Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it feels so archaic and anti feminist to take his name...

Okay, but it is REALLY practical to just have one family name. Just pick one.

I kept my name -- my 2 kids, 8 and 6, have my husband's last name. I honestly cannot recall this EVER being an issue (including with international travel, ER, doctors' offices, etc.). So I'm not sure the practicality argument carries the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it feels so archaic and anti feminist to take his name...

Okay, but it is REALLY practical to just have one family name. Just pick one.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how keeping your name is feminist but handing your husbands name (only) to the children you carried then happens.

Anonymous wrote:I always wanted to have the same last name as my children but it feels so archaic and anti feminist to take his name. We both have long last names so hyphenating would be tedious- 6 syllables. He doesn't care either way. My career wouldn't be affected. How did you decide? Has anyone regretted it either way?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I kept my name. It's a quirk of American culture to have women change their name upon marriage and I hope that my daughters don't do adopt this tradition. I agree with you that it is archaic and un-feminist.

What about my kids? Officially, they have DH's last name and my last name as a middle name. This makes it really easy to show their connection to both parents.

Fun sidenote, in my culture there is no such thing as a middle name - the child can have multiple given names and/or surnames. So for example on my DC's passport my last name is listed as a surname along with DH's last name. I like this tradition much better than erasing the mom's name completely as is the custom in the U.S. For practical purposes in my country, we also just use the last surname in everyday communication for example: DC would still be Mr. or Ms. (DH's last name.) Still, it's considered important for the children to have the mom's name to honor both sides of their family tree.

This.

I really don't understand why more families don't do this. I also kept my last name and my children have my last name as a middle and husband's last name as their last name. I think that it's archaic for women to change their names upon marriage and I'm American!

Because I wanted to give my kids an actual middle name (we used family names for all of the kids) instead of my long and very Italian maiden name. No one uses their middle name anyway- so it's not like your name is getting much recognition, especially if it's really a middle, not hyphenated.

What blows my mind is when women refuse to change their name but then give their children their husband's surname. There isn't anything more sexist than that.

Fwiw I wanted us all to have the same name. It didn't matter whose name it was or if we made up a name. Just the same last name. We are a family

So you changed to your husband's name and your kids got his last name as well?

Yes. If my husband's name was good enough for my kids then it was good enough for me.

But you consider it *more* sexist to give the kids the husband's name if the wife keeps her own name? Please explain.

Actually, no...don't explain. You're clearly the sort of woman who would never consider keeping her own name, and are trying to start a thunderdome amongst those of us who identify as feminists by calling our choice "sexist". You almost had me there!

And you seem to be the kind of woman who is saying that women who never consider keeping their name are LESS feminist? Pot kettle dude.

All PP is saying is that giving children the father's name is from the same philosophically misogynist seed as the wife changing her name. So to make a big deal about keeping your own name but then allowing the children to take their father's name is kind of weird and inconsistent. Particularly since the goal of the old patriarchal system was to ensure than a man's family name continued. So you do nothing to actually stop this by keeping your own name.

Nothing WRONG with it, and maybe you don't care about the patriarchy and just love your name and don't want to change it. That's cool. But there is a logical inconsistency with the people who are doing it for 'feminism' but then go on to give their kids the new name.

What if I didn't make a big deal about it? What if I just...didn't change my last name when I got married? And really, so what if it's inconsistent? I didn't change my name because---well, why would I? And my kids have the same last name as my husband because that's what we decided together. They had to have a last name, we decided which last name they would have, and voila.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I kept mine and our kids now have a hyphenated last name. What I don't understand are women who keep theirs and then give the children his. So tradition is okay for the kids (and all that that symbolism implies about second-class status of women) but not for the wife. That feels antiquated, too. I mean, you do all the work and then they get his name? Why? I don't get it. I know hyphenating can be cumbersome, but isn't it weird for everyone in the family to have the same name BUT you?

Not really. I kept my last name, and my daughter has my husband's last name. I chose her first name and her middle name, which is not my last name, but which is consistent with the tradition of how girls in my family are named. We talked about it, and it was more important to him that she have his last name, and I didn't really care, while I did care more about her given names. I don't need to have the same last name as her to feel connected and close. She grew in me for nine months, I sang to her and knew her before anyone else--hell, her cells are floating around in my body. And I got to pick the name that I call her by every day. And it's not really strange to have a different last name. We're the Mylastname-Hislastname Family on holiday cards.

This is so interesting to me. It says to me that your husband views her more as family than he does of you. You were just someone to have kids for him.

Of course no one needs the same last name to feel connected. But it is the sign of a traditional family. A woman with a different last name makes me think that something is off. She could move in with him and have children with this man but he's not enough for her to change her name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I kept my name. It's a quirk of American culture to have women change their name upon marriage and I hope that my daughters don't do adopt this tradition. I agree with you that it is archaic and un-feminist.

What about my kids? Officially, they have DH's last name and my last name as a middle name. This makes it really easy to show their connection to both parents.

Fun sidenote, in my culture there is no such thing as a middle name - the child can have multiple given names and/or surnames. So for example on my DC's passport my last name is listed as a surname along with DH's last name. I like this tradition much better than erasing the mom's name completely as is the custom in the U.S. For practical purposes in my country, we also just use the last surname in everyday communication for example: DC would still be Mr. or Ms. (DH's last name.) Still, it's considered important for the children to have the mom's name to honor both sides of their family tree.

This.

I really don't understand why more families don't do this. I also kept my last name and my children have my last name as a middle and husband's last name as their last name. I think that it's archaic for women to change their names upon marriage and I'm American!

Because I wanted to give my kids an actual middle name (we used family names for all of the kids) instead of my long and very Italian maiden name. No one uses their middle name anyway- so it's not like your name is getting much recognition, especially if it's really a middle, not hyphenated.

What blows my mind is when women refuse to change their name but then give their children their husband's surname. There isn't anything more sexist than that.

Fwiw I wanted us all to have the same name. It didn't matter whose name it was or if we made up a name. Just the same last name. We are a family

So you changed to your husband's name and your kids got his last name as well?

Yes. If my husband's name was good enough for my kids then it was good enough for me.

But you consider it *more* sexist to give the kids the husband's name if the wife keeps her own name? Please explain.

Actually, no...don't explain. You're clearly the sort of woman who would never consider keeping her own name, and are trying to start a thunderdome amongst those of us who identify as feminists by calling our choice "sexist". You almost had me there!

And you seem to be the kind of woman who is saying that women who never consider keeping their name are LESS feminist? Pot kettle dude.

All PP is saying is that giving children the father's name is from the same philosophically misogynist seed as the wife changing her name. So to make a big deal about keeping your own name but then allowing the children to take their father's name is kind of weird and inconsistent. Particularly since the goal of the old patriarchal system was to ensure than a man's family name continued. So you do nothing to actually stop this by keeping your own name.

Nothing WRONG with it, and maybe you don't care about the patriarchy and just love your name and don't want to change it. That's cool. But there is a logical inconsistency with the people who are doing it for 'feminism' but then go on to give their kids the new name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I kept mine and our kids now have a hyphenated last name. What I don't understand are women who keep theirs and then give the children his. So tradition is okay for the kids (and all that that symbolism implies about second-class status of women) but not for the wife. That feels antiquated, too. I mean, you do all the work and then they get his name? Why? I don't get it. I know hyphenating can be cumbersome, but isn't it weird for everyone in the family to have the same name BUT you?

Not really. I kept my last name, and my daughter has my husband's last name. I chose her first name and her middle name, which is not my last name, but which is consistent with the tradition of how girls in my family are named. We talked about it, and it was more important to him that she have his last name, and I didn't really care, while I did care more about her given names. I don't need to have the same last name as her to feel connected and close. She grew in me for nine months, I sang to her and knew her before anyone else--hell, her cells are floating around in my body. And I got to pick the name that I call her by every day. And it's not really strange to have a different last name. We're the Mylastname-Hislastname Family on holiday cards.

Wait- so you use a made up name that no one actually HAS on your holiday cards? That's unusual.

Anonymous wrote:Changing my name in no way changed WHO I was- what an odd idea. I simply switched my name from my fathers last name to my husband and children's name. We are a family.

Strange that your fathers name actually defines you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wanted us to all have the same last name. My husband would have considered taking mine if I'd asked him to.

I grew up with divorced parents and my mom remarried and I lived with them so they were all a family and I had a different last name. It always made me feel just the tiniest bit like an outsider. I a) didn't want to feel that twinge in the family I was building with my husband and b) didn't want my kids to feel it either.

Honestly its NBD. I am a VERY strong, opinionated, female supporting woman (and an atheist democrat in case people think its just conservative thing). Some people would say obnoxiously so but this felt like a silly hill to die on. It is not viewed as succumbing to the patriarchy in today's society, be real. I felt a little sad as my wedding approached and I knew my time as a 'Smith' was coming to an end but six months later it was whatever. Your last name is not your defining characteristic.

If you want to keep it, keep it. If you want to change it, change it. Neither choice defines you as a 'better' or 'more independent' or 'stronger' woman.

You can rationalize it all you want, but there are a million "little" ways that our society confers second-class status on women, and this is one. Is it worth wailing in the streets about, no, but please don't delude yourself that it doesn't.

I am the pp you are responding to.

You are completely off your rail. I had every right to not change my name, I did what I wanted to do and it had nothing to do with being a second class citizen. Take your feminist brigade elsewhere. I explained my reasons and you should respect my choice if you're a real feminist. I made no criticisms of women who keep their name, just that it was not that big a deal one way or the other.

Of course it is your choice, but I don't have to respect your choice to be a real feminist. That line of thinking is bullshit. The whole idea of the name change is *based* on the idea that women were the property of men...first their fathers, then their husbands. That is what it is based on. You cannot dispute this, even if you don't think of it that way yourself (now).

Well that's what the entire institution of marriage is founded on too. Should no one get married because a few hundred years ago marriage was frequently an exchange in female property?

Acting like history is the only thing that can influence a proper feminists way of thinking is just so stupid and narrow moved.

I never DID dispute that it was based in a sexist practice, I disputed that it means those same things today. Because it doesn't. And actually feminism DOES mean giving women the right to choose. I guess you don't have to respect my choice (which was, in case you didn't actually read it, based on my very real experiences as a child not sharing my family's name) but to judge this in particular so harshly seems like a lot of wasted effort. Plenty of very strong, secure, independent women choose to take their husbands name when they choose to start their family.

I can see where you are going, but one could argue that the institution of marriage under the law in this country has changed to be more egalitarian and that many couples do it either for spiritual reasons (a joining recognized by their religion) or for the legal benefits (or maybe both). I would argue that in this country, it has become more symbolic of joining two separate lives into one and not about exchange of property.

On the other hand, with the name changing, the norm is still for the woman to take the man's name. It may not translate to literal ownership of one person by another, but the symbolic meaning is still there. The woman ceases to be her old self and has a new outward identity and he changes his outward identity not at all. In most cases there is no discussion of whether the man will change his name; it is either assumed the woman will change hers or there might be discussion of the woman having the choice to keep her name. Some progress for women with that choice, but not full equality. It does remain as one way women are seen as secondary to the man they marry. I'm sorry if that insults you personally; I don't mean to insinuate that I think you are completely anti-feminist for changing your name. My original comment was meant to say, wait a minute, for some of us, this is a big deal. And you come back with "you are off your rail" and "feminist brigade" and I'm not a "real feminist" if I don't agree with you. Maybe you need to stop and think about who is really being narrow minded here. I never said history is the "only thing that can influence proper feminists way of thinking" but to forget or ignore history is not a good idea, either.