Incidentally, it's a pet peeve of mine that those who support patriarchy-compliant choices always talk (though usually under the shelter of a joking tone) about having their feminist credentials taken away. Obviously I'm in no position to be decreeing how feminist someone is, but on my home turf of environmentalism a person's membership in the cause is never all-or-nothing. Your sins don't wipe out the other good work you've done, but the other good work you've done doesn't earn you indulgences. Talking about losing your credentials implicitly frames your opponents as narrow-minded and purity-obsessed, and puts them on the defensive so that they feel compelled to stroke your ego by reassuring you that you're a good fellow traveler.
That last sentence really resonated with me. He's right, that is what I do all too often. I realize that one of my least attractive rhetorical techniques (and a classic one for a privileged white male) is to position myself as the calm and reasonable centrist who is unafraid to break with rigid orthodoxies. It's a rather snarky tactic, and I hadn't really realized how unpleasant it was until I read Stentor's post.
I won't be making future references to my "feminist credentials" being pulled, and I apologize for having done so. I still stand by my position that taking one's husband name can be as feminist as keeping one's own; what matters (as my student Mermade put it so nicely) "is not what decision we make, but why we made it." Indeed.
At the same time, I'm a big boy. I don't need anyone to reassure me that I'm "still a pro-feminist" despite my joy at my wife's decision to become Mrs. Schwyzer. And I don't want to insinuate that those who find my stance disappointing and exasperating are being unreasonable.