Would you be annoyed if your wife didn't change her name?

shalalala

At the age of 23, I have finally only just gotten the last name I wanted (I was subjected to a double-barrel name of my "father") so I would have no intention at all of changing my name.

eviltwin

pwurple wrote: »

I wonder does the age you get married make a difference?

I had a career built up, with contacts and the rest by the time I got married. There would have been a professional impact to changing my name. If I had gotten married at 19 or so, that road wouldn't have started yet.

Don't think so. I was 31 getting married but we had our first child at 19, even then I knew if we married I would keep my own name hence our child got both names. Keeping my name was nothing to do with work or anything like that, it was just purely that I like my name and didn't want to change it.

podgeandrodge

lazygal wrote: »

It would be a serious insult to me if my husband expected me to change my name, the implication being that my name is less important than his.

Well the point is that your name is not as important as his. And therefore it would be an insult to your husband if you did not change it and respect his position as head of the household.

When you accept this fact you will realise that true sense of satisfaction and achievement awaits a woman that has a man to guide her through life, a life that, gladly, she can live through his name.







har har

Kooli

It still surprises me that there are men out there that would see this as a deal-breaker, an insult etc., but literally cannot see the inequality in what they're saying, and literally cannot put themselves in the woman's shoes when asked to.

But lovely to see so many other men who are happy to let women decide themselves what their name is!

For those who are so insistent on the name-change, just a question about any daughters you have in that marriage. Presumably you want them to have your surname, but are you happy that you are just giving them a temporary name until they find a husband? Cos that's the idea I always find weird. Boys are given permanent names, and women are just given the 'placeholder' name until they are married off!!

I remember I used to automatically use the 'profession' excuse (i.e. 'I won't change my name because of my career'), but have stopped saying that now because it's literally nothing to do with that. It just became an easier thing to say, but I think it's a cop-out because it assumes that only career women have a good reason to keep their name.

So now I just say I kept my name because it's my name and it's always been my name, and there was no reason to change it.

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

It still surprises me that there are men out there that would see this as a deal-breaker, an insult etc., but literally cannot see the inequality in what they're saying, and literally cannot put themselves in the woman's shoes when asked to.

If this thread is anything to go by, there aren't any men who would see this as a deal-breaker - a few have suggested they'd be a little peeved at it, but almost everyone here considers it a non-issue.

Honey-ec

The Corinthian wrote: »

If this thread is anything to go by, there aren't any men who would see this as a deal-breaker

At least one that I can think of without even reading back on the thread stated that it would be a deal breaker for him. I think there were a few more too.

The Corinthian

Honey-ec wrote: »

At least one that I can think of without even reading back on the thread stated that it would be a deal breaker for him. I think there were a few more too.

Really, where? Honestly, I may have missed it.

Pawwed Rig

FA (if I remember rightly) said it would be a deal breaker and 1 or 2 others said they would prefer. The vast majority had no issue with it

hollypink

The Corinthian wrote: »

Really, where? Honestly, I may have missed it.

A few deal-breakers or at least strong opinions on it anyway:

Mickey Dazzler wrote: »

I am quite traditional and if my wife did not take my name it would be a deal breaker for me. I would be bitterly disappointed.

Zulu wrote: »

I expected my wife to take my surname & she did.

Fenian Army wrote: »

I come from a small family and I'm the only son, its important to me, and my family, to pass the name on.

donalg1 wrote: »

Yeah I would have been annoyed if she hadnt changed her name, dont really know why but it would have bugged me maybe I am traditional that way.

HellFireClub wrote: »

I would always expect that if I married a girl, we would have a sirname that we would all use, as in a family name, and that in line with tradition, that name would be my sirname.

Zulu

I think I might have said it'd be a deal breaker.

edit: thanks Hollypink, I see now I didn't say it'd be a deal breaker...

Honey-ec

The Corinthian wrote: »

Really, where? Honestly, I may have missed it.

Mickey Dazzler wrote: »

I am quite traditional and if my wife did not take my name it would be a deal breaker for me.

Zulu wrote: »

I expected my wife to take my surname & she did.

Fenian Army wrote: »

I come from a small family and I'm the only son, its important to me, and my family, to pass the name on.

donalg1 wrote: »

Yeah I would have been annoyed if she hadnt changed her name, dont really know why but it would have bugged me maybe I am traditional that way.

HellFireClub wrote: »

I would always expect that if I married a girl, we would have a sirname that we would all use, as in a family name, and that in line with tradition, that name would be my sirname.

It's something that I feel that strongly about, it would get in the way of a marriage or it would lead to the end of a relationship if we were not on the same page on this.

I only went as far as page 5, I think there were a few more examples after that.

Motorist

As long as they don't take the dreaded double-barrelled surname. A lot of women I know with that are nutcases.

Zulu

Only 2 of those you both quoted said it'd be a "deal breaker" girls

hollypink

Zulu wrote: »

Only 2 of those you both quoted said it'd be a "deal breaker" girls

Which is why I said this:

hollypink wrote: »

A few deal-breakers or at least strong opinions on it anyway:

The Corinthian

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

FA (if I remember rightly) said it would be a deal breaker and 1 or 2 others said they would prefer. The vast majority had no issue with it

I think FA's issue was more to do with the surname of the children than the wife.

Still, there was at least one who specifically considered it a deal-breaker. I'm genuinely surprised that it still would be with anyone in this day and age.

Honey-ec

Zulu wrote: »

Only 2 of those you both quoted said it'd be a "deal breaker" girls

And Corinthian said nobody did. Taking your statement specifically, you said that you "expected" your wife to take your name. The implication being it would have been a problem if she hadn't. And you just said yourself:

Zulu wrote: »

I think I might have said it'd be a deal breaker.

Again, the implication being that it would have been.

But if you want to play semantic Twister, by all means go ahead.

Zulu

Honey-ec wrote: »

And Corinthian said nobody did. Taking your statement specifically, you said that you "expected" your wife to take your name. The implication being it would have been a problem if she hadn't.

That's true, I knew what I meant, I'm only looking to clarify. It's clear that there was practically no-one who felt it would be a "deal-breaker", but there've been a good few who'd have problems.

Frankly, hypothetically speaking it could have been a deal breaker for me, so that could have made another to the count.

But if you want to play semantic Twister, by all means go ahead.

I've no interest in "semantic twister"; there's no need to make this into more than it is. I would be concerned that certain ideologies would love to make hay out of this, so it helps to keep it clear really. Exaggeration is fairly pointless.

Pawwed Rig

For it to be a deal breaker on one side would require it to be a deal breaker on both sides.

Zulu

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

For it to be a deal breaker on one side would require it to be a deal breaker on both sides.

Wut

Pawwed Rig

If I said that if my future wife would not change her name to mine would be a deal breaker then she would have to feel equally strongly to not change her name (and vice versa).

In reality one of the couple would most likely back down as I have yet to hear of a relationship failing due to this issue

Zulu

Ah right. That's pretty much my take on it. Hypothetically it could have been a deal breaker, in that if "she" was so opposed to it, we'd clearly have had deeper issues, and most probably a polar opposite outlook in life, so marriage probably wouldn't have been the best call.

Thankfully Mr. & Mrs. Zulu tend to think alike in matters such as these...

LeeHoffmann

As long as they don't take the dreaded double-barrelled surname. A lot of women I know with that are nutcases.

That´s because double barrelling a surname has been scientifically proven* to destabilise the psyche






*may not have been scientifically proven