It's true Foxy! You're a thread-starting star.

I'm on the absolute opposite end of the spectrum. I find it incredibly strange that some women change their names. I have only one girlfriend who did it; she did not have a happy or supportive family and was ready to symbolically leave it. I'm not married to my partner, but we might marry, and I'm sure it would freak him out if I suggested changing my name to his. I'd also find it strange if he wanted to change my name to mine. We'd both accomodate it, of course, and freely share our name, but we love each other because we are ourselves, and our names are so intimately associated with that.

Plus, there's my job. My identity.

Because we're thinking about having kids, I've canvassed a lot of opinions about children's last names - how fathers and mothers feel about having a different last name from their child, if it's confusing etc. No-one I've yet talked to seems to find it a problem. Most children I know seem to carry either their mother's surname as a middle name. Because there are lots of children in my family, who bear my last name, but none in my partner's family, I think that's what we'll do.

Why would you prefer your future daughter-in-law to change her name?

Dear Bugsy and Botheration,

Thanks to both of you. I must confess that coming from a conservative European background - my upbringing has kicked in. I'm trying to be as broadminded as I can - but deep down, I still feel that when a woman marries she should take on the man's name. She can keep her own for professional reasons, but she should be known as, 'Mrs ....' on the marriage certificate and all legal documents. It gives the children a stronger sense of identity - and things are less complicated - (on passports - when travelling et cetera).

Why would a woman want to marry the man - but not take on his name?
That's what I'm having problems with. Because the way that I was raised was - you marry not just the man - but his family as well.
If he's good enough to share your bed - his name should be good enough for you to share.

Anyway, I love my son deeply and it's his happiness that matters to me
so of-course I'm not going to rock the boat. I actually think my daughter-in-law is fabulous and I love her dearly - that's why all this came as a bit of a surprise.

"It gives the children a stronger sense of identity..."
Does it? I haven't heard that from any people I know whose mothers kept their name. It also doesn't give children a stronger sense of their *mother's* identity. I know my mother felt terribly sad giving up her name. As her child, I wish she hadn't had to.

"things are less complicated - (on passports - when travelling et cetera)."
Really? I live in a de facto relationship - we've travelled, made enormous purchases together, as far as the world concerned, we're married - and it has never once been a problem. Is there really a time it would be inconvenient? I can't even imagine an example here. From experience, I can tell you travelling is certainly not one of them.

"Why would a woman want to marry the man - but not take on his name?"
A woman wants to marry a man because she loves him and wishes to spend her life with him and have children with him and support him through the great varieties of experience that life presents. What's a name got to do with it?

And if you really do think sharing a name is an irreplacable act of committment, would you be equally happy if your son chooses to take his wife's surname?

"If he's good enough to share your bed - his name should be good enough for you to share."
Again, if that's the reasoning, there's no need for it to be a gender thing. It's a non sequiter to me. You may as well say, "If he's good enough to share your bed, he's good enough to get a tatoo for." My partner's so fantastic he's virtually perfect, but I'm still not getting a tatoo.

Either way, I can honestly say I don't think our sex life suffers because we don't share a name!

Foxy, I think its a bit of a legacy from the past, where the husband took possession of his wife, and the name change was symbolic of that. Another legacy of such is the giving away of the bride by her father, who owned her prior to her marriage. For some more enthusiastic feminists I know, this latter practice is one to be thrown ou in all haste, but I think its still a nice tradition. My dad gave me away when I got married, but I dont think he was under any delusions that he had any say in how I conducted my life!

As for marrying the family, well perhaps that is not quite as relevant today as in the past. Families tend to be wide-spread and not living in each others back pockets. If anyone had suggested to me that I was marrying my in-laws, I'd have called the whole thing off pronto - we dont get along (primarily because I dont believe that women are second-class citizens and they do).

Country girl!! your a gem, an asset to the blogs I read.
fluff4

Foxy, first congrats on showing the courage to fess up to the struggle when one set of values conflict with another. That takes some courage to put out there.

Intellectually I'm in agreement with botheration on this but emotionally I suspect that if I remarry I'd be thrilled if my wife and I share a surname (and doubt that I'd change mine). That may change if and when I get to the situation and is not something I'd want to make a fuss about.

The best advice I can give is to keep being honest with yourself about what is happening with you, much easier to keep things in perspective.

Cheers
R0bert