Women who keep their married name YEARS after the divorce.

Missus_Hyde

seashore22 wrote: »

I've been Mrs Seashore 10 years longer than the time I was Miss ...... If I ever got divorced (a very happy marriage so unlikely) I would keep my married name as it's who I am now.

That's how I feel. I had my maiden name for 21 years and I've had my married name for 34 years. The vast majority of people who know me now have only ever known me by my married name, so it makes no sense to me to revert to a name I last used nearly half a lifetime ago

I'm in the same position as the quoted posters; maiden name for 23 years and married for 40 (I tell my husband I would have got less time for doing murder!! )

It would seem very strange to go back to being called by my original surname now (to say nothing of the inconvenience of changing bank a/c's, driving licenses etc.)

System

Think if i was widowed i'd still keep the Mrs. After all, we were only separated by death. Not divorce.

Izadora

Pollycat wrote: »

I can sort-of understand a mix up between 2 Mary Smiths, but less so with 2 Mary Winklepickers (or whatever).

You'd think so but it does happen. There are only 5 people in this country with my surname and my mum and her brother-in-law, who had the same initials and banked with the same bank, often used to get things which were meant for other one.

notanewuser wrote: »

Not sure if this is what you meant but I have an examples:

I had a job interview whilst newly engaged. I attended without my engagement ring because "engaged female in mid-20s" screams "maternity leave" to [STRIKE]most[/STRIKE] some employers and at that point in my life I had no intention of having children. Men don't generally wear engagement rings so this was me feeling uncomfortable about my relationship status as a female. I doubt a male candidate would need to think about this at all because employers don't generally make assumptions about male candidates' relationship status or potential fatherhood.

Isn't that inequality in the workplace rather than within a marriage though?

spend_or_save

notanewuser wrote: »

Not sure if this is what you meant but I have an examples:

I had a job interview whilst newly engaged. I attended without my engagement ring because "engaged female in mid-20s" screams "maternity leave" to [STRIKE]most[/STRIKE] some employers and at that point in my life I had no intention of having children. Men don't generally wear engagement rings so this was me feeling uncomfortable about my relationship status as a female. I doubt a male candidate would need to think about this at all because employers don't generally make assumptions about male candidates' relationship status or potential fatherhood.

I find the above post and your previous post about the practice of taking the males surname as Misogynistic, a fairly sad way to view the world.

There is nothing misogynistic about a woman taking her husbands surname, its not sexist, its not wrong, its a tradition and trying to portray it as anything bad is pretty sad.

In respect of your job interview, it might not be politically correct to say so but you cant blame businesses of being wary of employing people who, within a couple years have a good chance of going off on leave which will cost the company additional money they may not be able to affford. Its not sexisim, its commercial.

The fact is its the womem who have babies, not the guys, the fact is the majority of women prefer to be the ones to take materinity leave not the guys, again its not sexist or discrimination.

notanewuser

spend_or_save wrote: »

I find the above post and your previous post about the practice of taking the males surname as Misogynistic, a fairly sad way to view the world.

There is nothing misogynistic about a woman taking her husbands surname, its not sexist, its not wrong, its a tradition and trying to portray it as anything bad is pretty sad.

In respect of your job interview, it might not be politically correct to say so but you cant blame businesses of being wary of employing people who, within a couple years have a good chance of going off on leave which will cost the company additional money they may not be able to affford. Its not sexisim, its commercial.

The fact is its the womem who have babies, not the guys, the fact is the majority of women prefer to be the ones to take materinity leave not the guys, again its not sexist or discrimination.

Oh, don't worry, I get it. I'm an HR professional! :rotfl:

The history of women taking their husband's surnames, and actually of being given away at their nuptials, is nothing but mysoginistic. Women were considered belongings and the ownership of them switched from father to husband. Perhaps I should be grateful women weren't branded like slaves. Wonder whether folks now would be so keen to continue the tradition if it were.

notanewuser

Izadora wrote: »

Isn't that inequality in the workplace rather than within a marriage though?

Isn't that the point? I've never been anything but equal within my marriage, but in society? At school: "but girls don't do maths (a level). Wouldn't you rather do drama?" At work: "ah, but you might go off and get pregnant and we can't be doing with female parents. Male parents? Oh yes, they're fine." Generally: "you're married? But you don't identify yourself according to your husband? How odd."

GingerBob_3

notanewuser wrote: »

Oh, don't worry, I get it. I'm an HR professional! :rotfl:

The history of women taking their husband's surnames, and actually of being given away at their nuptials, is nothing but mysoginistic. Women were considered belongings and the ownership of them switched from father to husband. Perhaps I should be grateful women weren't branded like slaves. Wonder whether folks now would be so keen to continue the tradition if it were.

Utter garbage. It's a tradition, and one that the majority of women have no problem with. Only militant feminists object.

notanewuser

http://time.com/3940094/maiden-married-names-countries/

Seems like much of the rest of the developed world is waaaaay ahead of us.

Person_one

GingerBob wrote: »

Utter garbage. It's a tradition, and one that the majority of women have no problem with. Only militant feminists object.

Always telling when somebody thinks that 'feminist' is an insult.

notanewuser

GingerBob wrote: »

Utter garbage. It's a tradition, and one that the majority of women have no problem with. Only militant feminists object.

Like burning witches or sending young children down mines?

I suspect most women do it unthinkingly, brainwashed into submission by gender stereotyping from birth, seeing it as "romantic" rather than tragic.