Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should women lose their last name when they marry?
It doesn't make sense to me why women do it
Is there really a flap about this in the U.S.? I am aware of so many American women who either use their own family surname or add it to the their husband's, and some men who adopt the woman's surname and add it to their own.
Is their still a large cultural objection to these newer surname conventions?
American naming conventions can be interesting, because there are so many cultures represented here. Someone has already mentioned how the Spanish treat women's names. Let me add the Dutch, who retain women's birth surnames on all official documents for life. A Dutch woman's married name becomes first name_married surname-birth surname. (I think Scandinavian countries may do something similar, but I'm not certain.)
My part-Dutch grandmother retained her birth surname, although she moved it to her middle name and did not hyphenate. I did same. I like my birth surname, and I can't imagine being without it, even as I adore my husband and being married. It is unique and reminds me of my parents and siblings. I hope my daughter will do the same with her birth surname (my married surname) if and when she marries, and I would encourage any DIL to do so, too.
As for Mrs. John Smith, yes, that is scrupulously proper etiquette here in the states, but in practice most women go by Mrs. Jane Smith. More appropriately, that would be Ms. Jane Smith, but that's a discussion for another day.
Could you address my question? When would the Hyphens stop?
I believe that each couple should be free to make their own choices on the matter, but I also see why the standard option should be for the woman to take the man’s name. When you propose (still mostly men doing this) you are asking the women if she will marry you/become a part of your family. You are also typically presenting her with a ring, which signifies your commitment to her. Since she is agreeing to join your family, she should take the name. By taking the man’s name, the woman is also showing her sign of commitment.
If a woman gets down on one knee, proposes to a man, and gives him an expensive ring, I would expect the man to take the woman’s name.
Marriage already benefits a woman far more than a man. A stay at home dad is still looked down upon, the courts favor women in alimony, child support and custody cases. When all of that is equal, maybe things will change.
My wife didn't 'become a part of my family' any more than I 'became a part of hers'.
And I certainly didn't get down on one knee. Our decision to marry was a mutual one, not some movie trope we emulated out of some misguided sense that we had to follow a 'how to go about getting married' script.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu
Is there really a flap about this in the U.S.? I am aware of so many American women who either use their own family surname or add it to the their husband's, and some men who adopt the woman's surname and add it to their own.
Is their still a large cultural objection to these newer surname conventions?
Generally, no.
But some people think that we need to always do today what we did yesterday, while others can't handle any erosion of a woman's subordination to her husband.
My new spouse and I decided to keep our last names (long story), so I still have my ex-husband's last name. I kept it because it's simpler and easier to pronounce and spell than my maiden name. Or so I thought. Even though my last name is only four letters long, people constantly mispronounce and misspell it. I have no idea why; to me it is pronounced and spelled just like it looks. I still wouldn't have gone back to my maiden name though; I have no emotional connection to my father and don't want to be reminded of him every day. I would rather be reminded of my ex-husband than my dad
Is there really a flap about this in the U.S.? I am aware of so many American women who either use their own family surname or add it to the their husband's, and some men who adopt the woman's surname and add it to their own.
Is their still a large cultural objection to these newer surname conventions?
I'd venture to say that most people in the US don't give a rip about this subject, quite frankly.
It seems to me that it's more of a vocal minority, on both sides, that keep topics like this alive and well.
But some people think that we need to always do today what we did yesterday, while others can't handle any erosion of a woman's subordination to her husband.
And there are others who can't stand that a woman would actually *want* to take her husband's name, because that, somehow, perpetuates the institutionalized sexism. Or something like that.
However, if a woman did not wish to merge her property with her husband, she signified this by keeping her maiden name. Queen Elizabeth II (Windsor) didn’t take her husband’s family name (Mountbatten). (As queen, she was the boss!)
Royalties don't ACTUALLY have surnames. So eventhough informally Windsor is considered the British Royal family's surname, it techincally isn't. And Queen Elizabeth II hyphenated when they maried - they both go by Windsor-Mountbatten as a way to differentiate their bloodline in history. (But, for example, Prince William & Prince Harry both went Wales while serving in the military, as their father is the Prince of Wales.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
American naming conventions can be interesting, because there are so many cultures represented here. Someone has already mentioned how the Spanish treat women's names. Let me add the Dutch, who retain women's birth surnames on all official documents for life. A Dutch woman's married name becomes first name_married surname-birth surname. (I think Scandinavian countries may do something similar, but I'm not certain.)
I don't know about Norway & Denmark, but in Sweden it's currently (though it is changing rapidly) most common that
1. the woman takes the husband's surname as either her surname or as a middle name
2. that they both keep their current surnames &
3. the man takes the wife's surname as either his surname or as a middle name.
But the trend is moving rapidly towards both keeping their own names.
And my answer to the original questions is no. Women shouldn't. If a woman wants to, go for it. If a woman doesn't want to, then no one has a right to criticize her for not doing so. If people do, they need to criticize BOTH the woman & the man for not chosing the other partner's name. (And then they should be ready to be criticized for meddling in someone else's business. )
I don't know about Norway & Denmark, but in Sweden it's currently (though it is changing rapidly) most common that
1. the woman takes the husband's surname as either her surname or as a middle name
2. that they both keep their current surnames &
3. the man takes the wife's surname as either his surname or as a middle name.
But the trend is moving rapidly towards both keeping their own names.
That's fascinating and explains something I had been curious about. A long-ago friend's brother, whose surname is Swedish, did exactly that when he married. Now it makes complete sense. Interestingly, his sister, my friend, chose the more conventional American route of adopting her husband's surname.
As I was googling around this morning in response to this thread, I happened upon a discussion of this topic in a wedding board where I learned that the retention of a woman's birth surname as a middle name is very common for southern whites, which made me wonder if there was a British connection. Further research revealed that author and early feminist Mary Wollstonecraft* upon marriage to fellow philosopher William Godwin immediately began signing her name Mary Wollstonecraft femme (wife of) Godwin. It's not much of a leap to suppose that as this naming convention caught on, the femme was dropped, leading to the the modern practice among many American women in regions heavily populated by descendants of British Colonials of adopting first name_birth surname_married surname.
*Mary Wollstonecraft is the mother of Mary Shelley, who you might know as the author of Frankenstein.
Becoming one last name is an act of unity, it shows you are now one family. There are legal reasons to do it, and also, if you have children, they need to have a common last name. It just keeps things simple and organized.
But, if you don't like it, don't do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
