Women who keep their married name YEARS after the divorce.

Sandhy

Some interesting view points here.

I kept my married name for many years...until my youngest child reached the age of 18. Then I reverted to my maiden name.

I did it for the kids' sakes and because I knew it annoyed my ex husband lol

However, by the time I went and made the change I was really ready to get rid of my married name.

I had a long talk with my kids about it. By then my daughter had married and had changed her surname anyway. Partly out of getting rid of her birth name and the association with her dad!

They were both was fine about it and understood my decision.

I occasionally come across and old document with my married name on it and it looks weird to me now.

Pollycat

Izadora wrote: »

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.

How long ago are you talking about?

spend_or_save wrote: »

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.

When I was starting work, it was just past the era of women getting married and leaving work to be a 'homemaker' (if it was financially possible).
My Aunt who is 10 years older than me left work the week before she married and has never worked since.

At that time, it was a common expectation that you would get married and have a baby and leave work so I can empathise with notanewuser's viewpoint.

I don't know how old notanewuser is but I'm in my early 60s and in those days, there was no such thing as 'political correctness'.

pigpen

notanewuser wrote: »

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

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

that's disgusting!! How dare they tell people they cannot change their names?? that is oppressive in the extreme and what is the point in being married if you still cannot share a name with your children? (deliberately ignores the 'next of kin' type stuff )

How is that 'ahead'?? that is going backwards.. taking away your right to choose is limiting your rights not empowering or promoting equality in any way.. We have the right to choose and that is how it should be.. If I get married I want to take my husbands surname if you don't then don't I doubt anybody cares what either of us decide. I do know a man who refused to marry his gf because she refused to take his name... but it may also have been because she was using her ex's surname same as her children and they weren't having further children... your wife using another mans surname would be awkward for some I guess.

Georgiegirl256

notanewuser wrote: »

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

You really do not give your fellow sex enough credit if that's the way you think.

Pollycat

notanewuser wrote: »

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.

What is 'tragic' about changing your name when you get married?

A bit over-the-top word to use when there's lots of truly tragic things happening in the world........

I love my 'new' married name (I use the term 'new' because I changed from my first married name to my new married name almost 30 years ago) and couldn't wait to change it.
It's quite unusual and although I usually have to spell it to people, I found it a bit of an asset in my job as it was memorable.
I certainly didn't think I was 'tragic'.

lush_walrus

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.

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.

This does exist but not really the point I was making as that is specific to age and sex and is isolated to the workplace rather than within a marriage - I have seen it as an employee and have factored into decisions as an employer. In neither cases it has been linked to visible attachment purely as an age sex judgement.

Interestingly, in the discussion of professionals and their use of Ms at least in my profession and my husbands which is totally different sector, It is rare to be married, and very very rare for anyone who is married male or female to have a large showy wedding. Most of our colleagues are not married or where married it is for financial simplifications. Where as most support staff are married.

There is a reason for that Both of our professions require extensive study, 6 years minimum full time then professional exams and as many are still studying in their late 20s. We therefore tend to meet later and settle later than most. So marrying is viewed as something that may happen one day, rather than a necessity.

My profession also never refer to a title, no one in my professional life would know ask or assume marital status. I can not recall ever needing to present my preference of miss Mrs ms to anyone internally or externally - nor would we ever discuss children it is considered impertinent to question someone's private life in the workplace. We introduce our full name and job title in a professional arena and then first names once known.

My husbands profession is slightly different junior professionals have a work related title before their name once they are at the top of their carrier they revert to Mr Mrs I haven't met one Ms and if unmarried most certainly would refer as a Miss.

Petra_70

notanewuser wrote: »

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

What a horrible attitude.

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

You really do not give your fellow sex enough credit if that's the way you think.

:T

Pollycat wrote: »

What is 'tragic' about changing your name when you get married?

A bit over-the-top word to use when there's lots of truly tragic things happening in the world........

I love my 'new' married name (I use the term 'new' because I changed from my first married name to my new married name almost 30 years ago) and couldn't wait to change it.
I certainly didn't think I was 'tragic'.

:T
I agree with Pollycat and Georgiegirl.

What a strange and bizarre attitude you have 'notanewuser,' assuming that every woman is changing her name because she is somehow succumbing to the whims of her husband (or society,) or that they are brainwashed from birth.

You sound like a very negative person; putting down women and calling them 'brainwashed;' just because they take their husband's name. Newsflash honey; MOST women do it! Yeah that's right, even feminists and professional women.

You seem to have a real problem, with women who change their name! Why? What is your problem? You clearly have issues that you're projecting on here; so what are they? Why the hatred and vitriol towards women who change their name to their husband's name.? :huh:

As a few people said earlier in the thread; the very few women who DO keep their name when they get married, seem to look down on married women who take their husband's name, like they're better than them. Personally I think it's very odd when women don't change their name.

As for the OP, I don't think it's strange to keep your married name after you're divorced, as surely it's YOUR name once you have got married? Why should you have to change it back?! I wouldn't; especially as my children have the name. In addition, I don't like it when there's more than one surname in a family. I think a family should all have the same name.

lush_walrus

coolcait wrote: »

Or, to look at it another way, arguably that link shows that some countries have denied women the right to choose how they wish to be known.

How does that advance us?

With regard to the law in France, if the law says that people cannot use a name other than the one on their birth certificate, what impact does that have on those who are transgender?

How does it advance us if someone cannot change their name, even if they wish to do so?

Not much liberte and egalite there.

I agree with this, I like having the choice of my name, his name or a new name and two titles to choose from at any one time. My husband only has Mr and had only ever had that.

I equate it to clothes men generally wear trousers or shorts, women have those and skirts dresses to choose from.

heuchera

This seems to have been turned into a squabble by a couple of chippy posters, so I just wanted to point out that surnames were/are for identity and family heritage purposes, not to denote belonging to or being subservient to terrible men :rotfl: And in English surnames are not gender specific.


Look at the most common surnames.. so many of them end in -son, or its equivalent (Mac, for example or O' or Fitz-).


Getting back to the original question, personally would welcome the chance to change my surname on marriage because I don't want to be associated (or identify) with my birth father.

mai_taylor

I took the opportunity to change my name to my husbands because he means more to me than the name I was born with and had no choice in having. Having his name was important to me as he's the best person I know and I'm proud to have his name. With marriage women have the chance to choose what surname they have and they can choose at any point to change it. I don't see how that's being brainwashed into submission?