Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihuxw.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!ihuxw!rtf
From: rtf@ihuxw.UUCP (sparrow)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Family Surnames
Message-ID: <505@ihuxw.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Sep-83 09:19:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxw.505
Posted: Thu Sep 29 09:19:30 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Sep-83 22:47:06 EDT
References: <2335@utcsrgv.UUCP>, <2339@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Organization: BTL Naperville, Il.
Lines: 18

I understand the good intentions of all people who desire to
retain their own names.  In fact, my sister was married recently
and I believe she plans to keep her own surname.  Many people
have pointed out that the biggest problem comes from other old
fashioned people and parents.  The hyphenated surname is more 
and more common these days.  Someone suggested Mason-Doucette
as the name they would give their offspring.  What people fail
to realize is that this practice becomes extremely cumbersome
after only one generation.  For example, Joe Mason-Doucette on
some day in the future may marry Jane Jubin-Frederick and have 
a baby girl.  Will her name be Mary Mason-Doucette-Jubin-Frederick?
This example ignores middle names which many people have.  It
seems that the hyphenated surname is only a good idea if you
own a single surname.  The idea of a hybrid surname appears
to be the only logical alternative.  EX.  Masette or Juberick.

Maybe only knicknames?
			like -->	sparrow