Marriage and changing one's surname.

[TheLonelySquire]

Your poll has a lot of happy people but it's missing a happy man married to a happy woman who took my name for some reason. That's what I would have picked. Of course I wouldn't have married someone that wouldn't take my name. Not as much because of that as it's a signal they put the family second.

Taking a husband's last name helps define the family. It helps define the children and gives everyone a sense of belonging. Anti-family groups have really done society harm with their crap.

Well, the concepts of marriage and the family are not as limited and simple as they used to be, it's true... but I personally like it that way. And I fail to see how something as innocuous as not taking the name of your spouse constitutes being labelled "anti-family".

As for my poll missing "a happy man married to a happy woman who took my name for some reason", well, did you miss option 1? I don't see why that wouldn't fit for you.

Many people consider traditional marriage to be limited to what it is and to be a simple concept. And the wife taking her husband's name is simply part of that. It in no way means the woman is the mans property (not saying you believe that but others float that out there).

 

[Daneel]

Your poll has a lot of happy people but it's missing a happy man married to a happy woman who took my name for some reason. That's what I would have picked. Of course I wouldn't have married someone that wouldn't take my name. Not as much because of that as it's a signal they put the family second.

Taking a husband's last name helps define the family. It helps define the children and gives everyone a sense of belonging. Anti-family groups have really done society harm with their crap.

Well, the concepts of marriage and the family are not as limited and simple as they used to be, it's true... but I personally like it that way. And I fail to see how something as innocuous as not taking the name of your spouse constitutes being labelled "anti-family".

As for my poll missing "a happy man married to a happy woman who took my name for some reason", well, did you miss option 1? I don't see why that wouldn't fit for you.

Many people consider traditional marriage to be limited to what it is and to be a simple concept. And the wife taking her husband's name is simply part of that. It in no way means the woman is the mans property (not saying you believe that but others float that out there).

I stated earlier that I believe the tradition originated with the idea of a woman being a man's property. Sure, most people don't see that as the case when they get married nowadays, whether the wife takes the husband's name or not, but I think it is an unfortunate reminder of those times and that line of thinking.

 

[Rii]

Taking a husband's last name helps define the family. It helps define the children and gives everyone a sense of belonging.

Love does that too.

 

[Albertese]

In my family, views about last names have always been pretty traditional. When my mom and dad got divorced (I was about 20 so it's not like I was small impressionable child) my mother couldn't change her name fast enough. I realize it was to distance herself from my father (who, for the record was the better parent, as my mom after a few years readily agrees to). But at the time, my brother and I took it as she was trying to distance herself from the whole family. It's a longer story than that, but suffice to say we weren't on speaking terms for quite awhile (though now we're all past it and my mom and I get along fine).

Anyway, the result is that for me, sharing the last name is highly symbolic of the union of marriage and the partnership of family. It's a pretty big deal for me. And if someone accused me of enforcing a sense of patriarchal ownership I would, frankly, be very offended.

My wife and I just celebrated our first anniversary. When we were getting married, she was toying with the idea of keeping her name but I wasn't having it. I explained her my feelings that came out of the episode with my mother. She graciously conceded and took my name. It made me very happy that she did, but it wouldn't have been a deal breaker if she didn't. If it was as big a deal to her that she not take my name I wouldn't have pressed the issue. We weren't planning to have kids so that wouldn't have been an issue, but one slipped through the defenses somehow anyway and we're expecting this summer. We're both happy we have one family name and that our kid won't have to explain whether or not his parents are married. Probably not a big deal in this day and age, but we live in a rather old-school traditionalist community and it would come up.

However, lotsa people do it other ways. There's a woman I work with who didn't take her husbands name cause it's a hard one and her's is very simple. There's a different girl at work who did the same thing, but then, when she got pregnant proceeded to change her name to her husband's for the sake of the kid. I respect that sort of thing.

For what it's worth, the marriage license in the state of Oregon has numerous options to check off for last names that could result an many permutations. For example, let's assume James John Smith and Sally Suzanne Jones get married. They could become:

James John Smith and Sally Suzanne Jones
James John Smith and Sally Suzanne Smith
James John Jones and Sally Suzanne Jones
James John Smith and Sally Jones Smith
James Smith Jones and Sally Suzanne Jones
James John Smith-Jones and Sally Suzanne Smith-Jones

They don't have to pick matching options either, I just put it that way to make it easier to type.

(We also got a laugh because the marriage license specifically states that a marriage in Oregon does not make either husband or wife the other's property!)

--Alex

 

[Crusher Disciple]

Depends on what she wants to do and how cool her last name is. If I marry a girl with some awesome sounding last name like 'Ironwood' or the like(and I wanted to be associated with her family) I might even take her name.

That's the way I feel. I hate my name, and the way it sounds. I don't want to take on another stupid sounding name that's easy to poke fun at.

That being said, I do like the idea of my father's family name ending with me. It's a way of keeping the dysfunction from carrying on.

 

[DBR]

Growing up, most of my friends' parents had the same last name. All my relatives have the same last name....

It isn't something I really thought about... and actually, it isn't something I really care about.

Originally Posted by Venardhi
Depends on what she wants to do and how cool her last name is. If I marry a girl with some awesome sounding last name like 'Ironwood' or the like(and I wanted to be associated with her family) I might even take her name.

Or "Blackthorn".

 

[Franklin]

When we were married (twenty years ago), my wife took my last name and changed her middle name to her last name. She didn't want a hyphenated last name, so this seemed the way to go.
In her profession, she still goes by her maiden name. The funny thing about that is that if I go with her on her business trips, everyone refers to me as Mr. "Wife's-Maiden-Name." Talk about making assumptions.

 

[SmoothieX]

My wife hyphenated it for convenience but gnerally goes by the maiden name for work. She's an academic, so she had a trail of journal articles in her name. If she straight up changed, people wouldn't realize its the same person publishing.

At the same time though, its nice that she partially shares my name when we go to sign up for a bank account, insurance, etc...because its easy to prove that she's my spouse.

 

[Franklin]

My wife hyphenated it for convenience but gnerally goes by the maiden name for work. She's an academic, so she had a trail of journal articles in her name. If she straight up changed, people wouldn't realize its the same person publishing.

At the same time though, its nice that she partially shares my name when we go to sign up for a bank account, insurance, etc...because its easy to prove that she's my spouse.

My wife has clients and even profressional friends she's known for a long time who couldn't guess what her married name is. What's more, she also goes by a nickname for her first name that has nothing to do with her legal first name.
Clients will sometimes write checks to this essentially totally made up name, so we had to square it with the bank that those checks were really for my wife. Once a client bought an airline ticket for her in that name. Usually, she catches that in time to fix it, but once she didn't. That was a mess.

 

[Sledder]

I am an unmarried woman and I would NOT take my husband's last name.

I am proud of my surname. I have researched my family tree and the name has become to mean a lot to me.

As someone else who has done a lot of family tree research I've got to point out that had your decision to not take your husbands last name been made by one or more of your ancestors then the last name that means so much to you wouldn't be associated with you at all...

What I'm seeing on here are a lot of people who don't believe in the practise of taking a husbands name who either don't intend to get married, don't intend to have children or are divorced / remarried. Just an observation but to me those people would make up the majority of people who would have reason one way or another to not continue the tradition.

Personally I was married 7 years ago and my wife took my last name, she preferred my surname to her maiden name and we both felt it was a nice thing to do to start a new family. Had she felt strongly about keeping her name it wouldn't have been a problem for me (although I prefer it this way) but it would have been an issue when it came to naming the kids. I'm not a fan of the hyphenated surname.

 

[auntiehill]

I'm married and took my husband's name. It was just easier.

I mean, for me, it makes no difference. I either have my father's last name or my husband's. Whoop dee doo.

 

[TheBrew]

My wife could do either, but I would want my children to take my surname. A bit selfish, but I am really proud to be a part of my dad's side of the family and I would want to continue that tree. If my last name came from my mother's side (who I don't really connect with), I would have no problem changing my name. I know that may sound a bit sexist, but that is just the way it ended up. If the rest of my mom's family was like her, my opinion would be different. But I guess she took up all the awesome for the entire tree.

 

[Miss Chicken]

As someone else who has done a lot of family tree research I've got to point out that had your decision to not take your husbands last name been made by one or more of your ancestors then the last name that means so much to you wouldn't be associated with you at all..

But the name I use is that one of my 'favourite' ancestors. I am proud to be descended from him. He was a convict who made a good life for himself and he was a devoted father and husband. Some of my other ancestors weren't as worthy of my praise (and a couple were real dead beats).

Whereas I had no emotional attachment to my husband's (now ex husband ancestors at all) and I have little attachment to my mother's family as they lived in NSW/Queensland and I hardly knew them.

 

[Sledder]

As someone else who has done a lot of family tree research I've got to point out that had your decision to not take your husbands last name been made by one or more of your ancestors then the last name that means so much to you wouldn't be associated with you at all..

But the name I use is that one of my 'favourite' ancestors. I am proud to be descended from him. He was a convict who made a good life for himself and he was a devoted father and husband. Some of my other ancestors weren't as worthy of my praise (and a couple were real dead beats).

Whereas I had no emotional attachment to my husband's (now ex husband ancestors at all) and I have little attachment to my mother's family as they lived in NSW/Queensland and I hardly knew them.

Ok I had assumed you had gone back to your maiden name, my mistake I guess you didn't. Still the genealogy buff in me worries at the idea of losing the chain of connection by not following naming conventions.

That's just my personal hangup

 

[Holdfast]

I really don't see myself getting married to be honest, but if I did, I'm conservative & traditional enough to automatically assume my wife would take my surname (though not for professional contexts). I wouldn't demand it, of course, and if she didn't want to take it, no big shakes, it's her choice. I'd just assume that she'd take it though and think it's quite a nice indicator of family.

Of course, if she had a really cool surname, I'd totally want us to double-barrel instead.

 

[kitkat]

I'm a married woman and have my husband's last name. There was never even another thought in my mind as to what to do, it was a given for me.

 

[DAK]

Your poll has a lot of happy people but it's missing a happy man married to a happy woman who took my name for some reason. That's what I would have picked. Of course I wouldn't have married someone that wouldn't take my name. Not as much because of that as it's a signal they put the family second.

Taking a husband's last name helps define the family. It helps define the children and gives everyone a sense of belonging. Anti-family groups have really done society harm with their crap.

Well thank you very much. I've been married almost 20 years. My family has always come first. Would you mind telling me what exactly I've done to harm society?

IMO it's the anti-women chauvinist patriarchal pigs who have done much more harm to our society than a woman choosing to keep her given name.

 

[Miss Chicken]

As someone else who has done a lot of family tree research I've got to point out that had your decision to not take your husbands last name been made by one or more of your ancestors then the last name that means so much to you wouldn't be associated with you at all..

But the name I use is that one of my 'favourite' ancestors. I am proud to be descended from him. He was a convict who made a good life for himself and he was a devoted father and husband. Some of my other ancestors weren't as worthy of my praise (and a couple were real dead beats).

Whereas I had no emotional attachment to my husband's (now ex husband ancestors at all) and I have little attachment to my mother's family as they lived in NSW/Queensland and I hardly knew them.

Ok I had assumed you had gone back to your maiden name, my mistake I guess you didn't. Still the genealogy buff in me worries at the idea of losing the chain of connection by not following naming conventions.

That's just my personal hangup

I have gone back to my maiden name but I respect my ancestors with that name. However I do not have the same feeling for my mother's ancestors (who, on the whole, were a bunch of hypocrites), nor do I have much respect for my paternal grandmother's family (her father was a nastyl man who beat his children cruelly), while her grandfather was a drunkard who abandoned his family.

My maiden name was inherited from the best branch in my family tree IMO.

 

[SiorX]

For practical reasons, my first preference would be to keep my own name. Like SmoothieX's wife, I've got academic articles published under my current name, and I wouldn't want to lose that line of continuity.

However, I know from some of my relatives' experience that keeping one's maiden name can cause confusion when it comes to children and family events because one has to field so many patriarchal assumptions from other people. For that reason, I quite like the idea of creating a brand new name for both partners to take in family contexts and pass on to the children, while keeping maiden and bachelor names for work.

Actually, the thing which I'd be more militant about than the sirname is that people would use 'Ms' as my honorific. The Miss/Mrs distinction does my nut, because there's no practical excuse for keeping that one going. 'Ms' works perfectly well as an equivalent to 'Mr' in all contexts.

 

[Daneel]

Actually, the thing which I'd be more militant about than the sirname is that people would use 'Ms' as my honorific. The Miss/Mrs distinction does my nut, because there's no practical excuse for keeping that one going. 'Ms' works perfectly well as an equivalent to 'Mr' in all contexts.

Indeed, I've always thought so. I think it would be a fine idea to do away with "Miss" and "Mrs." altogether. We men only get "Mr." --there's no other title to serve as a distinction between married men and unmarried men-- so why should women need more? "Ms." works fine and covers all the bases. Really, the continued use of the other two is simply, IMO, another reminder of how women have historically been treated differently -- and less than equally.