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: 12(3)

 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
20:31 / 01.06.08
bin Suparman.
 
 
teleute
12:32 / 03.06.08
In response to the initial post in this topic, the logistics of changing your name after marriage in the UK are suprisingly simple if somewhat time consuming. We consulted with the registrar before our marriage and have done everything without cost, just a great deal of form filling, some patient explanations in person at certain institutions (banks in particular) and many photocopies of our birth and marriage certificates. In fact, one of the most difficult aspects was convincing his employer to change his e-mail address, easily enough done for a woman, not so common for a man.

On marrying my husband I was suprised when he asked my permission to take my name. Suprised,delighted and yes it is a little bit of an ego booster that he did so. Having read through the previous comments on this, I admit that I had a more unusual and interesting surname than he did. Its also a name that suits me (it means 'murder path' and as a goth of ages I kinda like that...) and regardless of the debate on lineage / paternity / etc, I wanted to keep.

After discussion we decided to hyphenate, his name first, mine last and ended up as R-M. The name we have created for our family is unique. It refers to only us two. We both opted to declare ourselves as a partnership, and were both shocked at the amount of ridicule and resentment that it caused. My family took the piss but have grown to like it, and are forever coming up with novel and inventive ways to address envelopes to us that never quite gets it right; his family (particularly his father) were disgusted at his 'desbasement of the family name'.

A practical issue that's come from this has been the fact that our surname is a mouthful. I meet new people constantly for work and have to admit that when I book appointments I drop the M from our R-M. It may sound like I'm exaggerating, but that hyphon sure causes confusion. People assume that I am from a priveledged or socially ambitious background, or simply trying to be something I'm not (I live in the fiercely working class north east of England, and work amongst some of our most deprived communities and waltzing in with a double barrelled name can give rise to a certain level of hostility - I am a 'them' rather than an 'us' despite the fact I am also the product of social housing, social deprivation and comprehensive school education..!).

And if I am perfectly honest, I still think of myself as an M. But then my mother still thinks of herself as a Renwick despite forty years as first an M and then an E. If I were to divorce I'd return to an M the next day, no hesitation. My best girlfriend has retained the name she took in a brief unhappy marriage, and that I do find puzzling.
 
 
HCE
23:37 / 03.06.08
Thanks for the clarification, Mordant.

I didn't intend to continue being my own person but simply a receptacle for his sperm.

But... but... we use condoms!

The only parts of your post that are intelligible to me are actively insulting. Just to check, are you being sarcastic, or was that meant to be a parody? I find it hard to believe that you would propose to know whether marriage is a big change or not, given that individual experiences vary so widely, and the idea that changing your surname from your father's to your partner's is equivalent to facial surgery, and also eradicates all parts of your identity, reducing you to a 'sperm receptacle' is just... bizarre, really.
 
 
Anna de Logardiere
12:01 / 04.06.08
Every single day of my life I meet women who changed their name at marriage without thinking about what they were doing. I bet the majority of people here count their mothers among those numbers. No one even thought about what was wrong with this for years and hundreds of women still don't, they don't care. I do care, I think it's weird, I don't see many men doing it, it's not necessarily expected of women anymore but that doesn't address the issue. You think it's a problem that I don't think marriage is a big change but you have no problem with the symbolic peculiarity of women and children taking men's surnames. There's no problem with justifying that name change because it's been that way or women have a choice now. Well what's the point of having a dialogue with any of you when you're so willing to accept something simply because it's always been the norm?
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
12:52 / 04.06.08
Well what's the point of having a dialogue with any of you

yes. because no one here has agreed with you.

when you're so willing to accept something simply because it's always been the norm?

yes. because no one here has given any possible reason for having done this, except that "it's always been the norm".

you're not just being rude and dismissive. you're being ridiculous.

I really feel that you almost always have something useful and insightful to say, something it would do me a great deal of good to read; and I always hate trying to dig through your bile to get at it. I wonder how many people's minds you might have changed over the years if it were possible for you to say anything without telling us all how stupid we are and how pointless it is for you to talk to us?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:54 / 04.06.08
I think the problem with your argumentation there - except for the division of "me and those who think like me" and "stupid, stupid, bloody stupid women" - is that, if you don't think that marriage is a big deal, and deny the validity of anyone else's experience of marriage _as_ a big deal unless it is in the context of born-again Christianity, you provide no incentive for others to respect the validity of your belief that changing one's name is a big deal.

Well, the other problem is, of course, that many people here seem quite happy to have a dialogue, and do not appear to be so willing to accept something simply because it's always been the norm. That viewpoint, I would say, is in a considerable minority.
 
 
HCE
14:50 / 04.06.08
you have no problem with the symbolic peculiarity of women and children taking men's surnames

Could you please quote what I said that makes you think that? I didn't condemn the assumption that women should take their husbands' names as a matter of course because nobody here has made it*, and it seems to me to be incredibly obvious that there are problems with that assumption.

Unless you're trying to say that it's never ok ever for any woman to decide for any reason whatsoever to take her husband's name no matter what, then who is arguing against you? And if it's not only husbands who are the problem but also fathers, are you proposing that all people who don't reject their father's names as soon as they possibly can are ... I don't know, sexist? Moral failures?

*If somebody has, please point it out and I'll address it.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
16:05 / 04.06.08
And if it's not only husbands who are the problem but also fathers, are you proposing that all people who don't reject their father's names as soon as they possibly can are ... I don't know, sexist? Moral failures?

Thanks for making this point... It's obvious that people in this thread are very passionate about their stances. I feel that there are posters who feel it's a *literal* slap in the face for a woman to want to associate herself with her husband or father no matter the circumstance, like she may be erasing potential generations of hard work of trying to achieve gender equality in one fell swoop. It seems that people think that it's even worse if a man thinks that it's OK for a woman to take his name...

One of the problems stems from the fact that we've been living under the forced concensus of a general rule (Linear patriarchy). There are others who think that the solution is to force a different concensus (total rejection of patriarchy in favour of either matriarchy or something completely new based on equality).

The "something new based on equality" is appealing to me, but as a species, change is slow, and if we are primates, this may seem contrary to our nature. Primates are usually pretty possesive and hierarchical.

Of course, the "that which makes us Human" should be able to realise this and we should be able to choose to reject a so-called "natural order", but we are hampered in many cases by fear generated by social factors such as religion, government, family and consensus reality.

Like I said, change is slow, but it's happening. Soon there will be a tipping point brought about by courageous individuals: 20-30 years ago it was still uncommon here in Canada to see many mixed racial couples and/or marriages. Those choosing to do so risked ostracism, even outright violence. Today the majority of marriages in large urban centres such as Vancouver and Toronto are racially mixed. We are indeed moving towards the "grey race" and hopefully in the not too distant future we'll all be so mixed (and stronger because of it) that the idea of racial intolerance will be an historical curiosity.

Maybe the next step after that will be the "grey gender".

But in the meantime, be patient, understanding and forgiving with those a bit behind the times. There are still those not yet comfortable with drastic change and may prefer the inequal differences between males and females. The important thing is that they are taught tolerance because trying to force ideals upon someone will usually result in a backlash. If things cannot be a result of an individual choice, then I fear that nothing is really gained...
 
 
Anna de Logardiere
19:12 / 04.06.08
If that isn't the assumption then why am I having to even talk about why this is a problem.

Look I'm going to do this point by point.
1) I didn't condemn the assumption that women should take their husbands' names as a matter of course because nobody here has made it

No one has to make it, very few of you are upset by the notion of people here or people's wives taking their partner's surnames which speaks for itself.

2) Unless you're trying to say that it's never ok ever for any woman to decide for any reason whatsoever to take her husband's name no matter what

So when is it acceptable?

3) if it's not only husbands who are the problem but also fathers, are you proposing that all people who don't reject their father's names as soon as they possibly can are ... I don't know, sexist? Moral failures?

No because by the time they're conscious those are their names too. I don't see why that should continue to happen for generations to come, which is an argument that was used by the partner of someone who has contributed to this thread. Logically that doesn't mean that they're not engaged in an act of sexism either, having the name of your father simply because that's the way things have always been done is still a discrimination against someone (the mother) on the grounds of their gender.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:31 / 04.06.08
If that isn't the assumption then why am I having to even talk about why this is a problem.

Because you said that that was the assumption and are proceeding on that basis, I think.
 
 
Tsuga
00:37 / 05.06.08
It is a problematic convention. For the most part, I don't like it at all, and it seems that a majority here have some problem with it, at least the idea of it as a rule, but you've got to give people some benefit of the doubt in being somewhat self-aware in their choices in their own lives. It's fair to question, but I don't know how helpful it is to be too judgmental about such a personal decision. I don't know if the suspicious preponderance here of women taking men's names instead of the opposite is more a testament to the dominant paradigm of patriarchy or the ancillary effects of it, in creating women who want to disassociate from their personal patriarchy. Or other reasons. I don't want to judge too much without knowing.
I think Disco was on with Maybe it would be useful here to make a distinction between critiquing a tradition and critiquing people's personal practices.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
02:37 / 05.06.08
So when is it acceptable?

When two people who really love each other have come to the decision that it's the right thing to do, for them.

I don't see what's wrong with just tossing a coin, in this situation. Heads Partner X's name, Tails Partner Y's. If nothing else, I imagine whatever rages were boiling under the surface of the relationship would swiftly move to the top, if it came to 'best of three ... five ... seven,' etc.

Whatever, it's best to have that sort of thing out early.
 
 
Saturn's nod
09:11 / 05.06.08
No because by the time they're conscious those are their names too.

This is an assumption on your part. For me, the surname I grew up with never felt like 'mine', it was always a label belonging to my father and his family. I changed it as soon as I turned 18.

The name I had in the interim between becoming an adult and changing my name again after my marriage, I have kept as my middle name, but I was happy to change my surname again. I don't share your strong attachment to surnames: I like having taking the opportunity to change mine twice so far. My identity is more tied up in my body/mind than in the lable for it; I suppose my national insurance number seems quite sufficient as a stable identifier if one is needed. Of course you are at liberty to conclude that this is false consciousness on my part, from your perspective.

Another belief I don't share with you is that marriage is unimportant. For me, it's a lifelong commitment which includes becoming each other's next of kin; it's a huge commitment equivalent to taking perpetual monastic vows. Sharing the same surname with my chosen lover-and-legal-kin is nice, but it's not important in the same way as the public declaration of intent to share the rest of my life with someone.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:57 / 05.06.08
My last name isn't mine either. It belongs to my dad. To the guy who used to knock my nan and my dad about. It belongs to my psycho great-grandmother (who married in haste so as to lose her own German surname). It belongs to a side of the family that I've had no contact with since I was a kid. Wanted to change it growing up but when I was 18 that was something rich people and pretentious arty types did, changing your name. Besides which when you're already up to your eyeballs in forms for housing benefit and the dole and your A-levels and whatever, another set of forms to make the change followed by having to do the HB, dole etc all over again doesn't seem very inviting. And change it to what? My mum never had any attachment to her maiden name and was glad to lose it. Go back to her mother, her grandmother? All those names were ultimately the name of some male, assigned rather than adopted.

Now it's not my name to me, it's my designation for the purposes of bureaucracy, roughly analagous to my national insurance number--something to put on official documents. I've never willingly put a single piece of work out under it since I was 14, they've all gone out under whatever elective name I was using at the time. If I change it, it probably won't be to my partner's, but I can see why a person might choose that option.
 
 
HCE
16:30 / 05.06.08
I don't know if the suspicious preponderance here of women taking men's names instead of the opposite is more a testament to the dominant paradigm of patriarchy or the ancillary effects of it, in creating women who want to disassociate from their personal patriarchy.

Well, or an effect whereby men are denied the opportunity to take their spouse's surname, due to social pressures. I don't see why men and boys would not also sometimes want to dissociate from their families. Perhaps we could ask the men here who are married and who have reasons similar to those that women have stated for not wanting their birth surnames whether they considered taking their partner's, and if not why not. Because the force of convention was too great? Because they feared ridicule? Certainly, as a woman, this is the first time I've have to face outright ridicule for changing my name, though most of the women in my family seemed quite shocked and did a double take. "You're changing your name? Oh, right, your dad ... ok." I can definitely see that I have it much easier in this respect than a man who wanted to take his wife's name.

I'm also interested to know how gay couples handle it. Does it become more important to share a last name, as a marker of legitimacy or intimacy of some kind? Does it work the same way in countries where same-sex marriages have been legal for a while?
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
16:46 / 05.06.08
For queer couples (at least in my sphere in Canada), I've seen hyphenates (although, seriously, what order do you use?) or people who keep their own names. Like I've said upthread, I would/will/whatever keep my own name if we decide to get married - but it's like everyone else, the choice is up the individuals in the relationship. I don't need the shared name for legitimacy, but it depends.

The problem tends to be more about what name we'd give our kids, should we have them. The Accomplice is fairly adamant that they take my name, as he has a lot of issues with his family and does not want to continue the "legacy."

To be honest, the concept of getting married at all still feels rather alien to me, and it's surreal that it's now feels like an option after years of being non-viable. It's only been in the last year or two that it's felt like an actual possibility, having been wired up in my head as something that wasn't necessary or something I was particularly interested in doing.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
17:06 / 05.06.08
I was a witness at gay friends' marriage. It will be 2 years in August and they are only coming out as "Married" to most family and friends this summer. It's been kept a big secret. They're having a kid and yet still there was more of a stigma to "Marriage" which prevented them from coming out as married. They have each retained their surnames even though one is disassociated from her family. Their boy, once born, will take the other's last name. I'll ask Caro if she's ever thought of changing her name.

I never considered changing my family name, except in the context of a non-de-plume, for two reasons: Social conditioning and because I really don't think my folks would understand (OK, maybe that's really only one reason): They have a hard enough time with my changing my given name. I can only imagine the guilt from the feeling of pain and rejection they would feel. Once when I published a poem I dropped my family name and my Mom kept on about why I would do that, am I ashamed of my family? Which I'm not, I have had a very supportive family for the most part, but no matter how I would try explain, the hurt remained.

My wife would not want me to take her family name either. It's funny, she's not conservative, but can be traditional. She thinks that the whole issue's rather silly, actually, when I've described a bit about what's been said here. She did have a laugh when I said that if we made a composite surname one of the permutations could be "Marvin".
 
 
HCE
06:03 / 06.06.08
I assure you that my loved ones have FASCINATING opinions, such as that I'm right and all the rest of you are not only wrong, but laughable. Still, it seems not wholly relevant to discuss them, since they don't post here.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:51 / 06.06.08
Well, brb, my centenarian mum thinks you should listen to freektemple's wife. She's only got your best interests at heart. However, freektemple, she thinks you should lay off the mary jane a bit.

I remember the 60s, you know. It wasn't as much fun as they say.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
11:14 / 06.06.08
But...But... We were told thet the 60's were the greatest decade ever, in the history of decades...

Fair enough, I'll keep my wife's opinions to myself.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:16 / 06.06.08
Get her to join! That always has hilarious consequences!
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:58 / 06.06.08
Everyone gets on all right with my wife. Don't they?
 
 
HCE
20:05 / 06.06.08
Your wife, Fluxington's kids -- all treasured friends, I assure you.
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply