NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/couples/4885

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!netnews.cc.lehigh.edu!lehigh.edu!luden
From: [e-mail] (Dean E. Nelson)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: A Question...
Keywords: last names
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:37:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Lehigh University Computing Center
Lines: 68
Nntp-Posting-Host: 128.180.3.20

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Amy J. Pezzillo) writes:
>
>Here's a question that I'd like people's opinions on:  What do you
>think about the practice of a woman taking the man's last name when
>they get married?

You can't get much more personal than a name.  I like Erickson's
description of The Father as guardian of the child's autonomy.
A name change is symbolic of the autonomy realized with marriage.
Traditionally, the man was seen as autonomous without a name change
because he became the head of his own family, and hence autonomous
from his parents. A woman's name changed as symbolic of her autonomy from
her parents.  I tend to look at the positive, rather than negative aspects
of this symbolism, but then it is easier for me to do that since I am a man.

>Personally, I think that it's a good idea for a married couple to
>share a last name, both for the sake of convinience and because I
>think it is a clear reminder that they are family to each other.

I think the link between name and identity is stronger than you suggest,

>*However,* I really object to the idea that it must be the woman who
>gives up her name to take the man's name.  In "the bad old days" this
>was symbolic of the fact that she was his legal property, and, in the
>eyes of the law, they were one person -- him.  But why do we still
>need to do this?  What's wrong with both of them taking her last name,
>or a totally new one?  Or some combination of the two?

It is totally dependent upon the interpretation.  For us, a single name,
a single family.  Taking my name connects us to our parents, because the
tradition is upheld.  Both sides of the family had this tradition.  It
was not viewed by my wife as condescending.

>It seems like a lot of couples I know have gone the route of having
>the woman either keep her own last name or having the woman take hers
>hyphenated with his.  Rarely does the man take a hyphenate name.  Does
>it seem strange or unfair to anyone else that the woman is expected to
>make the change, but never the man?

Strange to who?  Everyone is able to make up their own minds.  Doesn't
it seem strange that fairness is so axiomatically correct?

>I know a few men who seem to think it is solely a woman's problem and
>solely her decision.  She has the option of keeping her name or taking
>his or hyphenating them, but he does not expect to have to do anything
>at all.

Perhaps their name *means* something different to them, than yours does
to you.

>Personally, I think it is deeply symbolic to change one's name and
>take another's.  I see it as very appropriate in marriage.  But I
>don't think I'd be willing to make that sacrifice for someone who
>wasn't willing to make that sacrifice for me.

I agree, that it is deeply symbolic, but is not as symmetric as you
imagine.  Maybe that will change with time, but "The Family Name" is
very powerful symbol, and probably more so to men.  Women have a history
of changing their name, and men don't.  Tradition pulls them in opposite
directions.  None of us are running around with a clean slate on this
one.  That it isn't symmetric may seem wrong to you, and I encourage you
to do what you feel is right.  But, don't expect the argument of fairness
and equity to automatically win over tradition, especially on an issue that
is so closely tied to identity and family relationships.

Dean
[e-mail]