Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site osiris.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!osiris!jcp
From: jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Name-changing and "identity"
Message-ID: <510@osiris.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 09:17:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: osiris.510
Posted: Tue Sep  3 09:17:36 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 07:00:57 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Johns Hopkins Hospital
Lines: 26


	It's all very well for a man, who will never be called upon to
change *his* name, to think it foolish for women to protest having to
change theirs. One's inner identity is not dependent upon one's name,
but one's credit rating, professional reputation, etc., most certainly
is. When  I got married, I owned property in my name, had credit cards
and a credit rating, and a professional reputation based on that name.
Ask any man, those things *are* important. Appealing to tradition won't
cut it. If we were depending on "tradition", why, then I wouldn't own
property, have credit cards or a profession at all !
	It is also historically true that a woman takes a man's name as a
sign of becoming his property - in effect, her virginity ceases to be the
property of her father and is given over to her husband. That is why the
father "gives" the bride away at the wedding (another tradition I didn't
go along with !). This is well-documented in historical analysis. If we
are trying to dispense with "traditional" views of women as weak-minded,
helpless children, or as sex and baby-making machines for the dominant
males, then we should dispense with the "traditions" that subtly reinforce
those views.
	As they say, men of quality are not threatened by women for equality.


-- 
jcpatilla

"The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."