Changing your name when you get married
 

I'm wondering what people's opinions and experiences are on this issue. When ratbastid and I got married, I didn't really want to keep my maiden name (Updike, ugh) but at the same time, I didn't really want to change it, either. I saw it as giving up some piece of my former identity just because I was a woman getting married and it was traditional, while ratbastid got to keep his. But we both wanted to have the same last name, as sort of a shared identity because we're married now. So we made a deal: I'd give up something (my maiden name), and he'd give up something (smoking). It took him 5 years, but he did quit. And now I don't have to live with "Updike" as a last name. Or some hyphenate, which bothers me just because it's clunky.

I have other friends who have handled it by ditching both last names and changing it to something else entirely (like some grandmother's maiden name that sounded cool); I know people who have both kept their unmarried names; I know women who have kept both last names as their "professional" name, but who go socially by their husband's last name only. Seems like people come up with all kinds of solutions. I also know plenty of people who have just gone the traditional route, and had the woman change her name to her husband's.

So what's you're opinion? If you're married, what were the considerations that went into whether to keep or change names? If you're not, what are your thoughts about how you might eventually handle this?

(I'm posting it in this forum because I think issues of gender-based traditions ought to be consciously examined. We take far too much for granted, I think, even post-feminism.)

My wife wanted to keep her name, and I wanted her to take mine.

Her reasons were (a) established professional identity in her company and (b) her dad, who was the only male child in his family, only had daughters; that would be the "end of the line" for the direct family name.

My reasons were... cavemanish. I spent a couple of weeks trying to come up with rational reasons, and couldn't find any that sounded good even to me.

We toyed with alternate last names, but they all sounded stupid, and ultimately insulting to both of our extended families.

So, she kept her last name, but we also decided that any children would have my last name. I hope this doesn't confuse our son (now 22 months old); I don't think it will.

When I married the first time there was no thought of doing other than taking my husbands last name. There will be no question of it when Dave and I get married either.

I really wonder why so many people seem "down" on traditions involving marriage...Im seeing way to much of it and I honestly dont understand it. Maybe its my religious upbringing that guides my thinking...who knows....

I've thought about this quite a bit - I can be pretty anal about sex equality. I've come to the conclusion that the only thing that preserves the equality of both sides is changing the name entirely. I'm not sure 100% that I'd go for it necessarily, but it's definitely the best way. It would be nice if that were simply how it was done - no extended family getting upset, no one side giving up more than the other, and the entire immediate family still has the same last name.

Here were my basic thoughts regarding this:

Traditional - bad for obvious reasons
Converse Traditional - no better than above
Female Hyphenated - the female is stuck with a hyphenated name, while the male takes on nothing of the female's. Do the kids have the hyphenated name? What happens when they get married (assuming they go for the "fair" solution as well), more hyphenation?
Dual Hyphenated - which name goes first and gets priority?
New and Unique Name - neither spouse gets priority based on sex. The name (ideally) is chosen by both and is yet another representation of their new life together. Children share the new name, preserving the traditional nuclear family naming convention. As a new standard, this works because the children will also choose a new name when they are married, thus eliminating sexist tradition as well as resisting inelegant solutions.

----

As for being "down" on traditions, it's really not the case. Names are arbitrary in the first place and, thus, there's no reason to have any convention that favors one thing over the other. Giving a man's, OR a woman's name priority is simply a completely unnecessary form of sexism.

Bingo! My "beef" with most wedding traditions is not that they favor the man, or hearken back to sexist symbolism (though they usually do) but that they favor one sex over the other for no good reason except for sexist privelege (I'd be just as upset if it was tradition for the mother of the bride to walk her down the aisle), and that most people adopt them just because they're traditional without really thinking about what they MEAN. I don't feel the least twinge about changing my name when I got married because 1. it was a conscious decision after weighing all the alternatives, and 2. we worked it out so that ratbastid was changing something, and I was changing something, and everyone was happy. The end result might be the same, but the process we used to come to the decision was one that was empowering rather than unthinkingly adherent.

When my wife and I were married we each kept our own names... no hyphenates, no new names. It really never occurred to me that she would change her name and when it came up in a conversation with one of our parents my only answer was that I really didn't care what name she wanted.

The issue is almost a non-issue.

When it became an issue for some was when we had our son and we gave him her last name rather than mine. It always seems to confuse people. My decision to do this was in part the desire to not give him my father's last name... but mostly it was that I just didn't care one way or the other.

It's just a name and it doesn't make him any less my flesh and blood.

Interestingly, my son, who already has a long name has chosen to tell people that his last name is a hypenate of our two last names. He doesn't like not having my last name...

I told my wife she could do whatever she wanted, but would have probably pressured her to change it if she hadn't wanted to do so anyway.

Dealing with many married couples, I have run across almost every possibility. The one thing I do not understand is one client of ours who has changed her name every time she has gotten married - which has been three times since she has been with us, plus another two or three before that. After the first/second marriage ends I think you need to make a decision on what you are going to stay with. It just confuses the dog when you keep changing names.

I don't really have any opinions on these types of traditions. I think it's really an individual thing that each and every couple has to think over and come to their own conclusions regarding it. As of now, I would not be willing to change my name for marriage. A lot of marriages end in divorce. I don't want all the confusion regarding that....so I think I'd probably keep my name the same on most official documents (SS card, drivers liscense, passport etc) and maybe change it for things like...registering at the PTA at my daughter's school.
My mom and other people I know have had problems due to conflicting names on credit cards, SS cards, and other stuff. I'd rather not deal with any of that.....but who knows, maybe my opinion on this will be different when I'm with a guy who I could really see myself spending the rest of my life with.

My fiancee wants her name to be the same as mine, partly so people will stop asking if she's related to Wyatt Earp. (Which she is, he was her great grandfather's cousin.)the other reason is she likes my last name.

So she and I have good experiences with the ol' tradition so far. ;)

With my first husband I didn't change my last name. At first I thought I'd hyphenate for the kids sake, but that was a pain in the butt. So, I simply kept my last name as that is what I had gone by professionally, etc. My 18-year-old son has my last name as well. My younger two ask me sometimes why they don't have my name -- but they like having their dad's name.

With Lebell I decided to change my name. I did this because it is a different relationship with a much stronger commitment. We want to be together for the rest of our lives. We have a much stronger bond and a much stronger love. Interestingly, he never asked me to change my name and has been extremely gracious in receiving the action as a gift. That made it all the easier to do.

if i were to marry my bf today, i would probably stick with my last name. im chinese but my mother gave me an american name which is actually a rather popular hispanic name. my boyfriend is hispanic so if i took his last name, anyone hearing it would assume that im hispanic. not that id mind very much, but id rather not have ppl expecting something else before they see me.

and it would mean we'd have the same initials. this is only weird to me because my mother very specifically made sure that my siblings and i did not have the same initials so when we were kids, we'd leave notes for each other with simply the first letter of our names (R, M, J, u get the point). now it's ok b/c my bros will send me an email addressing me as J and my boyfriend an email addressing him as JA. but if we had the same initials? bah, it would mean massive confusion and we'd have to come up with a difft system lol

I would like my GF (fiancee actually) to take my name when we get married, but its not an issue for me if she does not want to. If she wants to keep her name its fine.

Luckily for me she wants to take my name, and she wants to get rid of her old one - bad family stuff - so its all good. She likes the idea of her taking my last name, and I like it too so we're both happy about it.

my last name means nothing to me and i'd be happy to ditch it. in the Philippine tradition, when a woman marries, her maiden name becomes her middle name.. And all her kids will also have that middle maiden name.. My middle name is Cui because that's my mom's maiden name but before then, it was Floreta because that was my grandma's maiden name and Cui was my last name.. When I get married, i want to put Floreta back into my name, keep the Cui and use Will's last name. I already have more connection to that than the one I use now :P

Id certainly like the woman I marry to change her last name. Part of it I just think is tradition... Another part is that I think a married couple should have the same last name.

What many people do (my mother included), and something that I like, is for the woman to take her maiden name as a middle name. It keeps the name in the family, without having a couple with two different last names. My brother is also named for that maiden name.

I didnt take my maiden name as my middle name, I chose to keep Faye....our family tradition is that the oldest daughter has that for a middle name, its been that way for generations and I love it. luckily I was the oldest daughter, and my only child is a girl so she gets to carry on the tradition too....she loves it so much (you dont meet many people here that go by Faye...that shes trying to convince everybody to call her that now since her first name is so common.

i chose to keep my maiden name, for professional, and feminist (lol) reasons...it's just easier, since i had already established my life with that name and i am an only child

I think you should keep it too... I like the last name Salt...

lol...clever...;)

I was argued into taking his last name. Shoulda seen it coming back then....

When the day comes when I marry, I'll be taking his last name. It's just what I want to do :)

Why is it the woman who has to take the man's name?

In my opinion, it's just another outdated and sexist tradition. Thankfully, barely anybody does it where I live. When I get married, I'll keep my name and my wife will keep her's.

http://www.libragrrl.com/forums/imag...lies/dunno.gif

I'm not doing it b/c it's tradition. My choice is that way b/c that's what I want to do, as I said before :)

I've kind of had this idea that, when I get married, my husband and I will BOTH change our names to a hyphenated name. I don't know how well any man would take that, but I guess we'll see...

I'll either hyphenate my last name with his, or keep my last name entirely. We only have two kids in our family and knowing my brothers track record with his wives, I would be the one to keep the last name in the family. I would name our daughters with my last name, and our sons with his last name.

I'll take his last name, I am kinda tired of mine.

I wouldnt mind so much changing my name. I wouldnt expect my wife to take my name, but if she wanted to I wouldnt mind either. But I guess my ideal - or how it would be if my wife couldnt care less - would be I keep my name, she keeps her's, and the children can take either her last name or a double barrelled name. But it wouldnt really be a big deal for me whichever way it played out

I wouldn't have a problem with changing my last name. I'm kind of traditional in that sense. When my future husband and I get married I want he and I to become one and build a life together. I can't imagine me or my husband not having the same last name as our very own children.

I just ran the idea over to my boyfriend and he's totally willing to do it :) Idea is my previous post. He even suggested to name on of the boys my last name so he can continue my family name :)

And that is why I love him.

As usual, there are many reasons for the cultural norm. Primarily, one gender taking the other's sir name is a way to identify familial connections. That the woman takes the man's name is because they woman is thought to join the man's family, more than the man joins the woman's. This is somewhat because the couple would usually live on the man's father's farm/ranch, etc., and then take it over when he died. The son/husband would then support his mother, his wife and their children, by working the farm/ranch, until this cycle repeated.

While there certainly were exceptions, this naming thing went along with the normative practice. Geneologists will tell you that where this patern of name adoption at marriage was rejected, it is much more tricky to identify the line. So it worked, for so many generations.

But, like when and how many babies to have, a loving man is very careful to respect his wife and lover's feelings. I didn't tell or try to persuade my wife (of 3 years) what to do. But I did get angaged to a very traditional girl, and she adopted my last name without feeling it was an issue. Her 5 stepdaughters retain there last names, of course. This minimizes confusion.

Choi

God! I started reading all some of these posts and those who said they kept both names or had one name for this and another for that blah blah blah all said that neither one of the couple had a problem with it for whatever reason, tradition is old, it is sexist, whatever. But then I read on and see comments like, well, when we had a kid, we gave him/her my last name, or we hope this doesn't confuse people.

There is a (wanted to insert explicative) reason to take the last name. It is NOT sexist. One: just look at the complications that can occure that I mentioned above. So who decides whose name goes to what kid, does it cause fights. What about legal issues? Second: What happens when Angela Gorman-Turkin gets married to Thomas Jones-Feely and they have kids who are now Gorman-Turkin-Jones-Feely and they grow up and get married to a hyphenated person? Where the fuck does it stop. There was/is a reason to take the last name of the man. Although some of you do not believe in the word of God, God also had his reasons.

I am tired of hearing that it is sexist. It makes me mad that our society is trying to become gender neutral, turning us into a androgonous being. Males and females are different and we should stay that way. How does that relate to this thread. Well, the more we as males and females try to be equal in EVERY WAY, the more we become the same. The next thing you know is that men will claim sexism that only women can have babies.

I'm no Bible scholar, but where the heck did this part come from?

this post does my heart good, Im REALLY glad to know Im not the only one that feels this way.

You're welcome ShaniFaye

I took my ex husbands name when we married and didn't really think about keeping my own. We already had a son and had given him his fathers surname. At the time it seemed to signify that we were a 'family'. When we divirced I decided to revert to my maiden name because I wanted to 'mark' my single staus. I had been known by my married name professionally for many years and it was a bit of a hassle at the time to notify folk but they soon got used to it and now I am as well known by my maiden name. This thread got me thinking tho' because I now think I would be reluctant to give up my name again and I'm not really sure why...getting a bit set in my ways perhaps.I

Bentley Little, I completely agree regarding hyphenated names and such. That is why I stated that the best solution is a tradition in which a new name is chosen by the couple, representative of their new life and union together. It's poetic, it's romantic, it lacks sexism, and it avoids naming conundrums. It is easily the best solution to the last name situation as far as I see it. The only problem is how reluctant people are to change. I'd be thoroughly shocked if something so reasonably logical actually caught on and became popular :rolleyes:

I agree that out of the possible solutions, not counting tradition (which you will be hard pressed to change my opinion on) is the best option. Although I haven't thought it all through, I still think this would cause superficial complications. I mean, 1) tracing family history/roots, 2) confusion in relation to other family members 3) agreement on name change? 4) think of all the confusion this would cause the world when it comes to identity in the government, business world, etc. and 5) I still believe God intended it to be this way not as a sexist thing, but as a His will.

Again, can you point to anything to back up this statement? I always assumed that the naming convention grew out of tradition, not from the Bible. (This isn't an attack, I'm curious for information.)

ah see that's the source of the issue IMO. on one hand you believe that, and on the other hand I believe that God does not "intend" for superficial and meaningless things such as what one's name should be and who should inheret it. Personally, I believe God is above simplistic human matters such as that.

Nonetheless, that's exactly where resistance for change is rooted. If one believes that such a tradition has a root in something greater than arbitrary action and historical patriarchal sexism, then it is no longer tradition for that person and it becomes an indoctrinated example of the "right way" to do things and the "less right" or "wrong" way. Hence, arguments such as "what's wrong with the tradition the way it is?" and "it just makes sense that way" and so forth. The truth is, superficial complications such as problems with genealogy due to ever-changing surnames are irrelevant in my mind. Good records are an easy remedy. Not to mention that if changing names were such a huge detriment to tracing ancestry, then the matriarchal path would be almost always impossible to trace. Just like there are "maiden names" now, there would be the equivalent were people to both change names entirely upon marriage. As far as other family members go, I don't see how it would lead to confusion. If someone needs a last name to recognize they're related to someone, that's the least of their problems with their family members. By a quick count, I can think of 6 different surnames in my extended family. I recognize all my relatives despite the different names. If couples have trouble agreeing on a name to change to, again, that can be indicative of a greater problem. Couples choose names for their children together all the time, I don't see how choosing a mutual surname is much different. Confusion over identity would be little more than it is now. Plus, if one's surname is so linked to identity you've just pointed out exactly how sexist and denying of the individuality of woman the curernt tradition is. As it stands, the woman is expected to give up her last name (which you've linked to identity) despite the (according to you) potential consequences and confusion over identity in government, business, etc. However, the male keeps his identity and avoids this supposed confusion. Really though, I think that a person chooses their own identity over the course of their life and marriage is a convenient and fitting time for one to assume control of yet another aspect of his or her identity - the surname. I don't buy that the confusion is all that significant either, and even if it is I see no reason why a woman should be expected to go through that confusion but not a man.

Addressing the sexism in this tradition is not a matter of asserting that men and women are equal in "EVERY WAY," or of attempting to androgynize society. I simply fail to see how a female is different in a way that dictates she should change her surname and the male should not, other than the fact it is a pre-existing tradition. Last I checked, surnames are not biological traits - they did not always exist and one cannot determine another person's surname by scanning DNA. So, this is completely unrelated to something such as the fact women are different from men since one can give birth and the other can't. Some biological differences exist, of course. But cutting through "tradition" to find what is rooted in truth and what is simply a created difference is not androgynization, it is equality. It is the same thing that moved us, as a society, towards realizing blacks are more than 1/3 human and women are intelligent and concerned enough to vote. Without seeking the abolition of unnecessary differentiation there can be no progress as a race or as a culture.

One of the two times that I was engaged, the straw that broke the camel's back and ended the engagement was my refusal to take his last name.

I was in my late 20s, somewhat established in my career, not as much of a feminist as I am now, my refusal was based on his last name. I didn't like it. If I took his name, i would have gone thru life as a Dr Seuss tale, or something worse. His name rhymed a little too much with my first name, wasn't going to happen...

SecretMethod, you are quite the rebuttal artist. Very good points you raised. I don't think I can quite debate them. This is a subject I guess I haven't thouroughly thought through (consonance and alliteration anyone?) yet. As for finding it in the Bible, I could very well be wrong redlemon. I just remember it being told to me many many moons ago. As you SM70 rebutted my ever point it will be hard to negate what you have stated. Although I will have to further think through this and its implications before I make any further judgments, I will still side that some traditions do make sense and have a purposeful reason. I want to discuss this in further depth as it has become an area which I have had a very strong opinion on but will step back and analyze my reasons.