Should women be legally required to take their husband's last name if they get married?

Asked by: Sophia13
  • It's the entire point behind the process.

    This practice originated for land and power grabs. The point is to become the largest and most wealthy family in the land.

    It also denotes a commitment to the relationship. If you are not willing to fully commit to that man then don't commit at all. If you don't intend on committing at all, then stop wasting his time and move on. Same for the man, I am not sexist, I am an equal opportunity man.

  • That's too culture-specific.

    I personally dislike the practice because marriage is the union of families of two different surnames, and this practice makes the two surnames become one, which makes no sense. Plus, it encourages the woman to forget her ancestors because of the last name change.

    This practice is also completely cultural-specific. In China, we do not do that to women, for example. There is no reason for any laws here to dictate such a rule.

  • There are legitimate reasons for not doing so

    Being that I work in the field of Classical Music, I have noted that many of my female colleagues choose to keep their maiden name after marrying. The reason, is if they have an established career and are a recognized performer, changing their name can actually be detrimental to their own personal brand; they can lose traction as a concertizing musician. I am sure there are many other professions where this is true as well.

  • They shouldn't be forced to.

    If a woman wants to legally take her husband's last name, it should be her choice. In the same respects, a man should be able to take his wife's name. They should be able to have joint last names if that's what they want, as long as it's a mutual agreement and both parties are okay with it. (This also applies to same-sex marriage.)

  • Why Should They?

    Anti-Feminist here. I have not found a reason to "force" women to take the last name of their husbands. If they "want" to take it, then that's fine, but unless someone can find a logical reason with pros that outweigh the cons on this issue, I do not see my stance changing anytime soon.

  • Ha! As if

    I'd like to see anyone try to enforce that law. The question itself is extraordinarily reductionist because it does not take into account that marriage now includes both female/female and male/male unions- quite rightfully. Even if we are just focusing on heterosexual marriage, the decision to take your spouse's name is up to the individual- it cannot be dictated as it is a personal choice that has nothing to do with anyone else (including your spouse).

    While the practice was introduced to implement the notion of women becoming their husband's property when they married, nowadays (in most cases) it is seen as traditional. I am reluctant to support this 'tradition' due to it's sexist roots, but I can see that it brings a sense of togetherness for families- especially when children are involved. For this reason I personally would be inclined to hyphenate my name, so that the next generation can carry forward both their father's and their mother's legacies.

  • Its Your choice:

    Changing surname after marriage is way too cultural specific as per my content but it should be a personal decision for the women to apply that or not. Many enjoy being called by their husbands sirname and many are happy keeping their sirnames too. Its should be an independent choice.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.