It's all in the name.

The Guardian is doing 'important feminist issues' again, we've had Jessica Valenti discussing her feminist wedding and Julie Bindel wearing make up. Now we have taking your partners surname after marriage, good or bad?

In the 'good' corner Becky Sheaves states;

But my marriage was a huge life change and acquiring a new surname seemed somehow right. Like so many modern couples, I wasn't just teaming up with John by marrying him. I had my son, then called Luke Morris, who was two and John had four older children. We were creating a happy stepfamily. So not only did I change my name, I also changed my son's name too. And now we're all known as the Sheaves family and, yes, it has helped to unify us. That's S-H-E-A-V-E-S, as we're all only too happy to tell you.

Which is nice, she feels it's brought her family closer together, good for her. I don't agree it is that way or anyone else should feel that a name change is the only way to unify a family but that is how she felt and she made that choice.

In the 'bad' corner Michelle Hanson discusses Rebekah Wade's decision to take her new husband's surname;

What a shock to find that Rebekah Wade - smasher of glass ceilings, ruler of men, first woman to edit the Sun and soon to become chief executive of News International - is really a fluffy at heart.

she'll be letting down all those thousands of women, from 1850s Massachusetts suffragette Lucy Stone onwards, who have fought for women to retain their own names and independence

she can go ahead and be plain Mrs Brooks.

She's the last sort of woman you'd expect to opt to take the back seat, yet here she is, giving up her own name like an ordinary little wife

What a pity that not even the new Empress of Wapping has the strength to go against the grain.

So, in favour of changing the surname is a woman's personal opinion of how she felt it unified her own family. Against changing the surname is a critical attack on another woman who has decided to change her surname after marriage, you see even though Hanson acknowledges that Wade is a 'smasher of glass cielings' taking her husbands surname makes her nothing more than a plain, ordinary little wife who is letting down the suffragettes because she doesn't have the strength to keep her own surname even though she did keep her surname when she was married to Ross Kemp but we'll gloss over that or actually, we can use that to attack the bitch too!

Perhaps she felt that Kemp, her previous husband of nearly seven years, was more famous, and didn't want to be overshadowed (or have her editorial integrity challenged) by his fame as a star of EastEnders. But now she is so fabulously grand herself that no amount of name changing can put her in the shade

Hmmm....I'm confused, are we mad because she's playing wifey and taking her husbands name or are we mad because she thinks she's famous enough that a name change isn't going to confuse people as to her identity? Because she's letting down the side or because she's egotistical? (or possibly because you personally dislike her which isn't exactly hard but kinda negates the whole 'feminism' side of the argument if you're just using feminism as a stick to beat another woman with)

If Hanson's only daughter chooses to take her husbands name after marriage she feels that;

All my family's history will be more easily forgotten. Like many other families, they made a tremendous effort to get this far - escaping the Russian pogroms at the turn of the century, building up a new life, surviving two world wars, and then, pouff! It all evaporates because women's names don't matter.

Really? All that will disappear because of a simple name change? Who knew a name change had the power of erasing a persons memories (well, women's memories because we're so silly and frivolous we'll be too busy trying to remember our new names) and a families history.

My surname is that of a man my mum was briefly married to at 17, she kept his name after they divorced and that is the name I was given when I was born several years later. It's not my mum's name, it's not my biological dad's name (I don't see him), it's the name of a man I don't even know. I don't care for my name, it means absolutely nothing to me and, even though I have no plans to marry, I wouldn't feel an amazing desire to keep the name of a man I have absolutely no connection to over a man I love and trust enough to marry.

So, a surname is important to some people and completely unimportant to others, why the hell do we have to make such a big deal out of that, why is the simple changing of a name such a terrible threat to feminism? A threat so great that it seems perfectly acceptable to rip another woman to shreds using various dated 'wife' stereotypes (they're all fluffy, pathetic nobodies!) rather than just accept that it's just a fucking name! I'm perfectly happy with the fact that we can be critical of other women and their actions without being anti feminist but Hanson's article just smacks of petty name calling of a woman who isn't fitting her ideal, it's not constructive in any way and seems like pathetic attempt to bully all other women into believing the same.

As for my name I might change it to Jaime Mckickingmanassscamp, it'll be bastard to spell but I think it lets people know that I'm not one of those pathetic, fluffy women that likes men or anything.