Anonymous wrote:So, have not read all 18 pages, but I want to ask is this a sign you may have political differences? In the first Trump term there were large numbers of women trying to figure out who they were married to when it became apparent the husbands were big fans of the president. Think about what the Save Act is trying to do to make it difficult for women to vote if their married surname is different from the name in the birth certificate. Lots of women I know who are older, and have had careers, kept their surname. Some have not, but the % seems much higher than the Pew Report another person has quoted. Think of this as a blessing in disguise. Figure out if you are truly a compatible couple.

Anonymous wrote:So, have not read all 18 pages, but I want to ask is this a sign you may have political differences? In the first Trump term there were large numbers of women trying to figure out who they were married to when it became apparent the husbands were big fans of the president. Think about what the Save Act is trying to do to make it difficult for women to vote if their married surname is different from the name in the birth certificate. Lots of women I know who are older, and have had careers, kept their surname. Some have not, but the % seems much higher than the Pew Report another person has quoted. Think of this
as a blessing in disguise. Figure out if you are truly a compatible couple.

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.

Anonymous wrote:A woman who truly loves the guy she says she wants to marry doesn't think twice about taking his last name. In fact, she wants to.

Anonymous wrote:This is one of those things that feels huge at the moment but doesn’t matter years later. No one else cares who took whose name or whose name the kids have.

I kept my maiden name 20 years ago when we got married. DH didn’t care. Our kids have his last name. It has never been an issue. It doesn’t make us less cohesive as a family. It doesn’t mean we are on the brink of divorce. I’m not even sure that many people at my current company even realize I’m using my maiden name. It just doesn’t matter. I can’t control what people may think about the fact that I didn’t change my name, nor do I care what others think about my name. We make decisions as a team based on what works best for our family.

As for what’s “normal,” it’s all relative. I’ve found very few women at my kids’ schools, in my professional network, and in our social circles who changed their name. Some of my younger family members in other parts of the country have chosen to change their names. And preferences change over time. Do what works best for your family for the long haul.

Anonymous wrote:This is how liberals stir up drama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your unfamiliarity with intelligence in general keeps revealing itself.

Anonymous wrote:Partner and I are talking about marrying next year. The topic of surnames came up and he just assumed that I'm taking his. I said I'd rather keep mine and he said he didn't liked the idea and hit me with the "what name are the children gonna have?". I told him we can double-barrel as it seems to be working fine for latinos/spanish people to which he took offense. He said tht as a family unit we need to have a single last name, so I proposed that he takes mine and he was visibly very uncomfortable. We didn't finish talking about this, but I'm already feeling disappointed and wondering what other ideas he's got about gender. I'm not sure what to expect next.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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: