"Taking a man's surname is not an oppressive act, it's a choice that some people choose to make"
Seriously PNP I really respect so much you say on this site. You are insightful, intelligent, even-handed. But that sentence is mind-blowing.
Just quickly: the unfortunate reality of patriarchy is not due to men being evil. It's, in a nutshell, due to men being naturally bigger and stronger in a world where being good at hitting people with sticks was *the* most important thing. Also the physiological realities of having periods, being pregnant, suckling, dying at childbirth had an influence on how structures and gender-roles evolved. Now *no-one* intelligent thinks that this was women being oppressed or men being evil. It was the best way for things to develop and morally neutral.
Fast forward a few MILLENNIA and it became a bit funny to some that women (for example) couldn't go to university. Now this was not because evil men had planned it that way. It was one of the many, many, many unnecessary and unhelpful unintended consequences of men being better at hitting people with sticks all those millennia ago. But the fact that It Had Always Been That Way and the fact that men would, in the short term, lose out and have their lives and society altered in a way that was a bit of a pain meant that the obvious fact that women can read books too was massively resisted. By almost everyone for centuries. It doesn't make sense does it? But society is a very complex, very valuable thing and changing it is dangerous, scary and, for anyone in power and enjoying it's advantages the most, completely unnecessary-seeming.
During the MILLENNIA of men running society because they were good at hitting people with sticks then clubs then other people's swords then other people's cannonballs then other people's bullets a very complex society built up. And that society reflected the fact that men were in charge. A man created the universe, only men could tell you about the deepest truths of the universe. Only men could own things, do maths, do science, do art etc etc.
The law (and then tradition - a more slippery and insidious beast) that women take their husbands' names came from this time. A time when the woman could be beaten, raped and sold into slavery by her husband. She was literally his property.
99.9% of women throughout history have not "chosen" to take their husband's name. Nowadays, with the invisible hand of tradition, wider social expectation and worry about such things as what Great Uncle Tom might say, I would be amazed if most women "freely chose" to alter their identity in this way. Some do, sure. But it reeks of huge disingenuousness to say "it's a free choice" as if there is no history creating a society of which we are all a part. It reminds me of people arguing against a minimum wage saying that people who work for $2 an hour in the US "freely choose" to do so, so no harm done.
And please bear in mind that the very ceremony where this name-change takes place has all the other male-dominance going on. And by the way the institution of marriage is just something that I mentioned as a random side-note. But blimey - there's a lot of patriarchy tied up in it isn't there? Imagine if I had specifically chosen an institution that I feel best reflects the hang-over of millennia of male dominance in all power-structures in society!
Yes women can now officiate weddings! That changed very recently didn't it? And did it happen because everyone was saying "What? Thatcher's a woman! Everything's sorted! In fact do you know who's truly oppressed nowadays? White British men and I'll tell you why..."? A re-aligning of society is still happening and is still in need of happening. It's not about calling men monsters or saying any of the bizarre things Rob and other MRAs claim feminists are saying. It's just about being aware that, in this instance, traditions which come loaded with concious and sub-concious baggage still exist and maybe have an effect.
