Anonymous wrote:most people like 90% take the last name, the weirdos keep theirs thinking they are important or they can do better and divorce, very odd

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to this thread, OP (if you're even reading it anymore), but I have to admit that I bristled a bit at your words. Unlike you, when I got married it didn't even cross my mind to CHANGE my surname. Maybe it's a generational thing or something that varies by socioeconomics, region, political orientation, religion etc., but changing my name never made any sense to me. My DH wasn't fazed in the least, and I did not encounter a single problem when my DC was in school and had a different last name than me. No one has ever asked me why I didn't change my name. I've lived around the world on four continents, and have observed that the practice of keeping/changing your surname after marriage varies widely. There's no right or wrong way to handle it--people should do whatever feels right for them. I will say, though, that the notion that by not changing my last name to my husband's I'm somehow less likely to be "playing for the same team" (your words) than women who don't is rather odd and a bit offensive. I find many American women (and I say this as an American) have excessively romantic notions about marriage, including thinking that by taking their husband's last name they're somehow more spiritually/emotionally/symbolically "united" with their spouse than women who don't.

--63 y.o. woman who has been happily married for 35 years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the title says: I'm getting married in a few days in it hasn't crossed my mind to keep my surname. We're going to start a family and I'd love all of us to have the same surname, as we're playing for the same team. My soon to be husband is ecstatic as well that I'm taking his surname. I was aware that women with fancy careers or with research published under their names kept their surnames at higher rates as they had build a name under their maiden surname. However, I started noticing a similar trend among women with less public careers and even homemakers who I know for a fact are married. I can't imagine having a different surname than my children, but it looks like some women see nothing wrong with this. Is there a reason for this? Doesn't it cause problems the road? Just asking out of curiosity.

In the distant past everyone changed their name. In the late 80s and 90s most professional women did not change their name. Sometime in the early 2000/2010s the trend went back to changing names. I think the trend is very much to change the name. At a big law firm and almost every married female associate changing name. But there is no wrong or right answer. Up to you.

I will say DW did not change her name. I did not and do not care. Not an issue. As we had a family it was a pain in the ass that she did not have the same name. This is over the last 20 years. Logistically it has screwed up flights , using miles for flights, permission to pick the kids up. All can be worked out and I would say less of an issue now that 15 years ago but a giant pain in the ass anyway. DW regretted not changing her name but was too far in to really do anything about it.

I’ve been married for 20 years, kept my name, and have literally never had this happen. How would it even screw up a flight? You have to buy tickets under your legal name.

Yeah, I've never understood that either. US has a large hispanic population and a large number of unmarried couples with kids, how do people think they travel or pick up their children from school?

Also, wtf school would not have both parents’ names on file?

You can wtf it all you want. I have lived it. Not a super big deal but annoying from time to time. Not a reason to change or not change. Just happens. And yes I have received calls from school when the kids were young. Once asking if it was okay if the nanny picked the kids up and scolding me for not having her name down. Wife’s name was there under parent but they did not look. Assumed she was the nanny.

Are you a 14-year-old troll who wandered over here from Reddit? This is not how the world works, especially in this area.

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to this thread, OP (if you're even reading it anymore), but I have to admit that I bristled a bit at your words. Unlike you, when I got married it didn't even cross my mind to CHANGE my surname. Maybe it's a generational thing or something that varies by socioeconomics, region, political orientation, religion etc., but changing my name never made any sense to me. My DH wasn't fazed in the least, and I did not encounter a single problem when my DC was in school and had a different last name than me. No one has ever asked me why I didn't change my name. I've lived around the world on four continents, and have observed that the practice of keeping/changing your surname after marriage varies widely. There's no right or wrong way to handle it--people should do whatever feels right for them. I will say, though, that the notion that by not changing my last name to my husband's I'm somehow less likely to be "playing for the same team" (your words) than women who don't is rather odd and a bit offensive. I find many American women (and I say this as an American) have excessively romantic notions about marriage, including thinking that by taking their husband's last name they're somehow more spiritually/emotionally/symbolically "united" with their spouse than women who don't.

--63 y.o. woman who has been happily married for 35 years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I changed my name because I wanted us to be a family and not someone who's git the foot out of the door. Yes, my husband wouldn't have changed his, but we're not the same and we show love in different ways. Women who keep their nane because "men do too" simply don't get that.

Sounds like your husband isnt as committed to your family if he wasnt willing to give up something as dumb as a name. Guess he must already have one foot out the door. Poor you.

He is, but as I said, men and women show commitment differently. He provides for the family which is a big responsibility.

Ugh what an awful life for him, just a cog in that capitalist machine. Too bad you literally couldn't survive without him doing so. Why are you such a hypocrite?

This is the dumbest statement I’ve read in awhile. You clearly don’t know what the words “literally” or “survive” mean.

Yes dear, the very survival of this woman (and I suppose the entire human race) is literally dependent upon middle managers and powerpoint presentations. LOL

LOLOLOLOL where the f do you think the pay check comes from? How does he keep the lights on and food on the table? Oh right, those f-ing powerpoint presentations. GMAFB.

I get the impression that this is the same poster that keeps saying "you don't understand" and nitpicking the meanings of words used by other posters while never explaining their opinion. I think it's a troll.

Yes, dear. Anyone smarter and more thoughtful than you is clearly a troll. Go hand off Larla husband’s-surname to the underpaid immigrant nanny so you can get back to #girlbossing and *literally* ensuring your family’s very survival with your excellent corporate jargon skills…. Fight that patriarchy!

I have a 5 year old child. I spent the first two years with him at home and my husband spent the other three. 1 as a SAHD and the rest WFH. I currently manage an NGO that provides food, shelter and other services to people in need. What do you do?

The issue is that you don't sound either thoughtful or smart, you sound arrogant with minimal understanding about how our economic system works. Or you're a troll

I understand that our economic system is just as arbitrary as the woman taking the man’s last name, unlike most of you dolts who don’t seem to understand that human history spans tens of thousands of years, not just the time period since the Industrial Revolution or even the invention of agriculture.

We're aware the current economic system is relatively new, but this is irrelevant. Even in the most basic system someone has to hunt and gather to ensure the survival of the individual, group or family. Any person incapable of gathering resources or money for their own survival is at the mercy of those who are capable of doing so. Patriarchy didn't make this bit up, it simply made access to resources easier for men than for women. Staying home to be a full time homemaker simply means that someone else is going to a corporate job to get the money that feeds you, clothes you and puts a roof over your head. In most households outside the DCUM bubble it also means that your husband has to work longer hours and spend less time with your child to be able to provide. In a non-capitalist patriarchal society women would still depend on their husbands for their basic needs, the only difference would be that husbands wouldn't work for a corporation (or would co-own a corporation). They would still exclude women from most economic activity.

You're not bringing anything new to this conversation, you're just being arrogant.

You clearly have zero understanding of how traditional hunter gatherer cultures function(ed). You also clearly have zero understanding of what is entailed in feeding and clothing oneself and one’s family. And finally, you have zero clue how the majority of households outside the DCUM bubble live. Congratulations, an ignorance hat trick!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Both of those guys pay for a blue checkmark on Twitter? Hahahahaa

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People might not tell you this in your face, but in the back of their minds they're judging you and your husband if you two have different last names. Women have no idea how disrespectful this is to their husbands.

We know, we just don't care

Typical spoiled modern woman.

Anonymous wrote:As the title says: I'm getting married in a few days in it hasn't crossed my mind to keep my surname. We're going to start a family and I'd love all of us to have the same surname, as we're playing for the same team. My soon to be husband is ecstatic as well that I'm taking his surname. I was aware that women with fancy careers or with research published under their names kept their surnames at higher rates as they had build a name under their maiden surname. However, I started noticing a similar trend among women with less public careers and even homemakers who I know for a fact are married. I can't imagine having a different surname than my children, but it looks like some women see nothing wrong with this. Is there a reason for this? Doesn't it cause problems the road? Just asking out of curiosity.

Anonymous wrote:People might not tell you this in your face, but in the back of their minds they're judging you and your husband if you two have different last names. Women have no idea how disrespectful this is to their husbands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I changed my name because I wanted us to be a family and not someone who's git the foot out of the door. Yes, my husband wouldn't have changed his, but we're not the same and we show love in different ways. Women who keep their nane because "men do too" simply don't get that.

Sounds like your husband isnt as committed to your family if he wasnt willing to give up something as dumb as a name. Guess he must already have one foot out the door. Poor you.

He is, but as I said, men and women show commitment differently. He provides for the family which is a big responsibility.

Ugh what an awful life for him, just a cog in that capitalist machine. Too bad you literally couldn't survive without him doing so. Why are you such a hypocrite?

This is the dumbest statement I’ve read in awhile. You clearly don’t know what the words “literally” or “survive” mean.

Yes dear, the very survival of this woman (and I suppose the entire human race) is literally dependent upon middle managers and powerpoint presentations. LOL

LOLOLOLOL where the f do you think the pay check comes from? How does he keep the lights on and food on the table? Oh right, those f-ing powerpoint presentations. GMAFB.

I get the impression that this is the same poster that keeps saying "you don't understand" and nitpicking the meanings of words used by other posters while never explaining their opinion. I think it's a troll.

Yes, dear. Anyone smarter and more thoughtful than you is clearly a troll. Go hand off Larla husband’s-surname to the underpaid immigrant nanny so you can get back to #girlbossing and *literally* ensuring your family’s very survival with your excellent corporate jargon skills…. Fight that patriarchy!

I have a 5 year old child. I spent the first two years with him at home and my husband spent the other three. 1 as a SAHD and the rest WFH. I currently manage an NGO that provides food, shelter and other services to people in need. What do you do?

The issue is that you don't sound either thoughtful or smart, you sound arrogant with minimal understanding about how our economic system works. Or you're a troll

I understand that our economic system is just as arbitrary as the woman taking the man’s last name, unlike most of you dolts who don’t seem to understand that human history spans tens of thousands of years, not just the time period since the Industrial Revolution or even the invention of agriculture.

We're aware the current economic system is relatively new, but this is irrelevant. Even in the most basic system someone has to hunt and gather to ensure the survival of the individual, group or family. Any person incapable of gathering resources or money for their own survival is at the mercy of those who are capable of doing so. Patriarchy didn't make this bit up, it simply made access to resources easier for men than for women. Staying home to be a full time homemaker simply means that someone else is going to a corporate job to get the money that feeds you, clothes you and puts a roof over your head. In most households outside the DCUM bubble it also means that your husband has to work longer hours and spend less time with your child to be able to provide. In a non-capitalist patriarchal society women would still depend on their husbands for their basic needs, the only difference would be that husbands wouldn't work for a corporation (or would co-own a corporation). They would still exclude women from most economic activity.

You're not bringing anything new to this conversation, you're just being arrogant.

You clearly have zero understanding of how traditional hunter gatherer cultures function(ed). You also clearly have zero understanding of what is entailed in feeding and clothing oneself and one’s family. And finally, you have zero clue how the majority of households outside the DCUM bubble live. Congratulations, an ignorance hat trick!