Taking a Man's Name After Marriage

[X5N]

I was wondering what some of the feminists and the like here think of this tradition.

While I think women should, of course, have the choice to do whatever they want with their name, I find the tradition really useless and misogynistic, and I find it a bit annoying how ubiquitous it is in American culture.

[Fawkes]

It's a declaration of subservience and ownership. I doubt you're going to find anyone here with a positive view of it. I mean, a lot of us are wholly opposed to the institution of marriage itself.

[Le Socialiste]

It's a declaration of subservience and ownership. I doubt you're going to find anyone here with a positive view of it. I mean, a lot of us are wholly opposed to the institution of marriage itself.

This. While it is a woman's right to decide whether or not she wants to take her partner's name, it is largely a result of how we view the cultural and societal roles of men and women (which stem from gender roles). Besides, like Fawkes said, most people here are deeply opposed to the institution of marriage - so asking how we feel about a woman taking on her partner's name is going to mostly result in a thread full of outright opposition (and rightly so).

[Il Medico]

The western marriage tradition is extremely sexist as it symbolizes the transfer of ownership of the woman from her father to her husband. While she carries her father's name she belongs to him. It is also why a man traditionally must ask the father for her hand in marriage and why the father gives her away. He must willing give his property (his daughter) to another man. Making women little more than a commodity to be traded by men and the marriage ceremony little more than a transfer of goods. Disgusting really.

[The Jay]

The only possible argument for it would be for notekeeping purposes, but, as a communist, I am for the restructuring of family structure anyway.

[Quail]

The western marriage tradition is extremely sexist as it symbolizes the transfer of ownership of the woman from her father to her husband. While she carries her father's name she belongs to him. It is also why a man traditionally must ask the father for her hand in marriage and why the father gives her away. He must willing give his property (his daughter) to another man. Making women little more than a commodity to be traded by men and the marriage ceremony little more than a transfer of goods. Disgusting really.

This is why I wouldn't want to get married. Being in a committed relationship is fine, and even some kind of party to celebrate the relationship is fine by me, but I have a problem with being handed over to my partner as property, which is what a wedding basically is. Marriage is just a remnant of a time when women were treated as property and should be seen as unnecessary in a world where people have an equal share in a relationship.

So I wouldn't get married in the first place, but hypothetically if I did, I would keep my own name. I wouldn't want to change my name anyway, because it's part of who I am.

Edit: This post is quite poorly written, but hopefully you know what I mean.

[Smyg]

We didn't have this in Sweden until one or two centuries ago, when the patronyms died.

[X5N]

I too greatly dislike the institution of marriage, as well as traditional gender norms and such. Thanks for your input, everyone.

One question I have is -- aside from the argument that this tradition has misogynistic origins, what are some good arguments I could use against it? Every so often, I try writing up a letter to the editor for my college newspaper on the subject, that always ends up falling a bit flat. So far, all I have in my arsenal is arguments to dispel certain myths -- like the myth that a family having the same name encourages family unity, which I dispel using the example of Belgium or the fact that a lot of people have grandparents or cousins with different surnames, who are no less family. I also give alternatives, such as what the mayor of Los Angeles did with his last name when he got married.

I also throw in a wacky argument against hereditary surnames entirely.

And another thing --

Anyone else find it very bizarre how even women who do keep their name after marriage, or who hyphenate, still give their kids the father's last name? It's like, even if 20% of families have a mother with a different surname, 99% or so of families -- at least, in the U.S. -- have kids who share a surname with their father.

[not your usual suspect]

Yeah! Fuck that shit about women taking mens name. The men should take the womans name, obvious init?

Regarding kids, I used to think that boys should take the mans name, and girls the womans name. But not so sure now. M'be do away with family names altogether? Or let the kids choose whenever they are old enough. Fuck that whole unique identifier shit as it obviously ain't true. I share a name with tv personalities and random other peeps. So let the kids pick a name, and let 'em change it whenever they want.

The state won't like it, but fuck that shit. The state is obsolete anyhow.

[Quail]

One question I have is -- aside from the argument that this tradition has misogynistic origins, what are some good arguments I could use against it? Every so often, I try writing up a letter to the editor for my college newspaper on the subject, that always ends up falling a bit flat. So far, all I have in my arsenal is arguments to dispel certain myths -- like the myth that a family having the same name encourages family unity, which I dispel using the example of Belgium or the fact that a lot of people have grandparents or cousins with different surnames, who are no less family. I also give alternatives, such as what the mayor of Los Angeles did with his last name when he got married.

Isn't the fact that marriage is completely unnecessary an argument? A relationship is based on mutual respect, and if both partners are equal and there is no ownership involved, why have a contract? Some people want a wedding, a celebration of their relationship, but it's not necessary to have a legally binding contract to do that. Does that make sense? (I haven't slept in 2 days because my son's ill so I'm not at my most eloquent.)

Yeah! Fuck that shit about women taking mens name. The men should take the womans name, obvious init?

Is this just a joke, because it doesn't make any sense. Reversing the tradition doesn't make any more sense.

Regarding kids, I used to think that boys should take the mans name, and girls the womans name. But not so sure now. M'be do away with family names altogether? Or let the kids choose whenever they are old enough. Fuck that whole unique identifier shit as it obviously ain't true. I share a name with tv personalities and random other peeps. So let the kids pick a name, and let 'em change it whenever they want.

I suppose the problem is that when the child is born, it's necessary to pick a name. If the child wants to change it at a later date, then of course they should be free to do so. Having more than one name for identification does make sense and is useful because some names are really common, although that's not to say that the extra names have to be inherited.

This post really shows that I haven't slept. Sorry. Maybe I'll post something better when I've had some sleep.

[Lynx]

Surely this tradition has gone the way of the dodo?

[Rafiq]

Names are dumb anyway.

[Veovis]

I would take my man's last name only because it's phonetically abhorrent and it only goes back two generations anyway. My father never knew his biological father who gave him the name - he was raised by his stepfather.

I should also mention that I am a man as well.

[Fawkes]

Surely this tradition has gone the way of the dodo?

Not at all. The vast majority of women I know that have gotten married in the last 10 years all assumed the surname of the husband, including my step-mom.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Now, before I say anything else, I must say that I do believe that the institute of marriage has been used incorrectly in the past.

I think It's fine. I believe that if I ever got married, that if my wife wanted to take my name, I wouldn't see it as a sign of ownership at all, more as a sign of she's coming into my family. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'm not sure anybody could say that a woman shouldn't be allowed to take her husbands name. The families I've come from (I'm relating this to my mom and dad), have only used it to show that my dear sweet mom became a part of my dad's family. If you asked him or her, I d*** sure guarantee you they'd say it's an equal partnership, NOT an ownership.

Also, in my anarcho communist society, there wouldn't be any official marriage. Is that to say that a man and a woman can't go into a mosque/temple/church/whatever and have a minister tell them you're married? HELL NO (obviously, I'm not opposed to LGBT marriage, I just doubt they'd be going into a church, they could go wherever or not go wherever, it's whatever they want to do). It just means that civilly, people would just see those two living together and say, yeah, those people are "married" (obviously, not official, due to the lack of state regulation).


On a side note, I think that's it's misogynistic to tell a woman what she should and shouldn't do, if a woman wants to chain herself to a man, who's to say she can't? True liberation, in my opinion, is when people can do whatever they like (within reason), and people would support them.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I was wondering what some of the feminists and the like here think of this tradition.

Historically, a woman taking her husband's surname has indicated she was his property, like an owner's name on a deed. Even if it doesn't necessarily mean that to people now, it's still an archaic way of doing things that doesn't reflect equality between the two partners.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I also throw in a wacky argument against hereditary surnames entirely.

Oi! Quit making things more difficult for us genealogists!

[Jennifer]

How about hyphening the couple's last names together? Would that not take out the "ownership" of it? My views on marriage all together are a bit washy, but overall I still see practical/convienent reasons for a "legal union" (or some kind of documented union). Also, I don't think that surnames should be thrown out all together...that makes no sense to me.

[citizen of industry]

I'm married (though object to the practice in theory and look forward to a socialist future where the institution no longer exists). We decided to keep our own names. Our son has both last names, one for each of his citizenships, so depending on which country he is in he can pick. When he is twenty he can no longer keep dual citizenship, so it is up to him what name he wants.

[Art Vandelay]

I thought I would chime in as this thread caught my eye, but must come out and say off the bat that I am a man, am very unfamiliar with feminism, but generally see myself to be a very progressive person who holds no prejudices against women. What stirred my thoughts about this subject is the fact that I am currently in a long term committed relationship, with someone I could see myself spending the rest of my life with, and wondered whether or not she would take my name.

I guess first of all I will say that I would want me and my partner (I will refrain from saying wife simply because I do not believe in marriage as a law binding contract but more of an agreement between two people) to have the same last name. Truthfully I have never thought of the concept of taking the husbands last name as described on this thread but can understand the validity behind it. So what is the solution? Both partners keeping their own lasts names to me seems to undermine the concept of marriage. What is the point of becoming and having/raising a family if your not all of the same name? While my argument could be considered trivial or based in semantics, personally it would matter to me, call me old fashioned.

So this got me thinking, would I expect my partner to adopt my name? Of course not. But in the same token I would not want to adopt my girlfriends family name, as much as I have become apart of their family I would not feel comfortable adopting it. So would the creation of a new last name seem ridiculous? Something unique and our own to signify our relationship and family?

Personally to me this seems like a good option as I hold no affinity to my current last name, I was born under my moms maidens name as my parents were not married at my birth. They then split up and my mother re-married and I adopted my step dads last name, mostly due to a conversation I had with my mother where she said my future brothers or sisters would have that last name and I would not if I chose not to take it, so in a sense I did not want to be left out. However I have also been told that my dad wept when my mom told him of the name change that I was going to take, knowing that I, his son, would have the name of a different man other than him, cut him pretty deep I think. I have thought about taking my dad's last name on now that I am an adult, although I do not feel a strong affinity for that side of my family aside from my dad.

Perhaps for someone like me who does not care for their last name or hold strong ties with my family or ancestors this is a much easier decision but I think that the creation of a new last name for both partners or a marriage to adopt would be a cool idea.