Ideally when a man and woman come together in marriage, they prioritize their devotion to the new family they are creating and away from the families they came from. I suggest that if any person is about to marry someone who doesn’t want to re-align familial commitment, they’d better be ready to play second fiddle to the in-laws. The other option is to keep one’s self or ‘identity’ above the new family, which seems to me to have been tried and ended in drunkeness, adultery, abused spouses, and other forms of higher selfishness.
In either case, as has been pointed out already but is worth repeating, the last name any person carries is not really “their own”, and with only a short look back a couple of generations, there’s a woman who changed her last name to her husband’s.
We’re social creatures and marriage is a part of our social structure. Everything we do in a social context or setting has meaning to others in society. This is why, for example, we have people stand in public and swear oaths of various sorts. A wedding vow is ordinarily an oath of commitment. Adopting a single house-hold name is another sign of commitment.
Like it or not, we all judge each other’s character by actions. We decide whether we want to place our trust in a person based upon his/her “history”. A person from a two-name family could easily be judged as selfish and obstinate, at least non-commital - quite frankly not the kind of person I really want to spend much time with.
In the 80’s, I met a number of women who had the same reluctance to change their last names. I’ve only kept track of a few. Of the ones I know about, some finally met a man who so loved and cherished them that they (the woman) would do anything for him, including change her name. The others just grew old and bitter all alone.
before my partner and i decided marriage was a big waste of our time and money we did discuss this very issue. neither of us could see the fairness in only one person giving up their name, so we came to the conclusion that the best choice if we really wanted to share the same name was for both of us to pick a name we both liked and take that as our new common name by deed poll.
this way also neatly ended the what name do the kiddies take hoohar.
birdgirl: My wife considered taking my last name when we got married. I did not want her to.
Which course of action meets with your approval: I forbid her taking my last name, or she takes my last name because she wants to participate in a tradition?
There has to be a reasonably consistent practice as to handing family names on. Without that, there’s really no such thing as “family” names; there’s only “surnames” that might or might not continue on according to what the children want to do. You might cherish your family name and hold onto it until the day you die, married or not, but your children might well decide to go with your husband’s name. Your children’s children might decide to go with your daughter-in-law’s name. Besides making life hell for genealogists and historians, it almost negates the whole concept of a family name, at least when considered over several generations.
I am planning on taking my SO’s last name when we marry. My last name is one I’ve always hated, plus the “identity” thing is lost on me. My family of origin is full of abusive males, all of whom have my same last name. My SO’s family is wonderful.
Why not change it to reflect becoming part of a better family.
Someone’s having a hissy over the weirdest thing today.
When Mr Wolf was married the first time, he and his then wife combined their first names to make a family surname. They divorced, he kept the family surname. Even though he hates it.
He, eventually, will get around to changing his name back (when he’s not getting $400 tickets from the cops).
I currently use my maiden name. Not because I particularly like it or anything, but for a few reasons:
I do not want to take his current surname, because I do not want to have anything of his ex’s.
I do not want to go through the hassle of changing my surname legally, only to have to do it later again.
My surname is an important part of my nickname - my initials are MMJ, and I go by MJ. If I used his surname, I’d be MMM. I can’t be MJ without the J, now can I?
When he DOES change his name, I will hyphenate my last name. For reason #3.
Mr Wolf is perfectly agreeable to the idea of me having a hyphenated last name. Heck, he offered to hyphenate HIS last name. I just gave him a peculiar look and told him to not worry.
And besides, why the heck should a MAN change his name? Wouldn’t that indicate that he - and any children - were the property of the WOMAN?
Geeze. Weird reason to get your panties in a knot.
Difference feminist that I am I believe that overall women generally do look at things somewhat differently than men do, and culturally most women (certainly not all) are not as culturally invested in the notion that one’s last name is the cornerstone of the universe and the core of their true identity, to the degree that men are.
I think that women who are believers in tradition or who are marrying “up” are probably a lot more likely to take the hubby’s surname than women who are making a lateral or downward move in social status via ther choice of mate.
In the end I think it’s part of an unspoken cultural and socio-biological deal between men and women who intend on having children (whether they have them or not). Human males are unique to the degree they are invested in caring for their offspring, and this prospective investment is far more intensive for human males over the long term than for almost any other primate.
Taking the man’s last name and giving the children his surname is a relatively efficient and low resource cost (for the mother and children) way of binding him to the children socially and emotionally, and helping (obviously not guaranteeing) to insure that a healthy portion the resources he generates will be used for their benefit. Men are motivated at root by the desire to spread their genes. The use of a surname is simply an efficient way to mediate the exchange of resources. The man gets children tagged culturally, socially, legally and emotionally as his, and the child (and mother by extension) get resources.
As the nature of male and female roles change over time and women become more and more economically self sufficient this dynamic is obviously changing, but the interesting issue is less in real terms of how much “identity” women are giving up, but rather the staggering amount of resources they are getting from men for just a few letters of the alphabet.
I can see this ending up in Great Debates. Ultimately this is a debate, although I can see where people are simply sharing their opinions.
Okay, here’s my opinion: birdgirl, your perspective is valid and worth considering, but not shared by everyone, AND the other points of view offered by others are just as worthy as yours. Done. End of story. If you disagree, you are being are one-sided, biased, and frankly, as inappropriate as the people you are judging.
My wife kept her name. Her choice - I supported whatever choice she wanted. Am I pleased? It really doesn’t matter - I love her and get a life partner - beyond that, what do I care? that’s her and my choice But if a woman chose to take her husband’s name? Hey - there is a lot to be said for that choice - there is a display of family that speaks of tradition and choice and an event to celebrate - I respect that.
Hold on a second. You’re changing your argument in mid-stream. No one in this thread so far would disagree with this statement. I certainly don’t. I couldn’t give two shits for tradition. My wife liked my last name and made it hers. I can assure you that if my last name was Funklebooger she would have kept hers. Hell, I might have taken hers.
Question and challenge what exactly? In today’s society you can take about any name you want. No one cares. The only person judging others in this thread is you. You’re assuming incorrect motivations for women and criticizing them for it. No one here has an issue with keeping your own name…your father’s name actually.
They were called Lucy Stoners and it has become a tradition.
I’m not married, not sure I ever will be. I don’t see any reason to change my name if I ever do decide to get married. The women I know are all over the map on this issue. Many change their names, but I know several who haven’t, including two who have children that got the mother’s last name. I know couples who’ve hyphenated and others who’ve created a new name out of their old names. That’s what I like about living today. I’m always on the side of choice.
As an aside, I had occassion this past March to meet and speak at length with Margo Timmins, lead singer of the Cowboy Junkies. I knew she kept her last name as a performer after she married but I wondered if she did in everyday life, so I asked her. She said she’d planned on taking his last name but as she considered the paperwork, she realized there was no reason. She then very gracefully explained that it was a tradition that made sense when it was a matter of record keeping, but that the need for the tradition had passed.
[quote[No, you wake up. It is not just a bunch of letters. It’s a family. It’s an identity.[/quote]
Others have said similar things, but you’re missing something, birdgirl. It’s a big deal identity-wise to you. Nothing wrong with that, but not everybody feels the same way. You’re a part of one family with your given name, another with a husband’s name. Both are patrinomial anyway, so it’s a bit of a weird distinction to me.
Well, yes, but your given name is the one you’ve gotten used to your whole life, the one that’s on your checkbook, passport, and credit cards, and the one old friends will look up if they’re trying to get back in touch. My objection to changing one’s name is not that it’s patriarchal, but that it’s bloody inconvenient – and women are expected to go through this particular inconvenience as a matter of routine, while men aren’t. (It’s also inconvenient for everybody else who has to remember the new name and handle the paperwork.)
Not that people shouldn’t go by whatever name they want, but it does strike me as a particularly cumbersome and annoying tradition.
The main thing that dismays me about never having married is that I am still stuck with this surname that I hate and always have. I also am dismayed that it still ties me to my family - none of whom I have seen in decades, by choice.
My former boss had an identity issue, too. When she married the second time, she kept her name - her first married name. People asked her why she didn’t either take back her maiden name or take her second husband’s name, and she would answer, "This is my identity. To me I am Margaret Firsthusbandsname.
The vast majority of folks who marry also want a family. Life is made indescribably easier if all in said family have the same surname. Since that means at least one will have to change their name, and the nearly universal very old tradition is that it will be the woman who changes her name, why would changing that tradition be of any use?
So, to sum it up, many people do this or do not do this for a variety of reasons. Even the ones that do it still may not do it in the way expected. It’s a very, very personal matter and is a matter between the married couple and concerns and hurts no one else. If something this trivial gets your panties in such a wad, either you lead a very cushy life or you are a rebel looking for a cause. IMHO.
To me, it’s a non-issue. If I like his name, maybe I’ll take it. I don’t really feel strongly about it one way or the other.
However, since YOU feel so strongly about it, birdgirl, why not adopt your MOM’S MAIDEN NAME???
:rolleyes:
Good god, you know, of all the things to be concerned with, when dealing with misogyny, THIS is your big issue? I’d hate to see you encounter real, true misogyny.
The joy of feminism is that it has opened up a world of choices for men and women.
The key word there is “choice.”
My husband and I chose the following: I keep my last name. He hypenates his last name with mine. Children have my last name. That is what works best for us. I agree that it is easier if all members of a family have the same last name, but being “easy” wasn’t our priority. Besides, we all do have a name in common–my last name. If people want to refer to us collectively, they can use that.
I’m glad that we were able to consider the different choices available to us. I’m glad my husband was willing to consider a non-traditional option.
I wish that more couples would consider non-traditional options. Whether they choose to go that way or not, I’d like to think that people make the choice in an informed and conscious way.
That said, I heartily disagree with the OP. I feel like she will approve of our choices because they are the ones that she likes, and if, after we had put the same amount of consideration into it, we had made a different choice, she would make some very unkind and inaccurate assumptions about us.
Also, birdgirl, your use of “retarded” in that way is extremely offensive.
I took my husband’s last name. If we split I’ll keep his last name. I happen to like it. I also like my maiden name, that’s why I use it as a middle name. Taking my husband’s last name didn’t change me, it just changed my name. I’m still my father’s daughter. I didn’t change my name because I felt I had to or because I felt pressured into it. I took it because it was part of the bond we were creating together. We did discuss him taking my name at one time, I don’t remember why but obviously we decided against it.
Drachillix had no issues with me keeping my name when we married. I had been married before and had changed my name to my husband’s then back to my birth name after the divorce. I didn’t want to visit the DMV/SS offices yet another time and there wouldn’t be children to consider in our future: I am unable to bear more.
But…
While we both have family alive, we neither of us have very close ties and I wanted to be family, the two of us. I took his name.
