Partner and I can't agree on a surname after marriage and now I'm wondering if marrying him is even worth it.

[Anonymous]

Not taking the husband’s last name is statistically odd. That does not mean immoral, bad, or invalid. It means outside the normal pattern.

A reasonable definition of "odd" or "weird" is something that is uncommon enough to fall well outside the social default. If about 75% to 80% of people do one thing, and only about 15% to 20% do the alternative, the alternative is statistically unusual.

Using the Pew numbers already discussed, 79% of married women took their husband’s last name, while only 14% kept their own. So yes, keeping the wife’s original name is statistically outside the norm.

And if the argument is "why not just have the man take the wife’s name," that is even more unusual. Pew found 5% of married men took their wife’s last name. Among people who changed to the other spouse’s name, that means about 94% took the husband’s name and about 6% took the wife’s name.

So yes, statistically speaking, not taking the husband’s name is less common, and the husband taking the wife’s name is much more uncommon. People can choose whatever they want, but pretending the choices are equally normal in real life is just not accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell him you’re keeping your own name and the kids that come out of your body will also have your name. (This is very normal these days.) He’s welcome to join if he wants consistency.

I already told him that and he didn't like it. He found the proposal offensive.

Red flag. Not someone I would marry.

I kept my name and don't see this a red flag on his part, unless you also consider it a red flag on OP's.

It's one thing for each partner to keep their birth names, it's another for one partner to demand that they use their ln for hypothetical kids or make up a new name. That's an ultimatum, not really a discussion. What would you say if the roles were reversed?

Actually, it’s the husband who is doing the demanding and giving an ultimatum. The default in the hospital when the spouses have different last names is that the new baby is called by mom’s name “Baby Smith”. If they want something different on the birth certificate then they need to specify that.

This is such a reach. There was no angst at either hospital when naming my two children, who have different last names from me.

I hate these flimsy arguments. OP just needs to have an actual conversation to express her feelings on the matter. Her ultimatum was: kids shall not have your name and I'm not discussing it. That may very well be her opinion, but don't expect anyone to react well to that -- no matter the topic.

This explains why posters here are having a hard time with any situation that isn't the traditional woman-takes-husband's name. Many of them barely know how to read.

DH was a bit taken aback when I told him that I wanted to keep my name. I was gentle, yet firm, about it because I loved him. I gave him a moment to come around and didn't browbeat him as a way to solve for my own discomfort in disappointing him.

These things happen in a marriage. If you want to make a go of it, conversation and empathy go a long way. A couple of weeks later it was a non-issue and now nearly 30 years later...

OP's boyfriend wasn't "a bit taken aback".

She said he "assumed." Which is exactly how my DH was in the moment, he assumed.

I can guarantee OP and I went about it differently. I didn't think my DH was an @sshole or anti-women, which is what OP just suddenly assumes.

They both made assumptions and now they're both offended. I agree that based on their communication style, their marriage will likely fail.

And then she offered to hyphenate the child. He said no. He wanted her to have his name fir the sake of a family unit, so she offered him to take his name and he got offended. Do you know how to read?

You and OP are so dramatic. Look how that turned out for OP, offended herself and making assumptions, exactly now is exactly the same position as her BF.

The sad thing is if OP would had better communication skills and would have been the tiniest bit empathetic, she might have been able to win over a man to overlook a traditional convention. Which might have even emboldened him to examine his other beliefs about the patriarchy.

Instead, we have a thread of women digging in their heels on both sides, which doesn't win over anyone.

We don't need a flimsy excuse to justify either position -- if you want to change your name, you need no other reason. No, it's not harder at the hospital. Likewise, if you don't want to change your name, you need no other reason. No, teachers won't be befuddled.

This thread is a macro expression of her micro experience.

Ah yes, beautifully said. If only she were softer and explained it to him like he was a toddler, he wouldn't be such a raging asshoie.

Thank you. I like saying things beautifully to everyone I encounter. Especially the people I love. Being combative in my earlier years didn't work for me.

This is a very sexist way of thinking. Somehow you think the tone is important when we have no evidence that her tone was harsh. If anything he could have handled it 'not beautifully' and you would still blame the woman. What if he argued back and was rude to her for even suggesting!

So tired of women being blamed. I changed my name but I regret it. Still married though

I really think you're projecting based on your own regret. I don't think my comment is sexist because I'm interpreting it based on how OP presented it. It sounded like the heat of the moment, and it sounds like she dug in her heels and then said she'd never name the kids his last name. I also said you could substitute any argument to show that you can't spring things on people and then get mad at them because they need a minute. I don't think showing empathy in a conversation is treating someone like a toddler.

My point is that OP wanted something, and she didn't get it. So, yes, in a sense the blame is on her. In a perfect world her DH would say with enthusiasm, "Yes, I love your last name and want all of our children to have it." But, he didn't. I really don't think that makes him an @sshole without any further context.

I suppose we'll just disagree. I like DH to say things beautifully to me when he knows he's going to disappoint me. I expect that from him, to be frank.

This is how a conversation should go.

"do you want to change your last name after we get married?"

"no!"

"ok."

You can do mental gymnastics and try to convince us why a woman should beg and plead to keep her name. It's misogyny and sexism, pure and simple.

For goodness sake, the hyperbole on this thread. Good luck to all of you!

My DH is sure lucky I didn't write him off when he needed a minute to get his head around my telling him I didn't want to change my name. But, I tell him he's lucky all the time reading this board.

And similarily, my husband would tell you how lucky he is that he didn't marry someone like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not taking the husband’s last name is statistically odd. That does not mean immoral, bad, or invalid. It means outside the normal pattern.

A reasonable definition of "odd" or "weird" is something that is uncommon enough to fall well outside the social default. If about 75% to 80% of people do one thing, and only about 15% to 20% do the alternative, the alternative is statistically unusual.

Using the Pew numbers already discussed, 79% of married women took their husband’s last name, while only 14% kept their own. So yes, keeping the wife’s original name is statistically outside the norm.

And if the argument is "why not just have the man take the wife’s name," that is even more unusual. Pew found 5% of married men took their wife’s last name. Among people who changed to the other spouse’s name, that means about 94% took the husband’s name and about 6% took the wife’s name.

So yes, statistically speaking, not taking the husband’s name is less common, and the husband taking the wife’s name is much more uncommon. People can choose whatever they want, but pretending the choices are equally normal in real life is just not accurate.

You know what else used to be abnormal? Women owning property, or being able to have a credit card, or even working full-time. It's abnormal until it's not. I'm sorry that women wanting to be treated as equals bothers you, but it has no bearing on me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell him you’re keeping your own name and the kids that come out of your body will also have your name. (This is very normal these days.) He’s welcome to join if he wants consistency.

I already told him that and he didn't like it. He found the proposal offensive.

Red flag. Not someone I would marry.

I kept my name and don't see this a red flag on his part, unless you also consider it a red flag on OP's.

It's one thing for each partner to keep their birth names, it's another for one partner to demand that they use their ln for hypothetical kids or make up a new name. That's an ultimatum, not really a discussion. What would you say if the roles were reversed?

Actually, it’s the husband who is doing the demanding and giving an ultimatum. The default in the hospital when the spouses have different last names is that the new baby is called by mom’s name “Baby Smith”. If they want something different on the birth certificate then they need to specify that.

This is such a reach. There was no angst at either hospital when naming my two children, who have different last names from me.

I hate these flimsy arguments. OP just needs to have an actual conversation to express her feelings on the matter. Her ultimatum was: kids shall not have your name and I'm not discussing it. That may very well be her opinion, but don't expect anyone to react well to that -- no matter the topic.

This explains why posters here are having a hard time with any situation that isn't the traditional woman-takes-husband's name. Many of them barely know how to read.

DH was a bit taken aback when I told him that I wanted to keep my name. I was gentle, yet firm, about it because I loved him. I gave him a moment to come around and didn't browbeat him as a way to solve for my own discomfort in disappointing him.

These things happen in a marriage. If you want to make a go of it, conversation and empathy go a long way. A couple of weeks later it was a non-issue and now nearly 30 years later...

OP's boyfriend wasn't "a bit taken aback".

She said he "assumed." Which is exactly how my DH was in the moment, he assumed.

I can guarantee OP and I went about it differently. I didn't think my DH was an @sshole or anti-women, which is what OP just suddenly assumes.

They both made assumptions and now they're both offended. I agree that based on their communication style, their marriage will likely fail.

And then she offered to hyphenate the child. He said no. He wanted her to have his name fir the sake of a family unit, so she offered him to take his name and he got offended. Do you know how to read?

You and OP are so dramatic. Look how that turned out for OP, offended herself and making assumptions, exactly now is exactly the same position as her BF.

The sad thing is if OP would had better communication skills and would have been the tiniest bit empathetic, she might have been able to win over a man to overlook a traditional convention. Which might have even emboldened him to examine his other beliefs about the patriarchy.

Instead, we have a thread of women digging in their heels on both sides, which doesn't win over anyone.

We don't need a flimsy excuse to justify either position -- if you want to change your name, you need no other reason. No, it's not harder at the hospital. Likewise, if you don't want to change your name, you need no other reason. No, teachers won't be befuddled.

This thread is a macro expression of her micro experience.

Ah yes, beautifully said. If only she were softer and explained it to him like he was a toddler, he wouldn't be such a raging asshoie.

Thank you. I like saying things beautifully to everyone I encounter. Especially the people I love. Being combative in my earlier years didn't work for me.

This is a very sexist way of thinking. Somehow you think the tone is important when we have no evidence that her tone was harsh. If anything he could have handled it 'not beautifully' and you would still blame the woman. What if he argued back and was rude to her for even suggesting!

So tired of women being blamed. I changed my name but I regret it. Still married though

I really think you're projecting based on your own regret. I don't think my comment is sexist because I'm interpreting it based on how OP presented it. It sounded like the heat of the moment, and it sounds like she dug in her heels and then said she'd never name the kids his last name. I also said you could substitute any argument to show that you can't spring things on people and then get mad at them because they need a minute. I don't think showing empathy in a conversation is treating someone like a toddler.

My point is that OP wanted something, and she didn't get it. So, yes, in a sense the blame is on her. In a perfect world her DH would say with enthusiasm, "Yes, I love your last name and want all of our children to have it." But, he didn't. I really don't think that makes him an @sshole without any further context.

I suppose we'll just disagree. I like DH to say things beautifully to me when he knows he's going to disappoint me. I expect that from him, to be frank.

This is how a conversation should go.

"do you want to change your last name after we get married?"

"no!"

"ok."

You can do mental gymnastics and try to convince us why a woman should beg and plead to keep her name. It's misogyny and sexism, pure and simple.

For goodness sake, the hyperbole on this thread. Good luck to all of you!

My DH is sure lucky I didn't write him off when he needed a minute to get his head around my telling him I didn't want to change my name. But, I tell him he's lucky all the time reading this board.

And similarily, my husband would tell you how lucky he is that he didn't marry someone like you.

Of course he didn't want to marry me -- I changed my name!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the last name thing is a big deal for most couples. But it is for children. What if a double barrel name marries another double barrel name? It gets ridiculous at a certain point.

Social conventions are what they are. I'm sure it would be more efficient if we all had a number. But in the meantime, practical choices need to be made when you have children. How many last names do you want them to have?

Good God! I have a hyphenated name. It has never been a problem. When I married and had children I gave my boy part of my surname and my husband's surname. They've been doing that for centuries in Spain, Portugal and Latin America with no issues. The "what are we gonna do if the double-barrelled child meets another double-barrelled child" issue is a cultural bias, not a practical problem. The US is one if the most liberal countries legally speaking when it comes to naming conventions. You can do whatever you want.

No one said hyphenated names are illegal. The point is that they create friction, and pretending otherwise is silly.

Here are the issues:

Longer names hit field limits.
Boarding passes may truncate the name.
Airline tickets may omit part of the name.
Hyphens may be removed.
Hyphens may be replaced with spaces.
Two last names may get merged into one word.
The passport, ticket, TSA record, boarding pass, PreCheck, airline profile, frequent flyer account, school record, medical record, and insurance record may not match perfectly.
Kiosks may not recognize the same formatting.
Mobile boarding passes may display a shortened version.
TSA or airline staff may have to verify the full name manually.
You may get pulled aside because the document and reservation do not line up cleanly.
International travel can be worse because the passport machine-readable zone may format the name differently.
I-94 records can be hard to locate if the name is entered with the wrong spacing, hyphen, order, or truncation.
Schools may alphabetize the child under the wrong half of the name.
Doctors’ offices may create duplicate records.
Insurance claims may mismatch.
Pharmacy records may mismatch.
Sports registrations may not match school records.
Background checks may require extra aliases.
Work email and login names can become awkward.
Professional search results are less clean.
Diplomas, transcripts, licenses, credentialing, and HR systems may not use the same version.
Credit cards and bank accounts may shorten or reformat it.
Legal documents may require constant explanation.
And the next generation has to decide which part of the double name survives.

So yes, you can do whatever you want. But "allowed" does not mean "clean," "common," or "practical." In the U.S., one shared family surname is still the simpler default.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell him you’re keeping your own name and the kids that come out of your body will also have your name. (This is very normal these days.) He’s welcome to join if he wants consistency.

I already told him that and he didn't like it. He found the proposal offensive.

Red flag. Not someone I would marry.

I kept my name and don't see this a red flag on his part, unless you also consider it a red flag on OP's.

It's one thing for each partner to keep their birth names, it's another for one partner to demand that they use their ln for hypothetical kids or make up a new name. That's an ultimatum, not really a discussion. What would you say if the roles were reversed?

Actually, it’s the husband who is doing the demanding and giving an ultimatum. The default in the hospital when the spouses have different last names is that the new baby is called by mom’s name “Baby Smith”. If they want something different on the birth certificate then they need to specify that.

This is such a reach. There was no angst at either hospital when naming my two children, who have different last names from me.

I hate these flimsy arguments. OP just needs to have an actual conversation to express her feelings on the matter. Her ultimatum was: kids shall not have your name and I'm not discussing it. That may very well be her opinion, but don't expect anyone to react well to that -- no matter the topic.

This explains why posters here are having a hard time with any situation that isn't the traditional woman-takes-husband's name. Many of them barely know how to read.

DH was a bit taken aback when I told him that I wanted to keep my name. I was gentle, yet firm, about it because I loved him. I gave him a moment to come around and didn't browbeat him as a way to solve for my own discomfort in disappointing him.

These things happen in a marriage. If you want to make a go of it, conversation and empathy go a long way. A couple of weeks later it was a non-issue and now nearly 30 years later...

OP's boyfriend wasn't "a bit taken aback".

She said he "assumed." Which is exactly how my DH was in the moment, he assumed.

I can guarantee OP and I went about it differently. I didn't think my DH was an @sshole or anti-women, which is what OP just suddenly assumes.

They both made assumptions and now they're both offended. I agree that based on their communication style, their marriage will likely fail.

And then she offered to hyphenate the child. He said no. He wanted her to have his name fir the sake of a family unit, so she offered him to take his name and he got offended. Do you know how to read?

You and OP are so dramatic. Look how that turned out for OP, offended herself and making assumptions, exactly now is exactly the same position as her BF.

The sad thing is if OP would had better communication skills and would have been the tiniest bit empathetic, she might have been able to win over a man to overlook a traditional convention. Which might have even emboldened him to examine his other beliefs about the patriarchy.

Instead, we have a thread of women digging in their heels on both sides, which doesn't win over anyone.

We don't need a flimsy excuse to justify either position -- if you want to change your name, you need no other reason. No, it's not harder at the hospital. Likewise, if you don't want to change your name, you need no other reason. No, teachers won't be befuddled.

This thread is a macro expression of her micro experience.

Ah yes, beautifully said. If only she were softer and explained it to him like he was a toddler, he wouldn't be such a raging asshoie.

Thank you. I like saying things beautifully to everyone I encounter. Especially the people I love. Being combative in my earlier years didn't work for me.

This is a very sexist way of thinking. Somehow you think the tone is important when we have no evidence that her tone was harsh. If anything he could have handled it 'not beautifully' and you would still blame the woman. What if he argued back and was rude to her for even suggesting!

So tired of women being blamed. I changed my name but I regret it. Still married though

I really think you're projecting based on your own regret. I don't think my comment is sexist because I'm interpreting it based on how OP presented it. It sounded like the heat of the moment, and it sounds like she dug in her heels and then said she'd never name the kids his last name. I also said you could substitute any argument to show that you can't spring things on people and then get mad at them because they need a minute. I don't think showing empathy in a conversation is treating someone like a toddler.

My point is that OP wanted something, and she didn't get it. So, yes, in a sense the blame is on her. In a perfect world her DH would say with enthusiasm, "Yes, I love your last name and want all of our children to have it." But, he didn't. I really don't think that makes him an @sshole without any further context.

I suppose we'll just disagree. I like DH to say things beautifully to me when he knows he's going to disappoint me. I expect that from him, to be frank.

This is how a conversation should go.

"do you want to change your last name after we get married?"

"no!"

"ok."

You can do mental gymnastics and try to convince us why a woman should beg and plead to keep her name. It's misogyny and sexism, pure and simple.

For goodness sake, the hyperbole on this thread. Good luck to all of you!

My DH is sure lucky I didn't write him off when he needed a minute to get his head around my telling him I didn't want to change my name. But, I tell him he's lucky all the time reading this board.

And similarily, my husband would tell you how lucky he is that he didn't marry someone like you.

Of course he didn't want to marry me -- I changed my name!

OOPS -- I'm pp... Of course he didn't want to marry me -- I DID NOT change my name!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not taking the husband’s last name is statistically odd. That does not mean immoral, bad, or invalid. It means outside the normal pattern.

A reasonable definition of "odd" or "weird" is something that is uncommon enough to fall well outside the social default. If about 75% to 80% of people do one thing, and only about 15% to 20% do the alternative, the alternative is statistically unusual.

Using the Pew numbers already discussed, 79% of married women took their husband’s last name, while only 14% kept their own. So yes, keeping the wife’s original name is statistically outside the norm.

And if the argument is "why not just have the man take the wife’s name," that is even more unusual. Pew found 5% of married men took their wife’s last name. Among people who changed to the other spouse’s name, that means about 94% took the husband’s name and about 6% took the wife’s name.

So yes, statistically speaking, not taking the husband’s name is less common, and the husband taking the wife’s name is much more uncommon. People can choose whatever they want, but pretending the choices are equally normal in real life is just not accurate.

You know what else used to be abnormal? Women owning property, or being able to have a credit card, or even working full-time. It's abnormal until it's not. I'm sorry that women wanting to be treated as equals bothers you, but it has no bearing on me.

That is a false equivalence.

Women owning property, having credit cards, and working full-time were legal and economic rights that women were denied. A wife choosing to share a family name with her husband and children is not the same category.

No one is saying women should be unable to keep their name. Keep it if you want. The point is much narrower: statistically and socially, it is still outside the norm. Pew found that most married women still take their husband’s name, including most younger, educated, and liberal married women.

Calling that “wanting to be treated as equals” is just rhetorical overreach. Equality means women can choose. It does not mean every traditional choice is oppression, and it does not mean every nontraditional choice suddenly becomes common, practical, or socially neutral.

You can personally not care what people think. That is fine. But pretending people do not notice, or that the choice carries no social signal, is not reality. It is still an uncommon choice, and uncommon choices are, by definition, odd relative to the norm.

[Anonymous]

Don’t hyphen. Seems so complicated for future generations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not taking the husband’s last name is statistically odd. That does not mean immoral, bad, or invalid. It means outside the normal pattern.

A reasonable definition of "odd" or "weird" is something that is uncommon enough to fall well outside the social default. If about 75% to 80% of people do one thing, and only about 15% to 20% do the alternative, the alternative is statistically unusual.

Using the Pew numbers already discussed, 79% of married women took their husband’s last name, while only 14% kept their own. So yes, keeping the wife’s original name is statistically outside the norm.

And if the argument is "why not just have the man take the wife’s name," that is even more unusual. Pew found 5% of married men took their wife’s last name. Among people who changed to the other spouse’s name, that means about 94% took the husband’s name and about 6% took the wife’s name.

So yes, statistically speaking, not taking the husband’s name is less common, and the husband taking the wife’s name is much more uncommon. People can choose whatever they want, but pretending the choices are equally normal in real life is just not accurate.

Now do other statistically common practices that aren't solving any problems and exist for no practical reason whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not taking the husband’s last name is statistically odd. That does not mean immoral, bad, or invalid. It means outside the normal pattern.

A reasonable definition of "odd" or "weird" is something that is uncommon enough to fall well outside the social default. If about 75% to 80% of people do one thing, and only about 15% to 20% do the alternative, the alternative is statistically unusual.

Using the Pew numbers already discussed, 79% of married women took their husband’s last name, while only 14% kept their own. So yes, keeping the wife’s original name is statistically outside the norm.

And if the argument is "why not just have the man take the wife’s name," that is even more unusual. Pew found 5% of married men took their wife’s last name. Among people who changed to the other spouse’s name, that means about 94% took the husband’s name and about 6% took the wife’s name.

So yes, statistically speaking, not taking the husband’s name is less common, and the husband taking the wife’s name is much more uncommon. People can choose whatever they want, but pretending the choices are equally normal in real life is just not accurate.

You know what else used to be abnormal? Women owning property, or being able to have a credit card, or even working full-time. It's abnormal until it's not. I'm sorry that women wanting to be treated as equals bothers you, but it has no bearing on me.

That is a false equivalence.

Women owning property, having credit cards, and working full-time were legal and economic rights that women were denied. A wife choosing to share a family name with her husband and children is not the same category.

No one is saying women should be unable to keep their name. Keep it if you want. The point is much narrower: statistically and socially, it is still outside the norm. Pew found that most married women still take their husband’s name, including most younger, educated, and liberal married women.

Calling that “wanting to be treated as equals” is just rhetorical overreach. Equality means women can choose. It does not mean every traditional choice is oppression, and it does not mean every nontraditional choice suddenly becomes common, practical, or socially neutral.

You can personally not care what people think. That is fine. But pretending people do not notice, or that the choice carries no social signal, is not reality. It is still an uncommon choice, and uncommon choices are, by definition, odd relative to the norm.

Who cares? I don't base personal decisions about my life on what's popular or how people will react to it. Your decision to judge my choices is yours and has no bearing on me. Yes, the choice to keep my name is what I want and you completely missed the point that I didn't have that choice not too long ago. But you're a dude, so why do I even care explaining this to you?

PS your AI-written posts are not clever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hyphen. Seems so complicated for future generations.

Just take your wife's name!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not taking the husband’s last name is statistically odd. That does not mean immoral, bad, or invalid. It means outside the normal pattern.

A reasonable definition of "odd" or "weird" is something that is uncommon enough to fall well outside the social default. If about 75% to 80% of people do one thing, and only about 15% to 20% do the alternative, the alternative is statistically unusual.

Using the Pew numbers already discussed, 79% of married women took their husband’s last name, while only 14% kept their own. So yes, keeping the wife’s original name is statistically outside the norm.

And if the argument is "why not just have the man take the wife’s name," that is even more unusual. Pew found 5% of married men took their wife’s last name. Among people who changed to the other spouse’s name, that means about 94% took the husband’s name and about 6% took the wife’s name.

So yes, statistically speaking, not taking the husband’s name is less common, and the husband taking the wife’s name is much more uncommon. People can choose whatever they want, but pretending the choices are equally normal in real life is just not accurate.

Yes, for women, taking the man's last name is the most common choice.

That being said, not taking the man's last name is literally easier than taking it. No need to change your name on any of your documents. Keeping your name is the path of least resistance. I kept my name and have never had any issues with that. My child has my husband's last name and it is a non-issue that I have a different last name. Sometime we get holiday cards addressed to the [DH last name] family. BFD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the last name thing is a big deal for most couples. But it is for children. What if a double barrel name marries another double barrel name? It gets ridiculous at a certain point.

Social conventions are what they are. I'm sure it would be more efficient if we all had a number. But in the meantime, practical choices need to be made when you have children. How many last names do you want them to have?

Good God! I have a hyphenated name. It has never been a problem. When I married and had children I gave my boy part of my surname and my husband's surname. They've been doing that for centuries in Spain, Portugal and Latin America with no issues. The "what are we gonna do if the double-barrelled child meets another double-barrelled child" issue is a cultural bias, not a practical problem. The US is one if the most liberal countries legally speaking when it comes to naming conventions. You can do whatever you want.

No one said hyphenated names are illegal. The point is that they create friction, and pretending otherwise is silly.

Here are the issues:

Longer names hit field limits.
Boarding passes may truncate the name.
Airline tickets may omit part of the name.
Hyphens may be removed.
Hyphens may be replaced with spaces.
Two last names may get merged into one word.
The passport, ticket, TSA record, boarding pass, PreCheck, airline profile, frequent flyer account, school record, medical record, and insurance record may not match perfectly.
Kiosks may not recognize the same formatting.
Mobile boarding passes may display a shortened version.
TSA or airline staff may have to verify the full name manually.
You may get pulled aside because the document and reservation do not line up cleanly.
International travel can be worse because the passport machine-readable zone may format the name differently.
I-94 records can be hard to locate if the name is entered with the wrong spacing, hyphen, order, or truncation.
Schools may alphabetize the child under the wrong half of the name.
Doctors’ offices may create duplicate records.
Insurance claims may mismatch.
Pharmacy records may mismatch.
Sports registrations may not match school records.
Background checks may require extra aliases.
Work email and login names can become awkward.
Professional search results are less clean.
Diplomas, transcripts, licenses, credentialing, and HR systems may not use the same version.
Credit cards and bank accounts may shorten or reformat it.
Legal documents may require constant explanation.
And the next generation has to decide which part of the double name survives.

So yes, you can do whatever you want. But "allowed" does not mean "clean," "common," or "practical." In the U.S., one shared family surname is still the simpler default.

Me and my sibilings are hyphenated. We've never had any of the issues you describe. There's no room for confusion when Smith-Jones is listed in the last name field. It takes a particularly dumb person to not understand under these circumstances that Smith-Jones is a last name.

Airports and travelling agencies serve people from all over the world, their staff is trained to recognize a situation where a traveller has an unusual naming convention. I've seen my name printed on flight tickets as smithjones or smithjon and it's not a problem. Staff understands that this is a system issue as soon as they check my passport.

[Anonymous]

In 18 years of marriage I have only had one person comment on me keeping my name, and it was a colleague who was a conservative Christian weirdo. I am also a Christian but I kept my name according to me and my husband’s ethnic tradition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really do not think taking your husband's last name needs to be treated like some outdated or anti-woman thing.

The data still shows it is completely normal. Pew found that 79% of women in opposite-sex marriages took their husband's last name, while only 14% kept their own and 5% hyphenated. Even education does not change the overall picture as much as people assume. Among women with postgraduate degrees, only 26% kept their original last name, meaning most still either took their husband's name or combined names.

And this is not just a conservative or old-fashioned thing. Plenty of prominent liberal, educated, accomplished American women have taken or used their husband's last name publicly, including Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jill Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Gwen Walz, and Gretchen Whitmer. In younger/current culture, you also see examples like Hailey Bieber and Chrissy Teigen.

Obviously, if someone has a strong personal, professional, cultural, or family reason not to change it, that is completely fine. But for most people, sharing one family name is simple, practical, and meaningful. It does not erase anyone's independence, education, politics, or accomplishments. For many families, it is just easier and cleaner to take the name and move on.

Wow, I am 52 and you pointing to people even older than me. At least pick someone who got married in a year starting with “2.” The question is in the last 5-10 years what do people in OP’s city and education/social economic status do.

Hilary Clinton changed her name due to political pressure from her husband’s campaign.

Me, my sister, my brother's wife, my cousin, my other cousin's wife.

One sibling didn't get married, and one kid as mom's name and one kid has dad's last name.