Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Name Changes Message-ID: <1980@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 11:02:45 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1980 Posted: Wed Sep 4 11:02:45 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 12:14:37 EDT References: <5211@elsie.UUCP> <11302@rochester.UUCP> <508@osiris.UUCP> <11313@rochester.UUCP> Reply-To: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 75 Summary: In article <11313@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> Changing one's identity, presumably for life, is *NOT* a trivial >> issue. If it were, why aren't men changing *their* names upon marriage ? >> The wife's name-change is a relic of times when women were chattel, >> property, and if that's how you look at your wife, then you're the one who >> has some problems. Personally, I would not want to marry a man who would not >> agree to my keeping my name. >> -- >> jcpatilla > >Why doesn't the preacher say "and now the bride may kiss the groom? >Why is there no flower boy following the groom? >Why is there no shower for the man, instead of a party that wrecks his brain for >weeks? > >Because this is simply the way things have evolved. To make more out of simple >tradition than exists is just looking for trouble where there isn't any until >you play magician and create it out of thin air. Am I the only one being irked by this guy? Sure, all the things you mentioned are traditions, but they are traditions for one day and are not very relevant. Changing one's name is a much more significant step. It is a symbol that the woman becomes part of the man. Apart from that, it is very annoying practically. It is much harder to find a long-lost friend if they have changed their name, and it is just a big hassle changing one's name unless one really wants to, and if, as you say, most marriages are so short-lived, then why bother going through all that fuss just to reverse it. When the government of Quebec last changed its family law, a few years ago, it changed the official name of married women from that of their husbands to their maiden name. The reason given was that it was too expensive and complicated to keep track of all the changes. Before that, they had already tried it out sucessfully with medicaire records. >If one so desired, one could easily make an issue out of a million and one >pratices that have evovled into traditions down through the ages. Yes, a lot of people do. Is there something wrong with that? And the insults flow: >I don't blame you for not wanting to marry a man who would treat you as prop- >erty. Who would want to? But why are you suggesting that changing names means >the same today as it did long ago? Who told you that or did you surmise this >yourself? You are going to get married presumedly because you love and or >respect each other. If this, the very foundation with which to build a life on, >is shattered simply by changing one's name, than I seriously have to doubt the >sincerity of your reasons for wanting to get married. >If you fear losing your identity because of a name change, then you most likely >have a shaky self image to begin with. >The ones who stand a chance to lose >their identity are the children and their children and so on. What if a girl's >name is Linda Sadowsky-Tannenberg? She marries John Pollichicho-Murphy. Their >daughter becomes Lucy Pollichicho-Murphy-Sadowsky-Tannenberg. And so on. So, if it's not such a big problem, then why do you worry about the children losing their identity? I also don't see why having a long name is equivalent to losing one's identity. I think you forgot your logic on the other side of the bed this morning, you know, the right one. >If you really feel that you will lose your identity for life, don't be too con- >cerned, 1 out of 2 marriages are currently failing within seven years. If this >misfortune befalls you, you can then reclaim your old identity. By the way, on >second marriages, the statistics are even worse. It is almost as though you >make it the first time around or you usually don't make it. Saying 'losing >your identity for life' is a bit optimistic if not unrealistic in light of the >current statistics. So, then again, why bother? It's much simpler not to change it. More importantly, why should a woman look forward to being divorced to regain her identity? why not simply keep it all along? that might give her less reasons to desire being divorced... -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie