Why is the wedding name change thing such a big issue?

b3t4

iguana wrote: »

Our children will take my husband's surname and I think it's nice for kids to have the same name as their whole family. I've decided we'll use his name because for the whole 5 minutes that I was pregnant I know I bonded with the baby on a level my husband didn't even come close to. I'm the one who gets to be pregnant and breastfeed our kids (which I see as an advantage) so my husband can get to give them his surname and I think I get the better deal. (I'll also let my husband decide on whether we find out the sex at the scan - if he thinks it will help him bond we'll find out.)

This is also my reasoning behind giving the kids their fathers name. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks like that

Also, it was what the kids would be named that was of more concern to himself. He didn't truly care whether I took his name or not. That's should he ask me to marry him that is

Madame Razz

Joe the Santa wrote: »

if you are an only child and what your family name to in some way continue would be at least one good reason why a bride wouldn't want to change her name

Or if your father was the only son and you are the only one of your generation to be carrying on the family name.....as is my case.

Orla K wrote: »

I also don't think it matters if my family name stops at me unless I was the only person on earth left with that name.

But it does matter to some people. It's actually very important to me, and I would hope that my husband to be(when he appears) would respect that. Our children could have his name, but I would prefer to be known by my own name, or double barrelled in a passport context.

Morag

Madame Razz wrote: »

Or if your father was the only son and you are the only one of your generation to be carrying on the family name.....as is my case.



But it does matter to some people. It's actually very important to me, and I would hope that my husband to be(when he appears) would respect that. Our children could have his name, but I would prefer to be known by my own name, or double barrelled in a passport context.

And shock horror surprise there are men out there who can and will in your case be happy to take your name and be happy to have the children have that name so it does not die out.

WesternNight

This "good reason" lark is a load of tripe.

Obviously if a woman is refusing to change her name to spite someone or something like that...then there are problems.

But assuming that isn't the case - then simply not wanting to should be reason enough. It's got no bearing whatsoever on her love for her husband or her commitment to the marriage.

It's legally possible to not change your name, and therefore one absolutely has the right to choose not to without giving ANY reason at all.

If her husband has a problem with it then it's up to HIM to work it out for himself rather than her having to come up with a "good reason" before she's allowed to keep her name.

Morgase

WesternNight wrote: »

This "good reason" lark is a load of tripe.

Obviously if a woman is refusing to change her name to spite someone or something like that...then there are problems.

But assuming that isn't the case - then simply not wanting to should be reason enough. It's got no bearing whatsoever on her love for her husband or her commitment to the marriage.

It's legally possible to not change your name, and therefore one absolutely has the right to choose not to without giving ANY reason at all.

If her husband has a problem with it then it's up to HIM to work it out for himself rather than her having to come up with a "good reason" before she's allowed to keep her name.

You put it better than I ever could!

Pherekydes

Morgase wrote: »

You put it better than I ever could!

I agree wholeheartedly, and I'm male. This whole surname thing goes back to Roman times, when everyone was owned by their father, and so took his name.

Haven't we progressed a bit since?

Piste

Joe the Santa wrote: »

Just a query to the people you don't want to get their name changed. Just wondering as a name change is traditional part of marriage, do you then not think that the whole married thing itself is not a bit out dated and would you not prefer to be life partners instead, i.e. except for the legal implication why get married at all?

I wil never change my name and tbh I'd be hapry being lifepartners. I'd only get married for the tax credits, inheritence and children issues.

JimiTime wrote: »

Other than. 'Why should I' or 'Why doesn't he take mine'. And leaving out the whole 'Britney Pitney' rhyming scenario. Why would you object to identifying yourself with your husband rather than your father?

Because blood is thicker than water. I have a double-barrelled name which identifies me with both my mum and dad. I love my parents and they will always be my parents, whereas a husband can easily become an ex-husband. It would be such hassle to change my name back if the marriage split.

One thing which will be awkward will be what name to give the kids. Somehow I don't see triple-barrelled working.

Jeanious

Jaysus ya can't move for all the testosterone around here!


Here's a brief summary of my thoughts on the issue:

Forcing a man/woman to change their name: Garbage

Double Barreled: Garbage

Actually loving each other and not giving a sh1t about such petty crap:
Priceless!

If i ever get married, i would kinda like if my wife took my name, doubly so for the fact that im sort of the last in the line with it. However, if she didnt want to change then i wouldnt have a problem with that either, jaysus i fcuking hate having a middle name, cos it's on some stuff and not on others and that does my head in....i can't imagine how much of a pain 2 different surnames would be!

To all the "men" there who say they wouldnt be with someone/would be insulted by someone who wouldnt take their name, "head of the house" yadda yadda yadda, jaysus christ, man-up for fcuk sake! Go out and play a game of rugby or wrassle a bear or somethin, then you'll realise how much of a non-issue it really is!

And by the way, if the "norm" was eating your own sh1t, would ye all go along with that? Or as me oul granny would say, "If everone else jumped into the liffey, would you jump in as well?"

JimiTime

WesternNight wrote: »

This "good reason" lark is a load of tripe.

Obviously if a woman is refusing to change her name to spite someone or something like that...then there are problems.

But assuming that isn't the case - then simply not wanting to should be reason enough.

I disagree. I think its selfish and immature. But hey, thats me.

BTW, if a man didn't want a wedding or what if they didn't want to go in for any of that ring malarky. That would be good with all wouldn't it? You wouldn't need a reason would you. 'I don't want to' would be reason enough wouldn't it?

cocoa

Wow, this thread really made me think

First I figured I wouldn't mind taking her name, partly cos I don't care and think the norm could do with some braking, partly cos my name means bald and anything that might help is worth a try... =P

Then the ladies in the thread convinced me I'd actually prefer to keep my name! I already have it on a few awards etc. It'll be on my degree, it's on my ten year passport, it's everywhere and changing it would be a pain, why bother! I'm still the same person!

Re: associating yourself with your father's household instead of the new one. Ditto to the man!

My mom kept her maiden name and it's totally not a problem. I was never confused or anything... In certain circumstances she uses my Dad's because it's handy, which is fine too. I wouldn't mind my kids taking either name.

I think the name itself doesn't matter, as a person grows up and matures, they mould an identity around the name, there's no need to ever change the name and start from scratch.

Great thread!

WesternNight

JimiTime wrote: »

I disagree. I think its selfish and immature. But hey, thats me.

BTW, if a man didn't want a wedding or what if they didn't want to go in for any of that ring malarky. That would be good with all wouldn't it? You wouldn't need a reason would you. 'I don't want to' would be reason enough wouldn't it?

I'm not fussed about rings tbh. And if he didn't want a wedding it would mean he didn't want to get married so we'd have to discuss that.

What you're talking about is taking away a woman's name and planting your own one on for the sake of "it's the norm". If that's not selfish and immature reasoning I don't know what is.

JimiTime

WesternNight wrote: »

I'm not fussed about rings tbh. And if he didn't want a wedding it would mean he didn't want to get married so we'd have to discuss that.

Grand about the rings. A wedding is nothing to do with the marriage though. Its just a ceremony surrounding the signing of the mariage contract. If the man just wanted you him and two witnesses into the registry office. That would be ok wouldn't it? Just making sure about consistancy.

What you're talking about is taking away a woman's name and planting your own one on for the sake of "it's the norm".

Well thats just your assumptions now.

WesternNight

JimiTime wrote: »

Grand about the rings. A wedding is nothing to do with the marriage though. Its just a ceremony surrounding the signing of the mariage contract. If the man just wanted you him and two witnesses into the registry office. That would be ok wouldn't it?

Well thats just your assumptions now.

What exactly am I assuming? Feel free to clarify.

As for the rest - it's not exactly comparing like with like. If a man doesn't want a big shindig of a wedding and a woman does, then they talk about it and come to some sort of a compromise. If a woman wants to keep her name and a man doesn't want her to keep her name...there's not exactly a compromise (assuming neither are open to double-barrelling). Either she keeps her name and he's in a huff, or she takes his name and she is.

Something like a big party after getting married has far more avenues for compromise where both people can be happy. Name-changing, not so much.

You're saying I'm assuming something...but you've just assumed that a) I'm into big weddings and b) that I want a fancy ring (or any ring). I'm into neither.

So...what did I assume?

sofia11

When we got married I din't change my name. It didn't bother my husband in the least. Our children have his surname as this is our family name. I used to know an Italian lady who said in Italy the wife keeps her own name and many other friends here and UK think its good to keep your own identity. Also it avoided the confusion within the family, is it Mrs M senior or.... As it turns out it really makes no difference to your marriage really, there are other more important issues. I'm glad I kept my own name now as the MIL is the usual one from hell anyway and I wouldn't like to be confused with her for a second!
You learn as you go along not to bother discussing what your intentions are because its nobodys business but yours. Just do it, its not up to others to tell you what to do. If they were as concerned about your happiness for the rest of your married life as they were about little things like this, it would be a wonderful world.

metaoblivia

I wouldn't mind changing my surname if I got married, but only because I hate it. I actually see that as one of the perks of marriage - I get to put away the horrible last name. But, I'm an aspiring author, and should I get published before I get married, then I'd be inclined to keep my surname, at least professionally.

However, I think if a woman wants to keep her name - if only for the sake of keeping it - then she's entitled to that. I work as a private tutor and all of my clients at the moment are Chinese. In Chinese culture, the woman does not take the man's surname; she retains her own name, while the kids take the father's surname. I think it's a good system. I also like the Spanish system.

Dudess

iguana wrote: »

I use both surnames for different aspects of my life. Professionally I use my own name, for stuff pertaining to my family I use my married name. My new passport will have me as Iguana middlename X Y, apart from that I will never be double-barrelled. Whichever surname I'm using at the time I always use the title Ms. I always used it in Ireland and didn't find it a problem, in the UK I find it's much more unusual, so many people don't know what I mean when I say it that I've taken to saying "Ms - M. S." when I'm asked otherwise they assume I'm saying either Miss or Mrs in my twee little accent.

Our children will take my husband's surname and I think it's nice for kids to have the same name as their whole family. I've decided we'll use his name because for the whole 5 minutes that I was pregnant I know I bonded with the baby on a level my husband didn't even come close to. I'm the one who gets to be pregnant and breastfeed our kids (which I see as an advantage) so my husband can get to give them his surname and I think I get the better deal. (I'll also let my husband decide on whether we find out the sex at the scan - if he thinks it will help him bond we'll find out.)

A big advantage to using both names is that one day when I am extremely famous for my amazing professional achievements I can use my married name and go incognito. It'll be like a secret identity.:D

That is a lovely post indeed, iguana (and I'm so sorry you lost your baby).

I have some similar feelings about the name thing - maiden name for some situations, married name for others. Much of that is simply a question of convenience.

skywards

I would more than happily change my surname, seeing as I loathe it .

JimiTime

WesternNight wrote: »

What exactly am I assuming? Feel free to clarify.

What you're talking about is taking away a woman's name and planting your own one on for the sake of "it's the norm".

Thats what you're assuming.

As for the rest - it's not exactly comparing like with like. If a man doesn't want a big shindig of a wedding and a woman does, then they talk about it and come to some sort of a compromise. If a woman wants to keep her name and a man doesn't want her to keep her name...there's not exactly a compromise (assuming neither are open to double-barrelling). Either she keeps her name and he's in a huff, or she takes his name and she is.

But I don't have to give a reason. I just have to say, 'I don't want one'. Forget compromise, I shouldn't have to say anything more right? You may think 'But, but', but really, 'I don't want one' should be reason enough no? Or are you now reckoning that its better to talk about it and get some reasons and work out if all is reasonable? Of course, If I decide to say, 'I don't want one' its as simple as that. That should be enough should it not?

Something like a big party after getting married has far more avenues for compromise where both people can be happy. Name-changing, not so much.

But you see its not about that. You said, 'I don't want to' is reason enough. My gripe is not that a girl will want to keep her fathers name, its that you asserted that 'I just don't want to' is considered a valid reason when the groom feels it important to take his name.

You're saying I'm assuming something...but you've just assumed that a) I'm into big weddings and b) that I want a fancy ring (or any ring). I'm into neither.

So...what did I assume?

I actually didn't assume those things, I asked you to confirm that you are consistant. I did not assume you liked big weddings or rings or anything else for that matter.

SeekUp

JimiTime wrote: »

To some, an important 'part' of getting married is that the lady in question ceases to be identified by her fathers name, but rather identifies herself with her husband . . . Why would you object to identifying yourself with your husband rather than your father?

WesternNight wrote: »

Well, I'd quite like to identify myself with MYSELF. It's my name, it's always been my name, and I quite like my name.

Agreed. Well, kindof. Imo, in essence, the surname is just a name. For most people, it's their father's last name, which they've grown up with and have come to identify themselves. That being said, I think that if you decided to change your name, you would come to identify with your "new" name. I mean, it's the same product in different packaging.

I overheard some women discussing this over brunch one day, and one woman said, you're just switching from one man's name to the other -- what's the difference one way or the other? My mother kept her maiden name as her middle name, and then used my father's name as her last name.

I like my last name, I do. And I have published some things that have my name on it, and as others have mentioned, in a writing capacity, I'd keep my current name for that reason. But I wouldn't mind changing my name when I get married, because I like his last name as well. I'm still me, regardless of what I'm called.



P.S. Re: kids, I know some people who have a bit of their father's last name and a bit of their mother's last name . . . people can get creative!

rannerap

skywards wrote: »

I would more than happily change my surname, seeing as I loathe it .

same:pthe only problem is if the guys surname is worse than the original!

WesternNight

JimiTime -

Leaving one name behind and taking on another IS NOT comparable to the scenario you're painting. For a lot of women it's taking a part of them away. And because it's got nothing to do with their love for you or their commitment to you, it's completely and utterly selfish to expect them to abide by your outdated traditions.

Call it feminist, I really don't care. People no longer have the right to tell a woman she can't keep her name. If a man (or anyone, for that matter) ever said that to me I'd be out of there like a shot. Thankfully most men are less concerned with things like that nowadays.

/exits thread.

lizzyvera

I wouldn't mind either way about changing my name. It means absolutely nothing to me, it's a non issue. For easiness' sake I'd probably take my husband's name if I got married, because I don't care so it's nice when the decision can just be made by convention, so nobody is upset or wonders why I either shunned either my dad or my husband by refusing to be known by their name.

I suppose people are surprised you'd rather keep your dad's name than have the same one as your husband because it makes more sense to be mr and mrs x, and it seems strange to care enough about what your surname is to go against convention. More than anything, people are probably just curious as to why you care either way and want to know your reasons, rather than actually think you are a "monster", which is a bit extreme, and usually a response reserved for sex offenders.

Some people assume my dad and I are married because we sign letters to various organisations Liz and Kevin X.

Having Irish surnames makes it very easily decided because your name means daughter of, or son of, or wife of. I think that's quite handy.

JimiTime

WesternNight wrote: »

JimiTime -

Leaving one name behind and taking on another IS NOT comparable to the scenario you're painting.

You still don't get the point. But hey ho.

For a lot of women it's taking a part of them away.

Well that is something to be reasoned. Fine. Thats not what you said though. You said, 'I don't want to' is reason enough. Such a position is selfish and immature. Having a reason, like above, is much more like the opening up of some dialogue between you and your husband to be.

And because it's got nothing to do with their love for you or their commitment to you,

Again, now you are getting into the reasoning. I take it that you agree that 'I don't want to' is not good enough then?

it's completely and utterly selfish to expect them to abide by your outdated traditions.

LOL. Shame you must get so upity, I say all this in good humour. There are many that hold to the old traditions of marriage, and many that don't. I have issue with neither. The attitude that you seemed to portray though, the whole 'If I say, I don't want to. Its good enough', is IMO a poor attitude.

Call it feminist,

When thats what it is, thats what I'll call it. If thats not what it is, I wont call it that.

I really don't care.

Why would you, I'm a YOUNG:) faceless married man on an internet forum.

People no longer have the right to tell a woman she can't keep her name.

Ha ha. Well its obvious you have an axe to grind. I never said a woman should be forced to change her name. However, I think a man has the right to say, 'well lets forget the tradition of marriage', if he deems his wife to be to be being unreasonale.

If a man (or anyone, for that matter) ever said that to me I'd be out of there like a shot.

Thats your perogative. We all have our standards.

Thankfully most men are less concerned with things like that nowadays.

I wouldn't know, its fairly irrelelavent to me though.

/exits thread.

Take care.

skywards

Sarannewrap wrote: »

same:pthe only problem is if the guys surname is worse than the original!

I didn't think about that :eek:.

Chinafoot

I would probably keep my own name. I have 2 sisters and no brothers and I like my family name.

My children will take their fathers name. I don't like double-barrell names so I'm very happy for them to take their dads name.

The first born will have my surname as their middle name. Thats my way of keeping my name with my children. My mother did one better...my sisters first name is my mother's maiden name. Doesn't really work with my surname though

Pherekydes

JimiTime wrote: »

LOL. Shame you must get so upity...

Quit with the ad hominem attacks. You brought up the selfish and immature argument first. So why are you so uppity?

Stones85

Chinafoot wrote: »

I would probably keep my own name. I have 2 sisters and no brothers and I like my family name.

My children will take their fathers name. I don't like double-barrell names so I'm very happy for them to take their dads name.

The first born will have my surname as their middle name. Thats my way of keeping my name with my children. My mother did one better...my sisters first name is my mother's maiden name. Doesn't really work with my surname though

This is exactly what me and my gf have done with our children, no boys in her family, she doesn't want to change her name as there's no boys in her family, kids will take her surname as a middle name, NOT a double barrell.

I hate this "just because" bs

cocoa

@ JimiTime (sorry, too lazy to go back and find the relevant quotes, apologies if I misunderstand you)

I think it's fair enough to say that someone should know and be able to say why they don't want to, reasons (not necessarily valid or invalid) could be fear of change, sense of identity, career, etc. as have been mentioned.

What I'm wondering about are the reasons behind wanting someone else to change their name. Again, forgive me if I've misunderstood something here, but IMO the whole idea of committing to a new family under the new family name, applies just as well in reverse. If this is the aim and it is of importance to him, then he should change his name to achieve it. The only reason I can think of against this is tradition, which is no reason at all IMO, but opinions can differ

neuro-praxis

JimiTime wrote: »

From a Christian POV, marriage is about two becoming one. One heart, one mind, one wallet:) etc. It follows on that you are under one name. Different strokes for different folks though. It was important to me that my wife take on my name, and there was no issue anyway. I have to admit, it would be personally a problem if my wife wouldn't take on my name. Though, others don't see it that way. She got the 'You mean you're changing your name' thing off some of her friends. I think with alot of blokes, it feels like a bit of a lack of commitment that their wife to be wont change take on his name. Who knows.

As a matter of curiosity, why would you not take on your husbands name?

Just because you are a Christian does not mean that you are offering a Christian perspective. You are offering your own personal opinion and using your Christianity to defend it.

Me and my husband are both Christians and I retained my name when we got married. The bible has nothing to say on the issue of names, other than the ones we have now are unimportant and one day we'll find out our real one.

I have kept my name because it is lovely and it's unusual, and the only male in the family with the name is gay. I don't want it to die. Lack of commitment my arse.

Demonique

JimiTime wrote: »

From a Christian POV, marriage is about two becoming one. One heart, one mind, one wallet:) etc. It follows on that you are under one name. Different strokes for different folks though. It was important to me that my wife take on my name, and there was no issue anyway. I have to admit, it would be personally a problem if my wife wouldn't take on my name. Though, others don't see it that way. She got the 'You mean you're changing your name' thing off some of her friends. I think with alot of blokes, it feels like a bit of a lack of commitment that their wife to be wont change take on his name. Who knows.

As a matter of curiosity, why would you not take on your husbands name?

Why would it be a problem if your wife wouldn't take your name? Seems sexist to object IMO

Demonique

Stones85 wrote: »

My we're men post was ment half jokingly.

When a man and a woman, get married they come together as one, they are then a family unit, so when they have kids their children inherit that family's name. What utter BS spouting "its my family name, i wont change it wha wha wha!!!" No dumby!! once you're married you are now a NEW family, you take the mans name becuase generally speaking the man is the head of the family and household. Thats the way it is, gtf over it.

Whats goin on with all the bitter feminist freaks? Take your twisted reactionary thinking outside please.

I could ask what's up with the lumbering, knuckle-dragging neanderthal retards.....

JimiTime

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Just because you are a Christian does not mean that you are offering a Christian perspective. You are offering your own personal opinion and using your Christianity to defend it.

Me and my husband are both Christians and I retained my name when we got married. The bible has nothing to say on the issue of names, other than the ones we have now are unimportant and one day we'll find out our real one.

I have kept my name because it is lovely and it's unusual, and the only male in the family with the name is gay. I don't want it to die. Lack of commitment my arse.

My reason for bringing up Christianity was to give my idea of Marriage. I.E. Oneness. To others not of a Christian persuasion, they 'may' have different feelings about marriage. I wholeheartedly agree that what I offer is my own personal opinions about it. I've said that throughout, and have not gone on about the bible or God to 'defend' my position. I merely introduced my definition of marriage so that folk would know my perspective. You jumped the gun there. Seems to be alot of misunderstanding about tbh. My position is quite concise. 'I' felt it important for our family to keep with our parents, grandparents etc etc tradition of being one name. Tradition has it that that is the mans name. I have 'no' issue with someone who disagree's with this position at all. However, what I 'have' issue with, is the attitude that if the husband deems it important, the wife just saying, 'Well I just want to keep my name' without any reason but 'I just want to' is valid. I find that position unacceptable tbh. Again though, I think you jumped the gun.

JimiTime

cocoa wrote: »

@ JimiTime (sorry, too lazy to go back and find the relevant quotes, apologies if I misunderstand you)

No worries.

I think it's fair enough to say that someone should know and be able to say why they don't want to, reasons (not necessarily valid or invalid) could be fear of change, sense of identity, career, etc. as have been mentioned.

Exactly, its the least to be expected, 'IF' its something important to the husband.

What I'm wondering about are the reasons behind wanting someone else to change their name.

TBH, its more to do with why the woman would go against culture and tradition. The man is not the one rocking the boat. Its the woman making the deal out of it, and going against the grain that would have me asking why.

Again, forgive me if I've misunderstood something here, but IMO the whole idea of committing to a new family under the new family name, applies just as well in reverse. If this is the aim and it is of importance to him, then he should change his name to achieve it. The only reason I can think of against this is tradition, which is no reason at all IMO, but opinions can differ

As you say, opinions can differ. IMO, its those who make a big deal of not taking on the husbands name that should give the reasons for they are the ones making it an issue. The ones that are going against the culture, practice and traditions of our families. I have no issue with a reasonable stance on why a woman would keep her fathers name. I just don't like a stubborn, 'Well why should I change my name'. It reeks of gender insecurity to me, also it is selfish and immature IMO And just to emphasise, I am not saying it is selfish and immature to want to keep your name, but to stand against your husbands wishes just because you for want of a better term, 'You feel like it'.

We can opionate on this until the cows come home, at the end of the day though, I'm happily married to a woman I love and adore, and we kept with our culture and tradition in the naming scenario. Others on here said they are happily married while having a two name household. So its all a bit meaningless really. I'll continue to think what I think, but so what? I wont be getting married to anyone else:)

Anyway, this was my first venture into all things woman here. Its been an experience.:)
Night y'all.

JimiTime

Demonique wrote: »

Why would it be a problem if your wife wouldn't take your name? Seems sexist to object IMO

Simply beacuse I'd want to know why it would be a big deal to her to rewrite our culture and tradition.


BTW, I don't mind being called sexist. I'm called many things. I don't really go in for the whole political mud words tbh. I respect women, I love my wife, so what does it matter that those who don't know you say such things?

cocoa

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, its more to do with why the woman would go against culture and tradition. The man is not the one rocking the boat. Its the woman making the deal out of it, and going against the grain that would have me asking why.

That'd be where our opinions differ I think. I'd say the man is proposing the name change, it seems you'd say the woman is proposing the tradition change, so from our separate perspectives, the burden of justification lies with different people.

But of course, I think you've been right all along No 'justification' or needing to 'defend your point of view' or anything else so cold is needed in a healthy loving relationship where proper discussion can resolve any such issues

EDIT: on re-reading, that last bit didn't sound as good as it did in my head =( What I mean is, in a good relationship, you'll never hear 'do X', 'No, X was your idea so you must support your claim' 'No, X is a tradition and so the burden of justification is on you'... There's generally smaller words involved... But what I mean is, people hopefully have considerable understanding for each other by this stage and can discuss one another's motivations openly...

midlandsmissus

JimiTime wrote: »

Simply beacuse I'd want to know why it would be a big deal to her to rewrite our culture and tradition.


BTW, I don't mind being called sexist. I'm called many things. I don't really go in for the whole political mud words tbh. I respect women, I love my wife, so what does it matter that those who don't know you say such things?

It used to be 'culture and tradition' for a woman to take a man's name as women rarely ventured out of the house. Even up until the seventies, women had to give up work once they were married.

Times have GREATLY changed.

How can you not realise the following:

A woman spends her whole life building up a great career, everyone in her field of work knows her by her name, her name is on every achievement she's ever made.

She has to change it.

I would worry about work contacts from years ago not being able to find me with my new name, I can't put my new name on old achievements, the hassle of changing my name on all official documents, plus my name is a huge part of my identity.

A woman changing her name to her husband's, is an old antiquated tradition, and men need to get over their egos and think of how THEY would feel if THEY had to change their name.

Chips Lovell

JimiTime wrote: »

You said, 'I don't want to' is reason enough. Such a position is selfish and immature.

Would it be selfish and immature for a man to refuse to change his surname to his wife's just because he didn't want to?

Joey the lips

I never got the big deal. I actually checked it out a little the only reason the law requires it is so kids have one common name rather than 2. I would have been willing to change mine rather than expect my wife to change hers.

She jokes sometimes and says that i have restored her credit limit again I think as generations progress when something new is done the older generation sees it as being childish rebellion. I dont think that will ever change:)

I think as time progress its going to make it harder for old friends to make contact with the person that changed there name. For example a lad i was in school with found me on face book because he knew my name. But when going to the reunion my wife was looking up old friends but could not find them because she knew they were married but could not remember there marriage name. So name change is important on social sites like facebook but thats only for traceability.

animaal

When I was getting engaged, we discussed whether she'd take my surname. I would have liked her to, but she said "It's just a pointless antiquated tradition".

I replied "Yes, that's exactly how I feel about diamond rings".

She took my name. It's all about give & take.

iguana

Joey the lips wrote: »

I never got the big deal. I actually checked it out a little the only reason the law requires it is so kids have one common name rather than 2.

You can't have checked it out very well then as the law in Ireland requires no such thing. In Ireland you can use whatever name you choose, and by that I mean whatever. If you decide from here on out you wish to be known as The Doctor you just start telling people that's your name. After two years of usage they will put it on your passport. When you get married you can bypass the two year wait, that's all it means. The woman can take the man's name, the man can take the woman's name, they can double barrel it whichever way they like or neither has to do anything.

neuro-praxis

JimiTime wrote: »

My reason for bringing up Christianity was to give my idea of Marriage. I.E. Oneness. To others not of a Christian persuasion, they 'may' have different feelings about marriage. I wholeheartedly agree that what I offer is my own personal opinions about it. I've said that throughout, and have not gone on about the bible or God to 'defend' my position.

I'm not suggesting you have gone on about the bible or God to defend your position. I am suggesting to you that you are presenting your opinion under the cloak of "Christian values" in your initial post. You say you didn't use Christianity to defend your position and yet it was the first thing you said about why men and women should share the same name when married. I share the belief that in marriage men and women become one. This is a state, not a moral choice. And likewise, there is no moral aspect to the decision to change name or not, and the bible certainly has nothing to say on the issue. There WERE no surnames in that era. You would have been called "JimiTime of Dublin" and I would have been called "neuro-praxis of Kildare." Oh wait, no I wouldn't, I would just have been known as neuro-praxis. Women were not citzens. We now are, and some of us are exerting rights JUST BECAUSE. You should be able to understand this without too much difficulty. I can't for the life of me see how it would be a "Christian thing" to do for a woman to take her husband's name. Like I say, it's a non-moral issue.

I merely introduced my definition of marriage so that folk would know my perspective. You jumped the gun there. Seems to be alot of misunderstanding about tbh. My position is quite concise. 'I' felt it important for our family to keep with our parents, grandparents etc etc tradition of being one name. Tradition has it that that is the mans name. I have 'no' issue with someone who disagree's with this position at all. However, what I 'have' issue with, is the attitude that if the husband deems it important, the wife just saying, 'Well I just want to keep my name' without any reason but 'I just want to' is valid. I find that position unacceptable tbh. Again though, I think you jumped the gun.

JimiTime I am sure you will agree with me that you offered a piss-poor definition of marriage if that is what you think it amounts to.

Have you ever asked yourself why it was important to you to keep your family name? The answer is PATRIARCHY. You believe that the patriarchy whereby men's name's are recorded and women dissolve into their husband's identity is important to maintain.

The Jesus of the bible upended every social norm in how he treated and affirmed women. My husband strives to do the same. Therefore he encouraged me too keep my own name if I wanted it, and has offered even to change his name. Why? Because he doesn't care about the patriarchy.

Would you take your wife's name? I doubt it.

Little Miss Cutie

I am probably alone in this but I like the idea of taking my OH's surname and making a new family just the two of us (for now ). Changing my name doesn't make me any less me it just changes me a little as marriage will do.

It is not something I have ever considered not doing. I have friends who have taken their OH's name and others who are now double-barrel surnames. Again they are still the person I have always known and other than being married haven't changed.

I don't think I have any right nor desire to tell them what they should or shouldn't do.

I think it is for every couple to decide together what works for them and everyone else should keep there noses out!

On a side note if the one keeps her own name does her title change to Mrs OwnName or does it stay Miss OwnName?

neuro-praxis

Cutie_pc wrote: »

I am probably alone in this but I like the idea of taking my OH's surname and making a new family just the two of us (for now ).

You've got to be kidding me. Why would you imagine you are alone in this? Almost every woman takes her partner's name, at least in my world.

On a side note if the one keeps her own name does her title change to Mrs OwnName or does it stay Miss OwnName?

Neither, you typically remain at Ms. which does not denote marital status.

Joey the lips

iguana wrote: »

You can't have checked it out very well then as the law in Ireland requires no such thing. In Ireland you can use whatever name you choose, and by that I mean whatever. If you decide from here on out you wish to be known as The Doctor you just start telling people that's your name. After two years of usage they will put it on your passport. When you get married you can bypass the two year wait, that's all it means. The woman can take the man's name, the man can take the woman's name, they can double barrel it whichever way they like or neither has to do anything.

Forgive me I never explained myself correctly. The law requires that you state what you require. What I ment was you just need to notify in an official capacity. There was nothing more i could find and yes i am amazed by the irish system that once you use a name for 2 years.

neuro-praxis

Joey the lips wrote: »

Forgive me I never explained myself correctly. The law requires that you state what you require. What I ment was you just need to notify in an official capacity. There was nothing more i could find and yes i am amazed by the irish system that once you use a name for 2 years.

You don't need to notify anyone if you retain your name.

Chips Lovell

animaal wrote: »

When I was getting engaged, we discussed whether she'd take my surname. I would have liked her to, but she said "It's just a pointless antiquated tradition".

I replied "Yes, that's exactly how I feel about diamond rings".

She took my name. It's all about give & take.

Most of the women in my peer group (my wife included) don't want diamond engagement rings.

Morgase

el tonto wrote: »

Most of the women in my peer group (my wife included) don't want diamond engagement rings.

Same here.

I know I'm not going to be convinced to change my name just cause some shinies are waved at me. If I want shinies (which I don't) I'll go and buy them with my own money!

Das Kitty

Where is the idea coming from that it's easier to change your name after marriage than not?

As a person who has changed her name (well I've changed it for my personal life and kept my maiden name for work), it's a right pain in the bum. You really need to be wanting to do it.

Think about it, bank accounts, credit cards, passports, anyone in an official capacity that sends you a letter (blood bank, tax man, etc), driver's license, and that's off the top of my head, I know there are rakes more I had to sort out.

It's far far easier to keep your name than to change it, you don't have to do anything.

For those saying it's breaking with tradition not to, eh, so what. I broke with tradition by living with my OH before marriage, I broke with tradition by having a sponge cake for a Christmas cake last year! The reason I changed my name had SFA to do with tradition, it was to do with having a family name with my OH, if this was against tradition, I still would have done it.

Unlike neuro-praxis, in my group of friends/relations my age, I'm the only one to take my husband's name, I got a lot of stick from some of them. To be honest what does it matter either way as long as no one is being guilted into doing it? My OH never once brought up the issue until I told him I was looking forward to taking his name, he's delighted (as am I) that we share a name now but never in a million years would he expect me to take his name.

IMO those who insist on the woman taking the man's name are consciously or not implying ownership.

dan719

I don't think most men care too much about the name change thing, but I don't know a single man who would accept their child not having their name. I think for most people, that would be a deal breaker.

iguana

Joey the lips wrote: »

Forgive me I never explained myself correctly. The law requires that you state what you require. What I ment was you just need to notify in an official capacity.

You don't need to officially notify anybody, you just start using the name you want. Whatever name you want. The only notifications you need to make are to the people and institutions who you want to use your new name. However if you wish to change your surname after you marry, to your spouse's surname or a double-barrel of both, you can change it on your passport immediately once you produce a marriage certificate instead of having to use two years proof of usage.

There is no legal requirement and men and women have exactly the same rights to change or retain their names.