Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!aero!dgp.toronto.edu From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Name Change After Marriage Message-ID: <90Aug27.114628edt.1671@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Date: 24 Aug 90 00:11:47 GMT Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Organization: Dynamic Graphics Project, University of Toronto Lines: 70 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R I wanted to respond to a couple of recent comments on this topic. Allow me to state at the outset that I am entirely opposed to (women's) name change upon marriage. >From: beckwith@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (beckwith) >I have wondered if there are any couples who have merged their two last names >and created a new name (then both partners take the new name). I might >consider doing something like that. It would be like marking the >start of a new adventure. Is there anyone out there who has done this? All actual proposed mergings of names I've heard have sounded a little silly... Picking a new name that you both like sounds more likely to me. I have heard of both people taking on a hyphenated name, but it irks me that the woman's surname is always first in the hyphenated pair, and therefore sometimes becomes like a middle name rather than a component of the surname, due to the influence of the standard of the woman taking the man's surname. But anyway I for one would certainly not want to change my name. One of the objections to women changing their surname upon marriage is that it separates them from their previous career (publications, etc). This objection is not lessened just because the man has similar difficulties; it's maybe even worse because it's two people now. There are many things that are more important to share than a name. But if you find it necessary to share a name, an interesting idea that Jamie Andrews posted to the net a few years ago is worth repeating. He suggested (I don't know if this was original or not) that you could pick a new name, and both people would adopt it as their *middle* name. Then this new name could be the surname of any children. Furthermore, the parents could use the new name as a surname of convenience when visiting a child's school, for example, without any feeling of compromise -- for example the woman would not have to feel that she was giving in by temporarily using the man's surname, since it wouldn't be his. The main advantage of this scheme is that both spouses retain their old name and keep their connections to their previous professional lives. >From: hars@pws.bull.com (Adele Hars) >A question -- what do you name your kids? I favor hypenation, but in a few >generations, that could get a little long... any thoughts? I'm not too keen on hyphenation for a few reasons, although I'll have to admit I haven't been there (had kids) yet. One reason is that it's no longer a name in common with either adult, so it seems slightly pointless. Another is the problem you (Adele Hars) mention -- it gets too long after the second application, really. Also, the hyphenation problem I mentioned above seems to hold for children too. The idea of naming girls with the mother's surname and boys with the father's surname is interesting in a few ways. One is that it's a cute compromise -- some children get named each name. The more interesting aspect, in the long run, is that eventually women's surnames will reflect a matrilineal descent in the way that most of our surnames (in Western culture) reflect a patrilineal descent history today, while men's surnames will still be patrilineal. In fact, you could start by naming your female children with their farthest-back matrilineal name you can find (the mother's birth name, or better yet the mother's mother's birth name, or better yet the mother's mother's mother's birth name, etc). (But you might not want to, because it's not your surname.) Personally, I don't see why children aren't just given the mother's surname. After all, she gave birth to them, and the man's involvement was fairly negligible, especially if you assume he was intrinsically interested in performing the sex act at that time. (Also, the mother's identity can be known, modulo bizarre and infrequent hospital mixups, whereas many people cannot be sure of the father's identity.) regards everyone, ajr p.s. further discussion by e-mail (or otherwise) welcome!