Do you believe women should take their partner's last name when getting married?

[HawkPerception]

Yes the wife should take the husband's last name.

No the wife should keep her own last name.

[PetLover24]

It depends.

My surname is extremely uncommon and is related to the Church going back to the Crusades. One of the most infamous Knights was the forebearer of the surname, which has changed very little over the many many centuries. My father's father's father & all males going back 500 years at least all have Latin middle names to signify the relation.

I'd never change my surname.

Does it mean I love or respect my husband any less? No. It simply means I don't want to be known as a Brown, Smith, or similarly common name that has no real meaning.

.

And this is very common amongst different ethnic groups & cultures wherein the wife doesn't abandon her familial name - or adds it to the husband's surname as hyphenated or turned into a middle name (such as amongst French or Spanish) - because the familial lineage is been respected rather than been erased.

[HawkPerception]

In your specific case, I understand. Especially if a guy has a common last name, it makes sense, and I respect your view on it.

I personally want my kids to have my last name. I know it might be selfish and I honestly have no justification to say it should be only the guy who has his name passed on, but I stick with it. I don't think I'd be able to date someone that wasn't willing to take my name 😅

[mementomorii-]

Yes, if I get married, I will take my husband's last name

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I went with "yes" but I'd say the ultimate person with the responsible to lead, protect, and provide for the household has the privilege of retaining their surname. He/she should also pay for the wedding ceremony and be the first one to die to protect the family if someone has to die.

So if a woman is willing to take on this ultimate responsibility as leader, protector, and provider, then I would not oppose her having the privilege and her husband taking on her surname instead. Yet traditionally the man has the ultimate responsibility and that's a relatively small privilege in exchange for such a massive responsibility.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

[*] [...] the ultimate person with the [responsibility] to lead, protect, and provide [...]

[HawkPerception]

Interesting take on it. Never heard that one

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Cheers! I don't believe in headless marriages: "partnerships". I would rather a complete inversion of traditional gender roles than to blur them so much that there's no clear leader of a household. Without a clear leader of a household, there is no way to resolve conflicts that can't be negotiated away: no clear person who can say, "All right, after listening to everyone, I've decided our family is going to do this. In exchange, I will take ultimate responsibility and suffer for this decision if someone has to suffer for it."

That's the vital role of a leader as I see it is conflict resolution and I think marriages need that leader, no matter how much the roles are blurred (actually good leaders will not micro-manage in the same way a captain of a ship does not tell his medical officer how to treat their patients). If there is no leader in the marriage to resolve conflicts, then I think too often couples will find that missing leader and executive decision-maker in the form of a judge in a divorce court.

So having a designated leader is vital in my opinion for a marriage. It is a small privilege as I see it that the family takes on the leader's surname.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

So my wife took on my surname but in exchange trusted me with the responsibility to be the leader of our household. It's a massive responsibility but one I try to take very seriously, and that includes listening to her ideas and even going with her ideas a lot of time as my final decision since she has very good ideas. But if the idea turns out to be bad and someone has to suffer or even die for it, I must be the one to suffer or die because I made the executive decision, no her. I must protect her from the costs of my own decisions.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Yet if a woman wants to truly become the leader of a household, and she's willing to take on the associated responsibility of conflict resolution and protection/provision of her family, like being willing to suffer or even die to protect her husband from harm's way, and ultimately the one at fault if her family becomes poor, then I applaud her for it and think it's fine if her husband and children take on her surname.

What I don't think is fine is for a woman to dump the ultimate leadership burden on her husband and still refuse to take on his surname or, worse, insist he takes hers. That's not a fair exchange.

[ChiTown33]

Of course. A woman does not have to take my last name if she doesn't want to. We can end the relationship instead. I mean because if we aren't even married yet and she thinks so little of me that she doesn't even want to take my name I see no reason to continue. I wish her well.

[Apple1996]

Before marriage I thought I would take my husband's name but days after getting married I changed my mind and decided to keep my name. It's hard af to change and it's my literal identity especially online with emails and online accounts. It's a dumb decision for any woman to take her husband's name in current times. I'm sure back in times when women couldn't even have a bank account it was a easy change but not anymore.

[Tinat]

I do not believe in that. I mean, it's insane! What if they get separated? The wife would have to go through the process of changing her name again. It would be a mess. It doesn't make sense at all.
He is not your father for God's sake! He is your husband. I believe the only natural way is to let the kids have it. That's their right. They deserve it legally.

[Quogha]

My wife was happy to take my name, and it made me feel loved! We did all the paperwork together, and when it was all finalized, our marriage felt complete. I don’t believe she should HAVE to, but it was nice to know she WANTED to.

[Smashingdoozy]

Don't care, do what you want. Keep it, change it to your partners, merge/hyphenate, make up a completely new lask name. Go for gold babes

[HawkPerception]

What would you do?

[Smashingdoozy]

Not get married 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Unit1]

Haha, that's a good one. To not marry 🙂 easy and practical.

[RebelinSteel]

There is no should, it’s choice but that is stuck in tradition. If one partner has a crap surname, then yeah both take the better one.

[DizzyDesii]

I would like my last name hyphenated if i HAVE to take his last name. But after working for the gov, i see that its less of a hassle if i didn't have to change it at all

[Ms_Facesitter]

I don't know about should, but I will, I think it's beautiful to be proud and call you his.

[RavVid]

I might take it she doesn't think the marriage will last long enough to go to trouble of giving companies her new name to change the account over.

[Booklover_90]

I can only speak for myself, but I’ll be taking my husband’s last name. No question about it.

[HelpfulWoman]

the couple should do what they want to. Not sure if i would change my name when I get married I don't know.

[NathanDavis]

I believe they should do as they feel like doing it

[Fireguy17]

It's up to both parties what they want to do.
I told my wife she could do either, I was fine with either.
She chose to take mine.

[Laciejordan]

I’ll take his last name.

[Beckybooboo]

Lacie Walrus. It has a nice ring to it! Lol

[Laciejordan]

@Beckybooboo 😝I know! 🥰

[Kylie_Bug]

I would take his last name.

[Beckybooboo]

I will take his last name.

[helva]

In Belgian law the name is inalienable.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Why can’t he take her name?

[BuffTaco]

Should? No. Should be able to? Yes.

[Kelly6]

I have my hubby’s name

[laly520]

no point in it