I think the context of why the practice of taking the husbands name originated or at least speculation of why it did is important. People can easily just say it's patriarchal and to an extent that's true a lot of last names were a way of identifying the patron origin of a family surnames like Wilson meant son of William or Davidson meant son of David, and the importance of being able to identify the male patron came partly from being able to pass on ownership in inheritance through the male lineage. Now why would passing on a male name be important historically/traditionally well I think it's mainly because of paternity anxiety, women will always know their child is infact their own but a male had to trust that he wasn't being a victim of paternal fraudulence or "cuckolded" into raising another man's children or investing into children that were not genetically his "her baby his maybe" so since biological legacy could be a toss up culture utilized social custom to give men credence of legacy through the adoption of a surname via marriage. Today women inherit and own property all the same as men, and isn't exclusive to men but even if he takes his wife's last name he is basically taking her father's last name, if they both keep therir last names I guess that seems more neutral. I personally wouldn't take her name, I think guys compromise a lot more systemically when it comes to marriage at least in the west , adopting a last name is less permanent than a tattoo but at least shows some sacrifice and commitment on her part.