Author Topic: Married people: did you change your name? Why or why not? And how did you name your kids?  (Read 49387 times)

Spartana

  • Guest
Our boys have my name and any girls will have my partner’s surname. As for other names, the first one is one we like, and the middle name is a dead relative, but we have to like both the name and the relative. Yes my partner’s last name is her Dad’s name, but she identifies with it, and you’ve got to start a matrilineal line somewhere.

Maybe we could start matrilineal lines the same way a lot of the (European) patriarchal lines were started - either by profession or mother's identity!! My kids' last name could be Chemist (a la "Smith" and "Barber") or Laurason/Stacyson/Emilydaugter (a la "Johnson" and "Robertson")

So if you're financially independent would you have to go with loafer or layabout?
Spartana Slacker (dibs!)

Spartana

  • Guest

I find changing your name a little weird, but not as weird as joint email addresses. But people are allowed to be weird.

Quote
yeah, and joint Facebook accounts... so weird! give each other some privacy!

I have joint email with DH. I'm sure it's annoying when we send out a message and don't sign it, and the recipient doesn't know if it is me or him who is sending it. I'd be annoyed by that, I need to know who is at the other end of the communication. But I always put my name at the bottom of emails or at least I try to do that.  DH doesn't always do that.

It also keeps things on the up and up when getting emails from old boyfriends.  :)
Well you ARE a little weird Iris Lily - this just confirms it :-)!! Of course that dual facebook account might not be too successful when your ex-BF (L.B. Bobby) is cyber stalking you over at the SL forums.


TrulyStashin

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1024
  • Location: Mid-Sized Southern City
With your kids, I would think they should take your husband's last name. 

Why?

+1

+2

 
+3

+4

If I could wave a magic wand, from here on out each adult to a marriage keeps the surname they brought.  Female children get the woman's last name and male children get the man's last name.   It's not only fair, but this way, women don't disappear in the historical record once they marry.

Spartana

  • Guest
With your kids, I would think they should take your husband's last name. 

Why?

+1

+2

 
+3

+4

If I could wave a magic wand, from here on out each adult to a marriage keeps the surname they brought.  Female children get the woman's last name and male children get the man's last name.   It's not only fair, but this way, women don't disappear in the historical record once they marry.
While I agree that kids (or spouses) shouldn't automatically take the husbands name by default (and why I +'d the "why" question), I don't agree that there should be any "set" rule as to how to take names or keep names. I think it should be left up to each couple to decide how they want to do things in their own relationships according to their own values.

Christof

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 717
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Germany
I actually feel disappointed when women change their last name, but I do think this is too judgmental of me and am working on it.

I do agree that this is too judgemental of you (as a male who has taken his wife's name). Unless your society has a tradition of changing names for generations like using two last names from father and mother, using a parents name with son or daughter added, have your name being based on tribe, location and honors, or coming up with a completly new name, you face the issue that you have to pick a name for the kids, because hyphenation doesn't work for more than one generation. So you either end up with a spouse named differently than everyone else, kids who have different last names or a spouse that chooses a different name.

I would expect a ratio of 50% female name and 50% male name in any of these cases. Anything else is neither progressive nor justified. It should be discussion based on the names, values and priorities, not about gender, and definetly something a couple must agree on, even if it is difficult.

Of course, if you never have kids, none of this is matters and hyphentaed name or separate names work just fine.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
I like really long names personally. So even if one of your last names is very common, by combining it with another there is less chance for identity theft/confusion.

I have a friend that married someone with a really common last name and they struggled with naming their baby and tried to find a first name that was very unusual so that he wouldn't have this problem. So we all told them, why don't you just use the wife's last name (in replacement of or addition to as is common in our culture but not in the US), but they didn't do that. Now the baby has an unusual first name.

One issue with long names are standardized forms. There usually isn't enough space for me to put my whole name, even if I just use one last name. My first name gets cut off. So I've received a lot of strange mail in my days with a partial first name.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
I worry about kids and really distinctive names because now their google history follows them forever.  It's not like if you get a call from a company's HR department regarding some high-level job you've applied for and they bring up some really embarrassing stuff and you can be like "Uh, why, no, that must be some other xxxxx yyyy-zzzzzzzzzzz."

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
If I could wave a magic wand, from here on out each adult to a marriage keeps the surname they brought.  Female children get the woman's last name and male children get the man's last name.   It's not only fair, but this way, women don't disappear in the historical record once they marry.
While I agree that kids (or spouses) shouldn't automatically take the husbands name by default (and why I +'d the "why" question), I don't agree that there should be any "set" rule as to how to take names or keep names. I think it should be left up to each couple to decide how they want to do things in their own relationships according to their own values.

I see both your points. Let's say we wave the magic wand and make TrulyStashin's plan the default, but with the caveat that anyone can override the default for any reason other than "the father wants all the kids to have his name because tradition."

Spartana

  • Guest
If I could wave a magic wand, from here on out each adult to a marriage keeps the surname they brought.  Female children get the woman's last name and male children get the man's last name.   It's not only fair, but this way, women don't disappear in the historical record once they marry.
While I agree that kids (or spouses) shouldn't automatically take the husbands name by default (and why I +'d the "why" question), I don't agree that there should be any "set" rule as to how to take names or keep names. I think it should be left up to each couple to decide how they want to do things in their own relationships according to their own values.

I see both your points. Let's say we wave the magic wand and make TrulyStashin's plan the default, but with the caveat that anyone can override the default for any reason other than "the father wants all the kids to have his name because tradition."
Ha Ha - well I couldn't do that as I think of "default" is equivalent to saying "this is the right way" or "the way it should be done" when I don't think there is any right (or wrong) way to address this. 

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
I know there are historical mostly sexist reasons for children getting the father's name. But even today I think it can make some sort of sense. Mothers get 9 months of bonding/experiencing parenthood. Having children take their father's name I think helps establish the same for fathers. Maybe I'm crazy?

I felt bad for a coworker's partner though in this situation.They weren't married and she got pregnant. Someone asked what the baby's last name was going to be and the mother was very clear it was going to hers and not his. This is specific to their relationship, but you could tell that 99% of parenting decisions were going to be what she wanted. I kind of thought "Can't you just give him type of control/recognition/etc?" 

NumberCruncher

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
...because hyphenation doesn't work for more than one generation. So you either end up with a spouse named differently than everyone else, kids who have different last names or a spouse that chooses a different name.

but...but...hyphenation can work for multiple generations! No one says you need to pass along all the last names. Pass the maternal last name from the mother and the paternal last name from the father (or both maternal or both paternal in case of a gay couple). -- creates a maximum of two last names (hyphenated).

deedeezee

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
If I could wave a magic wand, from here on out each adult to a marriage keeps the surname they brought.  Female children get the woman's last name and male children get the man's last name.   It's not only fair, but this way, women don't disappear in the historical record once they marry.
While I agree that kids (or spouses) shouldn't automatically take the husbands name by default (and why I +'d the "why" question), I don't agree that there should be any "set" rule as to how to take names or keep names. I think it should be left up to each couple to decide how they want to do things in their own relationships according to their own values.

I see both your points. Let's say we wave the magic wand and make TrulyStashin's plan the default, but with the caveat that anyone can override the default for any reason other than "the father wants all the kids to have his name because tradition."
Ha Ha - well I couldn't do that as I think of "default" is equivalent to saying "this is the right way" or "the way it should be done" when I don't think there is any right (or wrong) way to address this.

+1


rubybeth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1390
  • Location: Midwest
Well, we are Facebook friends so you already know I have two last names, and so does my husband. :) We took each other's names, no hyphen. This makes for a really long double-barreled last name, kind of like Elizabeth Barrett Browning or Hillary Rodham Clinton or Ralph Vaughan Williams or a hundred other famous people with two last names I can't think of right now. :)

Honestly, it was a compromise. DH wanted us to share a last name, and I wanted to keep my name, so we both added each other's. It's long and kind of annoying on occasion, but overall, I think we're pleased with our choice. He offered to just take my last name, but I have an uncle with that same name who used to live in the same city as us, so I thought that would be confusing.

We don't plan to have kids, but if something changed, they'd get both last names, as well. I'd suggest for your kids that they get one of the last names as a middle name, or just give them both last names. They can decide to do whatever they want to with their name when they get old enough to legally change it or get married themselves.

Edited to add: I just saw some of the other discussion on this thread. To add a bit more info., my DH's parents never married, so he has his mother's last name, and now I have his mother's last name, as well. And since we still live in the city where we both grew up, having both last names makes for interesting and potentially helpful name recognition. Both families are well-regarded in the area for various excellent reasons, so being identified as part of those families is good for us (it's not like we're the Rockefeller Kennedys or something, but kind of along those lines).

The only bummer about us both changing names is that we had to pay for two new driver's licenses, two new passports, etc.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 08:08:05 AM by rubybeth »

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
I know there are historical mostly sexist reasons for children getting the father's name. But even today I think it can make some sort of sense. Mothers get 9 months of bonding/experiencing parenthood. Having children take their father's name I think helps establish the same for fathers. Maybe I'm crazy?

Yes, you are crazy.  :)

I see in no way how a name creates a "parenting experience."  That's created by nights up with the kid, teaching it to ride a bike or read, daily hugs and smiles, etc.  In fact, if the father of my children requires a label in order to feel like a father (and act like one) then I've done a shitty job on choosing said father and I hope someone would give me a facepunch.

I felt bad for a coworker's partner though in this situation.They weren't married and she got pregnant. Someone asked what the baby's last name was going to be and the mother was very clear it was going to hers and not his. This is specific to their relationship, but you could tell that 99% of parenting decisions were going to be what she wanted. I kind of thought "Can't you just give him type of control/recognition/etc?"

That's a pretty damn big leap from choosing a name to making 99% of all parenting decisions!  This is exactly what drives me batty.  When married, it's hardly 50/50 on the naming conventions.  Here where someone isn't married and you'd think it'd be significantly more likely to be the mother's name as she carried the kid and she's not legally bound to the father, but instead you're making some pretty judgmental assumptions about parenting based off a naming convention.

Let me make up a different assumption and story: She wants to get married but he doesn't.  She's pissed they are having a kid out of wedlock and wishes to "punish" him by naming the kid to make him see the light.
Or a different one: He gives not a damn about the name so she picked it.
The point is, you can make a lot of stories, but you don't really know what's going on.  But I hardly think one decision is indicative that he will have no decision on anything else in the child's life.  And I also think it incredibly telling and sad that if the kid were to be named after the father that you wouldn't bat an eye, but because she did, you're judging their parenting already.

JoyBlogette

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Location: Canada
    • My Journal
I changed my name to husband's last name and our baby has his (our) name as well.  I think it's nice for everyone in the family to have the same last name (regardless of what name you choose), but that's just my opinion.  My mom kept her name and it always seemed like such a hassel for her (my perspective) growing up.  If you don't plan to have kids I would keep your name.

Christof

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 717
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Germany
In the discussions wether the mother is more worthy to select the last name due to labor and possibly more work raising the child, or the father, I'm somehow missing the perspective of the kid. A child's full name isn't  a treat that either parent deserves, it is the identity of a new human being.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
In the discussions wether the mother is more worthy to select the last name due to labor and possibly more work raising the child, or the father, I'm somehow missing the perspective of the kid. A child's full name isn't  a treat that either parent deserves, it is the identity of a new human being.

Sure, but the kid has to be named *something* (at least in my state, I believe it's required w/in a certain number of days of the birth).  The kid can't exactly speak up and say "heck no, Richard Johnson is a ridiculous name.  If you want Richard, use mom's last name of Dayson instead."  So then you get into the issue of deciding when the parents want different things.  These days, Solomon's choice is frowned upon.

From my perspective, to suggest a woman is entitled based on the 9 months carrying it is a bit tongue in cheek.  Folks say "tradition" for a reason to men to have it, which I think is a ridiculous reason.  (Slavery was once "tradition" too and we all agree that's a bad idea.)   Absent another suggestion of how to decide the tie breaker, then yes, the woman who puts up with the following delightful side effects:
1. Morning sickness
2. Frequent (and inconvenient) urination
3. Vaginal discharge
4. Gas and bloating
5. Bleeding gums
6. Constipation
7. Excessive salivation
8. Hemorrhoids
9. Itchy skin
10. Nosebleeds
11. Swollen extremities (edema)
12. Yeast infections
Not to mention the obvious (lugging a watermelon around and then pushing the watermelon out sensitive parts) and is discouraged from a whole array of foods and drinks, including everything from the obvious of alcohol to things such as coffee, coke, innocuous seeming cheese and deli meats...

Then hell yes, I think that is a valid tie breaker to let her* decide.

*Not applicable, in cases of surrogacy.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
This naming thing really gets everyone all riled up. Just do as they do in Spain and everyone is happy. Woman keeps her name, man keeps his name, children take a name from each parent. The only people not happy about this would be the application form creators that now have to add a bunch of little boxes in the name section to accommodate the longer names.

For once, the Spaniards have it right. Oh and the siesta thing – genius!!

Christof

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 717
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Germany
So then you get into the issue of deciding when the parents want different things.

That's what you do in a marriage: Discuss and come to an agreement for the benefit of the family and the new member in this case. I make more money than my wife; does that give me a natural right to decide how we spend it? Heck, no! "I contributed more than you do" is a slippery slope in marriage, in my experience.

It doesn't help to respond to this with even more detailed lists of what carrying a baby includes. I've been there, in most examinations, at home, preparation courses, helping my wife in the hospital, taking care of the new born in the first night so she could get some well deserved sleep. Since I also didn't eat or drank any of what she couldn't, I'm even aware of this list.

wepner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 197
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Yokohama, Japan
- I don't see why it's assumed that the woman will change her name (logically it makes more sense to me for the males to change names).  I'm not a rabid feminist, but I definitely don't like this assumption - or pressure that someone I know recently faced - to change their name.

I agree with you that its weird how "natural" it seems that a woman would change their name (even though like half the world doesn't do it) but I'm interested in hearing your reasons why its more logical for men to change their names.

As for me and my wife:
I kept my name the same. My wife added my last name to hers no hyphen. Its not ideal for either of us I think but Japanese rules are way more strict about this sort of thing than the US.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Yeah, I just saw that when I was googling around about the married name thing (because, in light of this discussion, I was trying to remember Lucy Stone's name and couldn't).  That's crazy!  There was even some really recent court case about it where people's right to have different names was rejected.  And the practice only goes back to like the 1940s.  Which makes it sound like it was some post-WWII US intervention crap.  Unless the practice is super old and that just happens to be the current legal article that has to be challenged.

wepner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 197
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Yokohama, Japan
Yeah Japan got a whole new constitution after WWII so I think technically all of their laws only date back to then. Even more interesting though is that Japanese last names in general are a super recent construct, there were a few clan names back in the day but everyone basically started from scratch in the 1870s when Japan was "modernizing" "Westernizing" or whatever you want to call it. People just got to choose their own names so almost all of them are based on locations, my wife's last name means below the temple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_name#Historical_names

So basically whenever you talk about Japanese history or traditions there is a super long history of native Japanese tradition (with influences from China and Korea of course), the period in the 2nd half of the 19th century when they adopted tons and tons of Victorian era European customs (many but not all of Japan's least women friendly ideas came from this time period) and then after WWII where  Japan was basically given an entirely new constitution that is what they have today (they haven't made any changes)

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
I tried to get my wife to keep her name, but she refused.  So, we had to go through all the hassle of getting all her documentation changed, etc.  What a mess.  I think everybody should just keep the birth name.  To me, changing names is just dumb.  It's effort and $ spent for nothing useful.

As far as birth names, if we were going to have kids, my belief was that male children should take my name and female would take hers.  In a same sex situation, especially with an adoption/unknown father or mother that gets more entertaining though...  Coin toss?  :-)

Alabaster

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 85
If preserving her last name is important to my future wife, I'll change mine. I don't think its a big deal at all so I can't very well insist that she change hers... It would bother me if we raised a child with just her last name though. I think the child should have /our/ last name... Mutual effort and all that.

soccerluvof4

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7161
  • Location: Artic Midwest
  • Retired at 50
    • My Journal
I wanted my Wife to have my name and I want my daughter to keep our last name as well when she gets married! :-)

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
CommonCents,

I've seen this attitude before. You're acting like pregnancy is a terrible hardship men force on women. Women have to suffer through this terrible ordeal that's all some man's fault. Best that she make any and all decisions herself...she's already a better parent after all and the kid isn't even born yet!

BTW, I'm pretty sure I know the details of the situation much better than you...since I've actually met the parents in real life and spent a decent amount of time with them. Don't go creating ridiculous stories and using that as proof that my observations are false.

Spartana

  • Guest
Yeah, I just saw that when I was googling around about the married name thing (because, in light of this discussion, I was trying to remember Lucy Stone's name and couldn't).  That's crazy!  There was even some really recent court case about it where people's right to have different names was rejected.  And the practice only goes back to like the 1940s.  Which makes it sound like it was some post-WWII US intervention crap.  Unless the practice is super old and that just happens to be the current legal article that has to be challenged.
I couldn't remember Lucy Stone's name either - talk about ironic :-)! Had to google it and also looked up laws in different countries. It was pretty enlightening. Seems for most of the world - short of the English speaking and/or predominately  Christian  nations - women keep their birth names. I kept my own name when I married  (no hyphen or adding of his name to mine) and just remembered that, because both my hubby and I were active duty in the coast guard at that time - I had a huge battle to get the CG to allow me to keep my own name. Seemed the military had a policy of automaticly changing the female's name to the males. Really had a problem with that but was able to legally keep my own name. That was back in the early '80's so not too many married service members back then so probably a new thing to the military policy makers of that time.


CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
BTW, I'm pretty sure I know the details of the situation much better than you...since I've actually met the parents in real life and spent a decent amount of time with them. Don't go creating ridiculous stories and using that as proof that my observations are false.

Then perhaps the fault lies in your failure to relate the relevant details.

ETA: If you provide a story to support an assertion and fail to provide sufficient details to actually support the assertion, do not be surprised at someone questioning how you came to that conclusion when you could equally come to other conclusions, as I showed with my reasonable and plausible "stories".
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 01:03:50 PM by CommonCents »

boy_bye

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
CommonCents,

I've seen this attitude before. You're acting like pregnancy is a terrible hardship men force on women. Women have to suffer through this terrible ordeal that's all some man's fault. Best that she make any and all decisions herself...she's already a better parent after all and the kid isn't even born yet!

common cents didn't say this at all. but actually, yes, pregnancy is sometimes a terrible hardship forced on women by men (legislators) who make it difficult to impossible for women to exercise their constitutional reproductive rights.

if you are positing that pregnancy/having a baby involves the same amount of physical strain on both the man and the woman involved, you are either high, or you are an alien who has recently arrived on this planet. pregnancy itself can be dangerous as hell and women who choose to go through it are brave and badass regardless of your stance on gender politics!

for what it's worth, i kept my name. no intent to have children, and i just plain like what i've been called for the last 40 years. and i have to admit that it bums me out when women take their husbands' names ... my opinion is that it is kind of reactionary in 2014 to still let the man's identity be the center of the family's identity.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
- I don't see why it's assumed that the woman will change her name (logically it makes more sense to me for the males to change names).  I'm not a rabid feminist, but I definitely don't like this assumption - or pressure that someone I know recently faced - to change their name.

I agree with you that its weird how "natural" it seems that a woman would change their name (even though like half the world doesn't do it) but I'm interested in hearing your reasons why its more logical for men to change their names.

It's actually the same scenario that might cause someone to decide it's more logical for a kid to be named after the father.  You *know* that the children a woman gives birth to are hers, while you don't know for a certainty that the children born to a woman are in fact that woman's husband's children.  (In fact, up to approximately 5-15% of men believe they are father to children they are not: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/who-s-your-daddy/305969/)  I think it's more logical to name after the mother, rather than the father as a result.  Some others may see this same set of facts and think it's more logical to name after the father (in order to "tell" him that the kids are his and he ought to support and parent them).

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
CommonCents,

I've seen this attitude before. You're acting like pregnancy is a terrible hardship men force on women. Women have to suffer through this terrible ordeal that's all some man's fault. Best that she make any and all decisions herself...she's already a better parent after all and the kid isn't even born yet!

common cents didn't say this at all. but actually, yes, pregnancy is sometimes a terrible hardship forced on women by men (legislators) who make it difficult to impossible for women to exercise their constitutional reproductive rights.

if you are positing that pregnancy/having a baby involves the same amount of physical strain on both the man and the woman involved, you are either high, or you are an alien who has recently arrived on this planet. pregnancy itself can be dangerous as hell and women who choose to go through it are brave and badass regardless of your stance on gender politics!

That's a complete apples to oranges comparison. There are plenty of female legislators and voters who don't support abortion so don't turn this into a gender war. The access to abortion issue has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I am talking about the actual decision to have sex/have kids in the first place. It takes 2 to tango.

I never suggested pregnancy involves the same amount of strain on both parents. Don't put words in my mouth.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
My sister got married in her late twenties and is very feminist. Even though she liked her husbands name she didn't want to take it.

Doing the opposite of what you want/like is feminist?

boy_bye

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
CommonCents,

I've seen this attitude before. You're acting like pregnancy is a terrible hardship men force on women. Women have to suffer through this terrible ordeal that's all some man's fault. Best that she make any and all decisions herself...she's already a better parent after all and the kid isn't even born yet!

common cents didn't say this at all. but actually, yes, pregnancy is sometimes a terrible hardship forced on women by men (legislators) who make it difficult to impossible for women to exercise their constitutional reproductive rights.

if you are positing that pregnancy/having a baby involves the same amount of physical strain on both the man and the woman involved, you are either high, or you are an alien who has recently arrived on this planet. pregnancy itself can be dangerous as hell and women who choose to go through it are brave and badass regardless of your stance on gender politics!

That's a complete apples to oranges comparison. There are plenty of female legislators and voters who don't support abortion so don't turn this into a gender war. The access to abortion issue has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I am talking about the actual decision to have sex/have kids in the first place. It takes 2 to tango.


See, the thing is though, for men, the acts of having sex and having kids have never been coupled -- a man is always free to walk away. Only in the last several decades has that been true for women, and it's still not completely true due to the most patriarchal factions of our culture.

So to me the access to abortion issue has everything to do with the topic at hand. Women have more skin in the game, so women get to make more of the decisions. Seems fair to me.

I get that reproductive rights are not what this thread is about, but then you made your point (?) that somehow pregnancy isn't as terrible as women make it out to be and no one is forcing them and that mothers think they are automatically better parents than men because of childbirth. I am saying that you are wrong. Pregnancy and childbirth can be terrible, and they are often forced on women who don't have a lot of choices!

And as far as women often thinking they are better parents who can act unilaterally, well, maybe that is because so often they are forced to parent more and make unilateral decisions by fathers who walk away.

Quote from: thefinancialstudent
I never suggested pregnancy involves the same amount of strain on both parents. Don't put words in my mouth.

So what point were you trying to make when you said what you said, quoted at the top of this message?
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 05:08:49 PM by madgeylou »

boy_bye

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
My sister got married in her late twenties and is very feminist. Even though she liked her husbands name she didn't want to take it.


Doing the opposite of what you want/like is feminist?

Refusing to bend to patriarchal traditions even though they might be easy and pleasant is feminist.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 05:13:03 PM by madgeylou »

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
i have to admit that it bums me out when women take their husbands' names ... my opinion is that it is kind of reactionary in 2014 to still let the man's identity be the center of the family's identity.

Seriously?  I took my husband's last name.  I just kinda wanted all of us to have the same last name.  I didn't feel particularly rah-rah about my own (the most appealing factor of it being that it was short) NOR did I feel super rah-rah about his.  I kept mine as my middle name, replacing a name that I always hated.  (I hated the sound, I hated the spelling, I hated that no one could ever pronounce it, etc.)  I still feel that was a good decision.  I like that we're now one family unit.  If he'd had a terrible last name (I always think of the kid I grew up with whose last name was Butts...) I wouldn't have changed it.  Or, perhaps he would have wanted to change it to mine or to a new one and I would have been cool with that too. 

BUT, this was all a personal decision.  I didn't NOT take his last name because I'm a feminist, that seems silly and reactionary as well.  I like his last name.  I like that I now share a (first and last) name with his aunt, who has become one of my favorite relatives on either side.

As for the history stuff, I have three brothers to carry on my family's last name.  My husband is the oldest of two boys, but the only one who's married and possibly the only one who will/has father(ed) children, and he only has female cousins who share his name.  Maybe they'll carry it on, but who knows?  I think it was far more important in terms of family dynamics to go with his name in the whole "family unit" idea that I wanted.

However, I'm not gung-ho about any particular system of name changes/naming system.  One of my cousins is the eldest of 4 girls.  She kept her name.  Then she and her husband had a son and daughter.  The daughter got her dad's name, the son got the mom's name.  Not sure if that was for symmetry (the son was born second) or to have a greater chance of that last name being carried on.  Doesn't matter.  What I like about it is the fact that they're happy with it.  [Edited to add: I just found out that her last name actually came down through the maternal line.  That would be my great-great-great?-grandMOTHER's last name, which her son took.  I don't know the reasons why.  BUT, it's not without precedent, obviously, for a son in our family to take his mother's name, nor is it historically all that uncool.  I think this further underscores my point to DO WHAT YOU WANT.]

TL;DR: do what makes you happy with name changes.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2014, 11:57:41 AM by SisterX »

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Quote
See, the thing is though, for men, the acts of having sex and having kids have never been coupled -- a man is always free to walk away. Only in the last several decades has that been true for women, and it's still not completely true due to the most patriarchal factions of our culture.

What does being able to physically walk away have to do with what the child's name is?

Quote
So to me the access to abortion issue has everything to do with the topic at hand. Women have more skin in the game, so women get to make more of the decisions. Seems fair to me.

Except they don't have more skin in the game after birth, which is when the name is necessary. At what point do men catch up, if ever, and get to have input?

Quote
I get that reproductive rights are not what this thread is about, but then you made your point (?) that somehow pregnancy isn't as terrible as women make it out to be and no one is forcing them and that mothers think they are automatically better parents than men because of childbirth. I am saying that you are wrong. Pregnancy and childbirth can be terrible, and they are often forced on women who don't have a lot of choices!

I don't think mothers think they're better parents. I think some people in this thread are suggesting it.

Quote
And as far as women often thinking they are better parents who can act unilaterally, well, maybe that is because so often they are forced to parent more and make unilateral decisions by fathers who walk away.

How exactly are they forced? I believe safe haven laws exist in every state where you can drop a baby/infant off no questions asked. They can walk away just like men. Child support orders are reasonably well enforced in this country for millions of families so it's also not like absent parents are just riding off into the sunset with hordes of money. Then eventually they're jailed for being poor/lazy/bad parent.

Quote
So what point were you trying to make when you said what you said, quoted at the top of this message?

The point is that pregnancy is being portrayed as an awful and unbearable condition that's forced upon women by men through no action of their own. And that this entitles mothers to more input on their children after birth.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
My sister got married in her late twenties and is very feminist. Even though she liked her husbands name she didn't want to take it.


Doing the opposite of what you want/like is feminist?

Refusing to bend to patriarchal traditions even though they might be easy and pleasant is feminist.

She liked his name though. It sounds like she purposefully didn't take it because the feminist police would be upset if she did.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
She liked his name though. It sounds like she purposefully didn't take it because the feminist police would be upset if she did.

Um, most feminists hold feminist beliefs on principle, not because of peer pressure.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
She liked his name though. It sounds like she purposefully didn't take it because the feminist police would be upset if she did.

Um, most feminists hold feminist beliefs on principle, not because of peer pressure.

Then why didn't she take the name she liked?

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
She liked his name though. It sounds like she purposefully didn't take it because the feminist police would be upset if she did.
Um, most feminists hold feminist beliefs on principle, not because of peer pressure.
Then why didn't she take the name she liked?

The poster never said she liked his name BETTER than hers. I think the poster's point was that there was nothing wrong with the husband's name, so that wasn't the reason the wife didn't take it; the reason was that she thought it would be antifeminist to do so. I think you're being a little dense here.

KBecks2

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
It's not only fair, but this way, women don't disappear in the historical record once they marry.

Oh trust me, I have not disappeared.  I do not feel that I have been unfairly treated in any way. 

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: Oklahoma
i have to admit that it bums me out when women take their husbands' names ... my opinion is that it is kind of reactionary in 2014 to still let the man's identity be the center of the family's identity.

Seriously?  I took my husband's last name.  I just kinda wanted all of us to have the same last name.  I didn't feel particularly rah-rah about my own (the most appealing factor of it being that it was short) NOR did I feel super rah-rah about his.  I kept mine as my middle name, replacing a name that I always hated.  (I hated the sound, I hated the spelling, I hated that no one could ever pronounce it, etc.)  I still feel that was a good decision.  I like that we're now one family unit.  If he'd had a terrible last name (I always think of the kid I grew up with whose last name was Butts...) I wouldn't have changed it.  Or, perhaps he would have wanted to change it to mine or to a new one and I would have been cool with that too. 

BUT, this was all a personal decision.  I didn't NOT take his last name because I'm a feminist, that seems silly and reactionary as well.  I like his last name.  I like that I now share a (first and last) name with his aunt, who has become one of my favorite relatives on either side.

As for the history stuff, I have three brothers to carry on my family's last name.  My husband is the oldest of two boys, but the only one who's married and possibly the only one who will/has father(ed) children, and he only has female cousins who share his name.  Maybe they'll carry it on, but who knows?  I think it was far more important in terms of family dynamics to go with his name in the whole "family unit" idea that I wanted.

However, I'm not gung-ho about any particular system of name changes/naming system.  One of my cousins is the eldest of 4 girls.  She kept her name.  Then she and her husband had a son and daughter.  The daughter got her dad's name, the son got the mom's name.  Not sure if that was for symmetry (the son was born second) or to have a greater chance of that last name being carried on.  Doesn't matter.  What I like about it is the fact that they're happy with it.

TL;DR: do what makes you happy with name changes.

preach, SisterX!

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
This naming thing really gets everyone all riled up. Just do as they do in Spain and everyone is happy. Woman keeps her name, man keeps his name, children take a name from each parent. The only people not happy about this would be the application form creators that now have to add a bunch of little boxes in the name section to accommodate the longer names.

For once, the Spaniards have it right. Oh and the siesta thing – genius!!

Right you are! :)

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
Doing the opposite of what you want/like is feminist?

Or, more what I've seen: Modern Feminism = Making yourself miserable in an attempt to prove a point to someone that's not even paying attention.  Be true to yourself first and your cause second...

TrulyStashin

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1024
  • Location: Mid-Sized Southern City
It's not only fair, but this way, women don't disappear in the historical record once they marry.

Oh trust me, I have not disappeared.  I do not feel that I have been unfairly treated in any way.

You're not dead yet and your descendants haven't died either.   

My perspective is perhaps unique because I did a MA in history and when I researched and wrote my thesis on women's education in the founding era (1780-1820) I noticed that, over generations, the female descendants of prominent people disappear.  Especially if the prominent parent was a woman and the child never got her name at all.

Historical Example:

Thomas and Martha Jefferson had 6 children in the ten years they were married.  She died after 10 years of constant childbearing.  Two daughters survived to early adulthood.  Only one, Patsy, survived long enough to have children of her own.  When Patsy married, she became "Randolph", and with each succeeding generation and more name changes, it gets harder and harder to track the female descendants of Thomas Jefferson.  Arguably, they matter just as much as Jefferson's male descendants, don't they?  And yet ... over time, they disappear.

Modern Example:

Here's an example where the woman is accomplished in her own right.  Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton marry in 1974 (or whatever) and she keeps her name.  Their daughter, Chelsea, is Chelsea Rodham and Chelsea's daughter (the granddaughter of a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State) is ______ Rodham.  The Rodham name tracks through history and four generations or more beyond Hillary's lifetime, all of her female descendants will have a clean line back to her.   Men have long enjoyed the pride that comes from saying "I'm a Roosevelt."   (or "Kennedy"  or "Bush").  I want that to be the norm for women, down through the generations. 

People will always be outliers and do what they want.  But if I were Queen for a Day, I'd shift us to a cultural default norm where each adult keeps the name they had a birth and children take the name of the same-gender parent.  Simple.   I'd also switch us to the metric system, but that's another thread.

deedeezee

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
It's not only fair, but this way, women don't disappear in the historical record once they marry.

Oh trust me, I have not disappeared.  I do not feel that I have been unfairly treated in any way.

You're not dead yet and your descendants haven't died either.   

My perspective is perhaps unique because I did a MA in history and when I researched and wrote my thesis on women's education in the founding era (1780-1820) I noticed that, over generations, the female descendants of prominent people disappear.  Especially if the prominent parent was a woman and the child never got her name at all.

Historical Example:

Thomas and Martha Jefferson had 6 children in the ten years they were married.  She died after 10 years of constant childbearing.  Two daughters survived to early adulthood.  Only one, Patsy, survived long enough to have children of her own.  When Patsy married, she became "Randolph", and with each succeeding generation and more name changes, it gets harder and harder to track the female descendants of Thomas Jefferson.  Arguably, they matter just as much as Jefferson's male descendants, don't they?  And yet ... over time, they disappear.

Modern Example:

Here's an example where the woman is accomplished in her own right.  Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton marry in 1974 (or whatever) and she keeps her name.  Their daughter, Chelsea, is Chelsea Rodham and Chelsea's daughter (the granddaughter of a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State) is ______ Rodham.  The Rodham name tracks through history and four generations or more beyond Hillary's lifetime, all of her female descendants will have a clean line back to her.   Men have long enjoyed the pride that comes from saying "I'm a Roosevelt."   (or "Kennedy"  or "Bush").  I want that to be the norm for women, down through the generations. 

People will always be outliers and do what they want.  But if I were Queen for a Day, I'd shift us to a cultural default norm where each adult keeps the name they had a birth and children take the name of the same-gender parent.  Simple.   I'd also switch us to the metric system, but that's another thread.

In your example, would the use of Patsy Wayles (Martha's given family name) have made it easier to track her?  I have no interest or experience in historical research, I'm just genuinely curious.  I would think it would have made it difficult, historically, to identify the female offspring of "famous" men, and that it would attribute recognition/importance to male descendants alone.   

I totally agree on the metric system.

TrulyStashin

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1024
  • Location: Mid-Sized Southern City
It's not only fair, but this way, women don't disappear in the historical record once they marry.

Oh trust me, I have not disappeared.  I do not feel that I have been unfairly treated in any way.

You're not dead yet and your descendants haven't died either.   

My perspective is perhaps unique because I did a MA in history and when I researched and wrote my thesis on women's education in the founding era (1780-1820) I noticed that, over generations, the female descendants of prominent people disappear.  Especially if the prominent parent was a woman and the child never got her name at all.

Historical Example:

Thomas and Martha Jefferson had 6 children in the ten years they were married.  She died after 10 years of constant childbearing.  Two daughters survived to early adulthood.  Only one, Patsy, survived long enough to have children of her own.  When Patsy married, she became "Randolph", and with each succeeding generation and more name changes, it gets harder and harder to track the female descendants of Thomas Jefferson.  Arguably, they matter just as much as Jefferson's male descendants, don't they?  And yet ... over time, they disappear.

Modern Example:

Here's an example where the woman is accomplished in her own right.  Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton marry in 1974 (or whatever) and she keeps her name.  Their daughter, Chelsea, is Chelsea Rodham and Chelsea's daughter (the granddaughter of a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State) is ______ Rodham.  The Rodham name tracks through history and four generations or more beyond Hillary's lifetime, all of her female descendants will have a clean line back to her.   Men have long enjoyed the pride that comes from saying "I'm a Roosevelt."   (or "Kennedy"  or "Bush").  I want that to be the norm for women, down through the generations. 

People will always be outliers and do what they want.  But if I were Queen for a Day, I'd shift us to a cultural default norm where each adult keeps the name they had a birth and children take the name of the same-gender parent.  Simple.   I'd also switch us to the metric system, but that's another thread.

In your example, would the use of Patsy Wayles (Martha's given family name) have made it easier to track her?  I have no interest or experience in historical research, I'm just genuinely curious.  I would think it would have made it difficult, historically, to identify the female offspring of "famous" men, and that it would attribute recognition/importance to male descendants alone.   

I totally agree on the metric system.

Not to totally nerd-out on this but Martha's birth name was Martha Wayles Skelton.  Under "my" system, she would have kept it and her daughter Patsy would be Patsy Skelton, daughter of Thomas Jefferson and Martha Skelton (in day-to-day conversation, the family could be referred to as either Jefferson or Skelton.  Who cares?). 

Patsy married Thomas Randolph but she remained Patsy Skelton.  Let's say they had one son, James Randolph and one daughter, Abigail Skelton.   In generation three and subsequently, new names might be added as James marries Harriet Paige and Abigail marries Richard Carter, but the names Randolph and Skelton don't disappear.  They're easily tracked in the record as direct descendants of the Jefferson-Skelton union.

Even 200 years later, in 2014, many of Tom & Martha's female descendants would be named Skelton and male descendants would be Randolph (in addition to the Paiges and Carters, etc).

Edited to add:  Your concern is that only male descendants would be prominently known but I don't think so.  "Skelton" would be paired with "Jefferson" forevermore.  Imagine if, six generations after TJ's death, his daughter Katherine Skelton became president and then four generations after that, Katherine's descendant, Elizabeth Skelton was born and brought up in a world where everyone knew of the Jefferson-Skelton connection and the historic significance of that family.  That's pretty cool.   Martha Skelton, the matriarch of a great family, would still echo in our collective historical memory.  That's the kind of respect I'd like to see our culture give to women.   [geek moment over]
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 12:49:39 PM by TrulyStashin »

wepner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 197
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Yokohama, Japan
Martha Jefferson's birthname was Martha Wayles. Skelton was from her first husband Bathurst Skelton (Bathurst is about due for a comeback imo).

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5672
Doing the opposite of what you want/like is feminist?

Or, more what I've seen: Modern Feminism = Making yourself miserable in an attempt to prove a point to someone that's not even paying attention.  Be true to yourself first and your cause second...

Yep. I'm a feminist and I look my husband's name for reasons that made sense to me personally, not for a political stunt. Choice is good. Choice is lovely, we have choice, yay for us.