Names. Women who marry and change. Children getting father's
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 10:43AM The naming article was one I was bumming and aching about for ages. It seemed to cover a lot of similar territory, delusion, self-deception, convenient excuses etc as the famous Why Do Women Change Their Names When They Get Married article.
(By the way Jana has since divorced and is now back to Pitman).
Followed up by the article to the article.
It’ll be another case of me flushing the nutters, Nazis, fucktards and closet misogynists out. Had 3000 words and only as space of 700 so much was chopped out. Here’s my p.s.
The surname thing is something I am passionate about. The married name thing was about changing or not where as the children’s surname was about reinforcing a patrilinial tradition steeped in ownership. Not so much the outcome but the lack of honesty about what is informing the choice is what interests me. And the touchiness surrounding the discussion. And what’s really and truly behind the touchiness.
My children’s father was happy for our offspring to be Deveny and so was I.
As the pregnancy progressed as wrong as it had always felt all these people having just their father’s name it felt odd my our child just having mine.
So they the kids are hyphenated. My name first. No dramas. Perfect decision for us. They are told they can drop a name or change at any stage.
I remember around the time of the women changing their name article I was off to do a radio interview about it. My son asked where I was going. I explained I was off to the radio and explained the whole women changing their surname business. I said “Some people say ‘Well if we’re all hyphenated then if they have children what surname do they end up with?’” Dom replied “One name from each making a new name.” I thought, “If a nine year old dyslexic can work it out why can’t all these fuckwits.” Lightbulb. They have a vested interest keeping the status quo. So much so this issue is labeled ‘unimportant’ ,‘difficult’ or ‘both’.
Being born with an opinion and a vagina is misfortunate enough. When teamed with no fear of letting people down because they are already crushed with disappointed by ‘the way I ‘turned out’ well I’m just a walking ‘mouthy’ ‘feisty’ and ‘bitter’ bomb thrower waiting to happen. Sit back and enjoy the show!
Three years ago I innocently asked the readers of The Age, the broadsheet of Melbourne; one of the most engaged, sophisticated and socially progressive cities in the world, birthplace of Germaine Greer, Barry Humphries and Barry Jones and a UNESCO city of literature, “Why are women still taking their husbands surnames?” And I’m still having jam tins thrown at me for having the audacity to even ask the question. And worse still, to have the temerity to question the furious, irrational and non-sensical responses. Made by angry, annoyed and irritated people who either lack the intellectual capacity or refuse to apply it to reveal their true motivation to why they are angry, annoyed and irritated. Let alone to answer the question.
For every one uptight white honky who believes I am the only person who thinks the practice is sad, misogynist, archaic, insecure and unnecessary. There is a 1000 who have said ‘Thanks for voicing my thoughts. Now I can just shove this article under my conservative friends noses and you can take the rap!’
It’s so amazing all these women saying their surnames were horrible and that’s why they went with the husbands. I bet their brothers happily handed that same surname on. And if they were so horrible why hadn’t they changed their names by deed poll already?
The ‘easier’ argument and the ‘family needs one surname’ argument are just dodgy reason disguised patriarchy employed by people with no insight into their own medieval, divisive and views.
And the “family tree” argument thing just shows how easily they have swallowed the dodgy reason-disguised patriarchy and the strength of the invisible electric fences to keep it like that. HELLO. WE HAVE THE INTERNET AND SOPHISTOCATED GOVERNENT OFFICES FOR GENEOLOGY. It shows how blind people are to the misogyny when you here them talking about the family tree in solely patriarchal terms.
And has far as the ‘historically argument’ goes, see tradition and convention in today’s argument. It’s not ‘just your father’s surname’ it’s yours.
As far as ‘there are more important things to deal with.’ Oh yeah? And what are you doing about them? And by the way, we don’t do one thing at a time. Hopefully they are all being dealt with but this is just vain hope to distract from the importance of this issue.
One of the most interesting conversations I had last week was with a mate who ended up hyphenating she said, “I really didn’t care. And he said he didn’t either. So I said fine, let’s just go with my surname. And suddenly he went from I don’t really care to I’m not happy about that at all. Which is why I pushed for the hyphenated.” Get thee to a watercooler, a lunch room or online forum. If people get offended, just blame it on me.
Reader Comments (16)
This was a good article when I first read it in 'The Age', and it's still relevant.
When I married for the first time seventeen years ago, I was firmly in the camp of one surname. Tradition and maintaining the family unit were my unthinking reasons for wanting the situation to be that way. Reluctantly, my now ex-wife acquiesced. After about six months, I started really thinking about why it was important, and in a lightning bolt epiphany, realised the surname being the same was not only an absurd notion, but I also felt I'd stolen something from her. I suggested she change her name back, but apathy got in the way, although when we seperated, she resumed her 'maiden' name.
Tradition doesn't get vilified enough for its role in the practice of name changing, and nor does it get punished enough as the catalyst for many other social problems. The cliche "Some traditions must be maintained!" is surely a rallying cry for "I don't want anything to change, or otherwise I'll have to challenge my current thoughts and prejudices!".
The other reasons Catherine writes for women not changing their surnames are totally valid, but on top of those, tradition (for me) is a four letter word.
I always said that I wouldn't expect any woman to take my surname, but when it came to it, I suddenly found I wasn't comfortable with it and wanted my wife to take my name. She did agree to that, but I now regret putting her through that process for no good reason. Actually, scratch that, NO reason. I think you're probably right in the thinking that it's a patriachal thing, and that somehow my masculinity was threatened. I know changing her name was a PITA for my wife, and if she wanted to change it back, I wouldn't stop her.
In Spain, and South America, the matrilineal line and name is used, but it at least its use is consistent. No more equitable, but equally sound administratively.
Extensive genealogy research isn't possible without the source documents reflecting lineage. The internet isn't a source document- it's often a source of error-prone family trees construction by another individual and unreliable at best.
I don't care what method you use, but until widespread DNA testing visits the sins of the fathers on their sons, we need a viable method to link family members and trace progeny. The census is error-prone and unchecked. I'm not advocating paternalistic prejudice. Some genetic diseases need to be traced also. But a family surname is helpful intrinsically, in an administrative sense. A family number would also be helpful, but that would be seen as too dehumanizing - no doubt by social commentators writing blogs like this one.
As to a sense of family, I guess that doesn't require a label, but the label is about the only thing holding some families together. And a label may be all that's necessary.
No - you haven't flushed a misogynist out. In the past I've liked your skills and I've supported you. But in this case, you need to advocate how the administrative chores of genealogy would be better supported by a better system. Describe what would work better.
It's not about simple male-female rivalry or subversion. It's much more administratively and medically based than that. How else might you trace a host of other diseases which may affect your child? I suspect one would be tracing male surnames within county records within minutes and blaming every bloke whose surname ever graced a certificate. But you'd get somewhere. You want to know where your dyslexia comes from? Cover the surname on the certificates or omit them from search engines and see how far you get.
If you want to change a convention, fine. Undo a system and convention which has worked well for hundreds of years for genealogists and researchers. But please, replace it with something better providing unique IDs without any disadvantages.
Hey, what's up with tagging us (men) "white honky"? If you are going to use that then why not" black nigga" or "yellow slope" or boong? Double standards Deveney, double standards. And as I glanced through this article I saw the words vagina and feisty, which I initially misread as vagina and festy. Not a good combo.
Youse rok. Stuff all men. Their shuld be a hundred men to populate the whole world. Milk them, don't let them near your preshus filthy as thety are all perves.
Germaine's thinking pparts and other parts are a national tresure.
Keep men out of your partz.
Youse rok.
I've just read through this post, and all I can think of right now is 'so what?' - what people do with their names as and when they marry, and which names they choose to pass on to their children, and even which names they choose to use, it is all personal choice.
You made your choice - so what? It's a valid choice (taken by many others around the world), it's one that you and your partner arrived at together, and I (and probably 99.99% of the general population) have no problem with it - so what are you flag waving about? Have you scored some incredible victory for women's rights somehow?
There are much more important issues out there - unequal pay, unequal treatment in schools, religious intolerance, etc, etc, etc - so why are we wasting time with a non-issue like a choice of name?
I completely take your point & largely share your opinion. In my case both my parents couldn't have given a rats ass about me, my upbringing, my eventual happiness. When I met my life partner and he invited me to join his family I felt my first true sense of belonging. I'd been a visitor of many great families as I grew up, and as it turns out, family really matters to me.
Which is why I gladly threw off the shackles of my parent's name. I wouldn't for a moment go ramming my decision down anyone else's throat though - every story is different. But the people that still have a problem with my choice give me the shits from time to time
I don't like hyphenated names, can be a bit long and confusing. So, because my partner and I both liked out surnames we took the first part of his surname, the last part of mine and made a whole new surname for our son.
We weren't sure it would work, but we got the birth certificate with his new surname on it, so now we have a whole new name for our whole new family!
I met someone recently whose husband has taken her surname. This was because he comes from an overseas culture where people do not have surnames. When he immigrated to Australia to be with his partner, authorities insisted he must apply with surname. He explained he had one name only, but they would not accept it. So he decided to take his wife's surname.
On the matter of women taking their husband's surnames, I think it's diabolical that anyone should be forced or expected to take anyone's name. There should be absolute choice for either partner to take the other's name or a combination. I never worried about keeping my 'maiden' name - after all, it was just another man's name (my father's). Perhaps new babies should each be given their own unique first and last names they keep for life.
I told my wife that she was welcome to keep her surname, but she was keen to take mine. I told her that I'd prefer that our children have a hyphenated surname, or that we make up a new one - she hated both those ideas!
I didn't feel that forcing my surname preferences on her and our children was really a good solution to the "problem" of a tradition of patrilineal surnames, so in the end we went with the status quo.
I think this is a 50s return by stealth which worries me. Althrough the 80s and 90s very very few of my professional colleagues changed their names (it was almost a snickering point especially if the chaps first name appeared too - Mrs Bill Smith) but in the last deacade of Howard all this "tradition" started to pop back in- without irony. Seemingly sane women asking me to "pantry teas" and "hens nights" and emailing everyone to tell them they are taking hubbies name. Complete insanity.
It is hard for me as a long time sewer/crafter/recycler to see the rise of the "domestic crafts" as maybe part of the throw back too (trendy brunswick st has several stores offering crochet/kntiiing sewing and other domestic tutrials). Now I LOVE this stuff, and love ironic nanna products and have always done but worry that the full-tilt take on of this is part of return to another time.
A side pioint - the itallians have a name system which sees the matriarchal line noted, the women never change their names in days of yore and families can be esily traced as well as avoiding the hyphen thing which only works for one gneration doent it beofer we have quadruple names....
PS my partner and I always say we will take each others names if we get married (like hell) and he can be called Kate and I will be Tony. It makes as much sense!
One of my sisters told me she was taking her hubbies name for the childrens sake - so if wouldnt be confusing...wanted to say "are you planning on having not very bright children?" such bullshit. they call them mum and dad and never seemt o call them Mr and mrs Smith so they dont seem confused at all! I
This is a pointless article, hyphonated names are just idiotic, children should have one last name. Its simply tradition that it be the husbands and this is probably the simplist way otherwise things get to confusing. Though if you want to use the wifes name for the family then there no problem with that especially if the husbands name is bad. I think you read to much into this Catherine its simply a tradition a name is a name.It does not subjucate woman just as men giving way to woman does not suggest men are inferior to woman it simply tradition. And to be honest it is not a bad tradition it keeps things simple. Just as in letting women enter first means everyone dosn't try to cram in first.
Catherine if you want to talk about womens rights perhaps starting on domestic violence would be good, or religious violence and discrimination against woman such as honour killings or the Church telling people not to have protected sex. Most women are happy taking there husbands last names it really is a non-issue. Woman aren't forced to do this and if they are then saddly it is probably one of the least of their problems in their relationship.
Aww, dang. I came here via Twitter and I thought it was gonna be about people who change their name, just generally. I was relieved to change my name upon marriage as it was only the second time in my life I would have an actual entitlement to a name. It is possible to get addicted to changing one's name (says she who has done it three times, excluding at marriage), but BD&M only allows you to do it three times, unless you get special permission. Had I known that before I would have made the right choice the first time. But, eh... we had no internet in those days. However did we manage??
I was the one who linked an article responding to yours, though actually I stumbled across your article after I posted my own (hence why yours isn't mentioned) but I've started posting the articles of yours that I love on facebook, and I hope my blog post backs up your position against the people who don't understand why its an important issue.
I first read The Age column when it was first published in 2007. I loved it and i decided then that i would never change my name if i were to get married on day.
Last year I married and true to my word I have kept my name. I am the only one of my married friends to not change their name, which completely surprises me. I get so sad each time a friend gets married and on their return to work, their name is changed on their work email.
I reread this article today because I am so sick of having to (politely) defend my decision to KEEP my name. I can't believe people question my decision to keep my name, but if i question their decision to change their name, I am being rude.
Amazingly it's the people my age (around 30) who get defensive about my decision and they react as if I have insulted them personally. My parents and my husbands parents haven't even battered an eyelid about my name.
So, Thank you Catherine for your article. it had an impact on my life! I will continue to reread it as I have a feeling this argument isn't going to die anytime soon, especially when we start having kids!
Andie
PS- My husband is proud that I have kept my name.