Why should married women change their names?

[Ansciess]

Honey...

Oh, the good old standby "honey." Yes, when you don't like what a woman is saying to you, it can't possibly be that she has something to say that deserves respect. You resort to insulting her with infantilizing names.

Perhaps women are fed up with being called "honey," and being told that their thoughts aren't logical conclusions or analysis, but some emotional problem from being badly influenced by culture...

 

[Pickle Juice]

No one is claiming it happens in a vacuum. What we're claiming - and what is happening - is that women are being judged for their choices.

Women make choices. Sometimes you'll agree with them, sometimes you won't. Sometimes they are influenced by outside influences, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they're influenced by feminist ideals that you share. Sometimes they're influenced by a flavor of feminism you may disagree with. Sometimes a woman is actively anti-feminist and wants to stick to "tradition" where "women were women and men were men" (whatever that means). Sometimes women neither identify as feminist or antifeminist and their choice, for them, has absolutely no political overtones.

Women often do think about their choice to change their name, and to blow at them about how you don't like their choice is, frankly, patronizing. Women are adults, lets treat them like adults.

I think part of being an adult is being able to take criticism like an adult. Someone taking issue with a choice made by someone else needn't be seen as judging the person, just questioning the choice. I don't find the questioning of choices patronizing or judgmental.

 

[das_nut]

Native American?

Swedish and Norwegian.

 

[ledboots]

It seems to me that women changing their last name to their husbands' came about so people would easily know whose children were whose. The woman gives birth, so we know she is the mother; the father traditionally would gain public paternity with the giving of his name to the child.

Of course, this isn't the dark ages. I hope couples give thought to names/changing/etc because our names really are a fundamental part of us.

That was an interesting article, thank you for posting.

 

[kazyeeqen]

This is a crazy thread. I totally don't agree that Ansciess was judging women at all. The criticisms against her because of her posts in this thread are way, way out of line imo.

 

[Ansciess]

It seems to me that women changing their last name to their husbands' came about so people would easily know whose children were whose. The woman gives birth, so we know she is the mother; the father traditionally would gain public paternity with the giving of his name to the child.

Reading about this, it seems that the convention was more about property laws (women being property), more so than ease of child identity. What I find doesn't seem to have children at the center of the explanation - and if society wanted to make sure that children's fathers could be identified, the law could have been that children were given their father's name...but rather women were required by law to take their husband's name, and may not have been able to drive or vote etc. if they didn't...

Even though the “notion of women as property is an anachronism, no longer supported by the legal system or accepted by the general public, … naming conventions still largely mirror this traditional view” (Scheuble 143). In fact, it is only since the 1970s that married women in the U.S. have been legally free to keep their own names. Up until that point, “states required married women to take their husbands' names in order to engage in basic activities such as voting and driving” (Emens 763).

http://www.feministwedding.com/names2.html

Under common law, a married woman is not compelled to take her husband’s surname, yet the laws of various states have deprived women of rights, such as
retaining their driver’s license and voter registration, if they did not assume the
surname of their husband. It was not until 1975, for example, that the Supreme
Court of Tennessee in Dunn v. Palermo (522 S.W. 2d 679) struck down a law
requiring that a married woman register to vote under her husband’s surname. The
court cited the state constitution’s adoption of common law under which, with few
exceptions, an individual can choose any name. By the mid-1970s, these legal
restrictions were generally overturned or ignored (for example, Augustine-Adams,
1997).

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/go...me_womens_surnames_at_marriage_and_beyond.pdf

This particular naming custom is at the heart of most feminist critique. It was partnered with a legal and customary system (called coverture) that saw women as property, and saw marriage as the contract which transferred women from their father to their husband. In this model of marriage, women were literally ‘made-one’ with their husband- their legal identity subsumed into his, and they had no rights, whether to vote, to make contracts, to do business, or manage their own property. The process of name changing then highlighted that woman was without an identity of her own.

http://womenshistorynetwork.org/blog/?p=307

 

[Freesia]

Ladies

 

[Wolfie]

So if I get married whose last name should the dogs get?

 

[yally]

So true.

I have a friend who was in the armed forces for a while and later was in the reserves. She told me that whenever she was in Saudi Arabia and a group left the base, the female soldiers had to walk behind the male soldiers, and of course they had to wait outside if the male soldiers went into a cafe or restaurant to buy something. It was all part of *respecting local customs*.

It struck me that our armed forces wouldn't (currently) expect that of a male soldier, if the base were located in a country where local customs dictated that people of color had to defer to white people.

That's depressing

 

[yakherder]

So true.

I have a friend who was in the armed forces for a while and later was in the reserves. She told me that whenever she was in Saudi Arabia and a group left the base, the female soldiers had to walk behind the male soldiers, and of course they had to wait outside if the male soldiers went into a cafe or restaurant to buy something. It was all part of *respecting local customs*.

It struck me that our armed forces wouldn't (currently) expect that of a male soldier, if the base were located in a country where local customs dictated that people of color had to defer to white people.

When those rules exist, we do indeed follow them. When I was stationed in Japan, I came across quite a few clubs (mostly in smaller cities) that had signs posted denying entry based on race or nationality (mostly to Koreans, but sometimes black or white or even all foreigners). We had to follow these rules.

 

[Clueless Git]

It seems to me that women changing their last name to their husbands' came about so people would easily know whose children were whose. The woman gives birth, so we know she is the mother; the father traditionally would gain public paternity with the giving of his name to the child.

That would make the taking of a fathers name a very loving thing to do for the father?

My sympathy has been won over over by the 'assumption' argument (TY Ansciess and MLP for explaning that one) though.

Anything given away, particularly something as important as a family name, loses value if it is not given away out of love alone, I think.

 

[yally]

When those rules exist, we do indeed follow them. When I was stationed in Japan, I came across quite a few clubs (mostly in smaller cities) that had signs posted denying entry based on race or nationality (mostly to Koreans, but sometimes black or white or even all foreigners). We had to follow these rules.

Also depressing

 

[Moll Flanders]

I was thinking even if we had combined our two surnames the name would be ridiculous as they don't go together well. This discussion made me think about what people I know did when they got married and it made me realise that I only know one other married couple. She took his surname but it means now her (adult) son has a different surname to her.

I personally wish that the tradition of a woman changing her name never got started as takes its roots from a very patriarchal ideology. Just because that's the way things were back then doesn't mean it should be that way. That being said, since the tradition does exist, people should do whatever the hell they want with their surnames without being made to feel shamed and guilty about it. People should certainly not be made to feel like they need to justify their choices to society with 'excuses'. (to me, they're not excuses, they are legitimate reasons)

 

[Alice-Bee]

When my Aunt(not blood related) married my Uncle (Dads Brother) she didnt have to change her name because their surnames were already the same. I should point out again...they are not related in any way. It was just a funny coincidence.

I know a guy who took his new Wifes surname.

My cousin and his partner are not married but gave their children both of their surnames hyphonated.

 

[Muggle]

I know a couple who got married a few years ago and have recently had a child.

She didn't change her surname. However, she does sometimes hyphenate their two surnames (like on Facebook) but she said she won't change her surname legally to the hyphenated one unless her husband does too.
Their child's surname is the hyphenated one.

It also means that legally she is still "Miss" rather than "Mrs". (Going on from my other post, I know a lot of people who think that a woman automatically becomes Mrs when she gets married. Nope, it has to be done by deed poll. )

 

[Moll Flanders]

Before I was married I always used Ms instead of Miss and it's surprising how many people raise their eyebrows at that.

I realised if I had combined our surnames my full name would have 11 syllables.

 

[Renee1]

Before I was married I always used Ms instead of Miss and it's surprising how many people raise their eyebrows at that.

I realised if I had combined our surnames my full name would have 11 syllables.

I'm still going to use Ms. after we're married. For me, it's none of anyone's business whether I'm married or not.

For the record, I absolutely, without any doubt, believe that there should be dialogue about the tradition of name-changing. I understand its patriarchal roots (though it's not any more patriarchal than the tradition of marriage or even most of the trappings of heteronormative dating). I strongly believe every person who decides to change their name after marriage should give it more than a little thought and the idea that it is an automatic makes my skin crawl. It's an incredibly slippery slope to accept one reason (abusive father) and decide another is not feminist enough (new family/new name) and anyone who cares about women and the unique problems they face should not want to start slipping down.

What I will never get behind is the idea that there is one right answer for all women and I will never respond kindly to the idea that there is. One simply cannot frame a discussion (especially a feminist one!!!!) within "women shouldn't" because it is short-sighted and controlling. All lives and experiences are not equal and assuming that what you would do is the right path for another is incredibly presumptuous. It's everything that is wrong with current and past white heterosexual feminism and it's also no way for feminism to keep making a difference in the world.

 

[mlp]

When those rules exist, we do indeed follow them. When I was stationed in Japan, I came across quite a few clubs (mostly in smaller cities) that had signs posted denying entry based on race or nationality (mostly to Koreans, but sometimes black or white or even all foreigners). We had to follow these rules.

Oh, I figured you did for individualized cases of businesses like that.

My ponderings were along the lines of whether the armed forces would maintain bases in a country where African American or other minority race soldiers were not allowed to walk with whites (or walk alone) or enter any business establishment, and if they did, whether they would have the soldiers follow those *customs*, or simply avoid stationing minorities in that country.

I suspect it would be more of an issue, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[ledboots]

At my hospital, patients can request only female (or male) nurses but not ones of a certain race.

 

[kibbleforlola]

I'm still going to use Ms. after we're married. For me, it's none of anyone's business whether I'm married or not.

For the record, I absolutely, without any doubt, believe that there should be dialogue about the tradition of name-changing. I understand its patriarchal roots (though it's not any more patriarchal than the tradition of marriage or even most of the trappings of heteronormative dating). I strongly believe every person who decides to change their name after marriage should give it more than a little thought and the idea that it is an automatic makes my skin crawl. It's an incredibly slippery slope to accept one reason (abusive father) and decide another is not feminist enough (new family/new name) and anyone who cares about women and the unique problems they face should want to start slipping down.

What I will never get behind is the idea that there is one right answer for all women and I will never respond kindly to the idea that there is. One simply cannot frame a discussion (especially a feminist one!!!!) within "women shouldn't" because it is short-sighted and controlling. All lives and experiences are not equal and assuming that what you would do is the right path for another is incredibly presumptuous. It's everything that is wrong with current and past white heterosexual feminism and it's also no way for feminism to keep making a difference in the world.

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to get at, but much more concisely put. Thanks, Renee. >.<