Last Name Changes on Marriage

[maryjk]

Well, you said it could be a tremendous let down for a man, and I guess a tremendous letdown does qualify as shock as well, doesn’t it? I don’t think a man would be not ready for marriage just because of being shocked that a woman won’t take his name in a country or some other community where women normally do this. Or especially if she suddenly told him he wanted him to take her ‘or else’ (although such a move could only really be made a woman with a noticeable ‘attitude’, so he should’ve sensed beforehand).

If they had been dating for years and engaged for months and they hadn’t talked about it, neither of them seem to be ready for marriage. The fact that they hadn’t talked about it would be what makes them not ready for marriage, not their feelings about the name change.

 

[Fireflylight]

Well, you said it could be a tremendous let down for a man, and I guess a tremendous letdown does qualify as shock as well, doesn’t it? I don’t think a man would be not ready for marriage just because of being shocked that a woman won’t take his name in a country or some other community where women normally do this. Or especially if she suddenly told him he wanted him to take her ‘or else’ (although such a move could only really be made a woman with a noticeable ‘attitude’, so he should’ve sensed beforehand).

I don’t think it’s as much of a custom in this country as you seem to think it is. Perhaps becuase I live in the liberal northeast, but the split seems to be 30/30/30. Some take their husband’s name, some keep it, some hyphenate or combine. The rest do something wierd like the guy taking the girls or making a new name. I do not believe it is a norm anymore…which is why it’s immature for both paties.

You seem to be looking for a fight. I have, since a small child, looked forwared to changing my name. But not every woman has. My fi has always thought his wife would keep her own name. His entire life he felt this way and grew up in a high-flying socitey where no woman took her husband’s name. However, when I talked it over with him over many months we agreed that I could. We’re opposite. He dosn’t want me to change my name, I want to. I think I’d be offput if he absolutely refused…I’d question if he really understood my feelings. I think right now he’s relented becuase it is my decision and he agrees with my reasons. So we’re on the same page. But we’re opposite of many.

 

[chevalier]

If they had been dating for years and engaged for months and they hadn’t talked about it, neither of them seem to be ready for marriage. The fact that they hadn’t talked about it would be what makes them not ready for marriage, not their feelings about the name change.

Okay, I saw that as a possibility. Hmm… look, I don’t think you really talk about that subject in a normal, typical engagement. You just assume the woman will change her name or hyphenate and kids will take dad’s name, like normal. We really can’t blame a man for not actually asking his girlfriend if she won’t ask him at the last minute to take her surname actually. Or do something non-standard with the children’s names.

On a different note, I’d like to ask all people who think it’s just a surname and means nothing (basically a woman’s decision, man has to suck it up etc.): suppose actually the husband told his wife (to be) that he didn’t want her to take his name, how would you feel? Which is not a totally off example because it happened in history (and was called morganatic marriage).

You seem to be looking for a fight.

Nah, that’s just a nerve or two pulled long ago by excessive exposure to grrrl power. Nothing much to talk about.

 

[shainski]

Okay, I saw that as a possibility. Hmm… look, I don’t think you really talk about that subject in a normal, typical engagement. You just assume the woman will change her name or hyphenate and kids will take dad’s name, like normal. We really can’t blame a man for not actually asking his girlfriend if she won’t ask him at the last minute to take her surname actually. Or do something non-standard with the children’s names.

Yes, I agree with that. If society has a certain way that things are normally done, it would be the one who decides to upend that tradition who has the onus to bring it up. It would be normal for the other one to expect the tradition, and it would be unfair to bring it up at the last second and expect the other party to be comfortable with it.

I would have a perfect right to show up on my wedding day sporting a mohawk - or to obtain a prominent tatoo. It wouldn’t be fair to my intended to do so. If she knows that i expect her to take my last name, then she should have brought it up to me well ahead of time so we could have discussed it.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I don’t think it’s as much of a custom in this country as you seem to think it is. Perhaps becuase I live in the liberal northeast, but the split seems to be 30/30/30. Some take their husband’s name, some keep it, some hyphenate or combine. The rest do something wierd like the guy taking the girls or making a new name. I do not believe it is a norm anymore…which is why it’s immature for both paties.

You seem to be looking for a fight. I have, since a small child, looked forwared to changing my name. But not every woman has. My fi has always thought his wife would keep her own name. His entire life he felt this way and grew up in a high-flying socitey where no woman took her husband’s name. However, when I talked it over with him over many months we agreed that I could. We’re opposite. He dosn’t want me to change my name, I want to. I think I’d be offput if he absolutely refused…I’d question if he really understood my feelings. I think right now he’s relented becuase it is my decision and he agrees with my reasons. So we’re on the same page. But we’re opposite of many.

I live in the Midwest and that’s pretty much the split I see too. Heck, I even know one woman who got remarried and kept her ex husband’s last name because it was the last name that her children (all adults) have. And this woman is a devout Catholic. I think the fact that her new husband was ok with this speaks volumes about his character.

 

[In_Training]

Needless to say, if my intended refused to take on my family name, I would be profoundly insulted to the extent that I would consider breaking off the relationship. So go ahead and call me a male chauvenist pig! See if I care:shrug:

For some women it’s difficult to give up their name. They grew up with it after all…it’s what connects her to the family who raised her. Have you ever changed your name and asked people to call you by a different one? Some women don’t mind it at all but I’m just saying I see how other women might view it as a disconnect with their family and might prefer to keep theirs.

If you would break up with the woman you’re in love with and want a family with, just because she didn’t change her name to yours, then that wasn’t a stable relationship anyway, if something as simple as a name can scare you off. You’re supposed to love someone for who they are, not what their name is. If she is committed to you and appreciates you for who you are, then she, like you, deserves to choose her name. It’s her name and **her **decision, not yours. It seems trivial to call off a wedding simply because your fiance wants to keep her last name. Why is that the most important thing in a marriage?

 

[bstorm]

I do not believe there is a right or wrong way to go about name changing. In my husbands’ culture, women do not change their names and children get a combination of mother’s-father’s family name. In my culture, women traditionally changed their name to husband’s, although nowadays not everybody follows the custom. Before we got married, my husband told me I can do with my name what I want - it is mine to change or keep. I jokingly suggested he changes his name to mine, but that idea was rejected.

This is one of those things each couple needs to discern for themselves. I personally think it is silly for husband to insist that wife changes or not changes her name. The name change process is not exactly easy and can cause a number of problems. It is much easier not to do the name change. I really think this should be for the woman to decide, whatever her reasons. The same way, woman should not insist that the future husband hyphenates his name with hers.

The bottom line is that in the grand scheme of things the name change is really insignificant. There will be many more important decisions and compromises to make in the marriage and I would not make this particular decision a mountain to die on. Just let your future wife or husband do with their name what they want, they will love you more for it.

 

[Baelor]

Of course in the very unlikely scenario that any woman that I had decided to marry had said those words in the way you put it, of course I would not just immediately break it off without another word, but would attempt to reason with her, and as I said, only if at length she** insisted **on not taking my name would I most reluctantly conclude, with a breaking heart, that she was not and may not ever be mature enough to commit to marriage and the sacrifices it entails. Real sacrifices, not silly nonsense about names.

But you are not the one having to make the sacrifice in this case. If this was such an issue, why did you not demonstrate your commitment by taking your wife’s last name? That would seem to solve the problem entirely. It is not as if you are willing to make a sacrifice that she is not.

 

[severus68]

For some women it’s difficult to give up their name. They grew up with it after all…it’s what connects her to the family who raised her. Have you ever changed your name and asked people to call you by a different one? Some women don’t mind it at all but I’m just saying I see how other women might view it as a disconnect with their family and might prefer to keep theirs.

If you would break up with the woman you’re in love with and want a family with, just because she didn’t change her name to yours, then that wasn’t a stable relationship anyway, if something as simple as a name can scare you off. You’re supposed to love someone for who they are, not what their name is. If she is committed to you and appreciates you for who you are, then she, like you, deserves to choose her name. It’s her name and **her **decision, not yours. It seems trivial to call off a wedding simply because your fiance wants to keep her last name. Why is that the most important thing in a marriage?

I agree, absolutely!

 

[severus68]

But you are not the one having to make the sacrifice in this case. If this was such an issue, why did you not demonstrate your commitment by taking your wife’s last name? That would seem to solve the problem entirely. It is not as if you are willing to make a sacrifice that she is not.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[chevalier]

I intend no offence but the grrl power propaganda language coming from men is disappointing, especially to hear a suggestion, from a man, that a different man change his surname to the woman’s upon marriage if he wants to show commitment. Or a man suggesting that where a woman is making a decision which she has the right to make (and only she, I’ll grant you that) but which affects the family, then she can as she pleases just because of the right… this kind of I don’t know how to name it… flattery? spoiling? permissivism? coming from men is probably half of the reason why the wrong attitudes associated with misguided feminism are so strong nowadays (the idea being that a woman can do as she please without reckoning with anyone and men have to suck it up and live with it). I wonder if you are at least ready to concede a symmetrical right to the man for the sake of fairness and consistency but even if you are, then that’s still tantamount to proposing a relationship model in which both parties can unilaterally make decisions affecting both of them, and so as they please. You can’t actually sustain a relationship like that.

Just because you have a right doesn’t mean you can use it in whatever way or manner you like or that it would be a good thing to do so.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I intend no offence but the grrl power propaganda language coming from men is disappointing, especially to hear a suggestion, from a man, that a different man change his surname to the woman’s upon marriage if he wants to show commitment.

Why? If a name change is so easy and its so important for everyone to have the same name why shouldn’t the man change his?

 

[chevalier]

Why? If a name change is so easy and its so important for everyone to have the same name why shouldn’t the man change his?

Nothing wrong doing that if a man actually has a reason to want it. Traditions, sound, less foreign name than the one he has from birth, continuation of the woman’s family, closer link to in-laws than to birth family, heck, even the sound of it. But to do so merely in opposition to the standard custom, to do so just because in most cases the woman takes the husband’s name… that’s a peak of being a henpecked husband (if not actually looking for a new mum instead of a wife), which is just plain wrong for a man to be. I’d rather be shot dead, cold.

 

[Baelor]

I intend no offence but the grrl power propaganda language coming from men is disappointing

I do not think it is fair to label others as mouthpieces for particular movements unless they themselves say they are. There is no reason to broaden a viewpoint on one issue to an entire ideology.

especially to hear a suggestion, from a man, that a different man change his surname to the woman’s upon marriage if he wants to show commitment.

This seems to be pointed at me, so I will respond: the poster said that his wife being unwilling to change her last name demonstrated that she was unwilling to commit to the marriage. I simply questioned whether he would be willing to do the same. Why compel others to do what you yourself are unwilling to do?

 

[chevalier]

I do not think it is fair to label others as mouthpieces for particular movements unless they themselves say they are.

And nobody will ever say that he is just that.

There is no reason to broaden a viewpoint on one issue to an entire ideology.

Maybe if we adopt some extreme burden of proof. But when I hear that a woman can uniliterally make decisions affecting the entire family and doesn’t have to ask anybody about it, I know which ideology I’m dealing with. I don’t know the precise details and I can’t pretend to know the person’s entire viewpoint, but this much I know.

This seems to be pointed at me, so I will respond: the poster said that his wife being unwilling to change her last name demonstrated that she was unwilling to commit to the marriage.

That is actually a possibility where the woman comes from a culture in which the woman customarily takes her husband’s name, and she has no good reason. I’m not talking about situations where there is a specific reason.

I simply questioned whether he would be willing to do the same.

There is no custom expecting him to do that, and the custom additionally has connotations with the traditional male headship of the family. It’s one thing to avoid being an overbearing pater familias of old time, and a totally different one to imply female headship, which is just way too much. And I believe that if there is no specific reason why the man should change his surname to his wife’s (e.g. his own is disgraced or foreign to his new, chosen culture, or derogatory, or the woman’s is in danger of dying out, or he goes to live in a culture where this is customarily done, if any such exists, or he has a better connection with his in-laws than with his birth family, or his current name was invented by a registrar of abandoned children etc., or maybe if he wants to take a historical name and the woman’s family agrees and the local customs don’t frown on it… which they normally do), then to do so would basically be a feminist statement on the part of the man.

Besides, frankly, I wouldn’t be able to understand a man who agreed to such a request without a good reason.

Why compel others to do what you yourself are unwilling to do?

1. Never said anything about ‘compelling’.
2. If you’re implying a double standard see above for why it’s different for a man.

 

[Baelor]

Maybe if we adopt some extreme burden of proof. But when I hear that a woman can uniliterally make decisions affecting the entire family and doesn’t have to ask anybody about it, I know which ideology I’m dealing with. I don’t know the precise details and I can’t pretend to know the person’s entire viewpoint, but this much I know.

Most people on this thread are not advocating members of couples making unilateral decisions on whims. Most are pointing out the glaring problems with one member compelling another member to do something in particular.

That is actually a possibility where the woman comes from a culture in which the woman customarily takes her husband’s name, and she has no good reason. I’m not talking about situations where there is a specific reason.

What would constitute a bad reason? If she does not like her husband’s name, is that a good reason? I do not think that the norm from which deviation must be justified is the wife to take the husband’s name. It may be a cultural norm, but it has no moral value. Thus, using it as a default position and then claiming that deviation must be justified for moral reasons is extremely problematic.

There is no custom expecting him to do that, and the custom additionally has connotations with the traditional male headship of the family.

These are not moral issues.

It’s one thing to avoid being an overbearing pater familias of old time, and a totally different one to imply female headship, which is just way too much.

The Church does not define male headship by the last name of the family. The Church does not make moral judgments on last names at all.

1. Never said anything about ‘compelling’.
2. If you’re implying a double standard see above.

The poster to whom I responded said the his fiancee’s taking his name was a prerequisite for marriage. I consider that compulsion. If you do not, replace that word in my post with whatever term suits you best.

 

[severus68]

I intend no offence but the grrl power propaganda language coming from men is disappointing, especially to hear a suggestion, from a man, that a different man change his surname to the woman’s upon marriage if he wants to show commitment. Or a man suggesting that where a woman is making a decision which she has the right to make (and only she, I’ll grant you that) but which affects the family, then she can as she pleases just because of the right… this kind of I don’t know how to name it… flattery? spoiling? permissivism? coming from men is probably half of the reason why the wrong attitudes associated with misguided feminism are so strong nowadays (the idea being that a woman can do as she please without reckoning with anyone and men have to suck it up and live with it). I wonder if you are at least ready to concede a symmetrical right to the man for the sake of fairness and consistency but even if you are, then that’s still tantamount to proposing a relationship model in which both parties can unilaterally make decisions affecting both of them, and so as they please. You can’t actually sustain a relationship like that.

Just because you have a right doesn’t mean you can use it in whatever way or manner you like or that it would be a good thing to do so.

No one has said that it is one way only with the woman having all the rights. You have taken the position that in the West ( or for Anglo-Saxons), it is traditional and the custom for women to take their husband’s surname and it should be so as if it were a law or doctrine. So a man has a right to insist his wife to be take his surname and that is fine and right but a woman has a right which should not be used?

A tradition/custom historically based on property rights, protection of women when women needed or were deemed to need it and a wrong biblical interpretation of a woman being property and then subordinate, is not a tradition/custom that must be continued. Each couple should mutually make their own decision about this issue.

 

[StarFireKK]

Well, I’m from a cultural where women typically take their husband’s last names. I was never taught it was a way of keeping the woman down but a sign of family unity.

I always thought seeing my maiden name would be a bit bittersweet after I was married. I always thought I would think “Oh yeah, remember when I was so-and-so?” But it is funny how anti-climatic seeing my maiden name is…I just think “Yep, that’s my maiden name.” I don’t feel like it was taken away from me, or that I’m not me anymore or that I am not as in touch with my family history and culture as I use to be. But I will tell you I feel a lot closer to my husband’s family and having the same name has helped me feel like I’m “one of them.” It is pretty easy to bond with the MIL when you can refer to yourselves as the Married-name women.

This is just my experience and I’m sure it isn’t a reflection on the larger world. But from the women I’ve witness who have grown up in the same culture as me the women who don’t take their husbands names seem to have a much harder time in the marriage. There are a lot more fights and issues about family unity, identity and things like that. All of my friends who have separated or divorced never took their husband’s name. Like I said, I’m sure it isn’t a reflection on a larger world but it is an oddity.

 

[thewanderer]

(Snip)

There is no custom expecting him to do that, and the custom additionally has connotations with the traditional male headship of the family. It’s one thing to avoid being an overbearing pater familias of old time, and a totally different one to imply female headship, which is just way too much. And I believe that if there is no specific reason why the man should change his surname to his wife’s (e.g. his own is disgraced or foreign to his new, chosen culture, or derogatory, or the woman’s is in danger of dying out, or he goes to live in a culture where this is customarily done, if any such exists, or he has a better connection with his in-laws than with his birth family, or his current name was invented by a registrar of abandoned children etc., or maybe if he wants to take a historical name and the woman’s family agrees and the local customs don’t frown on it… which they normally do), then to do so would basically be a feminist statement on the part of the man.

Besides, frankly, I wouldn’t be able to understand a man who agreed to such a request without a good reason.

(Snip)

I’m just curious, but would you add the fact that your fiancee has a strong emotional attacthment to her own name to this list? Or just that she feels quite strongly about it, for whatever reason that is?

See, I think these are two really important reasons to add to this list. The point being that one should never hold a custom as more important than their spouse. Customs have merit and value, but they are not nearly as important as the living breathing person who you have decided to marry and give yourself to unconditionally, to love unconditionally, to sacrifice for unconditionally.

 

[thewanderer]

(Snip)

There is no custom expecting him to do that, and the custom additionally has connotations with the traditional male headship of the family. It’s one thing to avoid being an overbearing pater familias of old time, and a totally different one to imply female headship, which is just way too much. And I believe that if there is no specific reason why the man should change his surname to his wife’s (e.g. his own is disgraced or foreign to his new, chosen culture, or derogatory, or the woman’s is in danger of dying out, or he goes to live in a culture where this is customarily done, if any such exists, or he has a better connection with his in-laws than with his birth family, or his current name was invented by a registrar of abandoned children etc., or maybe if he wants to take a historical name and the woman’s family agrees and the local customs don’t frown on it… which they normally do), then to do so would basically be a feminist statement on the part of the man.

Besides, frankly, I wouldn’t be able to understand a man who agreed to such a request without a good reason.

(Snip)

I’m just curious, but would you add the fact that your fiancee has a strong emotional attacthment to her own name to this list? Or just that she feels quite strongly about it, for whatever reason that is?

See, I think these are two really important reasons to add to this list. The point being that one should never hold a custom as more important than their spouse. Customs have merit and value, but they are not nearly as important as the living breathing person who you have decided to marry and give yourself to unconditionally, to love unconditionally, to sacrifice for unconditionally.

A man who does not force his wife to take his name and even goes so far as to take hers instead simply because she had strong feelings on the subject is not necessarily making any sort of feminist statement. He is making the statement that he loves his wife more than the custom of assuming the husbands name. And so instead of a feminist statement it is a statement of love extremely fitting to a marriage.