Married names and titles

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: My question to you, though, is do you really think that just changing your name somehow re-defines you as an individual? I'm curious because it seems that some women feel that way.

I've thought about this since making this thread, and I suppose I don't think that my name defines me per se, but it identifies me. So changing it implies that I am not the same person I was before, whereas my husband having the same identifier suggests he hasn't changed at all. Also a surname indicates what family I am a part of. Now as Yorick commented earlier, really we both have our father's name because we are part of 'his' family. If I change my surname now it seems I am in my husband's father's family and not my own father's. I guess I see it as - having the same surname won't affect the unity of my family of creation and children, and moreover implies that I have 'left' my family of origin to join my husband's family of origin rather than us creating our own family, so I should retain my own name. Really I suppose it's similar to hypenating, only less cumbersome, as it signifies that we are equally from two families rather than one of us leaving one behind and joining the other's.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: The thing about a woman keeping her name is that she's still keeping a man's name. Her father's. The only way a fair nonsexist system would work is for women to keep their mother's name, and guys to keep their father's. But even then it's still sexist. And where do you go back to? Due to out patriarchal society, all surnames are from men at some point (in anglo saxon society.) In Nordic society it's been different. The singer Bjork for example has the surname (translated) Goodmansdaughter. To answer the question, my (ex)wife kept her fathers surname and did not take mine. We are now divorced. Reach your own conclusions if you like.

I'll respond to this even though I realise it was emotionally (and alcoholically ) charged . It's interesting that you say "[she] kept her father's surname and did not take mine". Yours is also your father's isn't it? Surely it is either she kept her name and not yours, or kept her father's and didn't take your father's. And so of course, when you say "The thing about a woman keeping her name is that she's still keeping a man's name. Her father's." - you will always have your father's name too. Sounds okay to me

Anyway for me it's not really a sexist thing necessarily (though the Ms thing is ). If I was a lesbian and marrying my girlfriend then I wouldn't take her name or want her to take mine either. My name is part of who I am - it's my label, what I am identified by. If I walk into a room and someone on the other side with one of my friends says 'who is that' they don't say, 'ah well, that's a woman who likes sport and shopping, she is a student at university, owns a cat and lives at home', they say 'that's Melanie Hunter'. So just because I am married my identity hasn't changed such that half my name needs to be different.

I don't agree that it is necessary to have a unified family to all have the same name. Surely the act of living together and making the legal commitment and wearing the rings is telling enough! Nor would I have a problem with, if I married Bob Jones for our family to be referred to as the 'Joneses'. Because I would be a 'Jones' insofar as that identified our family, however I am also a Hunter. [/QUOTE]You have to remember that surnames are a product of a patriachal society. As I said earlier, all Western surnames originate with a male at some point. Though the tribal, clan and land inheriting issues have disappeared, the family linkage still remains. Bucking the system TOTALLY defeats the modern purpose of having a family name. Working within it, and creating the additional name for female lineage creates additional linkage.

The issue of family names creating unity is I believe, emphasised in your post regarding unified family. "surely the act of living together..... is telling enough."

A family is more than just the people living together.

With the industrial revolution and the move to urban rather than rural/village living, the extended family's unity and impact has been severely lessened. "It takes a village to raise a child" is the sagelike quote. Extended families do NOT live together in western urban cultures, Yet your post only seems to acknowledge a family as people living together!

When I was 18 I met a drummer in Sydney playing in the same scene. He happened to have my mothers relatively uncommon maiden name as his surname. I didn't know him. However, we both checked with our families and discovered we were third or fourth cousins. He was extended family. It gave us (he, I and my brother) a sense of connection. A family connection. Without the common surname, that would never have happened.

In a rural society, we would never have NOT known each other.

The destruction of the extended family is huge loss in my opinion. Grandparents used to have much more promince in grandchildrens lives. In many cultures they would spend time raising the children while the parents worked. As they were older, wiser, had more time and more experience, grandparents presence not only benefitted the grandchildren, but also gave the parents time alone. Time to adjust to having children.

It mirrors the destruction of the nuclear family in it's negative impact on individuals. From having a "village" grandparents, uncles, cousins, third cousins etc. we've moved to a mother and child.

The potential for disaster was emphasised to me even tonight when I spoke with a friend about an issue he's had with his mother this last year. She objected to him marrying his wife, and they didn't talk for all year.

He was her only son. They were a family of two.

In losing communication with his mother, he basically lost his entire family for that year. She may move countries soon. He will lose his entire "family."

With a present extended family, having an issue with a parent is less disasterous, because an individual can be receiving love from other family members.

Hence the village quote.

If we restructure society so that common names cease to exist at all, it will remove one of the last vestiges of linkage with the extended family. This would be a disaster in my opinion.

The love a family brings is irreplacable.

In relationship counselling circles, a concept of "the love tank" is often used. A person with a full "love tank" has more to contribute to a relationship. They are looking to give out rather than to constantly take take take in a relationship - to make up for a shortage of love in the "tank".

The love tank is filled by receiving love from parents while one is a child. A defficiency results in greater likelyhood of disfunctional relationships for the individual concerned.

This is not a solutionless problem, but is one that needs to be remedied for a functional marriage of mutual support, strength and equal giving to exist.

One such solution is for the "love tank" to be filled with God's love For a persons self esteem to be based in Gods assessment of the person not peoples acceptance. But that's a whole other issue and one some here may have a hard time swallowing.

However, I have seen such positive results in peoples lives where childhood damage is healed by knowlege of Gods love for the person.

If I type anymore I'm going to stray to far off topic, so I'll stop now. [img]smile.gif[/img] Sorry if I'm bugging anyone. It's just hard to write about a perceived remedy for a problem, and yet leave out the key ingredient.

[Avatar]

Personnally I think this matter has been granted TOO much attention.
I think sharing the same name is a matter of convinence (for others and urselves), and a matter both of you should be happy with [img]smile.gif[/img] *love*

As to which name I really don't care as long as we share the same one. [img]smile.gif[/img] And if anything is to go by, why not tradition? Guys still open doors for girls?
Let's not take things too literally and relax [img]smile.gif[/img]

I mean if she doesn't like my name, I'll take hers, big deal. You love each other right? What's in a name? Otherwise you shouldn't be together...

[Cloudbringer]

Thanks for the reply, Aelia.
I think where we differ in thought on this is that I don't feel marrying Jim is making me 'leave my family' or join 'his father's family'.

I look at it as the beginning of a new family unit (myself and Jim) within the context of BOTH our respective families. Jim and I are a family that has ties to both his parents/sisters/grandparents/cousins etc and my own. Heehee...he's a bit at a loss, though, since my first cousins alone, number 20+. [img]smile.gif[/img]

So I am giving up a name I've been known by for many years which identifies me as part of my Dad's immediate family for most purposes, but I'm taking on my husband's name which, to me, identifies me as part of his/our new union. It's a new beginning for me in that respect. And marriage is a new journey.

Yes, most definitely, it's me doing the adapting here, it's not the same for him, he's not changing his name. But there are 'give and takes' in any new union and this one just doesn't make me feel like I'm 'losing' in any big way. It will take some getting used to, no doubt about that! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Yorick: You have to remember that surnames are a product of a patriachal society. As I said earlier, all Western surnames originate with a male at some point. Though the tribal, clan and land inheriting issues have disappeared, the family linkage still remains. Bucking the system TOTALLY defeats the modern purpose of having a family name. Working within it, and creating the additional name for female lineage creates additional linkage. The issue of family names creating unity is I believe, emphasised in your post regarding unified family. "surely the act of living together..... is telling enough." A family is more than just the people living together. With the industrial revolution and the move to urban rather than rural/village living, the extended family's unity and impact has been severely lessened. "It takes a village to raise a child" is the sagelike quote. Extended families do NOT live together in western urban cultures, Yet your post only seems to acknowledge a family as people living together!

Obviously by family I meant parents and children - immediate family. We don't generally refer to the whole gammit of grandparents and aunts and cousins with mother's uncommon maiden names as simply 'family', they are extended family. At least I don't. Further, your post seems to think that having the same surname is important for extended family purposes - how then would my side of the extended family fit in if I change my surname to my husbands' - they have a different surname!? And also obviously by 'living together' I meant living as a family, as for instance, my family lived, with parental roles and children's roles and all that goes with it. I simply can't see how if my mother had had a different surname it would have made any difference to how much of a mother she is to me and how much she is part of our (immediate) family. So yes of course, family is more than just living together, otherwise boarders and flatmates and houseguests would be family, it's living as a family. Which has very little to do with surnames. IMHO

Cloudy I don't think marriage is 'leaving my family' either - just that to me that's what changing my name implies (because traditionally, that's what it DID mean!). Us having different surnames to me is as you say, the beginning of a new family made up of our shared families with both names factored in [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: Obviously by family I meant parents and children - immediate family. We don't generally refer to the whole gammit of grandparents and aunts and cousins with mother's uncommon maiden names as simply 'family', they are extended family. At least I don't.

That's precisely my point Aelia. Your attitude is what I'm speaking about. Some of us do refer to the extended family simply as "family". At least I do.

Additionally by referring to the "living together" arrangement you're forgetting that children leave home. An extended family usually consists of individuals who've moved out of the one home.

By your reckoning, I am now "extended family" from my once nuclear family. The name provides a conceptual conjoinment. Anything that increases conjoinment in family is a positive thing.

You are correct about the maiden name issue, which is why (again) I'm suggesting the additional name. Not taking anything away, but adding something.

[Yorick]

That was actually a really hard thing about divorce. I lost half my family. And by that I mean extended, nuclear, immediate or whatever else you call it. I lost granparents, cousins, a sister, a mum a dad. Half of what I rightly perceived as my family. Her side loved me and I loved them.

[ 07-10-2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: In the first one, you posted "So. If I had a wife that wanted to keep her father's name, there had better be a good (professional or phonetic) reason. If it indicates seperatist reasons that may undermine the unity a marriage requires, there's no way I'd go through that bullcrap again.". So, I can picture you, facing the lady you love, and telling her that she HAS to make that sacrifice to you in the name of love. While you, as a male, will almost certainly never be faced with such a demand. So I'd like you to play fair and ask yourself what would you, in your deepest core, would feel faced with such a request. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'd never demand anything. I was simply saying, if the desire to keep her own name was INDICATIVE of underlying seperatist sentiments, I wouldn't marry her. It would be like trying to hold two magnets together that are repelling. If the reasons were professional, phonetic, cultural, legal or whatever, that's a whole different story.

In any case it's hypothetical. I did marry a woman who kept her name. I liked her surname. It was nicer than mine. However, ultimately in HER CASE, it was a symptom of something that was ultimately cancerous. That's not to say all cases are thus.

I will say, that I feel a stronger link with my brothers wife because she included our name. She wasn't going to, but for whatever reason changed her mind. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Regarding sacrifices, we all have different sacrifices we make.

If I was a woman, given the way society is, i would gladly change my name, to INCLUDE my husbands name as a surname AFTER my maiden name.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Yorick: That's precisely my point Aelia. Your attitude is what I'm speaking about. Some of us do refer to the extended family simply as "family". At least I do. Additionally by referring to the "living together" arrangement you're forgetting that children leave home. An extended family usually consists of individuals who've moved out of the one home. By your reckoning, I am now "extended family" from my once nuclear family. The name provides a conceptual conjoinment. Anything that increases conjoinment in family is a positive thing. You are correct about the maiden name issue, which is why (again) I'm suggesting the additional name. Not taking anything away, but adding something.

Yorick, they're just terms! It seems to me that the implication you're making is that 'family' is one thing, and 'extended family' is something less, less important, less close, less something anyway. When in actual fact I am merely using the terms as convenience to distinguish between people who are related by blood or marriage who live together as a family (immediate family), and those who are related by blood or marriage who don't (extended family). There was clearly confusion earlier when I spoke about 'family' without distinguishing what I meant, as you interpreted it as 'extended family' when I meant 'immediate family' - so now I'm using terms to make sure my point is understood, not to minimise what extended family is. Certainly then by that you are extended family since you don't live with your parents anymore. So what? Doesn't make it any less 'family' than if you were living together, it is merely a term that indicates that you're not living under the same roof.

I have actually been thinking seriously about your additional name suggestion even though at this point I'm still in the keeping my own name camp. It's not exactly a pressing issue for me, though, so I can ponder on it a little more