If last names really didn't matter then in half of the marriages being performed this weekend the man would take the woman's name. Instead, 90% of those brides will change their names. One poster called changing your name at marriage a "privilege". Does anyone really believe that straight white men have somehow spent the last 500+ years missing out on a privilege?

It fascinates me when people say, "it's a choice between your father's name and your husband's name." The underlying assumption, that a marriage-aged man has his own surname but a woman of similar age does not, is incredibly sexist. Once you notice it, that phrase sounds as tune-deaf as "some of my best friends are black."

Why do women change their names? 1) I think the major reason is that there's peer pressure from the 90% of women who've changed their names for the new bride to do the same. 2) Most women dislike themselves at least a little, so they relish the feeling that they'll be a whole new person (more mature, wiser, thinner, tidier, prettier, perfect!). 3) They overestimate its importance to the groom or the groom is insecure enough to make an issue of it while steadfastly refusing to make any changes himself. 4) They want to have the same last name as their children (as though the children can't have her last name or both names hyphenated). I really think the first reason, peer pressure from other women, is the most common real reason; notice how even feminists who keep their own names usually settle for passing it on as a mere middle name or second middle name, so other women won't gossip about their children's parentage.

The rationalizations are easy. If you have a common easy-to-spell last name such as Baker: if you marry a Jones, say that both names are just as common and easy to spell so you went with his, but if you marry a Shimonovitz say that his name was unusual and yours always felt too common. If you have an unusual hard-to-spell last name such as Halipigaon: if you marry a Jones, say what a relief it is to have an easy to spell last name, but if you marry a Shimonovitz say that both names were so confusing that it just wasn't practical to have both in the family.

Other countries are even further ahead of us than has been mentioned. In Spain, it may be usual for a child to have Fatherslast Motherslast, but some families reverse that so that it's the mother's last name that is passed on to grandchildren. In Iceland, children can receive either a patronymic or a matronymic, so John Hansson and Jane Stefansdottir could have children named Mary Johnsdottir and Lars Janesson. In Russia, children receive a patronymic as a middle name, so some younger couples have started giving the mother's surname as a last name.

P.S. I've filed our taxes for the last four years with my name first and haven't had a problem.

P.P.S. Our kids will have my surname as a last name.

P.P.P.S. I have one brother, no sisters.

This should put the whole, "it's really your father's last name (if you're a woman)," bullshit into perspective: Imagine Massachusetts, 2007, a black guy marrying a white guy and saying, "well, my last name is really my great-grandfather's slave owner's name, so I'll just take your name, Sweetie." Would that happen? No! If the black guy really had a problem with the origin of his surname he would have changed it independently of the marriage. Most men who marry each other keep their own names or both hyphenate. If they adopt children, the kids get a hyphenated name. I think part of the reason conservatives are so against gay marriage is because it shows what a marriage looks like when both partners consider themselves equals.

Responses to other posts:

Feminism isn't about choice; the dictionary definition of feminism is that it's about equality. You're getting the "choice" thing from arguments about abortion.

Genealogists always list everyone by their birth names. That is, when they can figure out the woman's name. Most family trees eventually go far enough back so that you get to John Smith, son of James Smith and [?]. Also, there's so much paperwork on everyone these days that it's unlikely your descendants won't be able to find you.

Molly, it's a tradition that can be easily fought by simply putting your surname as the child's surname on the birth certificate. You've promised him that the first child will have his surname, would he ever have promised you that? Would he be willing to promise you that the second will have your surname? What is the difference between you two other than that you're a woman?

26 pages and still nobody has explained why the groom has a last name but the bride "just has her father's name". It's been sickening to read through these letters and see so many women refer to the name they've had all their lives as "really" belonging to someone else. I wonder if this is how researchers felt when they saw black children overwhelming choosing white dolls (a '50's study repeated with much the same results in the 80's)?

Katelynn, why didn't you simply choose a new surname at 18?

Noialn, if your husband isn't ok with the baby having two surnames, why does that mean the baby gets his name? Don't you get to be not ok with stuff too?

Mad cartoonist, is it really polite to not correct someone who gets your name wrong? Won't they be embarassed when they later find out they've been calling you by the wrong name?

I notice that most of the Editor's Choice letters urge the writer to change her name. Here's a link to a classic Salon article on a related issue, from a time when Salon was far better than it is today (and it was free back then too!).

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/01/20/combo_names/index.html