I found this article regarding last name change on Ms. Magazine Online this morning. It discusses the lengthy (and unnecessary) process a man must persue if he desires to change his last name once he marries.
“Under most states’ laws, if a man wants to take his wife’s name he must petition the court, advertise in a newspaper and pay hundreds of dollars in fees. A woman needs only to fill out a marriage license application” (Bailey Porter, Ms. Magazine). Now that is just ridiculous. It is 2007 and women are still not seen as equals to men. Why is it such a process if a man would like to honor his wife’s last name? What happens with same sex couples? Honestly, why do we even need to take each other’s last names? Personally, if I do decide to marry, I will be keeping my name because…well it’s MY name. Just because I marry does not mean that I am now my husband’s property. I am still my own person with my own opinions, my own preferences, my own identity and my own name. I do recognize (and absolutely respect) that some women (including dear friends of mine) believe that taking their husband’s name is romantic and a way of making their union official. Why can’t prince charming then take his wife’s last name to make the union official? BOTH parties should have the option.
When it comes down to the fact that when a couple decides to marry, neither should feel obligated to sacrifice their given names in order to feel united (especially women). Significant others are only additions to each other’s lives (regardless of how large that addition might be). I think it is vital to remember that we are complete without being in a relationship and should continue to remain so after marriage (or any type of serious committed relationship). There is no need to change who we are in order to be in a relationship.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Jamia // Jun 15, 2007 at 10:34 am
thank you for blogging on this. i love my name and the history it brings with it. i’m holding on to it always (either staying jamia wilson, or hypenating) and i want my kids to have both my name and my partner’s name. i would never consider a partner who wouldn’t respect and honor my family by agreeing to this. when we marry we shouldn’t lose part of ourselves, we should only build something new and unified.
2 Maddie Lear // Jun 15, 2007 at 5:01 pm
What you are saying is true, and men should not go through so much to change their name. But, I just have one problem with what you are saying. To me it seems like you’re making it just a little bit more sexist than it needs to be. In history, for a long time, it’s just tradition to take a husband’s name and that doesn’t mean you’re not you with your own thoughts or anything like that. I know you said that it is okay to take a husband’s name, to me it just doesn’t seem like a very big anti-feminist deal. Great post, though!
3 Lizzie // Jun 16, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I totally agree. I find it endlessly old-fashioned and sexist that women still take their husbands’ names. I think women submit so much of their power when they agree to take their husbands’ names; there’s a lot to be said about who’s in charge in families where the woman takes the husband’s name.
I think part of why marriage has such a bad rap is because of people clinging to old fashioned stereotypes that support old fashioned power structures. If everyone has Dad’s last name, then Dad is in charge, right?
However, I also like Jamia’s point that hyphenating names means building something new. That’s cute.
4 maia // Sep 16, 2007 at 8:38 am
“Why is it such a process if a man would honor his wife’s last name?” What? It’s “honoring” his wife’s for a man to take her name, but if a woman takes her husband’s name she’s not “honoring” him but is instead is becoming his “property” and losing her identity. If you really favor treating both sexes equally you would be as opposed to men taking their wives names as you are opposed to women taking their husbands names. Hypocrisy?
As for how much “respect” you have for your friends who have taken their husband’s names, how much respect do you have for them if you consider them to be their husbands property and accuse them of having lost their identity?
“…if everyone has Dad’s last name, then Dad is in charge, right?” Uhh, no. For most of western history, there were no last names. Last names are a relatively new development that came into existence about the same time as the need for record keeping related to taxes and military service. Prior to that when there were largely agrarian economies there was no need for anyone to be identified by last names. So by your reasoning men could not have been in power positions in the family because there were no last names, right? And also men cannot be in power postions in most of the world where women do not and have never taken their husbands’ last names, for example in China, Korea, the middle-east, etc. In Turkey, there were no last names until the 1930s. Women have never taken their husbands names in Portugal or Belgium, etc. So that means according to you that men could never have been in a position of power over women in their families because their families never took their last names. Is that what you’re saying? If we look at family structure and social, political histories in these countries, we would find that women have/had equality? Perhaps you could actually read some history and find out the real story.
Oh by the way, the “That’s cute.” comment is very much an “old fashioned stereotype” of feminine speech. Given your opposition to “old fashioned stereotypes that support old fashioned power structures.”, you should probably adopt more gender neutral phrasing.
Leave a Comment