their husband's surname cause it sounds better. I'm NOT changing it for exactly that reason, if I did I'd sound like a character from a nursery rhyme.

We have considered double barrelling but the problem is that I have a very unusual surname that is already double barrelled (not with both my parent's surnames, just my dad's) and I think a triple barrelled surname is a tad over the top!

We still haven't worked out what will do when we have children. Personally I would love them to take my name as it's just me and my sister in the family, so there's no male to carry on the name as such. But we'll work it out when we get there.

bensoneb

onewoman, that did sound like rather an aggresive reply to what was a request to find out what people's thoughts were on the subject. At the end of the day, we're all entitled to our opinions and it doesn't mean that either side of the debate is right or wrong.

It sounds to me like everyone who posted here IS an individual just with different views on the subject. Choosing to take your husband's name doesn't make any of us less of an individual!

And to your point about being identified by our relationship, personally I can't wait to get married to my wonderful man and be known as Mrs. XXX as I'm bursting with pride about being part of a fantastic relationship.

I respect everyone no matter what they choose to do and I don't believe that anyone should have to justify why they choose to take their husband's name of not. It's a personal decision so why question it?

Tupins: That guard was totally out of order and had no right to comment. She sounds like a woman with 'issues'!!!!

heavyheart

For the people who are against taking your husbands name , would you follow the other traditional methods todo with the wedding , like your father giving you away and having a church wedding ? I believe its known out of tradition to take your husbands name so im just curious ?

hunnymonster

The father giving the bride away follows the same vein of thinking as the changing or surname (i.e. that the woman is being transferred from one man to another) so I would not be in favour of it. I'm not sure how the same logic applies to a church wedding. To my knowledge (and I stand to be corrected) most churches view a marriage as a partnership not a master & subordinate?

For those who do want to change their names, Are you also going to become Mrs John Smith?

While I can understand wanting to shout from the rooftops that you are part of a wonderful relationship and have made promises to each other, the title "Mrs X" does tend to imply a sense of belonging rather than a joining?

There are also the practical problems, unless you marry very young, chances are you have established yourself professionally under your maiden name. Ok, those you work with regularly will soon get the hang of the name change but those you don't do business with so often will lose the connection. For example in my field, A lot of my professional credability comes from the work I publish. If I changed my name a search wouldn't turn up my previous body of work.

aniascor

I got married last year and I changed my name. I've since discovered that most women under 35 didn't seem to feel strongly either way whether I changed it or not. But women over 35 felt quite strongly that I should not under any circumstances change my name, and women over 55 were the opposite and felt that i absolutely must change it. Both positions annoyed me. A female manager at work had the cheek to "jokingly" accuse me of "letting the side down" by changing my name. As far as I'm concerned, it was most definitely a choice. And that's how it should be. And no one should be trying to influence the woman's decision either way by forcing their opinions on them.

iguana

I gave this a lot of thought and decided to keep my own name professionally but use his name when we have children. I know that when I was a kid I would have felt a little odd if I and my parents didn't have the same name. So I think having the same name as a family will be important. The reason why I'm happy to let his name be our family name is that I believe women get to bond with their children on a level that men generally don't so giving them his name is a sort of consolation prize. That might sound odd but I really believe that when it comes to parenthood women get the better deal, so the man might as well have the name. (This is from a woman who thinks proposals are sexist).

So I keep certain things in my name and other in our name and my next passport will be X aka Y. Which has the added benefit of allowing me to pretend I'm a spy.:D

And I always have and always will be Ms, which is surprisingly uncommon in England.

pickarooney

We're not married so it's not really applicable, but before our son was born I wanted him to have his mother's (unique) surname whereas she insisted he have my (common as muck) own. As her name is double-barreled, we couldn't saddle the wee 'un with three names to lug about. He ended up with my father's last name and her father's middle name as a sort of compromise. Now though, I have the distinct impression that she would like to get married so as to be able to change her name to that of her son (but that's another big can of worms...)

helimachoptor

Honestly I thought most women did it. But tbh if my future wife doesn't take my name it makes no difference but I think she will as she doesnt want out kids to have 2 surnames.

A Primal Nut

onewoman wrote: »

Tupins, I'd be interested in hearing your 'good reasons' for changing your name.

To be blunt, I completely disagre with the idea of a woman changing her name upon marriage: it simply reinforces a tradition whereby a woman was basically transferred from one man (father) to another (husband) and given the respectie name. Clearly, that is not how men and women in civilised societies treat each other these days - in which case, why follow such a sexist practice?

The main reasons people tend to give for changing their names are these (and although yours may be different Tupin, I'm not at all convinced that the usual ones are justified):
1. They want to have the same name as their partner:
If this is the case, why can't you both come up with a new name or hyphenate? It's common practice in some countries, such as Spain.

If it's the man who particularly wants his wife to have the same name as him, it's completely unfair of him to expect that naturally the woman will be the one that has to compromise.

2. They want any children to have a non-fussy name and for it to be the same as the parents.
This is a bit tricky, but again the hypehnated name could work (and if the children grow up and want to marry and change names they can decide which of the names to drop, if any, etc, etc).

So all your solutions appear to be double-barrelled, which I would hate personally. I'd prefer my future wife to just keep her own name than a double-barrel name. As for my kids, I'd prefer them to have my own, but if its a big deal, they can have her name rather than a double-barreled one.

barbiegirl

I'm getting married in a couple of months and I have the opposite problem. I want to change my name he doesn't want me to. :-)
I have a long and unusual first name so double barrelled would be ridiculous. I love my family name but I am making a new cluster within the family and I want our cluster to all have the one name, me him and any future kiddies. To be the X family.
To him I'll always be Barbie Y and in my head and my mates too, but being Barbie X married to Mr X with little X kids is what I want.
It's my choice and I'm making it.

onewoman

I realise I may have sounded aggressive - don't mean to be, but it just frustrates me that women are still expected to compromise some part of who they are (two parts, actually, if they change to Mrs too) upon marriage.

And as for wanting to shout from the rooftops about an amazing relationship - I get that. But why does the husband not want to do so too and change his title or name in such a way as to reflect his happiness? It's not remotely equal!

I feel like I'm banging my head off a wall saying this: it is never assumed that a man might want to change part of who he is when getting married, but it is for a woman. Why can so many people not see that this is WRONG?

And as for the other questions about how I feel about other traditional parts of a wedding: the answer is no, they don't particularly appeal. If I ever get married it won't be a big cliched white dress do anway though, so maybe somebody else should chime in on this.

Again, don't mean to offend anybody, but honestly I find it truly offensive when people ask me what'll I do about my name when I get married. Why is it even up for discussion?

aviendha

onewoman wrote: »

Again, don't mean to offend anybody, but honestly I find it truly offensive when people ask me what'll I do about my name when I get married. Why is it even up for discussion?

just curiosity onewoman, is your surname your fathers name, your mothers maiden name, a combination, or some other name???

AnnieB82

onewoman - I think you may be getting too worked up about this wholle naming thing. My own surname does not hold much importance to me. Sure technically it's part of my identity but I do not see it as more than what it is. People do not form opinions on me based on it and it has had not impact on my life as far as I can see. I intend to take my fiances name. I did not even discuss it with him. I am pretty sure that he would take mine if I had asked him too. The reason why I am making this decision is because my fiance is even more laid back and really doesn't care - so I put it to him that I would like us all to have the same name (I'm 7 months pregnant with our baby) Double barrelling I personally don't like and in our case it would sound awful as my surname is a long German one and his a long Finnish one. I don't see what the big fuss is - I'm taking my fiancees name. I probably wont bother changing it in work at all, but will change passports etc as they expire. If other people do feel that their name is important to them then just keep it - I wouldn't get so hot-headed about it. Also I do not feel that by taking my husbands name that I am somehow conforming to these sexist ways - it is in my opinion just a name and nothing else.

Abi

I realise I may have sounded aggressive - don't mean to be, but it just frustrates me that women are still expected to compromise

To be fair to you, it was in the past. But it is because its been a past tradition that people wrongly assume. And they certainly dont expect your reaction

If I ever get married it won't be a big cliched white dress do anway though, so maybe somebody else should chime in on this.

Im going to have white one, but theres nothing big or princessy about it, just elegant. To be honest, it may look nearly under-dressed for the day. But anyone who knows me wont think anything of it, its typical of me.

Again, don't mean to offend anybody, but honestly I find it truly offensive when people ask me what'll I do about my name when I get married. Why is it even up for discussion?

Some peoples views are as old as the hills, and they make assumptions based on a long running tradition. That is their own issue, not yours.


I was going to double-barrel my name, but I think I will take the OH's having read the thread over. Im not being a sheep on this; The tradition just doesnt bother me that much.

Swampy

I'd be seriously pissed off if my wife to be wouldn't take my name. As it happens she will, but will keep her maiden name for her business.

On a lighter note, we one had a cleaner in our house who came for 3 hours a week. Her name was Gay. She refused to tell us her surname. After many promises we wouldn't laugh she told us her name...."Gay Hoare." she married into a family of Hoares!!

frigging laughed my head off, hilarious. And that was the end of that cleaner.

onewoman

Hmm, so apparently I shoudl just chill and not get so worked up about these things. Sorry, but I just can't do that because I notice that the name-changing thing tends to come with a whole other set of traditional assumption about men and women and their role in the marriage. Some of the happiest couples I know are ones in which the woman has not changed her name nor been expected to - and in one case the woman is happy to have a different name to her kids, so there you go.

My own surname is my father's - my parents split up years and years ago and my mother went back to her original name, so we've got different names but it's not an issue.

Swampy, why would you be pissed off if your wife didn't take your name? It's *her* name, not yours, to interfere with. Why won't you take her name? If it's the personal (not professional, as you say) unity of surname you're after, why are you being so insistent that she has to change? This is the perfect example of the neanderthal sexist assumptions I'm talking about

aniascor

onewoman wrote: »

Again, don't mean to offend anybody, but honestly I find it truly offensive when people ask me what'll I do about my name when I get married. Why is it even up for discussion?

It's up for discussion because there is no longer an assumption that you will change your name. It's a choice.

But I guess we all feel strongly about different parts of that choice. I changed my surname (or family name if you like), but I still go by Ms. And if anyone tries to call me Mrs. X, I tell them that that's my husband's mother's name - not mine!

aniascor

onewoman wrote: »

Swampy, why would you be pissed off if your wife didn't take your name? It's *her* name, not yours, to interfere with. Why won't you take her name? If it's the personal (not professional, as you say) unity of surname you're after, why are you being so insistent that she has to change? This is the perfect example of the neanderthal sexist assumptions I'm talking about

This I agree with! If my husband had insisted I change my name, I would have refused.

Onewoman - what about an engagement ring? Would you buy a reciprocal present for your fiance or just accept the ring? Some of the women I know who felt the strongest that you should never ever change your name were delighted to accept two-three months of their fiance's salary in the form of a rock on their finger. And never even considered getting an engagement present for their fiance - where's the equality in that?

I don't really understand this desire for everyone in the family unit to share the same surname.
Especially when women say that they don't mind changing because their surname is unimportant to them.
I don't like double barrel names, unless they happen to sound well together.
If I get married, I intend to keep my name and give it to my children.

AnnieB82

I really do not see how your surname could have an impact of the longevity of a relationship. I'm sure plenty of people with separate surnames do have a happy relationship, and likewise plenty of people that have same surname do too. I think things are being painted too black and white here. Sure when you go back to it taking the husbands surname may have had more implications, as with the father "giving" the daughter away thing. Sure some time ago it was quite literal. These days it's a tradition and some people just like the idea - there is no harm in carrying it on. Just because you do carry it on - does not mean that you are agreeing to a whole list of other traditions related to it. It may seem hypocritical but in my case I already am one as I celebrate Christmas (yeah I know it was pagan to begin with) although I don't believe in God. As far as I'm concerned sharing my partners name suits me, suits him and does not mean anything else to me other than what it is - whether things were different in the past or not.
On another note - I might not be quite the same if my partner was trying force me to change my name - that's the other extreme and would not have washed well at all as my reason to take fiancés name is not based on tradition but on convenience.

angelfire9

i couldn't wait to change my name when we got married, my surname is very rare and i was sick of people saying when they heard my name "oh are you related to x x's" (my father generally but occassionally other family members too
My married name is a common garden variety Irish name so i don't have people trying to play family tree when i introduce myself anymore i'm delighted!

kizzyr

angelfire9 wrote: »

i couldn't wait to change my name when we got married, my surname is very rare and i was sick of people saying when they heard my name "oh are you related to x x's" (my father generally but occassionally other family members too
My married name is a common garden variety Irish name so i don't have people trying to play family tree when i introduce myself anymore i'm delighted!

If your unusual name bothered you that much why didn't you change it anyway, why wait until you got married? What if you'd never gotten married? Would your unusual surname have been your cross to bear for life?
I have to admit I'm with OneWoman on this name changing, being given away business. I would never in a million years adopt the same name as my husband and so by default become Mrs Joe Soap. Similarly couldn't stomach the idea of being given away (tradition or not) as a possession for another man to take.

I've been with my OH for 9 years now and to be fair neither of us are big traditionalists. If/when we get married it wouldn't be a traditional church day out either so we're both on the same page as regards name changing and the like.

iguana

iguana wrote: »

I believe women get to bond with their children on a level that men generally don't so giving them his name is a sort of consolation prize.

Putting the issue of names aside.
I really don't believe that is true. I think the degree to which you bond with your children depends on how much you invest yourself in them.
I'm just as close to my father as I am my mother, because spending time with us was always his top priority.
Even if it meant less time for everything else including work.

kizzyr

Moonbaby wrote: »

Putting the issue of names aside.
I really don't believe that is true. I think the degree to which you bond with your children depends on how much you invest yourself in them.
I'm just as close to my father as I am my mother, because spending time with us was always his top priority.
Even if it meant less time for everything else including work.

+ 1
I think it is a myth that mothers bond with their babies in a way that fathers never do or can.
I know many women who (especially with their first child) were totally overcome at the delivery process of the baby and while they cared for the child and looked after it, didn't actually feel the love until the baby was about 7 or 8 weeks old and the first smile came. My brother in law couldn't be, simply couldn't be, more invested in his children than their mother. He gives them his all and enjoys spending time with them, getting to know their personalities etc. They are no more or less bonded with him than they are their mum.

iguana

Moonbaby wrote: »

Putting the issue of names aside.
I really don't believe that is true. I think the degree to which you bond with your children depends on how much you invest yourself in them.
I'm just as close to my father as I am my mother, because spending time with us was always his top priority.
Even if it meant less time for everything else including work.

I meant this more as in at the beginning. Fathers don't get to bond as closely with their unborn child as the mother does as it is growing inside the mother. And once it is born the father does not have the opportunity to breastfeed, which the mother does. (Obviously in the case of adoptions this isn't the case.) But because I will get to do these things, and despite the down-sides to pregnancy and breastfeeding I do think women get the better deal here, I am happy to give my babies my husband's surname.

That's how I look at it - women give their kids their mitochondrial dna men get to give them their name.

onewoman

aniascor wrote: »

Onewoman - what about an engagement ring? Would you buy a reciprocal present for your fiance or just accept the ring? Some of the women I know who felt the strongest that you should never ever change your name were delighted to accept two-three months of their fiance's salary in the form of a rock on their finger. And never even considered getting an engagement present for their fiance - where's the equality in that?

Aniascor, I agree with you completely! If my OH and I marry, I know he'd want to get me some kind of engagement ring, but I don't feel comfortable with that expectation that he has to get me something at all. I would definitely get him some kind of symbolic engagement gift too - and I would not let him spend 3 months salary on something as ridiculous as a ring! The whole 3 months tradition omes from the days when women usually had no income and needed proof that men could 'provide' for them. Not needed today!

Also, my OH already knows that I wouldn't wear a ring on the 'engagement finger' - I loathe the way that a woman's relationship status is advertised in a way that a man's isn't - even at the engagement stage there's the inequality that precedes the name-changing rigmarole.

Wow, this has turned into a whole thread about everything that makes me paranoid of the thought of marriage!

p1x1e

I'm changing my name but sure, each to their own. I wouldn't expect people to, and I know it will shock people that I'm doing it because I would describe myself as a feminist. My father will not be giving me away and my fiance knew better than to ask my fathers permission to marry me. It;s just not me!:D

I once got a big lecture from someone about not doing it, when i asked what her husbands name was....it turned out they both shared a surname (but weren't related) so she never had to choose.

Swampy

onewoman wrote: »

Hmm, so apparently I shoudl just chill and not get so worked up about these things. Sorry, but I just can't do that because I notice that the name-changing thing tends to come with a whole other set of traditional assumption about men and women and their role in the marriage. Some of the happiest couples I know are ones in which the woman has not changed her name nor been expected to - and in one case the woman is happy to have a different name to her kids, so there you go.

My own surname is my father's - my parents split up years and years ago and my mother went back to her original name, so we've got different names but it's not an issue.

Swampy, why would you be pissed off if your wife didn't take your name? It's *her* name, not yours, to interfere with. Why won't you take her name? If it's the personal (not professional, as you say) unity of surname you're after, why are you being so insistent that she has to change? This is the perfect example of the neanderthal sexist assumptions I'm talking about

She wants to change her name. I'm saying if she did not want to I would be pissed off. I suppose i'm traditional in that respect. If she agreed to marry me, she agreed to take my name. There no way in hell I would take hers. Obviously I wouldn't put a gun to her head if she didn't want to take mine. Double standard? maybe but thats my opinion.

snickerpuss

I wouldn't want a different name. I have a fairly rare one and really like it. I come from a very small family so I would also love to call my children by my surname.
Can't see me taking a name but can see how some people might find the kid's names a big no-no.

Tupins

Wow I've certainly opened a big debate here - but hey isn't that what boards is all about?

Onewoman, I must say that I agree totally with most of the points you've made here (even when you were attacking me!). No but seriously, you are obviously a woman who has strong opinions and you stand up for what you believe in. I hope that you never change. People will always have different views on things and sometimes we get offended by them but I suppose all we can do is live our own lives by our own beliefs and try not to let others get to us too much (although I obviously do at times from my opening post!)

In answer to your question the main reason I changed my name was because my husband is not Irish and we lived abroad before we got married (not in his home country, somewhere else). I am close to my family and really didn't want to live away from them permanently so we made the decision to live in Ireland. This meant a sacrifice for him to be away from his family which I know saddens him sometimes. Of course he visits them once or twice a year but I know he misses them often. We see my side of the family all the time (practically daily) and he's really a part of us now, joining in with all our family traditions and sayings etc but it's really important for him that I am very much a part of his family also. At first there was a bit of a language barrier between his parents and I but now that I am learning his language I feel I can speak more to his family when we see them and he is really proud of that. To me I feel that me taking his family name was my way of incorporating myself more into that family and also if/when we have children they will have more of a connection to their cousins, aunts, uncles and gradparents on his side which I know is hugely important for my husband as he wants them to be as close to them as to my side.

I simply feel that he made the sacrifice of moving away from his family to be with me, so I want to 'give something back' if you like, by taking his family name for myself and our children. Also his family really appreciate it. I know some of you might say that taking the name will not automatically guarantee a closer connection to the family but for me that's the way I feel and it's what I believe.

In answer to some other issues raised:

I definitely am not very traditional when it comes to weddings. When we got engaged we both wore engagements rings. They were both modestly priced as I saw them more as symbolic than status and I think people spend absolutely ridiculous amounts of money on rings (but that's a whole other debate!). I didn't get married in a church and I had told my father from a very young age that there would be no 'giving me away'. I did allow him to walk me to the door of the room where I got married as it was very important to him, but there was certainly no 'handing me over' or anything in the ceremony like 'who gives this woman etc' or whatever they say.


I always go by the title Ms. I agree that Mrs is simply a statement that you are married and I don't see what that has to do with my daily life. Also, men don't have to display it in their name so it's an inequality.

So I don't think there is any simple solution here for names and equality. From reading all your posts I can see that everyone has their own opinions and reasons for/against changing name so in my view I don't think people should judge any woman for changing or not changing her name

NextSteps

iguana wrote: »

I know that when I was a kid I would have felt a little odd if I and my parents didn't have the same name. So I think having the same name as a family will be important.

I often see this given as a reason in discussions on name changing, and I think it holds very, very little water. My parents don't have the same surname; my mother remarried after they separated and so my siblings have a different surname again. My mother never changed hers. This never bothered me in the slightest (and I was a sensitive kid), and never created any social or administrative problems. I wasn't thrown out of school, bullied or misfiled. This may be different for others, of course, but really all kids have to cope with being different from their peers in some way, and to be honest, this one's a slight issue.

As for my own surname, I know my boyfriend considers it important to change; he's often said it. I know he'd be hurt if I didn't take his. I'm uncomfortable with the idea because as Hunnymonster says, my career depends on publications under this name. Also, he uses the English form of his name and I'd want the Irish form. So what's the point?

Tupins

It seems to me that the only thing that would be hurt would be his pride!

You have very valid reasons for not taking his name, have you asked him what his reasons are for wanting you to take it? And no, his pride is not a valid reason imo!

Zulu

Firstly I'm a traditionalist when it comes to marrage. So I would expect my OH to change her name, and there is no way I'd agree to a double barreled name. In my opinion, these are awful - but each to their own.
As for this concept of wounding "his pride" - I'm surprised you feel it's male pride. Disappointed as well.

Raging about the Miss/Ms/Mrs is a bit much though.

dats_right

I wonder did the women on here, who have a problem with changing their names, have as big a problem with their OH forking out for a diamond ring, given that it is also only a silly tradition afterall, or similarly wearing a big white dress or any of the other 'traditions'?

I would respect and be all for the OH keeping her name tbh, but in return, I would expect her to respect my beliefs. Namely, that a wedding should be done in private with only registrar and two witnesses(strangers off the street) present. I also don't believe in rings, parties, receptions, honeymoons or any other "tradition" asscoiated with marriage. Ideally, I would prefer just to have to take the morning off work, then down to registry office- bob's your uncle and back to office later on. I wonder would many women be as understanding and respectful of my beliefs?

Tupins

dats_right wrote: »

I wonder did all the women on here have as big a problem with their OH forking out for a diamond ring (given that it is also only a silly tradition) or similarly wearing a big white dress or any of the other 'traditions'?

You don't seem to have read the posts very well here.

If you had you would have seen that there's plenty of us who don't agree with the 'traditions'. As I've already said, my OH and I both wore engagement rings which were modestly priced so there was no one sided 'forking out' on his behalf. Also I did not wear the big expensive dress or have many other wedding traditions.

Please don't tar 'all the women on here' with the same brush.

dats_right

Quite right Tupins, I apologise and have re-phrased the offending question.

Tupins

Apology accepted :-)

In terms of your wedding (if you are getting married) your views about the quick fire wedding are very un-traditional alright. Although that's not to say you shouldn't have that if you want.

I think the most important thing would be to come to some sort of compromise with your partner and try to have something that both of you agree on - no easy thing unfortunately.

For my wedding I had a lot of people saying 'you have to do this' or 'you can't do that' but as I told them - the wedding should be about what the couple want and no body else.

I often feel like there's something wrong with me because other brides are always going on about how it was a dream day and they'd do it all again etc etc whereas I am glad it's over to be honest. I love being married and wouldn't change that for the world but I found the wedding to be too stressful and would hate to have to do it all again. As someone once said to me - people forget they are getting married and only concentrate on getting 'weddinged'!

Zulu

Do you think you got your focus wrong? (and thats why you didn't enjoy it)

Tupins

Well it's not that I didn't enjoy the day itself. I had a good time but for me the best part of the day was the actual ceremony and the fact that we were married. What I didn't enjoy was more the run up to the event with everyone fussing around and stressing me out about dresses and stuff. I originally wanted something quite small and relaxed but it just got a bit out of control. We got married abroad and I assumed that most people wouldn't go so we kind of invited more people than we really wanted because we were sure half of them wouldn't go - but guess what? they all came!!

Ah it was good craic in the end and I did enjoy the day but for me the wedding was just one day whereas the marriage will (hopefully) be the rest of our lives and that's the most important part.

i-digress

I don't see why taking your husband's name means that you are owned by him. I think everyone should choose what they think will sit best with them, but liking a tradition and taking a name doesn't mean those women aren't empowered or successful individuals in their own right.

juliegreen

I have just read this string ( I am getting married soon) and since Tupins began the thread, I guess I should reply here.

I believe that everyone has the right to choose their own destiny, and I genuinely wish Tupins only the best in your choice. I also believe that that Garda should have bit her tongue. It was absolutely none of her business.

However, since you have invited comment, I must say that personally, I find it very difficult to understand how, today, any woman can follow this sexist convention. I will not change my name when I marry, and critically, my children will have both my husband's and my name, but I feel the need to reply to some of the attacks I have had made on me since I went public with this decision. I have done so in "point format" below and would be delighted to hear feedback.

1. The convention that a woman change her name to her husband's name is a sexist convention, originally devised as a means of showing that a man owned his wife.

Ok, before you answer, no, I do not think for one second that women who marry today believe that they are owned by their husbands, or that husbands feel that way either. However, I believe that this is a convention that is irreparably tainted by sexist ideals.

While a man no longer owns a woman, it is simply unfair, hurtful, unequal and sexist that it is only the woman's name that comes under discussion when a couple announce their engagement. Not one person has questioned my fiance about the future of his name after marriage.

If there is the mere suggestion that a man should change his name, it is greeted with shouts of incredulity, as if the sky would fall in because someone dare think outside the box.

2. But, you say, "it's tradition" is there no value in that?!

Unfortunately, tradition can be used to justify just about anything. Consider the following phrases "Traditionally, women were unequal to men", or "Traditionally, white people kept black slaves" or "Traditionally, husbands did not allow their wives to work outside of the home".

In the foregoing examples, does the use of the word "tradition" actually legitimise any of those practices? So, how can we say that a woman changing her name to a man's is justified by "tradition". As the examples show, just because something is a tradition doesn't mean that it is good.

In my view, the only reason the convention exists is because “traditionally, a man’s name was more important than a woman’s”. If we get rid of the word “traditionally”, the stark reality of the convention is exposed.


3. But, you say, would you not like to have the same name as your children?

Of course I would, and I will. The tradition that a man's name be given to children, to the exclusion of his wife's name is just as objectionable as the tradition that a woman take her husband's name on marriage.

Double-barrelled names are one of the fairest way to ensure that both parents are represented, though I know a couple who merged their names (Walton / Ross) upon marriage to become Rosston, and another couple who gave one surname to one child and the other surname to another child.

Of course, many would say that it is about time that men's surnames took a hit and it is hard to argue with that, though it may be in pursuit of vengeance rather than parity!

4. But, you say, don't double-barrelled names sound pretentious?

Do they? Says who? "Traditionally" double-barrelled names were associated with the gentry. Even if this hijack ever occurred (and I don't believe it did), why should society not reclaim the double-barrelled convention?

People have taken much forcible action in the past in pursuit of liberty and equality (think French revolution); if the gentry ever stole our unspoilt perception of double-barrelled names, isn't it about time that it was peacefully taken back?

Further, double-barrelled names are the norm in Spain and Portugal, perceived as a true representation of the union between two people and, guess what, they are not all gentry.


5Yeah, yeah, you say, but what do my children do when they get married?

There are a million different ways of addressing this. This is how I propose to do it: My children (if we are lucky enough to have any) will keep his/her name in marriage, as my fiance and I will keep ours. He/She will give one of his/her surnames to his or her child , so our grandchild would be “one of our names” – “partner’s name / one of partner’s name”.

Of course we plan to have more than one child so, in all likelihood my fiance and my names will appear in one or other of our grandchildren's names.

However, if we only ever had one child, it would be entirely up to our child how to proceed. Perhaps he/she would name one of their children with one of our names, another with the other. Perhaps, our child would marry a lady like Tupins and our names would be preserved. Perhaps our child would choose to drop one of our names. Perhaps our child would create a hybrid name etc.

In any event, our child's name and the future of it would be something that would be discussed and debated between him/her and his/her partner, giving rise to more and more ingenious name-quirks as the years go by.

Of course, ultimately, my fiance and I both run the risk of our names "dying out" but so does everybody. A man who has his wife change her name and fathers only daughters will, by the application of his own logic, see his own name die out. A woman who changes her name at marriage has already sacrificed her name anyway, so would not be bothered by this.

Ironically, not that it bothers either of us, but my fiance and I are better protected against "die-out" of our names than any “one-name” man is.

6. But, you say, our names sound silly and too long together...

Do they really? Are you not just pre-disposed to scoff at double-barrelled names? In any event there are plenty of names that some may say sound unusual all on their own - "Ramsbottom", "Winterbottom", "Piddle", "Nut", but those names still belong to their owners. Very few men with names like this would change his unusual name on marriage.

The problem is that the instinctive reaction is "O'Callaghan-Hickey" or "O'Brien-Kavanagh" sounds silly and long. In reality, we are all just not used to hearing double-barrelled names.

In any event, the human race has proved itself quite able to cope with forenames like "Anne-Marie, Mary-Jane, John-Paul, "Isobel-Jane" for many years. I'm sure society could muster the effort to say an extra name in the name of equality.

7.But, you say, won't a man feel "de-manned" if his wife/children don't have his name, and his name alone.

You could write a thesis on this, but suffice to say that any man who is threatened by the mere presence of his wife's name alongside his own (not even at the expense of his name), has issues. This is simply not a reasonable excuse. A man is either man enough to break the mould or he is not.

7. But, you say, is changing your name not just a nice thing to do for your husband?

I'm buying my fiance a nintendo Wii tomorrow as a surprise. That's a nice thing to do for my fiance.

While the foregoing example is trite, ultimately, there are many nice things that one can do for one's husband / wife that do not have their roots in sexism and do not present to the world as a manifestation of sexist ideals.

Further, if it is a nice thing for a woman to change her name to her husband's, then it is an equally nice thing for a husband to change his name to his wife's name. If we believe it is such a "nice thing" why aren't we expecting the gesture to be made our way? Don't we think we deserve it?


Those are a few (!) of my thoughts on the issue. You can appreciate that this is something that I feel strongly about and I believe that it will take a number of brave decisions from, primarily, the women for true equality to be attained.

For those of you who want to change your name to your husband's, I would be very interested to hear what your views are on, for example, the Muslim veil?

Many Irish women believe it to be a symbol of repression and believe that the women who wear it don't even appreciate how they are being repressed. My Muslim friend wears one out of a mark of respect, a "nice thing" to do for her family...