I think it's one of those things that matters a lot to some people, and not so much to others. I had a very common last name and the most common first name for my age group, so I met other people with my name wherever I went. It was a no-brainer for me to change my name, plus I did want our new family to have the same last name.

It's never been a big deal to me either way, but I recognize that it is to other people.

I've decided to keep my name; I've had it forever and it's a nice name. In my part of the South it's still considered unusual not to take the man's name, but then again, I'll be forty (!) when we marry, so obviously I don't have a problem with bucking tradition.

(One of the reasons we chose the date that we did was because it was right after my fortieth birthday. Old bride coming through! It tickles me.)

My best friend is very much a feminist, and she took her husband's last name mainly because she was sick of spelling "Muzumdar" everywhere she went (my surname is french, and everytime I travel outside my region I sympathize). To her, it was more practical than anything.

Also, I knew a guy who took his wife's last name when they got married. He was a mechanic in the army, no less!

Yeah, I know a guy who did that too! I forget what his "maiden" name was - his wife's name is short and easy to spell, though.

My dad teased me about being an "old spinster" bride at 37. Until I reminded him about my __ previous marriages.

One of the grandmothers of my first husband was telling me that her maiden name was Weathersby. "But you won't find many Weathersbys. The family name was really Weathers, but there was a big argument in the family. Now half of us are Weathers and half of us are Weathersby."

Poof. Name changed!

I know Southerners and especially old-guard Southern women can be testy about the name thing, but then again they can also be the most hard-core pragmatists when it comes to "real" feminist issues like working, the home, etc. And that's kind of the root of feminism for me: allow me to make the decisions that best suit my family's best interest.

It would be stupid for me to leave my career. Even putting aside things like self-validation and pride and seniority -- I get good bennies! But my MIL could not STAND the idea that I wouldn't quit my job when our child came along. She's not my mom, so I ignored her. My husband, instead, bowed to the pressure and quit. He took another job closer to home and was miserable beyond endurance, so now he's doing contract work. So her rigid thinking has landed us with only one set of bennies and one dependable salary. And that rigidity, to me, is the antithesis of feminism.

As much as I hate giving her credit, Sars is absolutely right.

Trouble is, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have tainted the word with their bellowings of "feminazi" and other rants, painting feminism with a radical brush that most people don't want to be tarred with. In his world, feminists don't just want abortion legal, they want it mandatory. Just as Phyllis Schlafly used to scare people that if the Equal Rights Amendment became law, we'd have to share public toilets with men, and nursing mothers would be conscripted away from newborns to the front lines of battle.

And yes, married women could not get credit until the mid-70's. At the time of my divorce, my ex generously went to the bank with me and co-signed to have my car loan transferred into my name so that I could establish a credit rating. Even though I had worked during the entire marriage, and handled all the finances, I did not exist to the credit reporting services or to our bank or mortgage holder.

In my second marriage I did not change my name for quite a few years, because I had become established professionally with my name. Eventually my husband's business concerns took over our lives. I started introducing myself using my husband's last name for convenience. I got paid a few times in that name and my bank wouldn't deposit the checks, so I changed the name on my bank account to both names. When I renewed my passport a few years later, I sent in my marriage license and put his name as my last name so there wouldn't be any questions about us traveling together. I also changed my driver's license to match my passport--two last names. Last year, I got notified by the driver's license bureau that my social security name had to match the DL or my license would be suspended, so I fixed that. I am officially changed to a married woman everywhere, after 20 years (except my cell phone and one credit card).

The thing is, I am kind of old-fashioned when it comes to etiquette, and I don't like strangers, such as tech support people, the bank teller, or others I don't know calling me by my first name in a business situation. I feel it's a forced intimacy. I want them to call me Ms. Lastname. And that Lastname happens to be my husband's name now. I've been criticized that this is both relinquishing my identity, and relying on my husband's status. Not that the Linksys tech support guy in New Delhi would have a clue as to who the hell my husband is. Or me, for that matter.

I took my husband's last name (which has rendered me completely un-google-able, ha ha!) but both my sisters kept their maiden names... and later regretted it once they had kids. So now they use their husbands' last names socially even though they never legally changed it. Like fofanna, I changed my maiden name to my middle name so it does live on that way.

Fun fact - according to one of the unauthorized bios of Martha Stewart, one of her brothers hated their family so much he took his wife's last name to distance himself from them.

We're going to be criticized no matter what we do. I get funny looks and hear confused comments all the time because I didn't change my name. Not that I care one whit about what someone thinks about it.

QUOTE

I want them to call me Ms. Lastname. And that Lastname happens to be my husband's name now. I've been criticized that this is both relinquishing my identity, and relying on my husband's status. And it's none of anyone's business if, or why, you changed your name. It's as bad as asking someone why they don't have kids. We're going to be criticized no matter what we do. I get funny looks and hear confused comments all the time because I didn't change my name. Not that I care one whit about what someone thinks about it. Just as Phyllis Schlafly used to scare people that if the Equal Rights Amendment became law, we'd have to share public toilets with men, and nursing mothers would be conscripted away from newborns to the front lines of battle. Oh yeah. Good old Phyllis. She left her family so she could go running around the country telling women they should stay home with their families. roseland 1st June 2007 - 10:32 AM QUOTE He sees it as a "team" thing, and shouldn't we all have the same one? Suggest he change his last name to yours then. I'm always amused by the reaction of most men when they make the argument that changing your name is not a big deal so when you suggest that, if it's not a big deal, they can change their name and you get: "WHAT?!!??" I'm not saying that would be your soon-to-be husband's reaction, just a reaction in general. I don't understand the claims of confusion if the mother's name is different from her child's. I grew up in the 60's and my mother divorced my father, remarried and took her new husband's name, then divorced him all before I and my siblings entered school (she was a fast mover, what can I say). So, all through school, I had a different last name than my mother and it was never that big of a deal. Sure, sometimes I would get addressed as roseland mom'sname as opposed to my own name but I just corrected the person. The same when my friends/teachers would call my mother by my last name. A simple "No, my last name is actually __________." seemed to do the job. And this was in the 60's, when it was very unusual for children to have a different last name then their mother. What sort of massive confusion are we talking about here? Also, I have three friends who have kept their birth surname and have children and this subject has come up and their experiences are similar to what mine was when I was a child. Sometimes people calling her by their husband's last name and the need to correct them or not, depending on the situation. Is it just that, because I've always lived in a large metropolitan city that this seems like such a non-issue? Valonia 1st June 2007 - 10:46 AM I never really understood that line of reasoning, either, roseland. With so many people who are divorced and remarried, there can't be that huge of an issue with different names anymore. p2c2e 1st June 2007 - 10:51 AM When my friends were having their first child they actually contemplated both changing their names to something completely different (neither had changed their names when they got married) but they couldn't decide on one, so they kept their names and gave their son both of their names. Larry Dallas 1st June 2007 - 10:57 AM Is it wrong that this whole discussion reminds me of an episode of Newhart? I probably have the details wrong, but Peter Scolari's character was engaged to Stephanie, who despite being the maid at Bob's bed-and-breakfast was the daughter of some rich blue-blood New England family. Stephanie's father objects to the engagement, but relents on the condition that Peter change his name; I think maybe he offered him money or something, too. Bob is horrified and lectures Peter that it's so wrong for him to give up his identity, etc., as Joanna (Bob's wife) stands there with arms crossed and eyebrows raised higher and higher.... Edited because there's a big difference between elbows and eyebrows.... fofanna1 1st June 2007 - 11:23 AM QUOTE Edited because there's a big difference between elbows and eyebrows.... I wish you would have left "elbows" in there because the visual image would have made me laugh really hard. QUOTE (-> QUOTE Edited because there's a big difference between elbows and eyebrows.... I wish you would have left "elbows" in there because the visual image would have made me laugh really hard. What sort of massive confusion are we talking about here? I don't think anyone said anything about "massive confusion" - I know that I said that it just made life easier if the whole family had the same last name. Also, QUOTE I don't understand the claims of confusion if the mother's name is different from her child's. You, yourself, gave several examples when there was confusion in your family because of it but I don't think anyone here has said that every woman should change her name to her husband's when she gets married. Seems to me that we're all pretty much in agreement that it should remain the choice of the individual and no one else has the right to question it. Gladly 1st June 2007 - 11:50 AM QUOTE (roseland+Jun 1 2007, 02:32 PM) Suggest he change his last name to yours then.  I'm always amused by the reaction of most men when they make the argument that changing your name is not a big deal so when you suggest that, if it's not a big deal, they can change their name and you get:  "WHAT?!!??"  I'm not saying that would be your soon-to-be husband's reaction, just a reaction in general. It's funny, you're right. We've discussed that option, and he is pretty unwilling to give up his name too, but he's not entirely comfortable with his own reaction about it. He is more receptive to the idea of making a new last name. I think we ended up talking about that because I found out Antonio Villaraigosa fused his last to his wife's for a new one, and I thought that was kind of cool. I just don't want to do it myself. I worked with the male half of a couple who were academics who both retained their family names when they got married. Their daughter had her father's name. Their second child came quite a bit after, and they decided that he would have his mother's last name. The mother was Japanese, and her parents were more traditional than the couple, but they were delighted that their grandson would have their family name, and the guy I worked with earned a lot of goodwill for that. Rockstar 1st June 2007 - 12:16 PM QUOTE I worked with the male half of a couple who were academics who both retained their family names when they got married. Their daughter had her father's name. Their second child came quite a bit after, and they decided that he would have his mother's last name. <br>I haven't made up my mind about keeping my name or changing it if I ever decide to get married. But I have heard of the new trend of both parents keeping their birth names and then giving the father's name to any male children and the mother's name to any female children. I really like that. Granted, the girls would be just caring on their mother's father's name at first, but if they followed in their mother's foot steps and did the same thing, then it would be a way for women to carry on their family names the way men do. kingdead 1st June 2007 - 12:54 PM Wouldn't that be kind of divisive within the family, though? Whatever, I'm just angry that I don't live in a culture where you get both the mother and the father's last name. Or, for that matter, that I can't swan around calling myself "Kingdead of the Clan of the Cougar" or something like that. Msquared 1st June 2007 - 01:09 PM I think you could do that kingdead. Although it probably won't fit on a tax form. kingdead 1st June 2007 - 01:22 PM That's OK, after I change my name I plan to pay my taxes in animal pelts and the blood of my enemies. roseland 1st June 2007 - 01:25 PM QUOTE You, yourself, gave several examples when there was confusion I guess my definition of confusion is different. Someone getting your name wrong is not confusion to me. Once I told them my right name, things were fine. To me, confusion involves papers going to the wrong person, not being registered at school under the proper name, etc. Rockstar 1st June 2007 - 01:27 PM QUOTE Wouldn't that be kind of divisive within the family, though? No more than the families with divorces and/or remarriages that have kids with names that are different from one of the parents, usually the mom. This way the mom isn't the one who always gets shafted if the marriage doesn't work out. QUOTE (-> QUOTE Wouldn't that be kind of divisive within the family, though? No more than the families with divorces and/or remarriages that have kids with names that are different from one of the parents, usually the mom. This way the mom isn't the one who always gets shafted if the marriage doesn't work out. Whatever, I'm just angry that I don't live in a culture where you get both the mother and the father's last name. <br>But the problem with that is that you'd end up with people having exponentially longer names in every generation. John Doe and Jane Smith have a child, Bob Doe-Smith, who marries Sarah Johnson-Evans. They have a child, Mary Doe-Smith-Johnson-Evans, who marries blah, blah, blah, etc. neverenoughjam 1st June 2007 - 01:56 PM QUOTE (Rockstar+Jun 1 2007, 01:16 PM) I haven't made up my mind about keeping my name or changing it if I ever decide to get married. But I have heard of the new trend of both parents keeping their birth names and then giving the father's name to any male children and the mother's name to any female children. I really like that. Granted, the girls would be just caring on their mother's father's name at first, but if they followed in their mother's foot steps and did the same thing, then it would be a way for women to carry on their family names the way men do. That was our solution. I've never had any name other than the one I was born with (which is my father's surname, but you gotta start somewhere). My parents divorced and my mom, an academic with a PhD, went back to her birth name for professional reasons. My husband and I retained our names at marriage, and agreed that our sons would have his name and our daughters would have my name. So far, no problems. The only time we have argued over names was over FIRST names (I don't know why he hates the name Margaret so much, but anyway). Now and then one of us will encounter a teacher or someone who thinks we're a stepdad or stepmom because of the names, but we set them straight and there's no problem. I did quite a bit of research on this before I married, and at the time there were only two states in the US that required a woman to change her name at marriage: Maryland and Hawaii. Has that changed? Otherwise, the idea that a woman HAS to change her name at marriage is custom, not law. Of course, custom is often older and much stronger than law, but it's not mandatory. And in people from other, non-European cultures, it's not even a custom. Miss Edie 1st June 2007 - 02:02 PM To me, confusion is trying to keep the names in a Russian novel straight with all the different forms of everybody's names. Drives me nuts. Mikhail, Misha, Mishkaya, Mihailovich, Mikhalovskaya (okay, I made that up). But the point is, I think Russian names include the mother's and father's names. I believe most Hispanic cultures have a similar custom. Neither of these are exactly feminist cultures. ETA: In GA, when you get married, you are simply required to state whether you wish to change your name or retain your name. You may do as you wish, as long as there is no intent to defraud. bsfc 3rd June 2007 - 11:52 PM QUOTE Well the overriding stereotype of the second wave feminist is a a bra-burning, hairy arm-pitted lesbian or bitter divorced woman/manhater. A lot of young women don't realize that it wasn't very long ago that help wanted: male and help wanted: female ads were the norm; or that girls could be kept from scholarship programs, playing sports, or going to whatever college they wanted to. And there's a lot of cultural lag too. The second wave started over 40 years ago, but women are still derided for going outside what is still considered the norm. Girls are still called sluts while boys are just being boys. So I agree that it's depressing, floundering. It bothers me to think that women got involved in the feminist movement because it was fashionable, and that it didn't stick enough for them to teach their children what is was all about. <br>I realize this is from the first page, but as is typical, I'm late to the party. I hear what you're saying Msquared but I think for young people, the Second Wave feminist stereotype doesn't really apply anymore in the wake of Third Wave Feminism. All of the classes I took in Gender (vs. Women's Studies) only addressed Second Wave as problematic in its conception such that Third Wave was necessary and inevitable. I think the focus on gender (not sex) as a construct helps to combat the "angry woman" image. Granted, most of my peers are either in school or are fairly recent graduates, but I don't see men or women backing away from the Feminist label. (I, however, prefer to be called Bitch.) As for naming, my mother did exactly as fofanna (including giving my brother her birth name as a middle name,) while my sister kept her birth name but gave my nephew and future niece her husband's last name. She's the only one of her friends to do this, though. However, my sister's cousin (also a woman) just had a baby with her wife and though, wife was the one who gave birth, new baby took cousin's last name. Wife kept her birth name. neverenoughjam 4th June 2007 - 01:56 AM bsfc, this is interesting. I'll confess I don't know much about "Third Wave" feminism, and the distinction between sex and gender. Can you suggest some reading or websites that might clear this up for me? I'd like to know more. Thanks. Msquared 4th June 2007 - 04:02 AM QUOTE I hear what you're saying Msquared but I think for young people, the Second Wave feminist stereotype doesn't really apply anymore in the wake of Third Wave Feminism. All of the classes I took in Gender (vs. Women's Studies) only addressed Second Wave as problematic in its conception such that Third Wave was necessary and inevitable. I'm not sure what you're saying here bsfc. There's no doubt that there were problems in the Second Wave. It was started and dominated early on by middle and upper-middle class white women. There were issues when lesbians, poor women and women of color wanted to become a part of it, with quite a bit of discomfort among early participants about sexual identity, class differences and societal standing. I agree that the Third Wave was necessary and inevitable, but I think it's obvious that the Second Wave had to occur at some point, or the Third Wave wouldn't exist as it does now. (And it wouldn't be called the Third Wave. It would be called "Look at those crazy women making a big fuss about nothing. Why can't they just shut the hell up") Y'all would be fighting the crap we fought in the 60s and 70s. There wouldn't be classes on women's studies and gender issues. Hearing that there are younger people who reject the stereotype makes me feel good though. Maybe it has more to do with mainstream media coverage than anything else. Because there's nothing MSM loves quite as much as taking a minor occurence and turning it into A Major Sociological Phenomenon. "Look, there are three people in a major metropolitan city doing/saying something. It must be a trend!" bsfc 4th June 2007 - 07:14 AM QUOTE (Msquared+Jun 4 2007, 05:02 AM) QUOTE I hear what you're saying Msquared but I think for young people, the Second Wave feminist stereotype doesn't really apply anymore in the wake of Third Wave Feminism. All of the classes I took in Gender (vs. Women's Studies) only addressed Second Wave as problematic in its conception such that Third Wave was necessary and inevitable. I'm not sure what you're saying here bsfc. There's no doubt that there were problems in the Second Wave. It was started and dominated early on by middle and upper-middle class white women. There were issues when lesbians, poor women and women of color wanted to become a part of it, with quite a bit of discomfort among early participants about sexual identity, class differences and societal standing. I agree that the Third Wave was necessary and inevitable, but I think it's obvious that the Second Wave had to occur at some point, or the Third Wave wouldn't exist as it does now. (And it wouldn't be called the Third Wave. It would be called "Look at those crazy women making a big fuss about nothing. Why can't they just shut the hell up") Y'all would be fighting the crap we fought in the 60s and 70s. There wouldn't be classes on women's studies and gender issues. Hearing that there are younger people who reject the stereotype makes me feel good though. Maybe it has more to do with mainstream media coverage than anything else. Because there's nothing MSM loves quite as much as taking a minor occurence and turning it into A Major Sociological Phenomenon. "Look, there are three people in a major metropolitan city doing/saying something. It must be a trend!" Actually, I think you got exactly what I meant since you just articulated it so well. Initially, I wrote 'problematic in conception and execution' and then, scrapped the 'execution' part because you're right, Third Wave could never exist without Second Wave. But because of everything you mentioned (dominant white upper/middle class standpoint,) Second Wave is being taught as a stepping stone on the way to "true" Feminism- Third Wave. Now, that could be the bias of Academics as they like to problematize everything. But I was just saying that for my peers, the angry, hairy, manhater cum Feminist is as much a myth as any other cultural studies stereotype who has been questioned and complicated in the last fifteen to twenty years. Feminism "looks" more like my former brilliant professor who actively, consistently puts forth the "bimbo" image- big, fake blonde hair, fake boobs, super revealing and tight clothing, lots of pink, etc. to highlight the idea of (gender) identity as a performance by creating a discontinuity between what she looks like and who she is when she opens her mouth. Second Wave was essential to the movement. My only point was that if and when young girls are put in the position to learn about Feminism, most likely they'll be taught Third Wave which has much different ideas about gender, identity, politics, etc. Flahdagal 4th June 2007 - 07:19 AM QUOTE (Msquared+Jun 4 2007, 08:02 AM) Y'all would be fighting the crap we fought in the 60s and 70s. There wouldn't be classes on women's studies and gender issues. Sure there would. But they'd still be called "Home Ec". ....ow....joking! Msquared 4th June 2007 - 07:43 AM QUOTE Sure there would. But they'd still be called "Home Ec". I was going to say that flahdagal. QUOTE (-> QUOTE Sure there would. But they'd still be called "Home Ec". I was going to say that flahdagal. But because of everything you mentioned (dominant white upper/middle class standpoint,) Second Wave is being taught as a stepping stone on the way to "true" Feminism- Third Wave. It's definitely a stepping stone. Although I would question whether it's necessary to label just one as true feminism. Each one has to be considered based on the time it occurred. It's hard to jump from "I had dreams of my own before I got married and became a housewife" etc to "I'm self-identifying as a man/woman/womyn/something else because gender is nothing more than a cultural concept". It's a continuum. I don't think it would have survived the shock, considering the tension early on between straight women and lesbians caused major riffs. QUOTE Second Wave was essential to the movement. My only point was that if and when young girls are put in the position to learn about Feminism, most likely they'll be taught Third Wave which has much different ideas about gender, identity, politics, etc. And that's really too bad. Considering the cultural lag that's still going on, with women still being derided for 1) not staying home with their kids if they're middle class or above; and 2) staying home with their kids if they're poor, because they need to get off their lazy asses and go to work and stop living off the government, dammit! How hard can it possibly be to find a job? Have you never heard of McDonald's?, there's an entire timeline to be explored to put everything in perspective and give all aspects of the movement their due. Anyway, I wasn't attacking you bsfc. I just wanted to be sure that I understood it correctly. certified 4th June 2007 - 08:24 AM QUOTE (bsfc+Jun 4 2007, 10:14 AM) Feminism "looks" more like my former brilliant professor who actively, consistently puts forth the "bimbo" image- big, fake blonde hair, fake boobs, super revealing and tight clothing, lots of pink, etc. to highlight the idea of (gender) identity as a performance by creating a discontinuity between what she looks like and who she is when she opens her mouth. This baffles me. She got fake boobs for performance art? roseland 4th June 2007 - 09:21 AM Well, that and the free beers. treehouse 4th June 2007 - 11:24 AM QUOTE I've been criticized that this is both relinquishing my identity, and relying on my husband's status. Oh, barf. Once again, I don't care if people feel that way about their own decisions, but it is a personal decision. Someone once told me that she couldn't believe I had so little self-esteem as to "give up" my identity by taking my husband's last name. I told her that actually it was because I, apparently unlike her, have enough self-esteem that my identity is the same no matter what my last name is. (NOTE: This is not how I feel about the issue at all, she just pissed me off and I was trying to point out how stupid I thought her statement was.) And I am really entertained that the ad at the top of this page for me is "The Ultimate Name Change Kit for Brides -- it's as easy as saying "I do"!" weejie 4th June 2007 - 06:26 PM QUOTE (treehouse+Jun 4 2007, 02:24 PM) And I am really entertained that the ad at the top of this page for me is "The Ultimate Name Change Kit for Brides -- it's as easy as saying "I do"!" HA! That is funny! I took my husband's last name when we married, without even really thinking about it. I've never felt like I'd given up my own identity, not even close. Of course, I was married at only 20 years old, so I'd never had anything published or had any notoriety under my birth name. I'm sure that would have made a huge difference if that were the case. But for me, I don't feel like I gave up anything at all when I took my husband's last name. It felt more like I was given a gift when I took my husband's name. I still had everything wonderful from my own family, plus I got to be included in everything wonderful from his family too. I'm sure if my in-laws weren't such great people, I'd feel very differently. But since they are so awesome, I'm very happy and proud to share their name. I wish everyone could be so lucky. p2c2e 4th June 2007 - 06:50 PM QUOTE I took my husband's last name when we married, without even really thinking about it. <br>I think that is why this issue fuels such debate, particularly in the last 10-15 years because more and more women are actually thinking about it purely within a context of themselves and their own identity and relationship. In the 70s and 80s a lot of women made this decision as a conscious political/feminist statement.* But more and more it seems to be more women at least think about in passing whereas in the past there wasn't more discussion because that is simply what you did but now there is a decision to be made, right or wrong. I admit, and this is not meant at all as a criticism of you weejie, that I would look at any of my friends oddly if they said hadn't even thought about the name change regardless of what choice they ended up making, just because I do think it is an important decision and something that should be thought about and discussed in a relationship. *In the US of course, spending a lot of time in Asia, the whole name change thing was never a default for me. weejie 4th June 2007 - 07:06 PM QUOTE (p2c2e+Jun 4 2007, 09:50 PM) I admit, and this is not meant at all as a criticism of you weejie, that I would look at any of my friends oddly if they said hadn't even thought about the name change regardless of what choice they ended up making, just because I do think it is an important decision and something that should be thought about and discussed in a relationship. I totally agree that for some people, the name change (or not) with marriage is a very important decision. I hope I didn't make it sound like I thought it was frivolous or anything. I was just trying to gloat basically, because I'm lucky enough to 1) be married before my name was already "out there" as a published author or academe and 2) be equally proud of and happy with my birth family and my in-laws. I recognize that it's a really big deal for most people. I just couldn't resist putting my own perspective out there, and bragging about how lucky I am! thecha 4th June 2007 - 07:33 PM I didn't keep my name for professional reasons. I also adore my in-laws. But I just don't think it's fair that women historically were the ones to change their names (we all know why- the tradition started because women were considered their husbands' property), and based on that, me keeping my name felt like the only decision I could make. It's impossible for me personally to divorce the historical significance from the current practice, and that's what it boils down to for me. As a whatever-wave feminist, however, I fully support the CHOICE. And if my husband wants to change his name to mine, I will be all for it. So kudos to all. ED_dancer 4th June 2007 - 08:58 PM QUOTE (neverenoughjam+Jun 4 2007, 04:56 AM) bsfc, this is interesting. I'll confess I don't know much about "Third Wave" feminism, and the distinction between sex and gender. Can you suggest some reading or websites that might clear this up for me? I'd like to know more. Thanks. I'm not sure if you got your answer to this question. If not here's a place to start. bsfc 4th June 2007 - 09:25 PM Sorry, NEJ. I just now realized you'd asked a question. The link in my original post is another good place to start. Bitch was started by the Guerrilla Girls in Berkeley and I like it because the articles are formatted more as essays or papers than magazine copy. bell hooks and Judith Butler are also good resources because they sort of illuminate how Third Wave F. is linked to post-structural theory. Riot Grrrl is a good example of the application of TWF in everyday life. Finally, this isn't specifically Gender Studies focused, but Cultural Resistance Reader is a fantastic collection of both theory and real world practices regarding various cultures and subcultures. I highly recommend it. Kitty Foyle 5th June 2007 - 03:48 AM Well, I thought long and hard about taking my husband's name....in 1977! I dropped my middle name and took my "maiden" name as my middle name. I just couldn't let go of that part of my identity. My son-in-law took my daughter's last name. So I told my husband, "Congratulations. It's a boy! He's 6'2" and 160 lbs!" OTOH, I guess a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. Practically speaking, the thing I hate about women taking on their husband's names is that it makes it hard to find old friends. Flahdagal 5th June 2007 - 05:09 AM From an absolutely cynical view, with >50% of marriages ending in divorce, why ever change your name? I only bring that up because a girlfriend complained just yesterday that she coudn't wait for her second marriage since she was still trailing around her long ago first husband's last name. Why didn't she take back her birthname? Too many documents to change. certified 5th June 2007 - 06:59 AM QUOTE (bsfc+Jun 5 2007, 12:25 AM) Bitch was started by the Guerrilla Girls in Berkeley and I like it because the articles are formatted more as essays or papers than magazine copy. My fiance has a subscription to Bitch. He's the proper feminist in our family. another_iteration 5th June 2007 - 10:35 AM It's so nice to have the choice isn't it? I thank the feminism movement for the choices. First marriage I hyphenated because in my birth family we're all girls and our birth name will die with us as my father was an only child. My younger sister hyphenated and my older sister kept her name but has no children. Second marriage I took his name and changed my middle name, also used my birth name as my daughter's middle name. fernbeau 6th June 2007 - 02:52 PM I kept my name when I got married, partly because I didn't want the hassle of changing it and partly because I, too, was 40 by the time my long-time SO and I got hitched. Neither my husband nor my in-laws seemed to really care much one way or the other. My name has served me in perfectly good stead for 40+ years now, so why change? My in-laws probably didn't care because they have two other sons whose wives changed their names and also, my husband has always been kind of the freak of their traditional southern family (and Msquared, he has long hair, too!). I do have a funny story though! My MIL has this tradition where she buys these wooden, handcrafted alphabet blocks from somewhere in North Georgia with the family member's initials on them to display in the dining room. When people (wives) are added to the family, they get their own set of blocks. Although I lived with her son for 10 years before we finally married, I did not get my own set of blocks until the deed was done, and when I did get them, the third block was 'H' (for my husband's name) even though she knows very well that I didn't change my name. She was gracious enough to include 'J' (my surname) as my "middle initial" block, hee! On the name changing + kids topic, my boss still uses her original surname, even though she has three children by two different marriages. Her two oldest have her first husband's last name and the youngest has her current husband's last name. She's never had a problem. whome 6th June 2007 - 04:59 PM QUOTE I do have a funny story though! ... when I did get them, the third block was 'H' (for my husband's name) even though she knows very well that I didn't change my name. She was gracious enough to include 'J' (my surname) as my "middle initial" block, hee! It sounds like you have a better attitude about that than a lot of people (myself included, probably) would. neverenoughjam 6th June 2007 - 07:34 PM bsfc and ED_dancer, thanks for the recommendations. I'll be checking those out. WildHoney 7th June 2007 - 01:30 PM QUOTE Like fofanna, I changed my maiden name to my middle name so it does live on that way. <br>My parents assumed we'd take our husband's name so they didn't me or my sisters middle names so we could keep our family names as middle names. So that was convenient, if awfully assumptive of them. Also, I went to India for a couple of weeks a year and a half ago. Not only do some of the traditional women take their husband's last name, but their husbands change their first name. They do it so that their name matches something with their astrological sign. Or something, I don't really know the details. The man is supposed to marry someone who's name starts with an S, so if he meets someone named Deepti, he just changes her name to Shambhavi. One of the women I worked with in India started there when she was single, so the people in her branch knew her by her single name (Deepti) and we knew her by her married name (Shambhavi), since we met her after she'd been married. It's just a tradition, but some stick to it. I was talking to her about it, and she was pretty funny. She said her name used to mean "light" but her husband changed it to mean "good mother." She rolled her eyes as she told me, and added, "But if he thinks that means I'm having more than one baby, he's greatly mistaken." kayla 7th June 2007 - 02:52 PM When I got married two years ago, I was 36 years old and relatively established professionally, so I found that a lot of people assumed that I would keep my given name. I opted instead to take my huband's name, at least legally, but I have continued to use my maiden name as an unhyphenated middle name professionally, so that I do not have to re-establish myself with people I've worked with previously. Neither name was objectionable to me, and I discovered that I was a bit more of a traditionalist than I expected when it came to marriage - the idea that I might end up divorced and have to change it back seemed cynical, and part of me liked the simplicity of having the same name as my husband and future children. A friend of mine kept her maiden name, but is always referred to as "Mrs. Husband's Name," so part of me figured that if I'm going to be called that anyway, why not make it legal. On the other hand, I continue to hold myself out as a "Ms." - I don't know if that's contradictory or not, but I object more to the Miss/Mrs. designations based on the assumptions they make about a woman's age and corresponding marital status. Men are consistently referred to as Mr. - why can't women have a single designation that doesn't depend on whether they're married or not, or how old a cashier thinks they look?? Oh, and I got married in Hawaii, where, if I recall correctly, we were each given the option of changing our name, but it had to be some combination of our existing names - i.e., I could take his last name, he could take my middle name as his last name, etc. - but we couldn't just make something up out of thin air (or presumably "smoosh" our names together into a new name). And, harkening back to the discussion earlier in this thread, we opted to save ourselves a lot of debt by declining to have a traditional wedding, and instead having what started out as a family-only destination wedding, but essentially turned into an us-only elopement when certain family members couldn't attend. I was never the girl who dreamed of her big day as a princess, and although I wore a simple, but somewhat traditional wedding dress, I loved the low-stress nature of a wedding that didn't put us in the spotlight, worrying about guests, etc. It was a controversial decision for my family, but one that I absolutely don't regret after the fact. EarthMomma 9th June 2007 - 08:02 AM What a great thread! I've enjoyed reading everyone's ideas and perspectives. When my hubsand and I married, I kept my maiden name, for a variety of reasons - my own identity, living in Guam and not being able to change my driver's license or S.S. number, not wanting to have the name tapes on my military uniforms changed, etc. About a year after we married, I suffered a septic miscarriage and had to be hospitalized. When my husband brought me to the ER (civilian hospital on Guam), I was completely out of it. Since Guam is Catholic World, they didn't "believe" we were married because our names weren't the same and the addresses on our drivers licenses were from different states. Also, we didn't wear wedding rings because at work, dealing with electronics, we'd have to dematalize anyways - so during the week, we were usually ringless. They wouldn't let him make any decisions for me or even visit me! I was so depressed and just wanted him to hold me and tell me everything would be okay, but they absolutely would not let him see me. Luckily, I was only there for less than 24 hours after the emergency D&C, then I was transferred to the Naval hospital. After that experience, the next time we went home to NY, I changed my name over. For a while, we both worked together, and had the same rank. We were both ET2 S_________. It was confussing, but then everyone just started to revert back to my maiden name. Rex Dart 9th June 2007 - 05:18 PM QUOTE A Filly! Rags to Riches Takes Belmont Rags to Riches is queen for a day. The fabulous filly outdueled Preakness winner Curlin in a breathtaking stretch run and won the Belmont Stakes by a head Saturday, becoming the first of her sex in more than a century to take the final leg of the Triple Crown... ...When the field of seven 3-year-olds made the turn for home, four horses fought for the lead, with Rags to Riches, the Kentucky Oaks winner, on the outside, and Preakness winner Curlin moving between rivals. And then it became a two-horse race -- a true battle of the sexes. In a furious stretch run, with Velazquez urging his filly on, Rags to Riches won by a head -- the same margin Curlin edged Street Sense by in the Preakness three weeks ago. "The filly ran a great race on the right day," said Curlin's trainer, Steve Asmussen. "And now they're taking her picture." copssister 22nd June 2007 - 04:02 AM How dare she think she deserves to earn as much as a man! Yet another case study on how Wal-Mart treats their employees "just like family". $1 million in compensation wasn't enough, considering the average pharmacist's salary in Berkshire, MA is $105K. Joe Don Faker 22nd June 2007 - 05:12 AM QUOTE A Filly! Rags to Riches Takes Belmont Rags to Riches is queen for a day. The fabulous filly outdueled Preakness winner Curlin in a breathtaking stretch run and won the Belmont Stakes by a head Saturday, becoming the first of her sex in more than a century to take the final leg of the Triple Crown... <!--QuoteBegin--> QUOTE (-> QUOTE A Filly! Rags to Riches Takes Belmont Rags to Riches is queen for a day. The fabulous filly outdueled Preakness winner Curlin in a breathtaking stretch run and won the Belmont Stakes by a head Saturday, becoming the first of her sex in more than a century to take the final leg of the Triple Crown... <!--QuoteBegin) "We don't brook backsass from our fill