Keep a name from a previous marriage?
December 11, 2009 1:43 PM Subscribe
I am divorced and retained my married name because I like it and it suits me, and my kids share it. I would like to keep my name, even if I married again. I am dating someone casually who has mentioned that anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his. What is the hive opinion of keeping a name from a previous marriage? Is this unheard of? Should this be a dealbreaker?
Did he explain why he felt that way? Because I have no attachment to my own last name and would probably take my husband's name if I were to get married... but if he told me that I *had* to, I'd feel little uncomfortable. I mean, it's my name. It should at least be up for discussion, especially in your case, given that your kids identify with that name as well.
posted by katillathehun at 1:46 PM on December 11, 2009 [10 favorites]
posted by katillathehun at 1:46 PM on December 11, 2009 [10 favorites]
anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his.
It's not a requirement for anyone to do any particular thing with their name, but it might be wise to avoid people who make acquiescence on that point a precondition for marriage.
It is, as I said, a pretty minor thing.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 1:47 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's not a requirement for anyone to do any particular thing with their name, but it might be wise to avoid people who make acquiescence on that point a precondition for marriage.
It is, as I said, a pretty minor thing.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 1:47 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
...but it might be wise to avoid people who make acquiescence on that point a precondition for marriage
In some age groups and cultures, there would hardly be any men left to marry!
posted by muddgirl at 1:49 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
In some age groups and cultures, there would hardly be any men left to marry!
posted by muddgirl at 1:49 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his
This is controlling, and a huge red flag. If I were you, I'd tell him that you have the same policy, and that you'd be happy to take his last name if and only if he takes yours.
(I am not saying that it's bad to take a spouse's last name upon marriage. I am saying that it's bad for a person to decide, before meeting the person they'd like to marry, that the person must alter their behavior in some specific way, and that compromise is not possible.)
posted by decathecting at 1:50 PM on December 11, 2009 [12 favorites]
This is controlling, and a huge red flag. If I were you, I'd tell him that you have the same policy, and that you'd be happy to take his last name if and only if he takes yours.
(I am not saying that it's bad to take a spouse's last name upon marriage. I am saying that it's bad for a person to decide, before meeting the person they'd like to marry, that the person must alter their behavior in some specific way, and that compromise is not possible.)
posted by decathecting at 1:50 PM on December 11, 2009 [12 favorites]
I think it's fine to keep one's name if that's what you want to do. I also think it's fine to change your name to whatever you want--Big Bird, if that's your choice. You're a grown-up, and hopefully anyone you would marry in the future would understand this and at least be willing to hear you out in a discussion.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:51 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:51 PM on December 11, 2009
It's not unheard of, and even if it were unusual (it's not!), you get to decide what you call yourself.
Some men, either because they were raised in a particular cultural tradition or because it's an outlet for their controlling-jerk-impulses, feel they have the right to demand that their wife take their name. If it were a dealbreaker for a guy, that would be a dealbreaker for me (and I changed my name to my husband's when I married him!), but, in addition to getting to choose what you call yourself, you also get to choose which hill you die on.
posted by Meg_Murry at 1:51 PM on December 11, 2009 [3 favorites]
Some men, either because they were raised in a particular cultural tradition or because it's an outlet for their controlling-jerk-impulses, feel they have the right to demand that their wife take their name. If it were a dealbreaker for a guy, that would be a dealbreaker for me (and I changed my name to my husband's when I married him!), but, in addition to getting to choose what you call yourself, you also get to choose which hill you die on.
posted by Meg_Murry at 1:51 PM on December 11, 2009 [3 favorites]
My wife kept her name, which is what we both wanted.
My line for this is that she begged for my name but she's yet to earn it.
Gets a few eyerolls, but anyone who knows us knows it's a joke.
posted by Danf at 1:51 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
My line for this is that she begged for my name but she's yet to earn it.
Gets a few eyerolls, but anyone who knows us knows it's a joke.
posted by Danf at 1:51 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Are there any rules here? I never heard of any. The reason you give, to do with sharing your name with your kids, seems to be a pretty good one for keeping the name you have. I can understand a man might be disappointed, but "dealbreaker" it should not be.
posted by londongeezer at 1:52 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by londongeezer at 1:52 PM on December 11, 2009
Some guys feel pretty strongly about this. I think you are going to find wildly varied opinions.
IMO If you have valid reasons and he doesn't have a counter argument but still insists, I'd be worried more that the guy has a problem with power trips. On the other hand he might just be speaking a preference, not actually setting rules. If this turns into something that can't be agreed upon, the lack of compromise would be the deal breaker to me.
posted by TooFewShoes at 1:52 PM on December 11, 2009
IMO If you have valid reasons and he doesn't have a counter argument but still insists, I'd be worried more that the guy has a problem with power trips. On the other hand he might just be speaking a preference, not actually setting rules. If this turns into something that can't be agreed upon, the lack of compromise would be the deal breaker to me.
posted by TooFewShoes at 1:52 PM on December 11, 2009
I think muddgirl overstates this. I have never heard of a woman keeping the name of her divorced former husband when she remarries. Personally, I have no qualms over a woman keeping her maiden name when she (re-)marries. My ex-wife never took my name, and had we had children, I would have been happy for them to take her name. The husband's name or the maiden name each seem fine.
But to keep a former spouse's name seems unseemly. Yes, it's your name to do with as you choose, but it's the ex husband's name too. It creates a tension where there need not be one (i.e., why did you take his name and not mine? Why do you keep his name now that he's gone?). I'd either change back to the maiden name or take the new husband's name.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 1:53 PM on December 11, 2009 [4 favorites]
But to keep a former spouse's name seems unseemly. Yes, it's your name to do with as you choose, but it's the ex husband's name too. It creates a tension where there need not be one (i.e., why did you take his name and not mine? Why do you keep his name now that he's gone?). I'd either change back to the maiden name or take the new husband's name.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 1:53 PM on December 11, 2009 [4 favorites]
From a man's perspective, I'd feel more comfortable with my wife keeping a maiden name than keeping an exhusband's name.
It wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me assuming an otherwise good relationship, but if I had any feeling of competition with your ex this would magnify them and would serve to magnify any existing doubts I had about the relationship in general.
posted by pseudonick at 1:55 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
It wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me assuming an otherwise good relationship, but if I had any feeling of competition with your ex this would magnify them and would serve to magnify any existing doubts I had about the relationship in general.
posted by pseudonick at 1:55 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
A little help from our friend reductio ad absurdum: You got married and changed your name at twenty. Divorced at twenty-five and kept the name. Met the man you wanted to marry at seventy-five. You've had your ex-husbands name for fifty five years, your maiden name for twenty. Which would you choose then?
posted by griphus at 1:56 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by griphus at 1:56 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
It would feel odd to me for my spouse to keep another man's name. Taking back or keeping her own, or taking mine, either would make sense. Dealbreaker? Maybe not, but definitely the seeds of a conversation.
But that's me. What's important is what you and he feel OK with. If and when it becomes relevant. It sounds like you're not there yet.
posted by TruncatedTiller at 1:56 PM on December 11, 2009
But that's me. What's important is what you and he feel OK with. If and when it becomes relevant. It sounds like you're not there yet.
posted by TruncatedTiller at 1:56 PM on December 11, 2009
I'm not saying it's right and I should feel this way, but I'm pretty certain it's the way I would feel, and I'm generally pretty liberal about these things.
posted by pseudonick at 1:56 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by pseudonick at 1:56 PM on December 11, 2009
I kept my birth name when I got married, and I think you should keep your current last name if you want.
If my husband had made such a statement, I don't know that it would have been a deal breaker. I do know that I wouldn't have changed my name, regardless of his thoughts on the matter.
If your husband says that he wants you both to have the same last name, give him the paperwork to fill out to change his last name to yours.
posted by jennyb at 1:57 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
If my husband had made such a statement, I don't know that it would have been a deal breaker. I do know that I wouldn't have changed my name, regardless of his thoughts on the matter.
If your husband says that he wants you both to have the same last name, give him the paperwork to fill out to change his last name to yours.
posted by jennyb at 1:57 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
"...that anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his"
Have to? Have to?
Oh hell, no.
~Or~
You'll change your name to his when he gets a vasectomy. Tell him he HAS TO.
posted by BostonTerrier at 1:57 PM on December 11, 2009 [5 favorites]
Have to? Have to?
Oh hell, no.
~Or~
You'll change your name to his when he gets a vasectomy. Tell him he HAS TO.
posted by BostonTerrier at 1:57 PM on December 11, 2009 [5 favorites]
If someone felt that the name was more important than the actuality, I'd wonder what they were doing with me in the first place. I can understand it as a preference, but not as a precondition.
posted by Obscure Reference at 1:58 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by Obscure Reference at 1:58 PM on December 11, 2009
It's not "her divorced husband's name". It's her name. Her last name.
posted by muddgirl at 1:59 PM on December 11, 2009 [18 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 1:59 PM on December 11, 2009 [18 favorites]
I have never heard of a woman keeping the name of her divorced former husband when she remarries.
I have, generally among women who'd had their married name for many years and were known professionally by that name.
posted by scody at 2:01 PM on December 11, 2009 [7 favorites]
I have, generally among women who'd had their married name for many years and were known professionally by that name.
posted by scody at 2:01 PM on December 11, 2009 [7 favorites]
It wasn't important to me that my wife took my last name when we got married. I assumed she might not for 1.) professional reasons and 2.) the unusual spelling of my last name combined with her first name makes her sound like a stripper. But it was important to her, so she did.
That said, I suppose if she had been married previously, had already changed her name and wanted to keep her previous husband's name, there'd be some discussion over the reasons behind it.
posted by electroboy at 2:01 PM on December 11, 2009
That said, I suppose if she had been married previously, had already changed her name and wanted to keep her previous husband's name, there'd be some discussion over the reasons behind it.
posted by electroboy at 2:01 PM on December 11, 2009
wanted to keep her previous husband's name
Again, it's no longer "her previous husband's name." It's HER name.
posted by scody at 2:04 PM on December 11, 2009 [5 favorites]
Again, it's no longer "her previous husband's name." It's HER name.
posted by scody at 2:04 PM on December 11, 2009 [5 favorites]
It would be a dealbreaker for me if a man insisted I take his name, but that's just me. I think it makes sense if you want to keep the name you share with your children or if you want to keep it because it's been yours for x number of years and feels like your name to you. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the new guy to seek reassurance that you're not doing it for other reasons--to retain a connection to the ex, for example.
posted by Mavri at 2:05 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by Mavri at 2:05 PM on December 11, 2009
Again, it's no longer "her previous husband's name." It's HER name.
That she changed. When she married her previous husband. Who she is now divorced from.
posted by electroboy at 2:06 PM on December 11, 2009 [3 favorites]
That she changed. When she married her previous husband. Who she is now divorced from.
posted by electroboy at 2:06 PM on December 11, 2009 [3 favorites]
My sister hyphenated her ex-husband's and new husband's name. She says she did this because she thought there would be problems if she didn't share a name with her children. Her husband was not pleased, but I guess they worked it out.
So there's a datapoint for Admiral Haddock, who can now say he's at least heard of it.
However, I agree with the unseemly feeling. From the outside, it feels like my sister has no identity of her own, and is completely defined by the men she married. But I've never been in the situation and I am sure it felt right to her at the time.
posted by cabingirl at 2:06 PM on December 11, 2009
So there's a datapoint for Admiral Haddock, who can now say he's at least heard of it.
However, I agree with the unseemly feeling. From the outside, it feels like my sister has no identity of her own, and is completely defined by the men she married. But I've never been in the situation and I am sure it felt right to her at the time.
posted by cabingirl at 2:06 PM on December 11, 2009
If it's a dealbreaker, then he needs to get over himself. What other ultimatums are you going to allow him to put upon you and your marriage?
This kind of powerplay this early on is very negative IMHO. If he cancels the marriage because of this he has long suppurating issues. Capitulating will only empower him to allow those issues to continue to fester and control the marriage. Marriage is a partnership. One side doesn't get to dictate the conditions for its sustenance and existence.
posted by MasonDixon at 2:10 PM on December 11, 2009
This kind of powerplay this early on is very negative IMHO. If he cancels the marriage because of this he has long suppurating issues. Capitulating will only empower him to allow those issues to continue to fester and control the marriage. Marriage is a partnership. One side doesn't get to dictate the conditions for its sustenance and existence.
posted by MasonDixon at 2:10 PM on December 11, 2009
If a guy is going to get shitty about wanting you to keep the same last name your children have, don't marry him. It shouldn't matter that it's your ex-husband's last name or that you changed it before. It's your name. No one gets to make you change your name for any reason, and anyone who acts like you owe them that needs to reevaluate what they think relationships are about.
My husband sort of wanted me to change my last name, and while I wouldn't have minded the name itself and I ultimately decided against it because I didn't want to go through the hassle of changing it. He was okay with this. If he wasn't, I would be extremely pissed and I still wouldn't change my name.
posted by Nattie at 2:11 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
My husband sort of wanted me to change my last name, and while I wouldn't have minded the name itself and I ultimately decided against it because I didn't want to go through the hassle of changing it. He was okay with this. If he wasn't, I would be extremely pissed and I still wouldn't change my name.
posted by Nattie at 2:11 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think the problem isn't so much the OP's particular circumstances, it's the guy's insistence that his wife *has* to take his name. Anyone who insists on that is certainly not going to be understanding that she'd rather keep her previous husband's last name.
posted by electroboy at 2:13 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by electroboy at 2:13 PM on December 11, 2009
I think muddgirl overstates this. I have never heard of a woman keeping the name of her divorced former husband when she remarries.
My mom did this and my stepmom did too - I think because of the children's last name issues.
I am divorced and reverted to my maiden name but I am childless and had an acrimonious divorce. It did occur to me that my married name was at least from a man *I* chose whereas my maiden name comes from a man *my mother* chose.
I kind of wished I'd just changed my name to Smith.
posted by pointystick at 2:16 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
My mom did this and my stepmom did too - I think because of the children's last name issues.
I am divorced and reverted to my maiden name but I am childless and had an acrimonious divorce. It did occur to me that my married name was at least from a man *I* chose whereas my maiden name comes from a man *my mother* chose.
I kind of wished I'd just changed my name to Smith.
posted by pointystick at 2:16 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Okay, so I kept my ex's last name when we divorced, because I liked it, and it was short and easy to spell (unlike my 'maiden' name). Also, I'd be using it awhile and a good number of my friends, my work collegues, etc all knew me by that name. Finally, changing it once was a hassle, and I didn't want the hassle of changing it back. Especially since (first point), I liked it and it was short and easy to spell.
It is now MY last name. I ain't changing it for any one.
posted by sandraregina at 2:18 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
It is now MY last name. I ain't changing it for any one.
posted by sandraregina at 2:18 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think you should be addressed in the way you want. I'd investigate why he feels this way. I have never changed my name, and have paid attention as my friends married. One friend who's husband insisted on a name change is, in fact, quite controlling. It's a very personal subject, and merits discussion and listening.
posted by theora55 at 2:18 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by theora55 at 2:18 PM on December 11, 2009
I'm of the opinion that you should always do something for yourself, not because someone else demands it of you. If you want to change your name, that's fine. And if you don't, then that's fine too. Your name is a part of your identity. It's important that you're happy with it.
And quite frankly, I'd be running away from someone who made such demands of me. It shows a distinct lack of respect for what I want.
posted by Solomon at 2:19 PM on December 11, 2009
And quite frankly, I'd be running away from someone who made such demands of me. It shows a distinct lack of respect for what I want.
posted by Solomon at 2:19 PM on December 11, 2009
Well, except me. I might find a name I like better, and so if I do change my last name again, it will be to that hypothetical name I like better. Hasn't happened yet.
posted by sandraregina at 2:19 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by sandraregina at 2:19 PM on December 11, 2009
I have never heard of a woman keeping the name of her divorced former husband when she remarries.
A friend of mine did. She has two teenage sons. She and her sons go by her first husband's name. She's now married to another friend of mine, but she has not changed her name. Her new husband is fine with this. Actually, he's just thrilled to death that she married him at all.
posted by katillathehun at 2:22 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
A friend of mine did. She has two teenage sons. She and her sons go by her first husband's name. She's now married to another friend of mine, but she has not changed her name. Her new husband is fine with this. Actually, he's just thrilled to death that she married him at all.
posted by katillathehun at 2:22 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Your name, not his. You do what you want with it.
I'm a guy. This would raise a red flag for me; why the need to control your name?
On the other hand, let's give the benefit of the doubt to your casual boyfriend. Maybe it was something he said in passing, or said as a poorly-fashioned attempt to impress or amuse. Maybe it's a value he was raised with but actually doesn't care about. Press on the issue a little bit, in a non-argumentative fashion. See if he actually holds his ground.
Red flag? Yes. But decent people can say silly things. Don't call this single incident a dealbreaker, if it is not a pattern of behavior. But let the incident put you on warning, so you can be on the lookout for other forms behavior and personality that you wouldn't be interested in marrying into.
posted by HabeasCorpus at 2:23 PM on December 11, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm a guy. This would raise a red flag for me; why the need to control your name?
On the other hand, let's give the benefit of the doubt to your casual boyfriend. Maybe it was something he said in passing, or said as a poorly-fashioned attempt to impress or amuse. Maybe it's a value he was raised with but actually doesn't care about. Press on the issue a little bit, in a non-argumentative fashion. See if he actually holds his ground.
Red flag? Yes. But decent people can say silly things. Don't call this single incident a dealbreaker, if it is not a pattern of behavior. But let the incident put you on warning, so you can be on the lookout for other forms behavior and personality that you wouldn't be interested in marrying into.
posted by HabeasCorpus at 2:23 PM on December 11, 2009 [3 favorites]
Again, it's no longer "her previous husband's name." It's HER name.
That she changed. When she married her previous husband. Who she is now divorced from.
At least for me, my married name doesn't signify that I am branded as my husband's property--I'm not leasing the right to be known as Meg NewName for the duration of my marriage. I changed my name and entered a chapter of my life during which I will consider myself and answer to "Meg NewName." Whatever happens in my marriage, however long it endures, no one can tell me "You are no longer Meg NewName" if my the condition of my marriage changes.
OP, you have every right to keep (or change to) whatever name feels most comfortable and fitting for you. No one can tell you, "You are no longer Jane LastName since you only had that name because you married David LastName."
posted by Meg_Murry at 2:24 PM on December 11, 2009 [4 favorites]
That she changed. When she married her previous husband. Who she is now divorced from.
At least for me, my married name doesn't signify that I am branded as my husband's property--I'm not leasing the right to be known as Meg NewName for the duration of my marriage. I changed my name and entered a chapter of my life during which I will consider myself and answer to "Meg NewName." Whatever happens in my marriage, however long it endures, no one can tell me "You are no longer Meg NewName" if my the condition of my marriage changes.
OP, you have every right to keep (or change to) whatever name feels most comfortable and fitting for you. No one can tell you, "You are no longer Jane LastName since you only had that name because you married David LastName."
posted by Meg_Murry at 2:24 PM on December 11, 2009 [4 favorites]
My mother kept her married name when she divorced my father and has stated that a) if she were to do it again, she would never have changed her name in the first place; and b) if she remarried, she would not change her name again.
Though, she said this in reference to remarrying my father. While it was a tongue in cheek remark, the sentiment behind it was serious.
posted by greekphilosophy at 2:25 PM on December 11, 2009
Though, she said this in reference to remarrying my father. While it was a tongue in cheek remark, the sentiment behind it was serious.
posted by greekphilosophy at 2:25 PM on December 11, 2009
I've been married three times. The first time I divorced, I kept my ex-husband's last name because it was the same as my daughter's. When I remarried, I took my second husband's name even though it would then be different from my daughter's and no, I don't claim any logic to this decision. I kept my second husband's name when we divorced and didn't change it when I married again, for the same reasons as sandraregina. I wish I'd never started this name changing thing in the first place.
posted by Joleta at 2:27 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by Joleta at 2:27 PM on December 11, 2009
I recall perhaps once where I knew a divorced woman who kept her married name. I would guess that its because most folks don't wish to keep much of anything from their exes let alone a name. As a man who has to work hard to see any upside to patriarchal society I left last names entirely up to Mrs. Chosemerveilleux; She didn't come with a dowry, and my eligibility to wed was not determined by how many head of cattle I own (not many at last count), so its neither here nor some place else. That your friend is adamant about this is a matter of tradition, (two becoming one blah, blah blah) and harkens back to a time when you were basically property, with ownership having been transfered from your father to him. Personally I think its bunk, and would be a little wary of someone being so adamant of clinging to archaic rituals, especially when removed from their religious underpinnings. I'm going to second jennyb and say that stuff like this can mean either a lot or not much. If it doesn't matter to you then by all means let your significant other act like its 1999 BCE. If it does mean a lot then you should perhaps move on. Just my 2 Drachma, mind you.
posted by chosemerveilleux at 2:28 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by chosemerveilleux at 2:28 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I have never heard of a woman keeping the name of her divorced former husband when she remarries.
Nope. Three women in my family have done this, for reasons already mentioned above:
- It was important that they continue to share a name with their children.
- They were already well-established under that name professionally.
- They'd already changed their names once and had no desire or incentive to go through that hassle again.
- They liked their last names, had had them for decades, and by that time, it was THEIR name, not that of their former husbands.
There was no tension in it whatsoever.
posted by anderjen at 2:30 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Nope. Three women in my family have done this, for reasons already mentioned above:
- It was important that they continue to share a name with their children.
- They were already well-established under that name professionally.
- They'd already changed their names once and had no desire or incentive to go through that hassle again.
- They liked their last names, had had them for decades, and by that time, it was THEIR name, not that of their former husbands.
There was no tension in it whatsoever.
posted by anderjen at 2:30 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Should this be a dealbreaker?
Why are you asking us? Whether or not it is a dealbreaker for him is his decision. You can't tell someone who feels something is a dealbreaker, sorry, it isn't on the list of dealbreakers, so you have to marry me. That is going to be his decision. I advise strongly against trying to use "this is not an acceptable dealbreaker" against him if he so decides.
The rules of personal autonomy require that we respect dealbreakers, even if we disagree with them. No one should be forced to accept something they don't want.
And I have to admit that if it was a maiden name, I wouldn't care. If it was keeping a prior husband's name, I would be concerned that you haven't stopped holding a torch for someone else and would have to discuss it with you. I would have no problem with you changing your name back to the maiden name, however. For me it isn't the name, it is what it signifies.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:31 PM on December 11, 2009
Why are you asking us? Whether or not it is a dealbreaker for him is his decision. You can't tell someone who feels something is a dealbreaker, sorry, it isn't on the list of dealbreakers, so you have to marry me. That is going to be his decision. I advise strongly against trying to use "this is not an acceptable dealbreaker" against him if he so decides.
The rules of personal autonomy require that we respect dealbreakers, even if we disagree with them. No one should be forced to accept something they don't want.
And I have to admit that if it was a maiden name, I wouldn't care. If it was keeping a prior husband's name, I would be concerned that you haven't stopped holding a torch for someone else and would have to discuss it with you. I would have no problem with you changing your name back to the maiden name, however. For me it isn't the name, it is what it signifies.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:31 PM on December 11, 2009
I am dating someone casually who has mentioned that anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his.
That is so incredibly not his decision. The decision to change your last name is yours and yours only. Someone else mentioned that this is a red flag and I agree wholeheartedly - keep a mental note of any other casual references he might make towards attempting to control you and get ready to DTMFA. The name change might not be a dealbreaker, but such a controlling attitude towards a woman's independence most definitely is.
People saying that your current last name is not your own are ridiculous btw. We are not the property of the people we marry, and a name is a gift, not a loan that needs to be paid back.
posted by saturnine at 2:32 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
That is so incredibly not his decision. The decision to change your last name is yours and yours only. Someone else mentioned that this is a red flag and I agree wholeheartedly - keep a mental note of any other casual references he might make towards attempting to control you and get ready to DTMFA. The name change might not be a dealbreaker, but such a controlling attitude towards a woman's independence most definitely is.
People saying that your current last name is not your own are ridiculous btw. We are not the property of the people we marry, and a name is a gift, not a loan that needs to be paid back.
posted by saturnine at 2:32 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Just tell him you plan on changing it to "Princess Consuela Bananahammock," although you'll prefer to called "Valerie."
posted by torquemaniac at 2:34 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by torquemaniac at 2:34 PM on December 11, 2009
Best answer: That she changed. When she married her previous husband. Who she is now divorced from
Yeah, I get the logistics of how it happened. How it happened to become HER NAME.
Her name, her choice. Women and women's identities are not the property of men (at least not in western societies), even if the fact that our last names often come from our fathers and husbands may have mistakenly given some folks that impression.
posted by scody at 2:35 PM on December 11, 2009 [23 favorites]
Yeah, I get the logistics of how it happened. How it happened to become HER NAME.
Her name, her choice. Women and women's identities are not the property of men (at least not in western societies), even if the fact that our last names often come from our fathers and husbands may have mistakenly given some folks that impression.
posted by scody at 2:35 PM on December 11, 2009 [23 favorites]
If it's a dealbreaker, then he needs to get over himself. What other ultimatums are you going to allow him to put upon you and your marriage?
Dealbreakers are about autonomy. You can decide that someone's dealbreaker isn't for you, but a person is actually allowed to set whatever limits on what they want from a relationship. They can't be forced into it. He has autonomy here and can say whatever he wants. Its his choice. It may result in them not getting married, but it is his choice.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:36 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Dealbreakers are about autonomy. You can decide that someone's dealbreaker isn't for you, but a person is actually allowed to set whatever limits on what they want from a relationship. They can't be forced into it. He has autonomy here and can say whatever he wants. Its his choice. It may result in them not getting married, but it is his choice.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:36 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Keeping your maiden name - that would make me sad but I would understand, particularly with the sort of smart, independent women I tend to like.
Keeping your ex-husband's name - that would be incredibly weird and would totally freak me out. Unless you could give me some specific reason. Maybe if you were a musician and had a career by that name or something. But in general, that would creep me out.
posted by sully75 at 2:36 PM on December 11, 2009
Keeping your ex-husband's name - that would be incredibly weird and would totally freak me out. Unless you could give me some specific reason. Maybe if you were a musician and had a career by that name or something. But in general, that would creep me out.
posted by sully75 at 2:36 PM on December 11, 2009
What is the hive opinion of keeping a name from a previous marriage? Is this unheard of? Should this be a dealbreaker?
It happens, it neither wrong nor right, it comes down to what you want. At some point you may have to decide whether you're more attached to him, or to the name. Will he be adopting your children and changing their names? Would you change your name to your maiden name? Would he hyphenate? Is it a deal breaker for him?
posted by blue_beetle at 2:41 PM on December 11, 2009
It happens, it neither wrong nor right, it comes down to what you want. At some point you may have to decide whether you're more attached to him, or to the name. Will he be adopting your children and changing their names? Would you change your name to your maiden name? Would he hyphenate? Is it a deal breaker for him?
posted by blue_beetle at 2:41 PM on December 11, 2009
FWIW my grandmother was married three times: divorced (young), widowed (young), widowed (late in life.)
When she married her third husband, my grandfather, in the mid-forties the wedding announcement read
Maxine Secondhusband'slastname
to wed
Earl Mydad'seventuallastnameandmymaidenname
Maybe it's not such a thing if you're a widow instead of a divorcee? I don't know. But I say do what feels right to you. She did have a child with her second husband, who shared the second husband's last name. Eventually my granddad adopted that kid and I assume, though I don't know for sure, that my father's older half-brother took Grandpa's last name at the time of the adoption.
Anyway, I do go on. But please don't feel weird or "wrong" for doing what makes sense for you.
posted by Neofelis at 2:44 PM on December 11, 2009
When she married her third husband, my grandfather, in the mid-forties the wedding announcement read
Maxine Secondhusband'slastname
to wed
Earl Mydad'seventuallastnameandmymaidenname
Maybe it's not such a thing if you're a widow instead of a divorcee? I don't know. But I say do what feels right to you. She did have a child with her second husband, who shared the second husband's last name. Eventually my granddad adopted that kid and I assume, though I don't know for sure, that my father's older half-brother took Grandpa's last name at the time of the adoption.
Anyway, I do go on. But please don't feel weird or "wrong" for doing what makes sense for you.
posted by Neofelis at 2:44 PM on December 11, 2009
I've heard of it a few times amongst policians and celebrities. (I'm having trouble naming too many, but German Chancellor Merkel comes to mind as someone who continues to use her ex-spouse's name despite remarrying, as well as Tina Turner.) I think for a lot of people, they just want to keep the name for which they're known in the community.
I dislike the custom of changing one's name when marrying at all, so I think you're totally reasonable to insist you keep whatever name feels comfortable.
posted by Kurichina at 2:47 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
I dislike the custom of changing one's name when marrying at all, so I think you're totally reasonable to insist you keep whatever name feels comfortable.
posted by Kurichina at 2:47 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
I completely understand why you plan to keep your current last name. I also completely understand why a man might be troubled by the fact that you took your previous husband's name but won't take his. Yes, yes, your choice, but it's a bit much to expect that he won't have any feelings about the matter, especially given what are still pretty strong societal norms. I don't think it's a good idea for married couples (or intending-to-be-married couples) to go into these conversations from a framework or rights and ultimatums, on either side. Since you two supposedly love each other and care about each other's feelings, this is a good opportunity to practice talking through issues that have emotional resonance for you both and seeking a collaborative solution. If you talk through it and he understands that not taking his name doesn't mean that you are any less committed to him and to a life with him than you were with your ex (which I think would be a natural thing to worry about, even if a little irrational), and that it does represent your ongoing commitment to your kids (something he almost certainly understands and appreciates) then this whole issue might just go away. A little grace and a big desire to understand where the other person is coming from could go a long way here. Marriage is all about mutual accommodation.
Again, if you want to view this through the filter of rights and obligations, it's your right to choose and you don't have a legal obligation to him. We pretty much all agree on that. I think that's a great way for societies to approach these questions and a lousy way for couples to approach them.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 3:09 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Again, if you want to view this through the filter of rights and obligations, it's your right to choose and you don't have a legal obligation to him. We pretty much all agree on that. I think that's a great way for societies to approach these questions and a lousy way for couples to approach them.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 3:09 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Everyone who is saying that this is a red flag that he is some totally controlling jerkmothersuperstar is missing the point. There are dudes who want their wives to have the same last name as them.
Wanting one's wife to have your last name isn't what people are calling controlling. Saying one's wife "has to" have your last name is controlling.
posted by Mavri at 3:11 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wanting one's wife to have your last name isn't what people are calling controlling. Saying one's wife "has to" have your last name is controlling.
posted by Mavri at 3:11 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Her name, her choice. Women and women's identities are not the property of men
Oh please, grind that axe elsewhere. No one's saying she can't or shouldn't do it, just that it would give them pause if their future spouse wanted to keep their-name-which-is-not-their-maiden-name-but-was-changed-when-she-married-her-previous-husband-from-whom-she-is-now-divorced.
Although honestly it's probably irrelevant in this case, for this reason.
posted by electroboy at 3:14 PM on December 11, 2009
Oh please, grind that axe elsewhere. No one's saying she can't or shouldn't do it, just that it would give them pause if their future spouse wanted to keep their-name-which-is-not-their-maiden-name-but-was-changed-when-she-married-her-previous-husband-from-whom-she-is-now-divorced.
Although honestly it's probably irrelevant in this case, for this reason.
posted by electroboy at 3:14 PM on December 11, 2009
My mother and father have been apart since 1987 and she has kept his name. They were both comfortable with it and there has never been a problem.
posted by greensalsa at 3:18 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by greensalsa at 3:18 PM on December 11, 2009
am dating someone casually who has mentioned that anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his. What is the hive opinion of keeping a name from a previous marriage? Is this unheard of? Should this be a dealbreaker?
You're dating him casually. There's plenty of time to decide how serious you want to be about this. If I were you, I'd mention your feelings on the subject and see what he says. It could be an excellent way of seeing how you two handle disagreeing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:22 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
You're dating him casually. There's plenty of time to decide how serious you want to be about this. If I were you, I'd mention your feelings on the subject and see what he says. It could be an excellent way of seeing how you two handle disagreeing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:22 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
You are casually dating.
This wasn't a conversation about whether or not *you* were going to change your name in your immediate pending nuptials. As conversation fodder, it's easy to speak in absolutes that simply don't exist.
From the OP it's impossible to tell how firmly he believes this social norm. It's pretty common, and it's easy to say "I will *NOT* [blank]" without giving the exceptions a second thought.
In the end, it's a discussion to have. But it's a stupid discussion for either of you to break an otherwise marriage-worthy relationship. I would be very surprised if this is actually a deal-breaker for him, and if it was, I consider it indicative of deeper control issues.
posted by politikitty at 3:30 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
This wasn't a conversation about whether or not *you* were going to change your name in your immediate pending nuptials. As conversation fodder, it's easy to speak in absolutes that simply don't exist.
From the OP it's impossible to tell how firmly he believes this social norm. It's pretty common, and it's easy to say "I will *NOT* [blank]" without giving the exceptions a second thought.
In the end, it's a discussion to have. But it's a stupid discussion for either of you to break an otherwise marriage-worthy relationship. I would be very surprised if this is actually a deal-breaker for him, and if it was, I consider it indicative of deeper control issues.
posted by politikitty at 3:30 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
If his feelings were simple jealousy over you carrying around an ex-lover's name, I would have sympathy. That's human nature, at least, and it's easy to imagine this nagging at him for decades. Even if it's a small thing, it could be a gnawing one, and that can't be healthy.
But when you add that "anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his", I lose all sympathy, because now this has nothing to do with you or your ex at all, does it?
This is either a cultural collision, where he's worried what people will think when his wife so flagrantly "disrespects" him, or a simple controlling personality one.
Either way, you're in for conflict.
posted by rokusan at 3:55 PM on December 11, 2009
But when you add that "anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his", I lose all sympathy, because now this has nothing to do with you or your ex at all, does it?
This is either a cultural collision, where he's worried what people will think when his wife so flagrantly "disrespects" him, or a simple controlling personality one.
Either way, you're in for conflict.
posted by rokusan at 3:55 PM on December 11, 2009
I'm also a big fan of marriages in which both partners change their names, because really, that says it all.
posted by rokusan at 3:56 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by rokusan at 3:56 PM on December 11, 2009
You kept that name not so you can share it with your ex-husband, but with your children.
posted by clearlydemon at 4:02 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by clearlydemon at 4:02 PM on December 11, 2009
Oh please, grind that axe elsewhere.
Agreed. I think the thing is here, the OP clearly had no initial objection to taking her husband's name during the first marriage, so it would probably be a little offputting for the new guy if she retained the exes name, rather than took his. Much more offputting than her keeping her maiden name (or even reverting back to it). Yes, you can do what you like. Yes, it's your choice. But it IS strange, and unusual, and be prepared for people to question why you've done it.
And PS, keeping your married name after divorce isn't the same thing. And also isn't nearly as bizarre.
posted by ryanbryan at 4:18 PM on December 11, 2009
Agreed. I think the thing is here, the OP clearly had no initial objection to taking her husband's name during the first marriage, so it would probably be a little offputting for the new guy if she retained the exes name, rather than took his. Much more offputting than her keeping her maiden name (or even reverting back to it). Yes, you can do what you like. Yes, it's your choice. But it IS strange, and unusual, and be prepared for people to question why you've done it.
And PS, keeping your married name after divorce isn't the same thing. And also isn't nearly as bizarre.
posted by ryanbryan at 4:18 PM on December 11, 2009
Men who insist that women change their names upon getting married are sexist.
No, it should not be a dealbreaker for any reasonable person. It's your name. Do what you want.
posted by Lobster Garden at 4:45 PM on December 11, 2009
No, it should not be a dealbreaker for any reasonable person. It's your name. Do what you want.
posted by Lobster Garden at 4:45 PM on December 11, 2009
Oh please, grind that axe elsewhere.
You're free to take it to Metatalk if you actually believe that my comments aren't directly relevant to Anon's questions, including "What is the hive opinion of keeping a name from a previous marriage?" and "Is this unheard of?"
A woman's name is her own to change or keep as she wants, regardless of who it came from. By insisting that this is a matter of "keeping their-name-which-is-not-their-maiden-name-but-was-changed-when-she-married-her-previous-husband-from-whom-she-is-now-divorced," you are framing a woman's name as first and foremost signifying her relationship with some other man (i.e., as her father's daughter or as her first husband's ex-wife). By contrast, many women feel that their names signify themselves first and foremost, regardless of which man the name may have come from.
That is, when a woman named Kathy Smith chooses to become Kathy Jones upon marriage and then gets divorced, "ownership" of Jones does not reside with her ex-husband; her name is Jones every bit as much as any other man or woman also named Jones. The fact that a number of commenters in this thread feel that it's "strange," "off-putting," "freaky," or "bizarre" to even entertain the notion that Kathy Jones may want to remain Kathy Jones upon remarriage (for whatever personal, profressional, and/or familial reasons) only shows how much baggage women are still made to carry with our names -- baggage that men are virtually exempt from having to lug around.
And speaking of baggage: yes, I do carry my axe in a special case. I have to go through a special TSA rigamarole to get it checked on, sometimes, but whaddya gonna do?
posted by scody at 4:59 PM on December 11, 2009 [21 favorites]
You're free to take it to Metatalk if you actually believe that my comments aren't directly relevant to Anon's questions, including "What is the hive opinion of keeping a name from a previous marriage?" and "Is this unheard of?"
A woman's name is her own to change or keep as she wants, regardless of who it came from. By insisting that this is a matter of "keeping their-name-which-is-not-their-maiden-name-but-was-changed-when-she-married-her-previous-husband-from-whom-she-is-now-divorced," you are framing a woman's name as first and foremost signifying her relationship with some other man (i.e., as her father's daughter or as her first husband's ex-wife). By contrast, many women feel that their names signify themselves first and foremost, regardless of which man the name may have come from.
That is, when a woman named Kathy Smith chooses to become Kathy Jones upon marriage and then gets divorced, "ownership" of Jones does not reside with her ex-husband; her name is Jones every bit as much as any other man or woman also named Jones. The fact that a number of commenters in this thread feel that it's "strange," "off-putting," "freaky," or "bizarre" to even entertain the notion that Kathy Jones may want to remain Kathy Jones upon remarriage (for whatever personal, profressional, and/or familial reasons) only shows how much baggage women are still made to carry with our names -- baggage that men are virtually exempt from having to lug around.
And speaking of baggage: yes, I do carry my axe in a special case. I have to go through a special TSA rigamarole to get it checked on, sometimes, but whaddya gonna do?
posted by scody at 4:59 PM on December 11, 2009 [21 favorites]
You took your ex's last name as the name for your new family. Even though the ex is gone, the new family still exists and you are a vital part of it. The name is the public declaration that you are part of that family and you do not want to give it up.
The difference if you marry someone else is that you are not starting a new family from scratch, you are adding to the old one or merging two families together to form a new one. You don't want to give up the old family identity, but presumably you may want to give some indication that a new family is forming.
I know of at least one case where a couple married and both had children from a previous marriage. In order to show the unity of the two families everyone took on the hyphenated names of the two families, so not only did the wife keep the ex's name, the new husband took it as well.
So to answer your questions, this is not unheard of, and whether or not it is a dealbreaker is completely up to you. They guy you're dating might seem to stubborn to let an insignifigant thing like a name stop an otherwise good marriage, but in reality you would be doing the same thing. My solution would be to change your name with all your names. Firstname Middlename Maidenname Ex'sname Husbandsname. That way you can introduce yourself with both names and when your children are older and have families of their own the ex's name may not be as important to you and you can stop using it if you want.
posted by Yorrick at 5:08 PM on December 11, 2009
The difference if you marry someone else is that you are not starting a new family from scratch, you are adding to the old one or merging two families together to form a new one. You don't want to give up the old family identity, but presumably you may want to give some indication that a new family is forming.
I know of at least one case where a couple married and both had children from a previous marriage. In order to show the unity of the two families everyone took on the hyphenated names of the two families, so not only did the wife keep the ex's name, the new husband took it as well.
So to answer your questions, this is not unheard of, and whether or not it is a dealbreaker is completely up to you. They guy you're dating might seem to stubborn to let an insignifigant thing like a name stop an otherwise good marriage, but in reality you would be doing the same thing. My solution would be to change your name with all your names. Firstname Middlename Maidenname Ex'sname Husbandsname. That way you can introduce yourself with both names and when your children are older and have families of their own the ex's name may not be as important to you and you can stop using it if you want.
posted by Yorrick at 5:08 PM on December 11, 2009
I would feel weird being married to husband #2 while still bearing husband #1's name, and not my maiden name or even a brand new "divorce name", the same way I felt weird briefly living with another guy in the house that my ex and I had shared.
But damn, I would feel WAY more weird if some guy I was casually dating decided to informe me of his rules and regulations on how his future wife will be required to behave.
posted by elizardbits at 5:54 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
But damn, I would feel WAY more weird if some guy I was casually dating decided to informe me of his rules and regulations on how his future wife will be required to behave.
posted by elizardbits at 5:54 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
Speaking as a guy, and with all due respect to scody, if I was contemplating marriage with a woman who wanted to keep the name she took from her previous marriage, I'd feel weird about that, and someone would need to talk me down. There's a lot of symbolism there. "Wait, so his name is good enough for you, but mine isn't?" Forget the perfectly understandable reasons behind it. It would still be a slap in the face.
When I got married, I mildly discouraged my wife from taking my name. She did anyhow. Whether my wife takes my name is a separate issue.
But that's not the issue here. The issue is that this guy apparently has made taking his name a dealbreaker issue, and that's bad.
There are perfectly reasonable dealbreaker issues that couples face. Whether both members of the couple want kids. Whether they're willing to move for one member's career. Whether they want to live in the city, country, or suburbs. This is not a reasonable dealbreaker. This is an arbitrary hangup that he has elevated to dealbreaker status. It would be as ridiculous if he refused to live in a house with an even-numbered address. Without knowing more about the guy than this one peccadillo, it makes him seem narrow-minded.
posted by adamrice at 7:00 PM on December 11, 2009
When I got married, I mildly discouraged my wife from taking my name. She did anyhow. Whether my wife takes my name is a separate issue.
But that's not the issue here. The issue is that this guy apparently has made taking his name a dealbreaker issue, and that's bad.
There are perfectly reasonable dealbreaker issues that couples face. Whether both members of the couple want kids. Whether they're willing to move for one member's career. Whether they want to live in the city, country, or suburbs. This is not a reasonable dealbreaker. This is an arbitrary hangup that he has elevated to dealbreaker status. It would be as ridiculous if he refused to live in a house with an even-numbered address. Without knowing more about the guy than this one peccadillo, it makes him seem narrow-minded.
posted by adamrice at 7:00 PM on December 11, 2009
I kept my married name too for the same reasons. I would never change it. It doesn't have anything to do with my ex, who was a very sweet guy, it's just that I love the name. I'm not sure how old you are, but if a guy in my 40-something age group said what your guy said, I'd think he was immature and ridiculous and I'd tell him, "It's not going to happen. I'm keeping the name I have." No judgment intended of your guy there too. I want you to know that.
posted by VC Drake at 8:09 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by VC Drake at 8:09 PM on December 11, 2009
There are several values here (there may indeed be others, but for example):
1. the definition of 'marriage' means 'we have the same name'
2. his wanting to keep his name
3. you wanting to keep your name
None of these are written in stone, they are only values, and you each have them for your own reasons. Since you can't have all of these fulfilled, which of these values is most important to each of you?
There are several options for names depending on which values you prioritize over the others. You could pick a new name for both of you. You could both hyphenate. He could change his name to yours. These are all options you could choose if #1 is the top agreed upon priority. Similarly, there are solutions to fulfill each scenario.
Chances are, he assumed his values (1. and 2.) as given (because after all, we have all been socialized around normative patriarchal cultural patterns around marriage), and has never really considered the range of opportunities available beyond the standard normative approach for marriage. It's your call as to the degree that this is a red flag or not. You could also decide how much of it is red flag material to the degree that he is willing to discuss these options at all. As in: "gee, if it's so important that the kids and we all have the same last name, then lets all change our names to Kadiddlehopper" and see how it goes. Even if you're joking, it might draw out the conversation and see where you and he are at and what to do about it. It's all values, no givens, and only you can decide what yours are.
posted by kch at 8:26 PM on December 11, 2009
1. the definition of 'marriage' means 'we have the same name'
2. his wanting to keep his name
3. you wanting to keep your name
None of these are written in stone, they are only values, and you each have them for your own reasons. Since you can't have all of these fulfilled, which of these values is most important to each of you?
There are several options for names depending on which values you prioritize over the others. You could pick a new name for both of you. You could both hyphenate. He could change his name to yours. These are all options you could choose if #1 is the top agreed upon priority. Similarly, there are solutions to fulfill each scenario.
Chances are, he assumed his values (1. and 2.) as given (because after all, we have all been socialized around normative patriarchal cultural patterns around marriage), and has never really considered the range of opportunities available beyond the standard normative approach for marriage. It's your call as to the degree that this is a red flag or not. You could also decide how much of it is red flag material to the degree that he is willing to discuss these options at all. As in: "gee, if it's so important that the kids and we all have the same last name, then lets all change our names to Kadiddlehopper" and see how it goes. Even if you're joking, it might draw out the conversation and see where you and he are at and what to do about it. It's all values, no givens, and only you can decide what yours are.
posted by kch at 8:26 PM on December 11, 2009
I think it's great that we have the forum and capacity to discuss women's naming. It shows what developments have been made over the last however-many decades from when this would have been a patriarchal/patrilineal no-brainer: of course the woman changes her name whenever she gains a new 'master'. So, yay, progress.
Changing names to your husband's family name is still fairly normalised and romanticised amongst both women and men, so it's not surprising that many people still expect name-changing to happen. A lot of people don't think about it. In retaining my birth name, I've still had lots of comments about 'why?' from people my age or younger. And it seems to me that so many younger women are eager to change their names cos it's perceived as traditional, romantic, an apparent signal of an adult maturity.
I would not want to be told what to do and given an ultimatum, but I get that a big contingent of society still see name changing as the norm. They probably just need a little discussion, exploration of the concept of name changing. My dad, the most old school, Catholic patriarch bully, 'this-is-the-way-it's-done' guy, was eventually accepting that my stepmother would keep her former married name on her marriage to him. He was bewildered and disbelieving at first, but when she discussed her reasons with him: she'd had the same surname for 30 years, that's who she was and she liked her name, he accepted it. He loved her, wanted to marry her - the tradition of naming fell away from his concerns.
I think a lot of apparent ultimatums disappear when love between two people grows. Don't take your man's statement as an immovable position. He probably hasn't thought about it very much, nor been in touch with a range of opinions on the subject.
posted by honey-barbara at 8:34 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
Changing names to your husband's family name is still fairly normalised and romanticised amongst both women and men, so it's not surprising that many people still expect name-changing to happen. A lot of people don't think about it. In retaining my birth name, I've still had lots of comments about 'why?' from people my age or younger. And it seems to me that so many younger women are eager to change their names cos it's perceived as traditional, romantic, an apparent signal of an adult maturity.
I would not want to be told what to do and given an ultimatum, but I get that a big contingent of society still see name changing as the norm. They probably just need a little discussion, exploration of the concept of name changing. My dad, the most old school, Catholic patriarch bully, 'this-is-the-way-it's-done' guy, was eventually accepting that my stepmother would keep her former married name on her marriage to him. He was bewildered and disbelieving at first, but when she discussed her reasons with him: she'd had the same surname for 30 years, that's who she was and she liked her name, he accepted it. He loved her, wanted to marry her - the tradition of naming fell away from his concerns.
I think a lot of apparent ultimatums disappear when love between two people grows. Don't take your man's statement as an immovable position. He probably hasn't thought about it very much, nor been in touch with a range of opinions on the subject.
posted by honey-barbara at 8:34 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
Ultimatums, like many other people mentioned, are a big red flag. And the name thing can be so complex. But once you've changed your name, it's YOUR name, and not for anybody else to make demands of.
Besides the issue of sharing a name with your kids -- which was discussed last week here -- there's also the fact that some young women getting married for the first time take their husband's name and then make strides in their careers. Especially for writers, academics, performers, musicians, etc. -- or anybody in a profession where name recognition is important -- keeping the name that you're best-known by can be vital. Pat Benatar is one example I can think of ... her maiden name was pretty difficult to spell, and Benatar was a name from a short-lived first marriage, before her career took off. Even though she's since remarried, she kept the first husband's name. (I'm not sure how I know this, but there you go.)
posted by lisa g at 9:23 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
Besides the issue of sharing a name with your kids -- which was discussed last week here -- there's also the fact that some young women getting married for the first time take their husband's name and then make strides in their careers. Especially for writers, academics, performers, musicians, etc. -- or anybody in a profession where name recognition is important -- keeping the name that you're best-known by can be vital. Pat Benatar is one example I can think of ... her maiden name was pretty difficult to spell, and Benatar was a name from a short-lived first marriage, before her career took off. Even though she's since remarried, she kept the first husband's name. (I'm not sure how I know this, but there you go.)
posted by lisa g at 9:23 PM on December 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
I changed my last name to my ex's when we married. His was easier. There were bio kids and half/step kids names to be considered. When we divorced, I kept the last name, to be the same as my children's last name. It did help with school over the years so far.
It's also become my professional name over time. I could change it, but I'm over 40 now, and it would be a huge challenge.
Then I met my now husband. The new husband's mom is an MD and kept his dad's last name because that's how she was known professionally.
When it all came down to it, my ex had a bigger problem about me keeping the name when the latest marriage happened than my husband. It was weird, really. I told the ex before the wedding that I was going to keep the same last name as the kids. He said he didn't think they needed that. Whatever, I say, we are family. My husband doesn't care about our last names.
So, here's an anecdotal case of an ex husband not wanting his ex wife to keep his last name, but she did anyway.
And, as a bonus, if we get phone calls for Mrs. X or Mr. Y, in regards to what our actual last names are, we know they are bogus.
posted by lilywing13 at 3:19 AM on December 12, 2009
It's also become my professional name over time. I could change it, but I'm over 40 now, and it would be a huge challenge.
Then I met my now husband. The new husband's mom is an MD and kept his dad's last name because that's how she was known professionally.
When it all came down to it, my ex had a bigger problem about me keeping the name when the latest marriage happened than my husband. It was weird, really. I told the ex before the wedding that I was going to keep the same last name as the kids. He said he didn't think they needed that. Whatever, I say, we are family. My husband doesn't care about our last names.
So, here's an anecdotal case of an ex husband not wanting his ex wife to keep his last name, but she did anyway.
And, as a bonus, if we get phone calls for Mrs. X or Mr. Y, in regards to what our actual last names are, we know they are bogus.
posted by lilywing13 at 3:19 AM on December 12, 2009
That is so incredibly not his decision
Of course it is. He has the right to put whatever conditions on his marriage proposal that he likes, and she has totally has the right to tell him to get stuffed.
On the one hand, keeping your ex's name after you remarry is kinda weird and I can totally see how the new guy might be freaked by it but a dealbreaker?, thats kinda petty and stupid if you love someone. On the other hand, if he's going to marry you and help raise your children, he's also raising the other man's children so the name thing should be a total non-issue.
Though it seems that isn't the issue here, it seems it would equally be a dealbreaker if you wanted to keep your maiden name or change your name to a completely new made up name.
I think you need to make your feelings about keeping your current name clear to him but I don't think you need to DTMFA - people do change their minds even about stuff like this. He might fall madly in love with you and not care about the name.
posted by missmagenta at 3:52 AM on December 12, 2009
Of course it is. He has the right to put whatever conditions on his marriage proposal that he likes, and she has totally has the right to tell him to get stuffed.
On the one hand, keeping your ex's name after you remarry is kinda weird and I can totally see how the new guy might be freaked by it but a dealbreaker?, thats kinda petty and stupid if you love someone. On the other hand, if he's going to marry you and help raise your children, he's also raising the other man's children so the name thing should be a total non-issue.
Though it seems that isn't the issue here, it seems it would equally be a dealbreaker if you wanted to keep your maiden name or change your name to a completely new made up name.
I think you need to make your feelings about keeping your current name clear to him but I don't think you need to DTMFA - people do change their minds even about stuff like this. He might fall madly in love with you and not care about the name.
posted by missmagenta at 3:52 AM on December 12, 2009
Well since you are divorced and your keeping your ex husbands name if i was your bf and heard you want to keep you ex husbands name even if we get married id dump you. Shows me that there is even a slight chance you will go back to your ex.
YIf it was your maiden name then that would be different but its your ex's name and that would send a red flag to me.
posted by majortom1981 at 5:51 AM on December 12, 2009
YIf it was your maiden name then that would be different but its your ex's name and that would send a red flag to me.
posted by majortom1981 at 5:51 AM on December 12, 2009
If it was your maiden name I could see your point. It's really up to the wife in such situations and beyond perhaps expressing their opinion the husband should leave the decision to his wife. Now, keeping your ex-husband's name in a new marriage? That is just wrong. Did you really give him up? Is this going to be an issue in the new marriage? You are not starting out well in this relationship by insisting on keeping your ex's name.
posted by caddis at 6:02 AM on December 12, 2009
posted by caddis at 6:02 AM on December 12, 2009
I kept my ex-husband's name. I find it more euphonious. I would go back to him when there are penguins holding ice-skating competitions in hell. The only reason I changed my name in the first place was after a year of whining and passive-aggressive sighing and other shenanigans I gave in because it was easier than putting up with the guilt trip from everyone on earth.
The hell with that. I'm never remarrying, but if I did I would not change it. It's been my name too long, and it's not his name anymore. It's mine.
posted by winna at 6:21 AM on December 12, 2009 [4 favorites]
The hell with that. I'm never remarrying, but if I did I would not change it. It's been my name too long, and it's not his name anymore. It's mine.
posted by winna at 6:21 AM on December 12, 2009 [4 favorites]
I think a lot of apparent ultimatums disappear when love between two people grows. Don't take your man's statement as an immovable position. He probably hasn't thought about it very much, nor been in touch with a range of opinions on the subject.
honey-barbara is wise. I agree that the "ultimatum" is a warning, but it's a distant one that may disappear as you get to know each other and he (perhaps) starts thinking of you as "the woman I love and want to marry" rather than "a random example of the female gender, about whom I have rules and regulations." But if your relationship blossoms and he remains firm about this demand, it would indeed be a red flag, and you'd have to think seriously about what you want to give up for the man. (A woman I used to be very close to wound up marrying a paranoid jerk—my opinion, obviously—who demanded that she cut off all contact with other men, especially those she knew before she met him. She did so, explaining to me that it wasn't ideal but it was a bargain she was willing to make for security. People make all sorts of choices.)
Want to know what we mean when we talk about patriarchy? Part of it is all the people here talking about how "weird" and "bizarre" and so on it is for a woman to choose to keep her own name, simply because she originally acquired that name from some other guy. That's fucked-up thinking, and it derives directly from the deeply ingrained idea that a woman is a man's property. Obviously that idea is going to take a long time to vanish completely, and meanwhile a lot of people will be stuck with stupid, prejudicial ideas that wouldn't survive a moment's rational thought; they can't help having those ideas, but they can damned well subject them to rational scrutiny, just as they would expect a person raised in a racist time and place to do with their irrational feelings about black people. They should certainly not say things like this in public:
Now, keeping your ex-husband's name in a new marriage? That is just wrong.
Genuine stone-age "thinking" there.
posted by languagehat at 6:28 AM on December 12, 2009 [9 favorites]
honey-barbara is wise. I agree that the "ultimatum" is a warning, but it's a distant one that may disappear as you get to know each other and he (perhaps) starts thinking of you as "the woman I love and want to marry" rather than "a random example of the female gender, about whom I have rules and regulations." But if your relationship blossoms and he remains firm about this demand, it would indeed be a red flag, and you'd have to think seriously about what you want to give up for the man. (A woman I used to be very close to wound up marrying a paranoid jerk—my opinion, obviously—who demanded that she cut off all contact with other men, especially those she knew before she met him. She did so, explaining to me that it wasn't ideal but it was a bargain she was willing to make for security. People make all sorts of choices.)
Want to know what we mean when we talk about patriarchy? Part of it is all the people here talking about how "weird" and "bizarre" and so on it is for a woman to choose to keep her own name, simply because she originally acquired that name from some other guy. That's fucked-up thinking, and it derives directly from the deeply ingrained idea that a woman is a man's property. Obviously that idea is going to take a long time to vanish completely, and meanwhile a lot of people will be stuck with stupid, prejudicial ideas that wouldn't survive a moment's rational thought; they can't help having those ideas, but they can damned well subject them to rational scrutiny, just as they would expect a person raised in a racist time and place to do with their irrational feelings about black people. They should certainly not say things like this in public:
Now, keeping your ex-husband's name in a new marriage? That is just wrong.
Genuine stone-age "thinking" there.
posted by languagehat at 6:28 AM on December 12, 2009 [9 favorites]
uh, there has been no "ultimatum." Guy in conversation mentioned that he wants a wife to take his name. An ultimatum is when somebody says this now or that's it.
Also there can never be an "unreasonable" dealbreaker. If it truly is a dealbreaker than whether other people think its reasonable or not is pretty much irrelvant, no? You can't reason with it.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:35 AM on December 12, 2009
Also there can never be an "unreasonable" dealbreaker. If it truly is a dealbreaker than whether other people think its reasonable or not is pretty much irrelvant, no? You can't reason with it.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:35 AM on December 12, 2009
Anecdote:
My mother, for professional and child-raising reasons, has at least one (and possibly two) hyphens in her last name: I do in fact recall seeing it written as Mom SecondEx'sName-ThirdEx'sName-CurrentHubby'sName, but most usually, it's ThirdEx'sName-Current as I think she's finally gotten all her licensing and accounts and such under two of the same names.
Myself, I married and completely dropped my maiden name. When I divorced, I took my mother's birth-name. No hyphens, and no connection to anyone I didn't want to be connected to. Although, having not had any previous connection to my current last name, various paperwork and conversation got a bit more complicated than it might have under more common circumstances.
posted by MuChao at 11:17 AM on December 12, 2009
My mother, for professional and child-raising reasons, has at least one (and possibly two) hyphens in her last name: I do in fact recall seeing it written as Mom SecondEx'sName-ThirdEx'sName-CurrentHubby'sName, but most usually, it's ThirdEx'sName-Current as I think she's finally gotten all her licensing and accounts and such under two of the same names.
Myself, I married and completely dropped my maiden name. When I divorced, I took my mother's birth-name. No hyphens, and no connection to anyone I didn't want to be connected to. Although, having not had any previous connection to my current last name, various paperwork and conversation got a bit more complicated than it might have under more common circumstances.
posted by MuChao at 11:17 AM on December 12, 2009
It's 100% up to you as to whether or not you can keep your ex-husband's name.
It's 100% up to someone else as to whether he thinks that's a dealbreaker in terms of marrying you.
posted by 2oh1 at 4:17 PM on December 12, 2009
It's 100% up to someone else as to whether he thinks that's a dealbreaker in terms of marrying you.
posted by 2oh1 at 4:17 PM on December 12, 2009
people here talking about how "weird" and "bizarre" and so on it is for a woman to choose to keep her own name, simply because she originally acquired that name from some other guy. That's fucked-up thinking, and it derives directly from the deeply ingrained idea that a woman is a man's property.
NO, that derives from her not being able to let that other guy go. It would be different if it were her maiden name. Keeping her ex's name just seems too much like a failure to let him go. It may be that she really does just prefer that name, but she must face the reality that the odds of human behavior are against this and that it is more than reasonable for her new beau to be suspicious about her motives. Even she may not be fully aware. This isn't about her name, its about his name.
posted by caddis at 1:15 AM on December 13, 2009
NO, that derives from her not being able to let that other guy go. It would be different if it were her maiden name. Keeping her ex's name just seems too much like a failure to let him go. It may be that she really does just prefer that name, but she must face the reality that the odds of human behavior are against this and that it is more than reasonable for her new beau to be suspicious about her motives. Even she may not be fully aware. This isn't about her name, its about his name.
posted by caddis at 1:15 AM on December 13, 2009
"not being about to let the other guy go" is an understandable position to most in patriarchal cultures, but it succinctly illustrates the core ideology that Langaugehat describes: That adult feminine autonomy in naming is a threat to jealous and insecure patriarchal views of women as property, emotional or physical, of a male 'overseer'. Women can't tell from your name what your emotional-or-whatever ties are to your exes. Your name is just your name, it is not freighted the way a woman's name is to you.
I would suggest that if this is the chief concern that it is ironed out during courtship, so that jealousy and confusion are addressed before marriage. If it's a 'dealbreaker', it's a dealbreaker.
posted by honey-barbara at 3:28 AM on December 13, 2009 [2 favorites]
I would suggest that if this is the chief concern that it is ironed out during courtship, so that jealousy and confusion are addressed before marriage. If it's a 'dealbreaker', it's a dealbreaker.
posted by honey-barbara at 3:28 AM on December 13, 2009 [2 favorites]
Sincere question to those of you who say that wanting to keep the name she got from her ex means that she may not be over her ex: if you met a never-married woman who insisted that she would not take her husband's name in marriage because she likes her maiden name, would you believe that she has daddy issues? That she's unable to get over her love of being a small child, under her father's protection? That she's not fully committed to creating a new family with her husband because she can't get over her family of origin?
In our society, most women acquire names based on their relationships to men. It's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that those names belong to the men and that women's attachment to their names signifies attachment to the men from whom they acquired those names. Women feel a sense of ownership over their own names, just as men do, and the fact that those names have their origins in relationships with men is a sad fact about our society, not a fact about the women's feelings for the men who bore those names before them.
I'd really like to see some evidence from those of you who say that "the odds of human behavior are against" a woman wanting to keep her name because it's hers rather than because she's secretly in love with her ex. Because others in this thread have provided plenty of evidence that women keep their names for all sorts of reasons. And I can definitely provide evidence that men who issue ultimatums about the behavior of hypothetical women in their lives tend to be controlling and sexist.
posted by decathecting at 7:54 AM on December 13, 2009 [4 favorites]
In our society, most women acquire names based on their relationships to men. It's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that those names belong to the men and that women's attachment to their names signifies attachment to the men from whom they acquired those names. Women feel a sense of ownership over their own names, just as men do, and the fact that those names have their origins in relationships with men is a sad fact about our society, not a fact about the women's feelings for the men who bore those names before them.
I'd really like to see some evidence from those of you who say that "the odds of human behavior are against" a woman wanting to keep her name because it's hers rather than because she's secretly in love with her ex. Because others in this thread have provided plenty of evidence that women keep their names for all sorts of reasons. And I can definitely provide evidence that men who issue ultimatums about the behavior of hypothetical women in their lives tend to be controlling and sexist.
posted by decathecting at 7:54 AM on December 13, 2009 [4 favorites]
that derives from her not being able to let that other guy go.
This is totally sexist. Both the husband and wife began to share a last name when they created their family. It became the legal name by which they were both known, not the legal name of the husband and some sort of social or property designation of the wife. After the divorce, the mother wants to maintain the family name connection between herself and her child. One option would be to change both of their names, but there are pros and cons to that--significant cons being that it would likely require the ex's consent and might be a difficult transition for the child to understand or willingly make. Another option would be to keep the last name she has right now. (If the ex no longer wants to share a name with his former wife, he could change his last name.)
Sure, some divorced women might keep their married names because of lingering emotional ties they are unwilling to break, and it would be appropriate for a man dating a divorced woman to politely ask how she decided to continue using her current last name after her divorce. But to suggest that the OP should arbitrarily change her current legal name, which she has been using for years and shares with her child, to another name simply because she is divorced, simply to avoid the appearance of an emotional connection with her ex is sexist.
posted by Meg_Murry at 8:19 AM on December 13, 2009 [2 favorites]
This is totally sexist. Both the husband and wife began to share a last name when they created their family. It became the legal name by which they were both known, not the legal name of the husband and some sort of social or property designation of the wife. After the divorce, the mother wants to maintain the family name connection between herself and her child. One option would be to change both of their names, but there are pros and cons to that--significant cons being that it would likely require the ex's consent and might be a difficult transition for the child to understand or willingly make. Another option would be to keep the last name she has right now. (If the ex no longer wants to share a name with his former wife, he could change his last name.)
Sure, some divorced women might keep their married names because of lingering emotional ties they are unwilling to break, and it would be appropriate for a man dating a divorced woman to politely ask how she decided to continue using her current last name after her divorce. But to suggest that the OP should arbitrarily change her current legal name, which she has been using for years and shares with her child, to another name simply because she is divorced, simply to avoid the appearance of an emotional connection with her ex is sexist.
posted by Meg_Murry at 8:19 AM on December 13, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm never remarrying, but if I did I would not change it. It's been my name too long, and it's not his name anymore. It's mine. posted by winna
This, caddis and majortom, is what your missing. Yes, it may seem off-putting and fraught with hopes of reconciliation if a woman keeps her ex-husband's last name upon re-marriage, but what you fail to realize is that the name is HERS. It HAS been and she wants to keep it. it's irrelevant that the name is also the ex-husband's. Few things are more personal than what you choose to call yourself and as with most personal decisions, there are a number of considerations that go into the decision.
My soon-to-be-husband's mom shares his and his father's last name ("A"), rather than her second husband's last name ("B"), despite that fact that husband A was not much of a father and the marriage only last a coupla years into my SO's young life. Like most mothers, she wanted to share the last name of her kids. She also embarked on a career. I suspect she also found the name euphonious.
Doesn't matter. It's HER name. Moreso, it's her NAME.
posted by Jezebella at 12:54 PM on December 13, 2009 [4 favorites]
This, caddis and majortom, is what your missing. Yes, it may seem off-putting and fraught with hopes of reconciliation if a woman keeps her ex-husband's last name upon re-marriage, but what you fail to realize is that the name is HERS. It HAS been and she wants to keep it. it's irrelevant that the name is also the ex-husband's. Few things are more personal than what you choose to call yourself and as with most personal decisions, there are a number of considerations that go into the decision.
My soon-to-be-husband's mom shares his and his father's last name ("A"), rather than her second husband's last name ("B"), despite that fact that husband A was not much of a father and the marriage only last a coupla years into my SO's young life. Like most mothers, she wanted to share the last name of her kids. She also embarked on a career. I suspect she also found the name euphonious.
Doesn't matter. It's HER name. Moreso, it's her NAME.
posted by Jezebella at 12:54 PM on December 13, 2009 [4 favorites]
Keeping her ex's name just seems too much like a failure to let him go.
You have no idea how revealing it is that you keep insisting that your assumption is the truth, while staunchly ignoring the direct statements from many women in this thread who contradict you, do you?
posted by scody at 1:54 PM on December 13, 2009
You have no idea how revealing it is that you keep insisting that your assumption is the truth, while staunchly ignoring the direct statements from many women in this thread who contradict you, do you?
posted by scody at 1:54 PM on December 13, 2009
I have never heard of a woman keeping the name of her divorced former husband when she remarries.
My wife retains her previously married name. This came about initially because we were moving to a different country immediately after we married, and changing passports / visas etc would have been a huge hassle.
Later, she retained it for convenience, as it's simple to spell and both her maiden name, and my surname are not. In fact if we're going out, we'll usually reserve in her name to avoid the hassle of having to spell out my name.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 7:27 PM on December 13, 2009
My wife retains her previously married name. This came about initially because we were moving to a different country immediately after we married, and changing passports / visas etc would have been a huge hassle.
Later, she retained it for convenience, as it's simple to spell and both her maiden name, and my surname are not. In fact if we're going out, we'll usually reserve in her name to avoid the hassle of having to spell out my name.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 7:27 PM on December 13, 2009
You have no idea how revealing it is that you keep insisting that your assumption is the truth
There is no assumption, just suspicion and that is poison to relationships. To be honest, chances are highly favorable that what the op said were her reasons to keep the name are the real reasons. Nevertheless, relationships are not always about reality or that simple about realities. Her fiance's fears, reluctances, whatever, are real and not to be easily dismissed. Even in the face of truth if you create doubt you weaken your relationship. Someone mentioned time and of course that matters. If this has been the name for decades it is different than the name for a few years. There are no right answers that anyone can give on this forum with so little facts and context. All I am saying is that in many, if not most, situations a lot of guys would rightly be suspicious of why a woman would want to hang onto the name of their ex. Probably the best argument for keeping it in this situation would be that it became her name, she decided to keep it on divorce for whatever reason, but not some failure to give him up, and then now she does not want to fall into the power play of taking her new husband's name. It isn't about the old one, but more about not taking the new one. That is nice and all, but the new guy may always wonder about her having the old guy's name. That isn't power politics. It's reality. It's human frailty. In a strong relationship that fear will fade. My point is that the fear is not invalid. If you reduce it to "rights" then it certainly is her right, but the issue is not whether it is or is not her right, but why does she want to assert it. Its odd enough to raise a suspicion and that needs to be allayed somehow.
posted by caddis at 9:18 PM on December 13, 2009
There is no assumption, just suspicion and that is poison to relationships. To be honest, chances are highly favorable that what the op said were her reasons to keep the name are the real reasons. Nevertheless, relationships are not always about reality or that simple about realities. Her fiance's fears, reluctances, whatever, are real and not to be easily dismissed. Even in the face of truth if you create doubt you weaken your relationship. Someone mentioned time and of course that matters. If this has been the name for decades it is different than the name for a few years. There are no right answers that anyone can give on this forum with so little facts and context. All I am saying is that in many, if not most, situations a lot of guys would rightly be suspicious of why a woman would want to hang onto the name of their ex. Probably the best argument for keeping it in this situation would be that it became her name, she decided to keep it on divorce for whatever reason, but not some failure to give him up, and then now she does not want to fall into the power play of taking her new husband's name. It isn't about the old one, but more about not taking the new one. That is nice and all, but the new guy may always wonder about her having the old guy's name. That isn't power politics. It's reality. It's human frailty. In a strong relationship that fear will fade. My point is that the fear is not invalid. If you reduce it to "rights" then it certainly is her right, but the issue is not whether it is or is not her right, but why does she want to assert it. Its odd enough to raise a suspicion and that needs to be allayed somehow.
posted by caddis at 9:18 PM on December 13, 2009
Her fiance's fears, reluctances, whatever, are real and not to be easily dismissed.
No one's feelings should be dismissed in a relationship. Of course not. But there's a long distance between "Let's discuss our respective feelings about last names in a marriage" and "If you remarry but keep your current last name, that's just plain wrong."
The OP's boyfriend set it up in a dismissive way: "anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his [regardless of her feelings about her name]." Many commenters in this thread have tried to put a somewhat more nuanced (but still dismissive and sexist) spin on it, saying more or less "if she wanted to keep her maiden name, THAT would be ok, but if she wants to keep the name she took in her previous marriage, that's just wrong." Each of these approaches is dismissive of the OP's feelings, preferences, and autonomy.
It's entirely ok and good for there to be a conversation about this if either or both parties feel strongly. And it's right to acknowledge that, although the OP has the right to call herself whatever she wants, she should also consider her partner's feelings. However, there are ways to be caring and non-dismissive about the man's feelings without saying "OK, you're right, this makes it look like I'm still pining for my ex and I should avoid that at all costs."
posted by Meg_Murry at 7:52 AM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
No one's feelings should be dismissed in a relationship. Of course not. But there's a long distance between "Let's discuss our respective feelings about last names in a marriage" and "If you remarry but keep your current last name, that's just plain wrong."
The OP's boyfriend set it up in a dismissive way: "anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his [regardless of her feelings about her name]." Many commenters in this thread have tried to put a somewhat more nuanced (but still dismissive and sexist) spin on it, saying more or less "if she wanted to keep her maiden name, THAT would be ok, but if she wants to keep the name she took in her previous marriage, that's just wrong." Each of these approaches is dismissive of the OP's feelings, preferences, and autonomy.
It's entirely ok and good for there to be a conversation about this if either or both parties feel strongly. And it's right to acknowledge that, although the OP has the right to call herself whatever she wants, she should also consider her partner's feelings. However, there are ways to be caring and non-dismissive about the man's feelings without saying "OK, you're right, this makes it look like I'm still pining for my ex and I should avoid that at all costs."
posted by Meg_Murry at 7:52 AM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
All I am saying is that in many, if not most, situations a lot of guys would rightly be suspicious of why a woman would want to hang onto the name of their ex.
Certainly, guys might be suspicious of a woman who wants to hang onto her own name (whether she got it from her father or a former husband), but that doesn't make it right.
Of course it's power politics. Do women doubt their a man's commitment to the relationship when he wants to hang on to his father's name?
posted by Mavri at 7:52 AM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
Certainly, guys might be suspicious of a woman who wants to hang onto her own name (whether she got it from her father or a former husband), but that doesn't make it right.
Of course it's power politics. Do women doubt their a man's commitment to the relationship when he wants to hang on to his father's name?
posted by Mavri at 7:52 AM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
I am dating someone casually who has mentioned that anyone he would marry would have to change her name to his.
I wouldn't change your name if you don't want to. It's 2009. This is kind of out-dated thinking.
posted by chunking express at 10:48 AM on December 14, 2009
I wouldn't change your name if you don't want to. It's 2009. This is kind of out-dated thinking.
posted by chunking express at 10:48 AM on December 14, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by muddgirl at 1:45 PM on December 11, 2009