# What did it mean to you for your wife to take your surname when you married?



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Hi guys!

We have booked a date for our wedding next year, yay!

Things are going well. I have been thinking about his wish for me to change my name to his when we marry.

I have always been adamant I want to keep my surname, and he is damant he wants me to have his name.

All my kids have two surnames, mine then their dad's. So they all have my surname and our two (youngest kids) obviously have his name too.

He'd like for us to change the youngest two's to just his surname. He feels very strongly and gets really cross that I want to keep my name.

I'm interested in hearing men's own experiences - I'm assuming the vast majority had no issue and their wife changed to your name. Any thoughts if it didn't happen like this or how you would have felt had your wife not wanted to change her name?

Thanks!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MAEPT10 (Oct 19, 2011)

_All my kids have two surnames, mine then their dad's. So they all have my surname and our two (youngest kids) obviously have his name too._

I don't understand this. Can you clarify? How many kids do you have? Sounds like two are with your fiance and are their others that have "their dad's" surname? 

Sorry if this sounds rude or I am making a mistake, I just want to understand the situation.


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

How old are your children? Changing names (or dropping a name) could be confusing to them...

For me, I was really excited to take my husband's name when we married - it really made me feel unified with him. (And, I really hate my maiden name! LoL!)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

For me it just means my wife can open up my mails and then play dumb telling me "oops! I thought it was for me!" -.-

Personally I never liked the whole name changing thing, but then again I never liked the whole idea of marriage. But it's not an issue for us, but I understand if it can be for others, especially women. My cousin sisters enforce their surnames too, but they have their own reasons.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

It didn't mean anything to me personally that she changed her name to mine. 

The only reason is it makes it easier once you are a family. Much easier for everyone when the husband, wife and kids all have the same surname. 

I don't see any reason for the wife to keep her surname unless she has an established professional career where it would suffer if she changed her name. Or if his last name was something that is not too flattering, like "Bobbit". Or maybe your name is "Mona Lisa" and when you get married it becomes "Mona Lot".


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Of if your surname is F--kett


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Or if your name is Debra May Page and you are marrying Patrick Dye.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Right - I have four kids. Older two by my ex so they are (fake names) Alice Jones Smith and Rita Jones Smith. My younger two are (made up names!) Thomas Jones Williams and Peter Jones Williams. 

My OH wants me to change my name from Jones to Williams and change the younger two's names from "Jones Willuams" to just Williams.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

How old are the younger ones? This should have been done when they were born, but if they aren't too old (not in school yet), then probably not a big deal. 

I don't like the combining of names. If Jones wasn't in any of their names, then it would more clear.

Now that all this is done, not sure if it is worth changing.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

My husband loved that I took his name. He said it made him feel that I truly wanted to be a family with him. I should add that my husband never pressured me to take his surname. I saw it as "new name, new life."

His mother, however, was a different story. He comes from one of those old Scottish clans and my mother in law was crushed that her sons did not marry in kilts.

As soon as we were engaged, she went all Bunny Mcdougall on me. "Every wife since the 1800's bears the name. You're not going to keep yours, are you?" :rofl: "Bears the name??" Who are they, the British royals??

She Won’t Change Her Last Name « Power to Change
Here is an article that can give an idea of what your husband might be thinking.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

The younger ones are 2 and 1. I am English and here you can re-register a child's birth with a changed surname if the parents marry after the birth. My OH found this out and would like to do it.

I've always felt pretty strongly that I wanted to keep my own name if I ever married. As I wasn't married when my first were born, I wanted them to have MY surname. I compromised by giving them both names. With the younger two I was insistent I wanted them to have just my surname unless we married and then I'd consider changing their names. He was so upset and angry that at the last minute I compromised and named our first with both our surnames instead of just mine.

I have and am considering the idea out of respect for my OH as he does feel so strongly. I just cannot get on noard with his reasoning. He hasn't said anything that makes me think, wow, that's a fantastic reason to take his name. He talks about us all having the same name but we can all have MY name and have the same name. I hear what he is saying when he explains about passing the man's name down but I feel the same in reverse (without the aspect of tradition of course.) He even said once what was the point of getting married if I won't take his name? Says his mother and auntie think I am being ridiculous yet can't explain why they think that. To md "it's tradition" isn't enough.

So not sure what to do!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

tobio said:


> I've always felt pretty strongly that I wanted to keep my own name if I ever married. As I wasn't married when my first were born, I wanted them to have MY surname. I compromised by giving them both names. With the younger two I was insistent I wanted them to have just my surname unless we married and then I'd consider changing their names. He was so upset and angry that at the last minute I compromised and named our first with both our surnames instead of just mine.


Why did you not want to give his kids a surname that included his name? 

Please note that I wrote that intentionally that way. He may be looking at it, and thinking that initially you did not want his kids to have a surname that included him in any way. Why not? Are you not committed to him? Are you expecting that it won't last? Why did you do that for your first two but not want to it for his kids?

I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of anything. I just want you to be aware of some questions that may be running through his head, even if he can't formulate them. Ignore your in-laws and focus on what you and your husband want. Answering these questions, even if not explicitly asked, may help.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

I don't think the name is a big deal. I just think it is easier to have just one last name.

An example of it being easier:

We have a couple of kids on our hockey team that have two names. For one of these kids, both names won't fit on the scoresheet or on the back of his jersey, so he had to chose which one to use. The other kid has both names, but it goes pretty much from shoulder to shoulder.

The real confusing thing is that the mom took the name of her second husband, so the poor kid (from her first marriage) has two last names but doesn't even share a name with either of his custodial parents that we see all the time. Hardly ever see his birth father.

ie

Mom - Julie Johnson
Dad - Bill Johnson
Kid - Brent Baily Simpson

It takes a while to figure out what the heck happened. Julie Johnson was Julie Baily. Who married Joe Simpson. Had a kid and named him Brent Baily Simpson. Then she remarried to Bill Johnson and took his name.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

My wife still after 11 years married and 18 years together hasn't changed her name... She says that she is just too lazy to change it to mine. To me it's just added proof that she never really loved me. Now it may not matter


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Why did you not want to give his kids a surname that included his name?
> 
> Please note that I wrote that intentionally that way. He may be looking at it, and thinking that initially you did not want his kids to have a surname that included him in any way. Why not? Are you not committed to him? Are you expecting that it won't last? Why did you do that for your first two but not want to it for his kids?
> 
> I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of anything. I just want you to be aware of some questions that may be running through his head, even if he can't formulate them. Ignore your in-laws and focus on what you and your husband want. Answering these questions, even if not explicitly asked, may help.


Right. At the time when our first was born, I wanted to get married. He had expressed a couple of reasons why he didn't want to at that time. He knew I wanted to be married if we had children (baby came a bit ahead of our plans) and I started to think that possibly he didn't want to ever get married which would be a dealbreaker for me. I did not want to end up a single parent, as I did with my first two, with all the responsibility and them having the name of someone who wasn't there.

I explained this and basically he wanted the child to have just his name without the commitment of being married. No way.

He says a lot about it being tradition, the pride, the name being passe down through the generations and being lost if they have my name. I sense a lot of it is male pride, I do not say that in a derogatory sense... Like he feels that if I were proud to be his wife, I would WANT to take his name. That if I don't, it says something to the outside world about him, me and our commitment.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Already Gone said:


> My wife still after 11 years married and 18 years together hasn't changed her name... She says that she is just too lazy to change it to mine. To me it's just added proof that she never really loved me. Now it may not matter


Did she say she would and just hasn't?


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

Marriage is no game. It only works when you abandon all fear, thoughts about "what if", "who else" and the like, and "can I go back". It requires that you go all in 100% to the point that each of you would lay down your lives for each other. Keeping your name reflects wanting an "out", and not being "all in". Especially when your fiance wants it.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

tobio said:


> Right. At the time when our first was born, I wanted to get married. He had expressed a couple of reasons why he didn't want to at that time. He knew I wanted to be married if we had children (baby came a bit ahead of our plans) and I started to think that possibly he didn't want to ever get married which would be a dealbreaker for me. I did not want to end up a single parent, as I did with my first two, with all the responsibility and them having the name of someone who wasn't there.
> 
> I explained this and basically he wanted the child to have just his name without the commitment of being married. No way.
> 
> He says a lot about it being tradition, the pride, the name being passe down through the generations and being lost if they have my name. I sense a lot of it is male pride, I do not say that in a derogatory sense... Like he feels that if I were proud to be his wife, I would WANT to take his name. That if I don't, it says something to the outside world about him, me and our commitment.


But it sounds like there were other messages you were communicating to him as well. Like the only way to get his kids to have any part of his name was to get married. If he did not do that, you originally intended not to include his name at all. Like they are your kids, not his, and he does not get his name attached to them unless he commits to you. 

May not have been what you meant to say (or maybe it was), but it may have been what he understood. If so, that is part of his reasoning, even if he can't articulate it. He wants the names changed to demonstrate that the kids are his as well, and not just yours.

Of course, this is all a bunch of arm chair analysis based on a few brief posts, so take this with more than a few grains of salt. You know your husband better, so you have a better chance of knowing if this is acurate.


----------



## F-102 (Sep 15, 2010)

My W comes from Korea, and women there keep their family names. So when my W took mine, I was very honored.

Incidentally, I knew a guy over there who was a military lawyer-he married a woman named SooMi. Can you imagine the looks on people's faces when he introduced her?


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Hicks said:


> Marriage is no game. It only works when you abandon all fear, thoughts about "what if", "who else" and the like, and "can I go back". It requires that you go all in 100% to the point that each of you would lay down your lives for each other. Keeping your name reflects wanting an "out", and not being "all in". Especially when your fiance wants it.


Right. So if I want to keep my name it reflects wanting an "out"... But if he keeps his name then he's just, what, being a guy? So it's okay for him to brush off my wishes that he changes his name then, if I want it then it counts less as I am female? But if I want to keep my name then it means something different, that I'm not as committed? I disagree.



Tall Average Guy said:


> But it sounds like there were other messages you were communicating to him as well. Like the only way to get his kids to have any part of his name was to get married. If he did not do that, you originally intended not to include his name at all. Like they are your kids, not his, and he does not get his name attached to them unless he commits to you.
> 
> May not have been what you meant to say (or maybe it was), but it may have been what he understood. If so, that is part of his reasoning, even if he can't articulate it. He wants the names changed to demonstrate that the kids are his as well, and not just yours.
> 
> Of course, this is all a bunch of arm chair analysis based on a few brief posts, so take this with more than a few grains of salt. You know your husband better, so you have a better chance of knowing if this is acurate.


I get what you are saying. But what I was saying is that he can't pick and choose which bits of "traditional" he wants. I was saying I need to know he's in it 100%, for marriage and family. Yep they are certainly his kids too, not just mine. But in the eyes of the law I would be the primary carer unless otherwise decided in court if we weren't married. And also why SHOULDN'T they have just my name if we're not married? He knows they're his kids and I know they're my kids. So it could go one of a number of ways with the name and them having my name isn't a less favourable option just because I'm not the male parent.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

tobio said:


> Did she say she would and just hasn't?


She says that she would.. that was over 11 years ago. I would be happy if she used her last name as a middle name -hyphenated..


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

So many people look at this subject from uniquely different point of views that its hard to compare one couple to another. Religious beliefs, ethical, geographical, and even the way our culture has changed in the last 20 years or so. 

My wife really liked my name, but for religious and social reasons, wanted to signal that we were creating a new family with a new legacy, since my father had passed. I was honored, but really couldn't name a single person within a 500 mile radius who did it differently in the 80s in my area. 

I could see that I'd look at it differently now if I found myself single, considering marriage again, now that children are in the picture, and more 'life experience'. I would see the woman wanting to keep her name, and would understand. Hard to describe, but I would respect her need to stay connected to the things that are implied in her name.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

tobio said:


> Right. So if I want to keep my name it reflects wanting an "out"... But if he keeps his name then he's just, what, being a guy? So it's okay for him to brush off my wishes that he changes his name then, if I want it then it counts less as I am female? But if I want to keep my name then it means something different, that I'm not as committed? I disagree.


If these traditions such as waiting for marriage to have children and taking a husbands name are too antiquated or silly for you, so be it. But yes, your future husband is asking you to demonstrate your commitment to him and your marriage. If you were to force him to take your name, you would be doing so to prove to the world that norms of society are not for you. The meaning of the gesture is entirely different when a man takes a woman's name, than vice versa. .


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Hicks said:


> If these traditions such as waiting for marriage to have children and taking a husbands name are too antiquated or silly for you, so be it. But yes, your future husband is asking you to demonstrate your commitment to him and your marriage. If you were to force him to take your name, you would be doing so to prove to the world that norms of society are not for you. The meaning of the gesture is entirely different when a man takes a woman's name, than vice versa. .


I wouldn't call such traditions silly. Antiquated... Maybe. I do understand what you are saying about my OH asking me to show my commitment by changing my name. Thinking about it I don't frame things by way of tradition or the outside world. It's what these "gestures" mean on a personal level.

So for example... He wants me to take his name. Whilst I understand his viewpoint, showing my commitment, I think well I just do not respect that he would want me to do it yet he would go no way to consider my wishes to change to my name. Like it is diminishing the fact that my name and the unity and commitment it would show to change his name to mine is somehow laughable or not important because it's not traditional.

Interesting you use the term "force" for him to change his name to mine but not vice versa.

I've never seen it as proving that the norms of society are not for us/me. I see it as it's good for him and equally as good for me. My name is just as valuable and important to me as his is to him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## omega (Aug 2, 2011)

I really, really wanted to change my name to my husband's, but we live in a country where that is illegal. Here a woman MUST keep her name, and the children's last name is determined on the day you sign the marriage certificate (we went with H's last name but it could have been mine or hyphenated). I use his name for everything social (mail, magazine subscriptions, facebook, etc) but for legal things I use my legal (maiden) name. I feel really strongly about it and it makes me mad that I can't have the name I want (his name). I think that names are labels and identifiers, and I want to be identified/labeled as part of the same family as he. My last name sucks, so there's no reason for him to prefer mine. He on the other hand has a great last name that sounds really good with my name. 

I think you should have strong feelings about changing your name if you are going to do so - it's a big change and, anymore, it does make a statement if you do it. After I changed my name on Facebook, I got a bunch of messages from friends who didn't know that it's legally impossible here saying "I never thought you would change your name to your husband's!" I replied something like "I just use his name socially, legally I haven't changed it" and they were still surprised.


----------



## OhGeesh (Jan 5, 2010)

Personally I could care less!! Two of my children have my wife's last name I care NADA, ZERO, ZIP we could spend $50 per child and change it, but for what? It will just change again when they get married............It means 100% nothing to me.


I do understand for many family heritage and lineage mean so much and that is awesome for them. We are all different in what we hold dear and value.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Thankyou guys. I can't multiquote on my phone but it's good to get different views, from ladies also.

I suppose I am looking for something, some good reason that shouts to me, yes, that is a GREAT reason to take his name AS OPPOSED TO KEEPING MINE OR HIM CHANGING HIS. I don't know if I'll find anything but I will be thinking about it as I know he feels as strongly about a name change as I do.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

Think in terms of giving and getting in your marriage.
In your marriage you need to give him what he wants, and he needs to give you what you want. This is a subtle but important concept. Deciding this is too much for you to "give" and that he should be sensitive to your needs to "not give" him this is a bad pattern to get into in your marriage. You should go all in on your giving. And he should go all in on giving to you what you need. This is what I mean about taking the risk and going "all in". Give him what he needs without the direct knowledge that he is the man who will do the same in return. That's the risk / scariness. But that's the model you should develop in your marriage: Giving to the level that the "needer" wants.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Hicks said:


> Think in terms of giving and getting in your marriage.
> In your marriage you need to give him what he wants, and he needs to give you what you want. This is a subtle but important concept. Deciding this is too much for you to "give" and that he should be sensitive to your needs to "not give" him this is a bad pattern to get into in your marriage. You should go all in on your giving. And he should go all in on giving to you what you need. This is what I mean about taking the risk and going "all in". Give him what he needs without the direct knowledge that he is the man who will do the same in return. That's the risk / scariness. But that's the model you should develop in your marriage: Giving to the level that the "needer" wants.


I understand in principle. I think that is a great idea but I don't think it applies with everything. I don't think stifling your own wants/needs is healthy when it's a bone of contention. I think this is where compromise comes on. I think if it were something he REALLY wanted and I had no particular preferences - and that applies to a range of scenarios - there is nothing wrong with going with his feelings then.

However when both of you have strong feelings? I have felt like this since being a little girl. I have never not thought of keeping my name. I'd happily take his name in addition to mine, like my younger two have. 

I know that at the heart of his feelings is a strong sense of masculinity. To him it's ridiculous to even ghink of having my name. I understand. I know we are coming at this from different perspectives. I don't know if he could equate his gender-specific feelings towards mine, that giving up my name for a man's is something I do not feel comfortable with.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

tobio said:


> I understand in principle. I think that is a great idea but I don't think it applies with everything. I don't think stifling your own wants/needs is healthy when it's a bone of contention. I think this is where compromise comes on. I think if it were something he REALLY wanted and I had no particular preferences - and that applies to a range of scenarios - there is nothing wrong with going with his feelings then.
> 
> However when both of you have strong feelings? I have felt like this since being a little girl. I have never not thought of keeping my name. I'd happily take his name in addition to mine, like my younger two have.
> 
> ...


You're in a very tough position, I agree. Some guys could just let it go, but he seems to feel insecure with the notion of your not taking his name. Do you think he will always question your sincerity in wanting to be his partner in life? Not sure what the answer would be, but when you address it from the root of the problems that it might cause within him long term, if it does, then maybe you could offer an alternative that might not help as much now, but may allow the two of you to put it behind you. I'm thinking of offering to change your vows to heighten your interdependence on each other - then frame it along side a picture of you in your wedding dress. I have my wife's self-made vows framed in a print over her image, and keep it on my desk. My own vows reflected the native american aspect of my heritage, so she did the same. Its a daily reminder.

Just a thought. 

Also, I do think that if you explain that you want to carry your life heritage into the wedding, adding it to his name at the end, he could possibly understand this rationalization if you haven't offered it before. See, my wife is a professional, and has built herself within a practice with her name. I'd never blame her for wanting to keep her own name if I met and married her at this point of life. I have a friend who did the same. She has made herself known in the technical world, and married a guy who was a supervisor. She added his name to hers. Unfortunately, the way our computer systems work at the corporation, it has become a challenge in other aspects, but not insurmountable.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

Hi tobio ~

My H and I had some of the same issue when we married (over 23 years ago now).

I was a very independent, liberal-minded, career gal then and I absolutely did not want to take his name. He was not that insistent about it, though. If he would have been absolutely adamant, I would have likely cancelled the wedding because he would have appeared controlling and needy to me in a way I would not have liked. 

What we did was sit down and discuss this together. I wanted to still have ties to my familial line by way of my name, and I also wanted to have ties to his familial line. I didn't want my name to disappear as I was proud of it (and I was a very opinionated young lady back then and did not want to appear to be 'owned' by anyone - I did not even have an engagement ring.  ) He was willing to compromise on my name, but did insist on some kind of closure for names of any children we might have.

We decided on a compromise. I legally changed my name so that I have all of my last name and all of his with no hyphen. Professionally, I go only by my maiden name. Socially, I go by his name, or both of our last names, and sometimes people will occasionally call me by my maiden name. Legally, I go by both names. He did not want to change his name by including my last name, and I decided to not be insistent on that because he was not being insistent with me changing mine. In all honesty I go by whatever people call me.  

We decided that if we had children, their middle name would always be my last name, and their last name would be his family name. And, we have two boys now and they think it's pretty neat that they've got a tie to both family names. As the youngest said when he had to do a family tree project for school - "it's so easy and neat to see how we are all related." I will always remember that day because it seemed to underscore that FOR US, we had made the right decision.

This is a great test for your marriage in being able to find a solution together. Sometimes it means a sacrifice, sometimes not. Go into a discussion with your soon-to-be husband with an open mind and heart, and see what you both can come out with. There is a solution there if you are both willing to look for it.

Best wishes.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

I never gave it much thought. Where i live, it's just the norm for the wife to change her name and it's not really an issue. I don't personally know any woman who didn't change her name when she got married. I don't think I've ever even heard it discussed.


----------



## CantePe (Oct 5, 2011)

Mine is hyphenated. The kids bear only his name. For the kids I felt it important to bear their father's name only (honoring their father) mine I haven't legally changed so for legal documents it's my maiden name but for anything else I use the hyphenated name.

We both have different cultures (I'm Irish, he's Metis\Franco) so both cultures are included in my hyphenated name to honor both families instead of just one or the other.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

omega said:


> I really, really wanted to change my name to my husband's, but we live in a country where that is illegal. Here a woman MUST keep her name, and the children's last name is determined on the day you sign the marriage certificate (we went with H's last name but it could have been mine or hyphenated). I use his name for everything social (mail, magazine subscriptions, facebook, etc) but for legal things I use my legal (maiden) name. I feel really strongly about it and it makes me mad that I can't have the name I want (his name). I* think that names are labels and identifiers, and I want to be identified/labeled as part of the same family as he.* My last name sucks, so there's no reason for him to prefer mine. He on the other hand has a great last name that sounds really good with my name.
> 
> I think you should have strong feelings about changing your name if you are going to do so - it's a big change and, anymore, it does make a statement if you do it. After I changed my name on Facebook, I got a bunch of messages from friends who didn't know that it's legally impossible here saying "I never thought you would change your name to your husband's!" I replied something like "I just use his name socially, legally I haven't changed it" and they were still surprised.


I love this.

I'm not a man, I'm another woman that's married with her husband's name. I would never have considered myself traditional, never intended on being married but knew that I wanted to live a lifetime with just him. We were living together, everything combined ....and marriage became more important to him. He proposed, I said yes, and despite not feeling the need to be married, I can't explain it but I love that we are. 

Name change. I also never intended on changing my surname. "I'm independent and have a great surname!" He knows my surname is much cooler than his. He actually considered taking my name at one point - but despite thinking of myself as non-traditional, guess what? This seemed strange to me. So then we had lots of fun evenings declaring that we'd start fresh with a brand new surname for both of us! haha some of the names we came up with. 

And then, I don't know, something clicked and I wanted to be Mrs [heartsbeating]. I feel proud to have his name. Like omega, I like that we are identified as the same family. My maiden name seems foreign to me now. It almost seems strange why I initially felt the need to cling to it.

He says I continually surprise him. Maybe he just knows that giving me space to come to my own conclusion is the way to be with me?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

southbound said:


> I never gave it much thought. Where i live, it's just the norm for the wife to change her name and it's not really an issue. I don't personally know any woman who didn't change her name when she got married. I don't think I've ever even heard it discussed.


Like Southbound - Where I live too, smaller towns, country life, this is all we know, I have never personally met a woman who didn't take the man's last name on her wedding day. But I do have one friend who got divorced from the Jerk and took her maiden name back. 

If I rebuffed at doing this, knowing my husband the way I do, he would have felt inwardly rejected to some measure, he wouldn't understand why any woman who wants to be joined as one & make babies together wouldn't desire the same family name. Of coarse I was happy to take on the new Mrs._____ in honor of him & his family heritage -- all traditional here in this sense.


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage (Jul 20, 2010)

I happily gave up a very common and easily spelled last name for one that was never spelled or pronounced correctly. I didn't hyphenate until we separated. If we didn't have children, I would change back to my maiden name. I just don't want my kids to think I am in any way rejecting them. I know, "never say never," but at this point I feel confident I won't be making any further changes to my name unless it is to shorten it. 

It's your choice. I would caution against surrendering a piece of yourself unless you honestly feel comfortable with it. Marriage and all of its male-written precepts is changing. Some males don't like it that the women are having their say in some of the changes. 

Make it what you want it to be-both of you. Slavery was a tradition. In some families, abuse is a tradition. Not all traditions are healthy or desirable. Frame your lives on your own terms, and scroo other people's opinions. They're like a$$holes-everybody has one. (Yes, including me. Feel free to disregard mine as well!)

Hope you have both an excellent marriage and life. Both of you.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

tobio said:


> However when both of you have strong feelings? I have felt like this since being a little girl. I have never not thought of keeping my name.


IF you care this strongly about your name this much, the way I look at it you have a great opportunity to give your husband something very precious and meaningful! You could give this to your husband and decide that you are "losing" something. Or you could choose to become the type of marital partner that looks for gestures of meaning and acts of giving that you can do that are the fuel for the emotional connection in your marriage. Those acts actually benefit the "giver" because they create an incredible marriage that provides you with daily emotional happiness and satisfaction.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

tobio said:


> I get what you are saying. But what I was saying is that he can't pick and choose which bits of "traditional" he wants. I was saying I need to know he's in it 100%, for marriage and family. Yep they are certainly his kids too, not just mine. But in the eyes of the law I would be the primary carer unless otherwise decided in court if we weren't married. And also why SHOULDN'T they have just my name if we're not married? He knows they're his kids and I know they're my kids. So it could go one of a number of ways with the name and them having my name isn't a less favourable option just because I'm not the male parent.


I don't doubt that you have reasons for it, just know that based on your posts, you did something for the other man (giving your children a hyphenated last name even though not married) that you were not willing, at least initially, to do for your husband. That sent him a message that I suspect he is still dealing with.

Slightly off topic, your second to last sentence reminded me of a deposition that I had to read. The person being deposed kept making distinctions between things he knew and things he believed. When he was finally asked what was the difference, he said that while he believed the kids were his, his wife knew they were hers. Always wondered if he ever used that distinction in front of her.


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

Changing my name or not wasn't something I really thought about until I got engaged. I really never thought much about getting married until I met my husband, so a lot of those details came up rather suddenly for me! One thing that I saw rather frequently in my family's genealogy and in the records of others as well was a woman adopting her maiden name as her middle name upon marriage. Not hyphenation and combining the two, but keeping one and adding the other. In some areas it was assumed this would be done and women weren't generally given middle names at birth. In others, the maiden name replaced the original maiden name.

Ultimately that's what I decided to do. I wrestled with the decision for quite a while, frankly. I think oftentimes it's just seen as "what you do when you get married", and I agree that it can be an important rite of passage in creating a new family. But at the same time, my name had been my name for 30+ years, it's an important part of my history, my identity and it didn't feel right to abandon all of that any more than it felt right to disregard the new unit that was being created. So in the end I turned to a fairly traditional compromise that satisfied both sides of the issue for me.


----------



## TwoDogs (Jul 29, 2011)

I was born with this surname and I'll die with it. I am the last person to carry this surname as I am the only member of my generation, and I'm past childbearing age. I also have a 25 year professional career known by this name. It's easy to spell and easy to pronounce. Besides, at 48 years old, I'd forget anyway and introduce myself with the old one for years to come. 

Interestingly enough (although we are not going to marry) my SO's mother would have no problem with this. She still bemoans the fact that one of her three daughters didn't retain her maiden name.

I don't know any young professional women who have taken their husband's name.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

As a woman whose ancestors were slaves, I would like it if changing a surname upon marriage was not compared to human beings purchasing each other, mmmmkay?


----------



## cloudwithleggs (Oct 13, 2011)

my so called husband took my surname. I wouldn't of changed my surmame and my babies have my surname only.


----------



## Enginerd (May 24, 2011)

It meant she was willing to sacrifice something to start a new family with me. She was all in. I believe both husband and wife need to sacrifice something to become one. Men risk their financial futures by signing marriage contracts so giving up a maiden name seems like a reasonable sacrifice. Besides, you can always retake your maiden name after the divorce. I wonder what the divorce stats are for women with hyphenated names??? I know there are situations where the women makes more money, but that's not my life. I've seen some resonable situations where the wife has a wealthy or famous family so the kids get hyphenated names for his/her benefit. Not sure I could do it but I understand the reason. 

In my world a hyphenated name is not respected by some males. Embarrassing for someone like me who takes pride in leading his family. Assigning hyphenated last names to my sons would be a sign that I'm weak, absent or dominated by my wife. When I see one I automatically think this guy was raised by a single mom or that the father wasn't the leader of his family. 

I know this is about perceived equality so I have this question?

As a wife who wants to retain her name would you be willing to sign a prenup that eliminates spousal support? Assets obtained during the marriage would be split 50/50 as would child support. Assets obtained before the marriage would stay with the original owner. If your truly equal and fully liberated then the honorable thing to do is to remain independent in your finances before and after the divorce. Sound reasonable?


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

Enginerd said:


> It meant she was willing to sacrifice something to start a new family with me. She was all in. I believe both husband and wife need to sacrifice something to become one. Men risk their financial futures by signing marriage contracts so giving up a maiden name seems like a reasonable sacrifice. Besides, you can always retake your maiden name after the divorce. I wonder what the divorce stats are for women with hyphenated names??? I know there are situations where the women makes more money, but that's not my life. I've seen some resonable situations where the wife has a wealthy or famous family so the kids get hyphenated names for his/her benefit. Not sure I could do it but I understand the reason.
> 
> In my world a hyphenated name is not respected by some males. Embarrassing for someone like me who takes pride in leading his family. Assigning hyphenated last names to my sons would be a sign that I'm weak, absent or dominated by my wife. When I see one I automatically think this guy was raised by a single mom or that the father wasn't the leader of his family.
> 
> ...


I took my husband's name, no hyphen between that and my middle name and that is pretty much exactly what our pre-nup says.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TwoDogs (Jul 29, 2011)

Enginerd said:


> As a wife who wants to retain her name would you be willing to sign a prenup that eliminates spousal support? Assets obtained during the marriage would be split 50/50 as would child support. Assets obtained before the marriage would stay with the original owner. If your truly equal and fully liberated then the honorable thing to do is to remain independent in your finances before and after the divorce. Sound reasonable?


I can only answer for myself but it's an emphatic YES.

However, that's entirely self-serving on my part as I have far more assets (acquired prior to the relationship) and income than my current SO. And the gentlemen to whom I was engaged previously.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Enginerd said:


> It meant she was willing to sacrifice something to start a new family with me. She was all in. I believe both husband and wife need to sacrifice something to become one. Men risk their financial futures by signing marriage contracts so giving up a maiden name seems like a reasonable sacrifice. Besides, you can always retake your maiden name after the divorce. I wonder what the divorce stats are for women with hyphenated names??? I know there are situations where the women makes more money, but that's not my life. I've seen some resonable situations where the wife has a wealthy or famous family so the kids get hyphenated names for his/her benefit. Not sure I could do it but I understand the reason.
> 
> In my world a hyphenated name is not respected by some males. Embarrassing for someone like me who takes pride in leading his family. Assigning hyphenated last names to my sons would be a sign that I'm weak, absent or dominated by my wife. When I see one I automatically think this guy was raised by a single mom or that the father wasn't the leader of his family.
> 
> ...


Load of interesting posts, thankyou! I am turning over lots of comments in my head and imagining various options.

In answer to your question. We pretty much have nothing LOL! We're starting with nothing so in that sense I don't think we'd even need a pre-nuptual (sp?) agreement. I would think it only fair that assets during the marriage were split 50/50 if anything were to happen. We don't really have spousal support here, and child support I would say would be negotiable depending on the main carer and the job situation: say for example we married and divorced and he had our kids as the main carer and I was the main earner, I would fully expect to pay support to him. Fair's fair and all that.

I hadn't thought about the perspective of others upon a name. It might be a minor point but the names AREN'T hyphenated. No hyphen! My oldest daughter is 7 and is often called by her first name and ONE of her last names depending on where she is and what she's doing. She interchanges when she writes her name on schoolwork. She told me once that she likes that she has mummy's name and that of her grandparents as she has most contact with us.

On another thing... What you say about leading the family. Yes my OH does not lead. We kind of go with whoever has the knowledge or expertise in a particular area. My OH is not weak, absent or dominated by me LOL for sure! I just do not see him as leading but equally do not see him as weak. I find it interesting that you do not perceive a two-surname family as one which acknowledges an equality and a walking side-by-side "nod" to the fact that the woman is equally as capable in leadership as the man. There are many different takes on the name situ.

ETA: you say men risk their financial futures by signing marriage contracts. I think you are thinking from a more "traditional" viewpoint here and his assets acquired prior to marriage assuming the woman has the lesser earning capacity? Also wise to acknowledge in this dynamic when raising a family the part traditionally a woman plays in staying at home to raise the family, leaving or cutting down work and putting back her career prospects with a gap in her cv. The role this plays in enabling the H to continue working and as well as supporting the family, climbing the career ladder. Obviously like-for-like, if she wasn't there doing that then he would have to make significant changes to his lifestyle to enable the kids to be looked after by employing childcare or altering his job/hours/etc. Women also risk their financial futures therefore by doing this no?


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Honestly Tobio the only valid man’s opinion is your husbands. You are in conflict about your last name. Personally after all you’ve been through I thought it would have been a no brainer to go with what your future H wants.

You’ll need to come out of the conflict with a win/win solution. If it’s I win/you lose or I lose/you win then one of you is going to be resentful about something that happened on your wedding day and that will not be a good reminder of it.

If you were my daughter I would advise you to go along with your future husband’s wishes. By wanting you and your children to take his name, in his own way he will be taking personal responsibility for all of you and the naming will seal that responsibility in an exceptionally big way. And isn’t that what you want? Do you not want him to be personally responsible for you and your children for the very long term, until death you do part?


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

AFEH said:


> Honestly Tobio the only valid man’s opinion is your husbands. You are in conflict about your last name. Personally after all you’ve been through I thought it would have been a no brainer to go with what your future H wants.
> 
> You’ll need to come out of the conflict with a win/win solution. If it’s I win/you lose or I lose/you win then one of you is going to be resentful about something that happened on your wedding day and that will not be a good reminder of it.
> 
> If you were my daughter I would advise you to go along with your future husband’s wishes. By wanting you and your children to take his name, in his own way he will be taking personal responsibility for all of you and the naming will seal that responsibility in an exceptionally big way. And isn’t that what you want? Do you not want him to be personally responsible for you and your children for the very long term, until death you do part?


Hey Bob!

Duly noted and added to the masses of relevant thoughts going round in my head.

I think too much.

ETA: I do worry about my girls not having the same name as me. I don't like the idea. And there's no way their dad would consent to us changing their surname. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

tobio said:


> Hey Bob!
> 
> Duly noted and added to the masses of relevant thoughts going round in my head.
> 
> ...


Ok you have a few important people’s needs to take into consideration, well done for looking into it in the way you are doing. We can lose ourselves in marriage sometimes and put others needs before our own and somehow lose our identity. I feel it is about compromise but not about sacrifice. I can’t think of anything to say to help you other than to say well done for going about it in the way you are.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

tobio said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> We have booked a date for our wedding next year, yay!
> 
> ...


Here is my answer to your question Tobio. If my wife had ever said she wants to keep her maiden name I would have felt that she wasn’t truly committed to me. That would have very negatively have affected my behaviour. In my case I am a very long term planner and a crazily committed man, I couldn’t have done what I did if I believed my wife’s thoughts about us where “temporary”. For me marriage only ever works when both spouses are 100% committed to making it work.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

People always surprise me.

He relents reaches out and agrees to book the date.

Then on to the next conflict.

Just amazing.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Conrad said:


> People always surprise me.
> 
> He relents reaches out and agrees to book the date.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately it can become a power struggle. A dominance thing like in the boardroom in times of trouble. Will you marry me? Yes but its conditional and here are my conditions.


----------



## agentem (Oct 13, 2011)

My wife changed her name.

To me it meant we were a single family and that our kids would share the same name as both of us. Also, outsiders would know that we were married and we would spare them from having to write two names on holiday cards and other missives.

Also, if you aren't willing to take your husband's name then you are just telling him that you'd rather keep your father's name.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Thing is Conrad, it was always going to be a subject on the cards whether it be my OH or if I'd met someone completely different. 

For some women it's a no-brainer and wouldn't be an issue. If I were marrying OH and he did not have strong feelings on the matter then we wouldn't be on to "another conflict." I am entitled to my feelings just as he is entitled to his and mine are strong as are his. I'm not looking for the next conflict. But I'm not going to avoid it because it IS a bone of contention between us and needs dealing with.

Interestingly my sister who is married had pretty much exactly the same discussion with her now-husband during their engagement. She has kept our surname. They are having their first child and have agreed it will have his surname. My BIL actually came to me for some insight into my sister's thinking a couple of years ago knowing I felt similarly.

I am looking at things from my OH's POV. But then I think, what about *my* family name? Why are we honouring his family name and not mine? Why am I less committed if I don't take his name? I don't feel "less" committed, I was the one who wanted to get married all along!

Obv. I know only he can answer that so really am thinking out loud. I do find it fascinating that guys have said thry would feel their wife was less committed if she didn't change her name. Is there a guy equivalent where the wife would feel her husband was less committed upon marriage? I don't know. 

Ramble over.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

agentem said:


> My wife changed her name.
> 
> To me it meant we were a single family and that our kids would share the same name as both of us. Also, outsiders would know that we were married and we would spare them from having to write two names on holiday cards and other missives.
> 
> Also, if you aren't willing to take your husband's name then you are just telling him that you'd rather keep your father's name.


I don't think of it like that: it's not just my father's name, it's MY name too. I am a separate entity to my father with my own name. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of us all having the same name. What I struggle with is why if I'd rather it was my name then that makes me less committed/domineering (things previously mentioned by guys on this thread.) I am neither!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OhhShiney (Apr 8, 2011)

SadSamIAm said:


> I don't think the name is a big deal. I just think it is easier to have just one last name.


When I was first married, a hundred years ago, it was exhilarating to have my wife take my last name. It was a sign of commitment, etc. However, given the state of marriage and relationships, sadly, the old custom may becoming quaint. And the ex Mrs. OhhShiney is stuck with my name, her maiden name being lost 30 years ago. 

I was even once told that the custom was evil and possessive because it removed the wife's former identity, making her hard to search out by people who knew her in the past. Whether this is sexist or not, the fact that a person who has used one name for 50 years, and then changes it, really drops out of sight, and can be a headache professionally. It's less of an issue for someone married young. 

I agree, the different last name can be a problem. I find myself always having to explain myself dealing with some brain dead (cable companies, etc) when I call and the account is in one or the other one's last names. I've been stuck having to wait for my wife to call. Though the banks and credit card companies are really no problem as individual names are associated with the people and there is no such legal identity as "mr and mrs OhhShiney." I've yet to be asked for a copy of my marriage license, but have been asked to show pieces of mail addressed to our home address with our names on it. The major institutions and police are all used to all different combinations of names residing at addresses.

At first, I was a bit miffed (about a total of 5 minutes) that my second wife didn't change names, but we are both in our 50s and have had our last name for a long time. She kept hers through her earlier marriages, as did I. Her kids had the choice of taking either her or her ex husband's last names, so her family roster is quite varied.

The ex Mrs. OhhShiney who took my name when she was 20 probably regrets it now, and I kinda feel sorry for her being stuck with my name at 50 when we didn't part ways in the best of terms. Professionally it'll be a pain in the butt for her to change her name to her maiden name if she chooses. 

My mother insists on calling my second wife Mrs OhhShiney, and my wife has identified herself as Mrs. OhhShiney in some social contexts. It bothers other people more than others. It really doesn't matter in the long run.

The BIGGEST hassle I've bumped into is the post office change of address forms. If everyone in a home has the same last name, then you only need to fill out one form._ If you have different last names, you need to fill out one for each name, and may even have to fill out one for each variation on spelling. (e.g, liz, elizabeth, beth or rebecca, becky, becca etc). 
_


----------



## TwoDogs (Jul 29, 2011)

tobio said:


> Is there a guy equivalent where the wife would feel her husband was less committed upon marriage?


How about "I feel you're less committed to me if you fail to buy me a $10K diamond for my finger? What's wrong with that? After all, engagement rings are _traditional_ and am I not worth the investment to you?"

I'm being facetious, but doesn't it sound a bit ridiculous when arbitrary symbolism is used as a benchmark for supposed commitment? IOW, isn't the person's ACTUAL commitment to the relationship/marriage itself what counts?


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

TwoDogs said:


> How about "I feel you're less committed to me if you fail to buy me a $10K diamond for my finger? What's wrong with that? After all, engagement rings are _traditional_ and am I not worth the investment to you?"
> 
> I'm being facetious, but doesn't it sound a bit ridiculous when arbitrary symbolism is used as a benchmark for supposed commitment? IOW, isn't the person's ACTUAL commitment to the relationship/marriage itself what counts?


Yeah: I don't have an engagment ring ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

AFEH said:


> Unfortunately it can become a power struggle. A dominance thing like in the boardroom in times of trouble. Will you marry me? Yes but its conditional and here are my conditions.


Believe me, I know.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

My wife had 5 names w/o mine. When she added mine it just got silly.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

tobio said:


> I am looking at things from my OH's POV. But then I think, what about *my* family name? Why are we honouring his family name and not mine? Why am I less committed if I don't take his name? I don't feel "less" committed, I was the one who wanted to get married all along!
> ]


Your making this way too complicated.
You know what taking your husband's name means to him. He has told you, the men on this board have told you. Arguing that that should not be the case will not change things. You have the simple choice to make to take an action to demonstrate committment to your marriage and your man, or not. You will not change anyone's perception of what taking a name means.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Yes I do think too much!

I wasn't seeking to change anyone's perceptions. That part you quoted... I find it interesting the take from some men that I am less committed if I don't take his name. But that's the point isn't it: it's a perception. Not fact. An opinion. I'm not less committed. I know that. Alluding to what someone said earlier, I could think he's lnot all in because he didn't make the gesture of showing people I was "taken" by giving me an engagement ring. Or that he's not as interested in giving our children security because he wouldn't marry before our first was born. 

I guess it's aligning the meanings such a gesture has between me and him so we're both happy. I've got a few months to mull it over more!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

What I am saying is that actions you do that are important to your spouse are extremely important to a marriage. 

I could feel that I love my wife deeply. But that means nothing in my marriage. I have to make her know and feel that I love her.

You two are both holding back with your actions. That cycle must break.


----------



## Enginerd (May 24, 2011)

Tobio,

You have some valid points and clearly think too much  The thing is your feelings are not really understood by your community. I've come to believe that perception is reality and it comes down to what image you want to project and maintain. Women are slowly becoming the main bread winners and this is clearly changing marriage dynamics. 

I don't pretend to have the answers to this question but I'm curious to know why an intelligent independent women such as yourself feels compelled to marry. Why not make a personal commitment to your spouse and be done with it? You are not invested in the traditional aspects of marriage so what benefit do you see?


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

Hicks said:


> Your making this way too complicated.
> You know what taking your husband's name means to him. He has told you, the men on this board have told you. Arguing that that should not be the case will not change things. You have the simple choice to make to take an action to demonstrate committment to your marriage and your man, or not. You will not change anyone's perception of what taking a name means.


I still find it troubling that Tobio had such grave doubts about the messages he was sending to her... and now he expresses what he's concerned about and.....

I just wish people could see themselves better.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Conrad said:


> I still find it troubling that Tobio had such grave doubts about the messages he was sending to her... and now he expresses what he's concerned about and.....
> 
> I just wish people could see themselves better.


Erm what?

You've confused me there, and you were talking about me!

Clarify if you would.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Enginerd said:


> Tobio,
> 
> You have some valid points and clearly think too much  The thing is your feelings are not really understood by your community. I've come to believe that perception is reality and it comes down to what image you want to project and maintain. Women are slowly becoming the main bread winners and this is clearly changing marriage dynamics.
> 
> I don't pretend to have the answers to this question but I'm curious to know why an intelligent independent women such as yourself feels compelled to marry. Why not make a personal commitment to your spouse and be done with it? You are not invested in the traditional aspects of marriage so what benefit do you see?


Perception is indeed reality. I don't see it though so much as an image I want to project and maintain. It's not about how I am perceived by "outsiders". It is to him. That is what it is. To me it is about me and him.

The shortened version is that marriage means a lot of things to me. I see it as the "ultimate" state of a relationship. Pledging to each other exclusively forever. I could make the personal commitment you speak of but to me, it would never be "complete." It just wouldn't be the same.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

tobio said:


> Perception is indeed reality. I don't see it though so much as an image I want to project and maintain. It's not about how I am perceived by "outsiders". It is to him. That is what it is. To me it is about me and him.
> 
> The shortened version is that marriage means a lot of things to me. I see it as the "ultimate" state of a relationship. Pledging to each other exclusively forever. I could make the personal commitment you speak of but to me, it would never be "complete." It just wouldn't be the same.


Speaking of perception - My wife and I joked about this subject for months. My last name is of Irish descent, her's English. But much of my extended family have a native american name that is roughly equated to 'valor', and I lived with them in the early teenage years. Her family thought that it would be cool if she used this long native american name as a middle name, but there was no real prescedent. There was still some debate about turning her name choice into an statement of heritage alliance of some sort. (Not related, but we gave our daughter my grandmother's name as a middle name, because it represents the gentle spirit of a fawn)


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Hi Tobio
Taking the man’s name is a symbolic gesture and a social custom and as such, is not subject to the laws of logic. In addition, the meaning for each individual depends on his/her experience and background. 

If I remember, you mentioned that your soon-to-be-H grew up in a single parent home and that he may have had an unhappy childhood. For him having a family with his name may be more important to him than the average man.

He may feel that putting his "imprint" on the family is an outward sign of maturing as a man and being present in his family’s life. This is in direct contradiction to his father who gave him a name but was not present. 

I have learned to pick my battles in my marriage. What helped me was that I had a better understanding of my H thinking, which is unique to him and unique on a gender basis as well. 

I try to put myself in his shoes and see things from his point of view and then I ask him to check my perception. If something is very important to him then I make sure he gets what he needs even if I don’t agree. 

The important thing to do is take what you know and what you are learning about your soon-to-be-H and use it to see things from his point of view. When you think you figured things out, then ask him to see if your perception is correct. 

On the important issues, don’t stand on principle but what will make you both the happiest by compromising. Sometimes you will give more sometimes he will. 

You do seem to think a great deal and you may make a big deal out of small relatively unimportant things. Small irritations in a relationship are like grains of sand; they wear away the patina of love. 

Don’t let that happen, smooth things over and let the small irritations wash away. Not ignore but just don’t give these things more importance than they deserve.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Catherine602 said:


> Hi Tobio
> Taking the man’s name is a symbolic gesture and a social custom and as such, is not subject to the laws of logic. In addition, the meaning for each individual depends on his/her experience and background.
> 
> If I remember, you mentioned that your soon-to-be-H grew up in a single parent home and that he may have had an unhappy childhood. For him having a family with his name may be more important to him than the average man.
> ...


I love all of this , so very true ! :iagree:


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

tobio said:


> Erm what?
> 
> You've confused me there, and you were talking about me!
> 
> Clarify if you would.


I'll be blunt.

You weren't going to be pleased until he bent to your way.

Now, you have a chance to show him that the relationship is mutual and that both of you will bend to commit to each other.

And, you're showing him your ass.

His feelings are unimportant and he'll just have to "live with it"

Be careful. You will reap what you sow.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Conrad said:


> I'll be blunt.
> 
> You weren't going to be pleased until he bent to your way.
> 
> ...


I like the bluntness.

You have got me very wrong though. You know that belief that is often bandied round the forums, whereby men want to solve women's problems but women simply want to be heard and understood? Oversimplified but you get the gist?

All I wanted was to explore how I felt and feel that my belief that my name is just as valuable and meaningful to me as his is to him, was respected and understood. That he held that feeling up equal to his.

I was never going to make him bend to my will. I'm not like that. You would laugh about that if you knew me, but that's part of posting on a forum. You interpret what you read in your own way.

I will say that the part you said about showing that the relationship is mutual and the other bending? I have spent since March bending round him, working to understand why he acted like such a tool when he had his dalluance with the woman at work. I bend round him when he talked to me like ****, didn't know how he felt anymore, lied and contacted her when he pledged NC. When I threw him out because of his lies and he wanted to come back. I bent round forgiving him and worked damn hard to move this relationship on. So say what you want but I'd say all in all I have pretty much showed him I will "bend" to meet him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

I'm aware that's how YOU see it.

I sincerely doubt that's how HE sees it.

And, that's what you're up against.


----------



## I Know (Dec 14, 2011)

Tobio, there is a concept in marriage of leader and follower. Tradition has it that women drop the surname and become the follower of the husband. 

"Most" of the time marriages go better when the husband becomes the leader. Society seems to want to point in that direction. Of course the man then must actually BE the leader. Often disharmony comes around because both parties want to be the leader. Or the follower. Or the couple elects that the wife should lead, but the husband is the breadwinner. Now there is a conflict. 

Anyway, I too think you are making this WAY more complicated than it needs to be. I would have given up my name if my wife was going to be the main money earner in the family. It's not that big a deal to me really.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

I don't think that the desire to marry, makes a woman any less independent and intelligent.


----------



## I Know (Dec 14, 2011)

In the course of a longterm marriage, there will be so many disagreements. If I've learned anything in my marriage, it is to pick my battles wisely. Most stuff is just not that important enough to fight over. Stand your ground on a few important things and let the rest go. 

Works this way in just about any friendship too.


----------



## johniori1 (Dec 28, 2011)

For me it just means my wife can open up my mails and then play dumb telling me "oops! I thought it was for me!" -.-


----------



## deejov (Sep 24, 2011)

I hope you dont mind a woman's perception on this, and I wish I had done this differently 

I really kinda thought the surnames meant nothing to either one of us when we got married. My H's legal last name is his ex-stepfather's who adopted him. He just kept it, even though his mom divorced him long ago.

His legal last name happens to be the same as my legal birth name, and I was adopted and my name changed too.

The wedding was interesting... people from both sides with the same last name LOL.

I made a comment that it was too much work to legally change my last name. Lots of paperwork to do. So I didn't do it. 

One of those things that I just "did" that actually caused a bit of hurt to my husband. 

It would have been a sign of committment for me to do the "work" and show it was a lifetime change. Instead, I gave him the impression that I wanted to keep my name so I wouldn't have to change it back later when we split up. 

It's the little things that mean so much. 

I"m changing it now.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

Thanks for the further posts. 

We had a somewhat mild "discussion" the other day. Not about this but something about the plans for getting married. He said he thought I'd be excited about being married by being excited about changing my name like other women are, like when they practice writing their married surname in cute doodles.

I replied that I thought he'd show his excitement by planning a romantic proposal and buying me an engagement ring but hey ho we can't always have things the way we imagine them. Ouch the resentment!

Okay so I'm being a little flippant but that exchange showed me I hold resentment there. I thought I'd chalked it down to "he's not that kind of a guy"but I obviously haven't accepted that as much as I told myself I had.

We have talked about me changing my name but we both agree it would be problematic by way of my girls not havibg the same name as me, OH or their younger siblings by way of family unity. We haven't come up with a "one size fits all" solution: the girls' dad is involved in their lives and wouldn't consider them changing their surname to my OH's.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

You already know he's threatened by the older kids. Not a value judgement, you just know he is.

I'm afraid keeping "their" name sends a message to him.


----------



## KanDo (Jun 15, 2011)

tobio said:


> I understand in principle. I think that is a great idea but I don't think it applies with everything. I don't think stifling your own wants/needs is healthy when it's a bone of contention. I think this is where compromise comes on. I think if it were something he REALLY wanted and I had no particular preferences - and that applies to a range of scenarios - there is nothing wrong with going with his feelings then.
> 
> However when both of you have strong feelings? I have felt like this since being a little girl. I have never not thought of keeping my name. I'd happily take his name in addition to mine, like my younger two have.
> 
> ...


I find this ironic. You are arguing that he is making a gender specific choice and you are justifying your position by gender specific reasons as well! But at least he has tradition on his side.

Given you previous statements about not giving his children his surname when you were not married, I too would be pressing you to change your name as a sign of committment to the relationship. the fact that you are so adamant about this would have me pretty worried about the future and my wife did not take my name and I had no problem with that.


----------



## tobio (Nov 30, 2010)

KanDo said:


> I find this ironic. You are arguing that he is making a gender specific choice and you are justifying your position by gender specific reasons as well! But at least he has tradition on his side.
> 
> Given you previous statements about not giving his children his surname when you were not married, I too would be pressing you to change your name as a sign of committment to the relationship. the fact that you are so adamant about this would have me pretty worried about the future and my wife did not take my name and I had no problem with that.


To give you a short background so you can understand the names issue...

Before I met OH, I was in a long-term relationship, not married. When we had our first child, I wanted to go with both our surnames. My ex agreed, and we did the same with our second. 

Somewhere within all this, the ex turned out to be.. well, a loser. Liked drink more than honouring his home commitments. By the time I threw him out, I'd effectively been a single parent for most of the life of my second baby. I was a single parent until I met OH, and yes it was very hard work. My ex was very flaky and in those very early years I did it nearly all myself with some help from my parents. I often felt it unfair that the kids had his surname when his role had been minimal and they hardly knew him.

After I met OH, we had a talk about our future. I said a long-term relationship for me would be one where I would want to get married, particularly with children (and potential future children) in the frame. I knew very early on that he was "the one" for me. When we found out I was pregnant, I said I wanted us to get married. This is when he started out with his string of reasons as to why we couldn't "right now." 

Given his inability to commit to marriage, at that point I had a new baby and a boyfriend who wouldn't take that next step. I couldn't know if he would change his mind. So that was when I said I wanted the baby to have only my surname. As mum and the one who would be the primary carer should anything happen in our relationship, I felt it sensible to act as the unmarried mother I was not knowing the level of his commitment to us.

He was very upset and so when we went to register the baby, I said I would go with both our surnames but not only his, and would reconsider if we got married, re-registering baby in his surname if that time came.

We've been together now four and a half years. At the start of 2011 we discussed getting married later in the year, he promptly went and had a very early mid-life crisis and a thing with a girl at work. He moved out. He moved back in. He threw marriage off the table until I could trust him again.

I was reaching the end of my tolerance with the marriage issue at the end of the year and told him if I didn't have a firm commitment to marriage by the end of December then I was leaving. We have now made wedding plans.

This is why I find it completely mad that anyone could even question my commitment: I have never NOT been completely committed! Just the fact that he could even question that makes me incredibly angry, and he has. He cannot see the complete contradiction in that it has been HIM who has acted questionably yet wanted all the privileges that go with marriage when it suits HIM. He didn't want to commit to marrying his children's mother yet wanted them to have just his surname. He's quite happy to have children outside of marriage yet wants to stomp his feet about them having his name but not the security of their parents being married. Runs me about for years keeping me guessing about whether he wants to get married or not yet gets upset when he finds out I'd want to keep my name. 

I don't think it's ever occurred to him that if he actually got his arse in gear and stepped up in the first place then he would have eliminated any doubt in my mind about his commitment and my issues about the children's names wouldn't be an issue! I mean it's not rocket science is it?! And my name, well let's say I'd certainly have been more open to changing it had he not been stringing me along for four years about whether he wants to get married or not.

Anyway... We have discussed the name issue and haven't come up with anything further. We both agree that me losing the name link to my older children would only serve to highlight the fractured nature of our family even more and I worry about the effect it would have on my older who is very sensitive to the situation. So no solution yet.


----------

