BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Changing one's name at marriage

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Saturn's nod
13:50 / 29.05.08
No, it doesn't. But I don't think it would be likely that a feminist would have no issue at all with the name-changing tradition.
 
 
HCE
16:22 / 29.05.08
...and if you don't like your family why wait until marriage to disassociate yourself?

Because there was a precipitating incident shortly before this, that's why. Your inability to conceive of things outside of your personal experience does not make my choice about my name a fucking "cop out."
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:26 / 29.05.08
I have painted in too broad strokes, and should not have suggested (even accidentally) that one can't be a feminist woman and also change one's name at marriage. What I'm saying is that Proinsias' failure to see the issue might be aided if one considers that the issue might not be name change itself, but rather certain patterns in terms of what blind acceptance of a woman taking her husband's name might suggest about that woman's views in general.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
16:38 / 29.05.08
I'm surprised no-one (male) here loathes the idea of their partner adopting their name. My wife has kept her surname and I'm bloody happy about that. Okay, a joint surname has its uses, but whichever way I look at it I can't see this particular convention as anything but misogynistic.

Sorry... not all males have a self-loathing guilt attached to them. And how is it misogynistic? Really? I never have and never would demand/ask/expect my wife to change her name, but I'd be postively gob-smacked honoured if she felt she wanted to. Does that mean that if I let her I'd be hating her somehow, or forcing my will against hers?

Well, I've never even gotten close to having to change my name for marital raisins but, no, I don't like the idea of my partner taking my surname either. How fucking egotistical would that be, honestly?

I'd take hers, though, maybe... if it was cooler than mine.


Okay... The combination of the above two quotes sounds way too more-sensitive-than-thou for my liking... Hey I admire that Jack White had the balls to do it and it sounds super cool, but to say that if it's a woman who does it it's wrong, and it's the man who's to blame? Come on...

If a woman feels uncomfortable changing her name, she shouldn't. If she wants to, she should. If her feminist ideals says "no", then its "No" and if its mutual, then by all means...

By saying that it's somehow misogynistic is utter bollocks except in the cases where the woman is forced into the marriage, where her right to say "No" is taken away. But I'm thinking that this isn't Hawthorn's case...
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
16:42 / 29.05.08
Sorry... not all males have a self-loathing guilt attached to them

Sorry... but not wanting to perpetuate a relic of the patriarchal ownership of women isn't a sign of "self-loathing." How sick am I of people who have the gumption to stand up and own their privileges being branded as "self-loathing?" Sick to fucking death.

Good gravy. A couple of weeks ago I was really starting to like you, freektemple. Well done on erasing any vestige of goodwill in record time.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:44 / 29.05.08
Sorry... not all males have a self-loathing guilt attached to them.

Somebody needs to take you back to school, sport.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
17:20 / 29.05.08
A Hu-Li: You're right incidentally, I just didn't think about that, this is an emotive subject for me, I think it's a cop out from your own history and individuality to take your partner's surname.

No worries, it's a pretty emotive subject for everyone (obviously). "Cop out" is a bit strong, though. Actually, as an aside, I have to wonder why "your own history and individuality" is always necessarily about one's surname; I tend to connect more deeply with my first name. But that's not really on topic, so scrub it.

If you think that's nonsense explain why men have to pay to change their name at the point of marriage in the UK when women don't?

I wasn't aware of that. Actually, I think I was more under the impression that regardless of gender one had to pay for a name change, even at point of marriage. And it's still (at least in Canada) a financial transaction for a woman to change her name back to her maiden name after a divorce, something my mother went through a few years ago (another point in favour of the "keeping your own name" column), which proved to be a bit of a hassle.
 
 
Spaniel
17:43 / 29.05.08
Getting a bit cross now.

Right, let's fucking cease with the deeply uncalled for, and deeply fucking stupid personal attacks shall we, Freektemple? I was merely expressing my surprise that folk (particularly folk round here)would be keen on perpetuating what is categorically a highly patriarchal convention, and my bewilderment that no-one had framed the issue in that way. What I wasn't doing was slagging anybody off, mainly because I don't believe every bloke who's happy to let their wife take on their surname is a bone-club wielding misogynist, or that every woman who wants to do so suffers from internalised hatred of their own gender.

That I am keen to think about, recognise, police and sometimes act against my own highly privileged existence in an effort to achieve more gender equality in this world is something that I'm fucking proud of. That's got nothing to do with being self loathing or loathing my gender, that's just wanting to live on a nicer planet.

Fucksake.
 
 
Spaniel
17:57 / 29.05.08
Also, it's not that taking the male surname is the worst crime in misogyny land, it's that it's a another dumb fucking patriarchal tradition that needs to be confined to the dustbin. That's how equality is worked towards: we tread those dumb patriarchal traditions/laws/conventions/words/phrases/attitudes/etc into the ground one at a time.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:01 / 29.05.08
I'm not getting any self-loathing around here, at least...
 
 
Char Aina
18:03 / 29.05.08
I don't like the idea of my partner taking my surname either. How fucking egotistical would that be, honestly?
[...]
I'd take hers, though, maybe... if it was cooler than mine.

Okay... The combination of the above two quotes sounds way too more-sensitive-than-thou for my liking...



I'm not sure I like that, mr F. I used to say I would do the same, and I would have at the time(i'll spare you why I wouldn't now- It is a long and boring story). I didn't say it to be more-sensitive-than-thou, but because I didn't see any good reason why the fuck not. I meant it, and I don't see why you wouldn't accept that.

And egotistical might be too strong, but didn't you just say you would be honoured? That YOU would be honoured? at the expense of someone else divorcing themselves from their family name? How is that not an ego massage, a power play?

I'm curious if you would accept another's name. I imagine because you think it implies ownership both ways it wouldn't matter who changed, right?
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
18:28 / 29.05.08
(From mFf, another thread)
If you think someone is being tactless, or condescending, or a poor ally, or denying someone a voice who needs it more, or even "going to far", then for God's sake say how and why. Don't just bandy about a term which is little more than a substitute for "political correctness gone maaaaad!"

This is more than fair. Please allow me to attempt to re-phrase my objections:

I felt offended by Boboss’ and I am a Bat’s comments. My comments were based on anger and were not well thought through: Written in the heat of the moment while juggling other things… I was in a rush to comment. I am very sorry that I took an attack posture and got personal. There is no excuse for that and I can only offer my deep apologies for my sleights.

My primary reason for taking offence is the use of the term “misogynistic”. The word’s use in this case makes no sense because a woman taking her husband’s name in no way implies that the husband forced her to do it because he hates women. I believe its use here is both sensationalist and reactionary. It seemd to me to be bandied about to curry the favour of posters with feminist and/or liberal leanings, like a catch phrase used in this particular case to proclaim one’s Liberalness. (Sorry if I infer too much) The fact that Boboss clams he’s surprised that no-one loathes the idea is very presumptuous, and his statement that, barring exceptional reasons (such as wishing to distance oneself from one’s family) to want to change one’s name, there is no valid reason for a woman to do it is insulting: What if a woman chooses to do it on a whim? Because it’s a gesture she wishes to make? Because it will piss someone off? How dare you judge? Maybe many women do it because they feel like that have to for some reason or because that it’s the acceptable thing to do, and that’s sad. I hope they one day realize that they have a choice. But if a woman wants to, you can’t just say it’s wrong or stupid, or *misogynistic*.

My next reason for taking offence was Bat’s stating that it would be somehow wrong for a woman to take her husbands name, but it’s acceptable if he takes hers, if its a cooler name…

What if his family name is cool? A woman can’t want that name because it would be a perpetration of a millennia-long corrupt patriarchal male-dominated system? It sounds like he’s saying, “No, no, no… You can’t want to change your name because it will mean that your husband is going to think he owns you! Everyone will think he owns you! You have to take a stand for all women and throw off the shackles of female slavery!!! … By the way… Can I be your slave?” it felt deeply hypocritical to me

Again, I’m really trying to drive home the fact that I respect the woman’s choice. Whatever it may be. If a woman has no choice, I’m against that. I think it’s insulting that people are saying that unless under extreme circumstance a woman should not choose to take her husband’s name. ”Do whatever you want as long as it’s what I say” is what I’m hearing.

Sorry... but not wanting to perpetuate a relic of the patriarchal ownership of women isn't a sign of "self-loathing."

Point taken, and again, I chose my words poorly. It was a cop-out to frame it thusly rather than think about what was offending me and respond intelligently. ( Btw, Milton: As much as I’m sure we’ll butt heads, I really appreciate your recent comments here and in “Fashion” where you are pushing me to write better and more sincerely. You don’t accept lazy writing and I know I can be lazy. A heartfelt “Thank you” for giving enough of a shit to try nudge me into improving.)

A couple of weeks ago I was really starting to like you, freektemple. Well done on erasing any vestige of goodwill in record time.

Mordant, you only know me by my posts, and I know that sometimes I have trouble articulating my thoughts, especially when I get caught up in things. I know I’m beginning to sound like a broken record, writing in a reactionary fashion, apologizing for offending, then re-wording my thoughts to better reflect my ideas. I’m sorry, but it’s growing pains.

I am a Bat: I am harsher on your comment because if I’m honest, I was kinda ticked at your “Buster” jab over in Random Thoughts. I think it got under my skin more than I wanted to admit.

Getting a bit cross now.

Boboss: I read your recent comment after writing the above. I did infer that you thought the whole practice of a woman taking her husband’s name was misogynistic. I took it to heart and got personal… If I had the chance I’d offer to buy you a beer and apologize face to face. "I’m sorry" in print will be the best I can do.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:34 / 29.05.08
My primary reason for taking offence is the use of the term “misogynistic”. The word’s use in this case makes no sense because a woman taking her husband’s name in no way implies that the husband forced her to do it because he hates women. I believe its use here is both sensationalist and reactionary. It seemd to me to be bandied about to curry the favour of posters with feminist and/or liberal leanings, like a catch phrase used in this particular case to proclaim one’s Liberalness. (Sorry if I infer too much)

Apology accepted!

Slightly more seriously, I think your problem here, or at least one of your problems here, is based around the different interpretations of "misogyny". In essence, by keeping the meaning strictly to "the actions of a single man who is possessed of a violent hatred of women", you are seeking to avoid confronting the broader issue, much like the man who says that he cannot possibly be a misogynist because his mum/sister/wife is a woman and he does not hate her. As far as it goes, this is well and good, but it does not go very far.

More broadly, misogyny is the condition under which women often find themselves labouring every day, manifested not by violent outbursts but by the way that the institutions they have to navigate every day are canted against them. 60 years ago, when I married my first wife, it was expected that women who had previously worked would stop working as soon as they were married. This is no longer the case, which is nice. However, the change of the wife's family name to the husband's family name is a survival of a system whereby the wife and her property, if she had any, would become a part of the family estate of the husband. It's not unreasonable, I think, at least to say that it has its roots in a misogynistic society - meaning one in which women were deprived of independence, agency, property and wealth - and which refers back to that society, and that the unquestioning assumption that a couple getting married should end up with the husband's name is likewise a holdover from those customs.

Note "unquestioned" above. brb choosing to change her name, and finding that a convenient way and time to change it was on the occasion of her marriage is a rather different case. This comes down to the importance not necessarily of abandoning traditions, although there are some traditions that should definitely be abandoned, but of interrogating traditions and deciding what should be kept and what thrown overboard. Trying to paint those who seek to do this as weirdos, hippies, PC gone mad, loony lefties, or, indeed, self-loathing guilt-tripping men is a very conservative and reactionary activity, seeking as it is not just to preserve an existing institution but to deny the validity of questioning it.
 
 
Proinsias
20:39 / 29.05.08
I have painted in too broad strokes, and should not have suggested (even accidentally) that one can't be a feminist woman and also change one's name at marriage. What I'm saying is that Proinsias' failure to see the issue might be aided if one considers that the issue might not be name change itself, but rather certain patterns in terms of what blind acceptance of a woman taking her husband's name might suggest about that woman's views in general.

I don't think I'm failing to see the issue, although I'm sure I've got a lot to learn. I just don't imagine myself, if I was in the position of dating/marrying again, excluding all females who considered changing their names and found it a little odd that you express this view. The fact that you use the word 'consider' implies to me that it is not blind acceptance but the mere appearance of it as a possibility that would be enough to put you off. I hope I didn't imply blind acceptance in any of my posts.
 
 
Triplets
22:35 / 29.05.08
That I am keen to think about, recognise, police and sometimes act against my own highly privileged existence in an effort to achieve more gender equality in this world is something that I'm fucking proud of. That's got nothing to do with being self loathing or loathing my gender, that's just wanting to live on a nicer planet.

*fist-pump*

Right, okay, I'm a bit drunk here but anyone who didn't give a mental fist-pumping when they read that is no friend of mine or life's.

I am a leetle bit teary in fact.
 
 
Triplets
22:35 / 29.05.08
In fact, all you none fist-pumpers can put me on fucking ignore.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
22:58 / 29.05.08
It is a beautiful quote, I'll give you that fer shur.
...
Sometimes when on a " question all assumptions and beliefs" kick, it's easy to forget to question one's own.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:18 / 29.05.08
Boboss quote- yay, fists in the air!

I like the idea of both parties changing their names. It's symbolic of a new life, it's symbolic of togetherness, and it bows to no-one but the people involved. I'm not sure why there's even a need for a continuing family name on EITHER side. I mean, it may make archaeologists of the future's jobs a bit easier, but really, is that an issue?

What, actually, IS the point of a continuing name? If a family doesn't care enough to keep track of who's who (and that's not to say that that's a bad thing in and of itself), then why is the name relevant at all? We keep track of our friends and other loved ones and their various complex connections easily enough.
 
 
Spaniel
09:36 / 30.05.08
Freektemple, apology most definitely accepted. I've apologised enough times on Barbelith to know how tough it can be.
 
 
Anna de Logardiere
11:18 / 30.05.08
I have to wonder why "your own history and individuality" is always necessarily about one's surname; I tend to connect more deeply with my first name

It's not about your surname it's about your name. When people go through a big change they often adapt something about themselves, sometimes that's their name but marriage isn't a big change unless you're a born again or another type of fundamentalist who has never done anything that the average person would do in order to ensure that their standards were met.

Hell why don't I just change my face with surgery so I look the same as my potential husband? That way everyone could tell that I didn't intend to continue being my own person but simply a receptacle for his sperm. After all it's not like my identity would be sacrificed by making half of the name I use on every form completely different.
 
 
HCE
11:37 / 31.05.08
interrogating traditions and deciding what should be kept and what thrown overboard

Before I get any undue credit for not being the sort of misogynistic cop-out so loathsome to real feminists and liberal doods, let me clarify. My name change was not the result of interrogating traditions. After a long-term experience of various kinds of abuse that I don't care to chronicle in detail here, I found myself on the occasion of filling out my marriage license, looking at a spot on the form for a family name. Had I but been given the handbook, I would have known that the right thing to do was to keep the name of my abusive father, or perhaps to change it to Momsdottir, or just pick something that sounds cool. Instead, because I am a mindless victim or something, I picked the name of the person who I'd just entered into a lifelong commitment with, who has been consistently loving and selfless in his treatment of me, and who has provided me with every kind of emotional and practical support.

Don't worry, though, if we have a child, I will make absolutely certain the last name is anything but his! Or, wait, it's ok for children to have their father's last name? That doesn't make them loathsome, misogynistic cop-outs?
 
 
Ava Banana
14:22 / 31.05.08
I changed my surname last year (for reasons I won't bore you all with) and decided to change it to my partners surname, not because I'm marrying him anyway or to honour him but because I just wanted to, he's my family now and he's everything to me. I never really considered taking his name might be considered ownership, it simply didn't occur to me. I did mine by deed poll so for anyone who is considering it I have a list here of people to notify which came with it which I'd be happy to pass on if you need it. I certainly did.
 
 
Triplets
16:40 / 31.05.08
That doesn't make them loathsome, misogynistic cop-outs?

It makes them recepticles for his sperm, apparently.

Change their faces!
 
 
Disco is My Class War
14:56 / 01.06.08
Maybe it would be useful here to make a distinction between critiquing a tradition and critiquing people's personal practices. I feel quite strongly that the expectation that a woman will change her name to her husband's is sexist. This is an expectation that is still institutionally supported. I think perhaps it's a tradition that is creeping back up the scale in terms of popularity, too. Because liberal discourse tells us that women nowadays have a 'choice' about how to comport themselves and that if they choose to be married, to relinquish their surnames and to have babies and be housewives, there is no need to desire feminist autonomy on their behalf because they chose to do those things. I don't think it's as simple as all that, really -- gendered expectations about roles, and what people should give up when they marry, still exist. Household divisions of labour still exist.

But I feel like I also understand brb's decision to change her surname, and to some extent, Hawthorn's feeling about being open to changing her name to her prospective husband's. Because after all, most of us carry our fathers' names. Our names are never 'individual' to begin with; they are names we were given, without our choice. They embed all of us in patriarchal gender relations before we even know what they are. I changed my name, not because I was getting married. I made a very deliberate decision to change my surname. It had everything to do with ridding myself of a name I carried because of my father, and shedding a history of abuse which was completely about his role as a patriarch. So if brb had a similar experience, and chooses to share a name with someone who represents a change from that, good on her.

I like the idea of creating a new surname and sharing it not only with lovers (or maybe not lovers at all) but with members of my chosen family and our children. A friend and his best friend both changed their surnames to the same name, and now his friend's children carry that name as well.

It also used to be that women would keep their surnames as a middle name, and then children would have the same middle name -- thus preserving both surnames. This is better than hyphenation, anyhow.
 
 
HCE
15:18 / 01.06.08
It makes them recepticles for his sperm, apparently.

What on earth does that even mean? Naming children after their fathers makes them receptacles for his sperm? What?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
16:26 / 01.06.08
Reference to this post, I think.

I like the idea of giving your kid a different last name to either of hir parents. It smacks of a clean break, giving them a blank slate instead of lumbering them with your baggage (although some might appreciate the sense of connection to the past that comes with a "family" name). The example I'm most familiar with would be the Wild children, given their evocative last name by commune-dwelling parents in the 70s.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:36 / 01.06.08
I don't suppose it matters who's got what name, unless you're planning on having children. If so, though, the main thing to remember is that the kids will have to go to school eventually.

So, ardent 'Daily Mail' reader, or fan of Erica Jong though you might be, if your last name's Nonce, Buster, Cumshot, or really anything like that (Fuck-Horse, Monkey-Wanker, that sort of thing), then you should probably defer to the other party in the relationship. Life being hard enough for the young people as it is.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:47 / 01.06.08
I like the idea of giving your kid a different last name to either of hir parents.

How would this work though? If the parents pick the name then the kid's back where ze started, crushed like an insect by the weight of parental expectation, and if it's up to the youngster, how many people, of either sex, called, say, Bobby Spider-Man, does society actually need?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:52 / 01.06.08
There could never be enough Bobby Spider-Mans.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:52 / 01.06.08
Or David Mudkips.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:56 / 01.06.08
Or David Mudkips.

At last count there were over nine thousand.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:24 / 01.06.08
In fact I think I'll change my last name to, I don't know, probably not Spider-Man but something cool and superheroic, and then if I have kids they can also have my cool name until they get bored.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:34 / 01.06.08
I think a return to the old ways would be best, but I doubt it will ever catch on in the "me-me-me" west: I think that any male child should take his father's first name as his last, every daughters last name her mother's first.

I'm not sure what/where this way happened before it got old (I'm sure it happens somewhere and somewhen, most things do). But sadly you would not end up with Patsdottir if you were strictly following the naming traditions of the people who use -dottir as a suffix. You'd be Dadsnamedottir and like it, as men traditionally take their father's first name plus -son and women take his first name plus -dottir. Unless I'm wrong which also happens sometimes.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
19:57 / 01.06.08
There's always the Wilbur Swain approach:

"The siblings' intelligence goes on to create, amongst other things, a plan to end loneliness in America through the creation of vast extended families. Under the plan, all citizens would be provided with new middle names, made of the name of a random organism or element paired with a random number between 1 and 20. Everyone with the same name would be cousins, and everyone with the same name and number would be siblings."
 
 
Whisky Priestess
20:00 / 01.06.08
In fact I think I'll change my last name to, I don't know, probably not Spider-Man but something cool and superheroic

You should change it to 'Batman'
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply