Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons I kept my own name:
1) I had professional degrees and connections with my name
2) too lazy to change it
3) would never remember to use the new name
4) husband has unique name and is in the same profession and I didn’t want everyone I met professionally to immediately associate me with him or vice versus

Reasons kids have his last name:
1) he cared more partly due to his affection for his father
2) I predominantly picked the first names, so that seemed fair
3) there are very few people with his last name and
the entire Jewish population of the village where his paternal ancestors from were killed by the nazis, so it seemed somehow symbolically important to help the name continue on

This is the most B.S. excuse ever. A person who was able to earn two professional degrees is to lazy to submit a piece of paperwork to change their name to match their husband's? Yeah, right

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not particularly a feminist, so that's not why I kept my name when I got married. I am who I am, and it seemed weird to me to change my name part way through my life because of a tradition that I didn't find persuasive. When my kids were born, I was totally fine giving them my husband'a last name. I have not for one minute felt my connection to them or to my husband diminished because I don't share their last name. And it has not once been an issue logistically or caused any confusion as to our being a family. It's just not a big deal. Heck, it's not even a small deal.

Ok, but ask yourself what the point of surnames are for. It's to signify family. With your attitude surnames become as meaningless as first names, and there is no reason at all for anyone in a family to share a surname with any other family member. Is that the solution? To get rid of identifying family relationships altogether? Should surnames simply be a a way of indicating an individuals identity, without having any tie to a person's family background?

There are many cultures where it's not the norm for the entire family to share the same surname. I'm Chinese and women are not expected to change their surnames upon marriage (though some do). Most women keep their "maiden" names. This is the norm in most Asian countries except for Japan. Dh is Hispanic and women are also not expected to change their surnames upon marriage. MIL/FIL have different surnames. It's a bit more complicated because children have a different combination of surnames from their parents. Dh only shares the same set of surnames with his brother.

Women changing their surnames upon marriage and that entire nuclear family having the same surname are subjective culturally specific traditions. Keep them or not for whatever reasons that make sense to you. It boils down to personal preference. But the the idea that these traditions are somehow universal or objective signifiers of family is absolutely absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Help me understand why most women who choose not to change their names when they get married still choose to give their children their husband's last name? It just seems like if you choose to give up an old tradition of taking your husband's last name, why would you choose your husband's last name for your children? I'm not criticizing. Really. I'm just trying to understand...

I have never understood refusing to take your husband’s last name as you s have a man’s name as your surname.

My surname is my name in the same way that my first name is my name. Once it was given to me when I was born, it became mine. It's the name I had for 30 years before I married dh. Why should I change it?

Because you and your DH are now a family. That's what last names are for. Otherwise why not just have everyone have separate last names? I suppose we could move to a system where last names don't have anymore significance than first names. If it doesn't signify any type of family relationship, I guess parents can pick whatever last name that sounds nice for their kid, and each kid can have their own separate last name that sounds nice with their first name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not particularly a feminist, so that's not why I kept my name when I got married. I am who I am, and it seemed weird to me to change my name part way through my life because of a tradition that I didn't find persuasive. When my kids were born, I was totally fine giving them my husband'a last name. I have not for one minute felt my connection to them or to my husband diminished because I don't share their last name. And it has not once been an issue logistically or caused any confusion as to our being a family. It's just not a big deal. Heck, it's not even a small deal.

Ok, but ask yourself what the point of surnames are for. It's to signify family. With your attitude surnames become as meaningless as first names, and there is no reason at all for anyone in a family to share a surname with any other family member. Is that the solution? To get rid of identifying family relationships altogether? Should surnames simply be a a way of indicating an individuals identity, without having any tie to a person's family background?

Anonymous wrote:Reasons I kept my own name:
1) I had professional degrees and connections with my name
2) too lazy to change it
3) would never remember to use the new name
4) husband has unique name and is in the same profession and I didn’t want everyone I met professionally to immediately associate me with him or vice versus

Reasons kids have his last name:
1) he cared more partly due to his affection for his father
2) I predominantly picked the first names, so that seemed fair
3) there are very few people with his last name and
the entire Jewish population of the village where his paternal ancestors from were killed by the nazis, so it seemed somehow symbolically important to help the name continue on

Anonymous wrote:I'm not particularly a feminist, so that's not why I kept my name when I got married. I am who I am, and it seemed weird to me to change my name part way through my life because of a tradition that I didn't find persuasive. When my kids were born, I was totally fine giving them my husband'a last name. I have not for one minute felt my connection to them or to my husband diminished because I don't share their last name. And it has not once been an issue logistically or caused any confusion as to our being a family. It's just not a big deal. Heck, it's not even a small deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this either. It doesn’t apply to me bc I changed my name to my husband’s and my kids have his surname too simply because I really didn’t like my maiden name and don’t really like my father or his family so didn’t want to be associated w the name anymore. But I don’t understand why even women who don’t want to take their husbands name often still default to giving the kids their husbands name.

Me too. Wonder how much love (or lack thereof) of your family plays into it for most people. My guess is it correlates strongly.

I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that women who choose to change their name don't love their families?

DP but I think the point is that there’s more impetus to change your name if you’re not close w your family of origin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Help me understand why most women who choose not to change their names when they get married still choose to give their children their husband's last name? It just seems like if you choose to give up an old tradition of taking your husband's last name, why would you choose your husband's last name for your children? I'm not criticizing. Really. I'm just trying to understand...

I have never understood refusing to take your husband’s last name as you s have a man’s name as your surname.

Um. My own name is my surname. It's not my father's name any more than it is my aunt's name. It's our family name. I was born with it, she was born with it, he was born with it. It's mine.

(And I'm a woman and now it is my son's.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Help me understand why most women who choose not to change their names when they get married still choose to give their children their husband's last name? It just seems like if you choose to give up an old tradition of taking your husband's last name, why would you choose your husband's last name for your children? I'm not criticizing. Really. I'm just trying to understand...

I have never understood refusing to take your husband’s last name as you s have a man’s name as your surname.

My surname is my name in the same way that my first name is my name. Once it was given to me when I was born, it became mine. It's the name I had for 30 years before I married dh. Why should I change it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not critical nor do I care what other people choose to do. But it is interesting that though I know lots of women who didn’t take their husband’s last name, I do not know a single child who has their mother’s maiden name as their surname.

For everyone saying some version of “I kept my name bc it was my identity but my children were blank slates” why does it follow that you would then give your children your husband’s name? Just because they’re a blank slate, they get their dad’s name instead of their mom’s because...?

Like I said, I really don’t care. But it does seem a little strange.

You obviously care QUITE A LOT, Karen. Sorry it’s an extra 5 seconds of work to address Christmas cards to us! Get a job.

Anonymous wrote:What a bizarre question. I was born and given a name I liked, and one I became known by. I saw no reason to change it. My kids were given a name shortly after birth that included my husband’s last name, which is more melodious than mine. If they like it, they can keep it, or they can change it. Why is this very personal thing of interest to anyone else?

Anonymous wrote:I am not critical nor do I care what other people choose to do. But it is interesting that though I know lots of women who didn’t take their husband’s last name, I do not know a single child who has their mother’s maiden name as their surname.

For everyone saying some version of “I kept my name bc it was my identity but my children were blank slates” why does it follow that you would then give your children your husband’s name? Just because they’re a blank slate, they get their dad’s name instead of their mom’s because...?

Like I said, I really don’t care. But it does seem a little strange.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not critical nor do I care what other people choose to do. But it is interesting that though I know lots of women who didn’t take their husband’s last name, I do not know a single child who has their mother’s maiden name as their surname.

For everyone saying some version of “I kept my name bc it was my identity but my children were blank slates” why does it follow that you would then give your children your husband’s name? Just because they’re a blank slate, they get their dad’s name instead of their mom’s because...?

Like I said, I really don’t care. But it does seem a little strange.

I think it’s because a lot of men/husbands feel strongly that kids get their name so women/wives just go along with that. Hopefully one day it won’t be like that anymore.

Yes, it’s because majority of men care about this. Either they’re conservative, traditional, controlling, sexist. But I’d bet it’s almost always the men who have a strong opinion on this and their wives don’t want to rock the boat

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Help me understand why most women who choose not to change their names when they get married still choose to give their children their husband's last name? It just seems like if you choose to give up an old tradition of taking your husband's last name, why would you choose your husband's last name for your children? I'm not criticizing. Really. I'm just trying to understand...

I have never understood refusing to take your husband’s last name as you s have a man’s name as your surname.

My surname is my name in the same way that my first name is my name. Once it was given to me when I was born, it became mine. It's the name I had for 30 years before I married dh. Why should I change it?

The protocol of naming infants is far more patriarchal than women changing their name as an adult. Defaulting to the man's last name for children is PARTICULARLY unfair if a couple with two different last names. and middle names don't count. No one knows or cares what people's middle names are.

On a side note, I think it's hysterical that a bunch of grown ass women are still holding on to their daddy's name like it was some kind of emblem of feminist power. Its so weird.

Prince was way more successful than ALL Y'ALL and he went by a SYMBOL for awhile. Get over yourself. Your career as a mid-level executive, or struggling academic, or non-profit/government G-whatever is not going to merit a chapter in a history book anytime soon, you don't have to be so self-important about your stupid name. Your identity is far deeper and more complex than your place in the alphabet. Please, stop making this a "thing" that is supposed to matter.