It's time to end the tradition of women taking their husbands' names

[Katy Lied]

When my sister married, she took her husband's name. A few years later, she decided to switch back to a hyphenated name. I think my BIL would have been fine if she did it from the beginning, but I think he felt is was a bit of a rejection when 5 years in she decided that she no longer wanted to be known by his name.

I've known several women who have done this. Your BIL shouldn't be offended. I think for women of a certain age, the decision to keep their own name was something they pondered for years and years, and then something they decided upon after weighing the pros and cons in the current climate. For the women I know, the pros were: ethnic pride, the lack of siblings who kept their father's name going, academic and business reputations they had established prior to marriage, etc. These women also switched to their husband's name at marriage precisely to support their husbands, because 10 years ago if you did this, you wanted to send a signal of your feminism to the world. Now, women retain their maiden names for more practical reasons-it's not about who wears the pants in the family.

I think for younger women, they'll keep their own name from marriage. For older women, they'll keep their husbands name. I bet your SIL is of that certain age.

[Green Monstah]

Let's just forget names all together and assign everyone a number. I'll start: I'm #1.

and a barcode.

[Green Monstah]

I think that there are certain last names that require a name change upon marriage.

I went to college my freshman year with three sisters (all in the same ward), who I'm sure were itching to change their last name. I couldn't help but chuckle (as a college freshman) every time the bishop would say, "Let's ask one of the Balls" or "Sister Balls".

[Surfah]

Individual records are grouped as a "household" record and the surname of the head of household will be what reports are listed under and sorted by.

However, individuals in that household have their own surnames and if you get a report of individuals rather than households, you will see their surnames, not the head of their household.

So could it be that this couple is not shown as a household? Shouldn't the HT lists be arranged by household and not individual?

Doesn't MLS automatically create an individual record once a child turns 18 and removes them from the household? At least that seems to be the case as I look at our records.

[wuapinmon]

Goodness, why wan't you women just sit down, shut up and let these men do your thinking for you. They already told you that they were proponents of feminism, that means they are on YOUR side, duh. They only want what's best for you.

Please, let's just deny humanism in the name of asserting ourselves; somewhere, Julia Kristeva is wincing at the monster she created.

[Indy Coug]

So could it be that this couple is not shown as a household? Shouldn't the HT lists be arranged by household and not individual?

Yes and yes. A very common problem in the Latino branch I was in was that the convert member records were not linked together into households correctly. The father would have one last name and the mother another and the membership clerk wasn't doing anything beyond simply putting their names in.

[Green Lantern]

I'm torn on this one. I like the symbolism of a married couple having the same name as they become united in marriage. But I dislike that the most common way of doing that is by having a woman take the man's name, which just reeks of antiquated ideas of ownership and patriarchy. The problem is, none of the other solutions I've seen mentioned here seem to be as elegant or simple as what is already accepted tradition. It's just too bad that it carries so much sexist baggage.

[Indy Coug]

I'm torn on this one. I like the symbolism of a married couple having the same name as they become united in marriage. But I dislike that the most common way of doing that is by having a woman take the man's name, which just reeks of antiquated ideas of ownership and patriarchy. The problem is, none of the other solutions I've seen mentioned here seem to be as elegant or simple as what is already accepted tradition. It's just too bad that it carries so much sexist baggage.

There's something to be said for good old-fashioned pragmatism.

[SeattleUte]

He's just trolling. It's well-documented that I'm a bleeding heart, yet this isn't something I care about at all. It's her name -- she can call herself whatever she wants as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not trolling. If I sincerely believe what I say it's not trolling. My personal situation is much like yours.

As for FN Phat's comment, how ironic coming from an adherant of an institution that constantly makes it its business to tell women their role in the world, particularly vis-a-vis men, and that role primarily being subordinate to men. My message to LDS women, "Don't listen to Sister Beck, Boyd K. Packer, et al., if you wish, and marry outside your race, within your gender, whatever you wish, and call yourself whatever you want. Do marry carefully, wisely and well, and remember there's no rush, but these people don't appear fit to help you achieve that end (based on their public sayings). They're no better than you are. Maybe the contrary is true."

[Jacob]

Actually, the Internet is what has brought the disparity to amplified light. If you think the Internet is trivial, go ask a Chinese or Iranian and think again. Half of people marry at least twice. Every time a woman changes her name she cuts herself off from all but her most intimate prior acquaintances. A professional woman can't afford to do it.

In my experiences, almost every time a man marries, he cuts himself off from all but his most intimate prior acquaintances too.

[Surfah]

I'm not trolling. If I sincerely believe what I say it's not trolling. My personal situation is much like yours.

As for FN Phat's comment, how ironic coming from an adherant of an institution that constantly makes it its business to tell women their role in the world, particularly vis-a-vis men, and that role primarily being subordinate to men. My message to LDS women, "Don't listen to Sister Beck, Boyd K. Packer, et al., if you wish, and marry outside your race, within your gender, whatever you wish, and call yourself whatever you want. Do marry carefully, wisely and well, and remember there's no rush, but these people don't appear fit to help you achieve that end (based on their public sayings). They're no better than you are. Maybe the contrary is true."

You need to brush up on your conference. Women are told they're better than men to the point its patronizing. That is my opinion alone and I am not speaking on behalf of any sex.

[Jacob]

I'm just an atiquated misogynist, but not taking my last name would have been a deal breaker.

[mUUser]

My wife gave up her last name that had to be spelled 4 or 5 times before anyone got it -- for my super-cool name. That's a good reason,right?

[Surfah]

I'm just an atiquated misogynist, but not taking my last name would have been a deal breaker.

Me too. That said, my surname is rad.

[Green Monstah]

I'm just an atiquated misogynist, but not taking my last name would have been a deal breaker.

You must not have loved your fiancee very much, then.

A thorn in my side? Yes. But a dealbreaker?