Rather than wax philosophical on Christian feminism, which I may do at some point but not right now, I thought it would be fun to look at an interesting conundrum within the overall issue. Concrete dilemmas are usually more intriguing than abstract philosophies anyway.
So, you’re an orthodox Catholic woman who is getting married soon. Do you have to change your surname to your husband’s surname? Given the Church’s silence on the issue, some might shrug their shoulders and say it’s a matter of personal choice. You’d be surprised though how many heated debates I’ve seen in cyberspace over the issue. A good many orthodox Catholics react to the suggestion of a Christian woman keeping her own surname as if they’d nearly stumbled over a snake — quite likely the one that tempted Eve, at that.
The subject came to mind for me when reading the thoughts of Karen Miller, an Orthodox Jewish blogger. Ms. Miller referenced a 2004 article by Slate on the maiden name debate that I also found interesting. Most interesting of all, for me at least, is that many proponents of name change and many dissenters from name change appear to assume that the standards of the English-speaking world prevail the world over. They also apparently assume that the practice of a woman keeping her own name is only thirty-or-so years old.
Fact is, the maiden name debate is a cultural phenomenon in the English-speaking world. In some parts of the world, it is a complete non-issue. For example, in Spanish-speaking countries, women do not give up their family names because the family name is considered an important identification with one’s heritage. In addition to that, the children are given both the father’s and mother’s family names. And, this custom is quite ancient. Indeed we have a sixteenth-century Catholic saint to attest to it:
St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) was born Teresa Sanchez Cepeda Davila y Ahumada, named for her father Alonso Sanchez de Cepeda and her mother Beatriz Davila y Ahumada.
As for me, I haven’t faced the decision yet. Should I one day (hopefully) marry, I would choose to take my husband’s name. I like the idea of a family being known by one name, and in our culture that name has been traditionally the man’s. Of course, if his last name is one he’s always hated for one reason or another (e.g., embarrassing connotation, difficult to spell or pronounce), he may ask to take my surname….
I took my husband’s last name. It wasn’t even a question. I like the idea of our family being united under one name. And I’m a bit of a rebel. Everyone else is wasting time figuring out if they should hypenate or not, etc. It’s a hassle to get everything changed over, but once it is, you can use his debit card and no one notices or cares 😉 Plus it was an upgrade. TRUST me.
The perpetuality of my family (maiden) name was discontinued when I married…for which I felt a little saddened…but I wanted my husbands name more than I wanted to keep my own…since our subsequent divorce, I still use my married name…though if I were fortunate enough to marry again (gotta find the guy first though 😉 )I would still want to take my husbands name…what can I say, I’m a traditionalist!
God Bless.
I took my husband’s name as well, but replaced my middle name with my maiden name. I’m not sure if that’s associated with a particular ethnic group or not, but that’s the way my (Irish) family usually seems to handle it…
Well, count me in with those who think that in the English cultured world that a woman should take her husband’s name and that it is very important.
I don’t think it is that important because of the societal inconveniences of not changing one’s name (although they are considerable). I think it is important because if you aren’t willing to sacrifice something as unimportant as a name for your husband, what else aren’t you going to be willing to do for the sake of the marriage?
Conceptually, I think a man should be just as willing to change his last name for his wife. If, in concept, he was unwilling to do it for his wife, that would be just as much of a problem as a woman who is unwilling to do it for her husband. However, we don’t ask men in our society to change their name in our society. We ask other things of our men. We ask women to change their name (amongst other things) and if she’s not willing to do it without a VERY good reason (and anything associated to attachment to their family or the way the new name sounds DON’T count), I’d advise the man who is planning on marrying her to reconsider his proposal.
Man, I hate it when I make a grammer mistake in my posts where I make a grammer mistake. 🙂 Sorry about that.
Tammy, you can’t just say that the new name was an upgrade without sharing what it was! Come on, we want the scoop.
I agree with everything Michelle wrote except to say that IF there is to be a single family name for the couple that it ought to be the man’s and that IF children are to inherit an uncombined family name that it ought to the man’s.
There seems to me to be a theological problem with the man changing his family name to the woman’s or the children inheriting the woman’s maiden name to the exclusion of the man’s family name. I don’t believe there are any cultures that do this but if there were any such cultures that would just mean that their culture was wrong in that respect.
Ken, your argument rests on the idea that names are unimportant. Even in our culture, that just isn’t so. Names are bound up in our identity and are therefore quite important.
I’m not saying that I disagree that giving up a maiden name can be a lovely sacrifice; but I’d be leery of a potential husband who would retract his proposal based solely on a woman’s desire to keep her maiden name, especially considering that she may have special reason to want to keep it (e.g., a desire to not see her family name die out) and considering that the Church does not require such a sacrifice of her for the sake of the marriage.
Mia, I’m not a usual quoter of Shakespeare but “A rose by any other name…”
I stand by my original statement: names are intrisically unimportant. They’re just names. We may falsely attach meaning to them, but if my name was changed to Bob Fooley tomorrow, I’d still be the same person. It is only our pride that binds our identity to our name.
The reason I think this is so important is because I think the great majority of marriages that fail (that do not include violence or adultery), fail because we place false value/meaning on aspects of our lives.
When I look at arguments like not letting a family name die out, I can’t help but think how foolish it is. Why is it THAT important? Are the children of that marriage going to keep that dying family name? If not (as is usually the case), aren’t we only delaying the death of that family name by one generation? More importantly, aren’t their other and better ways to keep the legacy of that family alive?
Do you see what I’m getting at here? How can a name compare in importance to the other things that are powerfully alluring or trying that can tear our marriages apart? If we’re unwilling to submit for something this small (and it is small no matter how much attachment we place on it) I think it is indicative of how we’ll falsely put value on more difficult things that will tear a marriage apart. (example: Bread winner of family lost job and NEEDS to relocate to be able to provide for the family and gets “I’m not moving, I love this house!” as a response.)
Maybe another angle to make my point more clear, I think that any man who wants his wife-to-be to take his name because his name is that important to him, is similarly to be avoided.
You see, this is not about names, it’s about false attachments. In fact, maybe that’s why I’m reacting so strongly. I love my family name and I’m very attached to it. It would be a sacrifice for me to give it up. Yet I see the foolishness in that emotion and am confident that were it required, I would give it up for the sake of my marriage. Anyone who wouldn’t, man or woman, has an attachment issue that needs to be resolved before they get married.
Are the assertions made in the article accurate? I know that for certain noble marriages there was the use of both family names. The article on Teresa of Avila implies that her family was, at the very least, of the baronial rank. So, her name shouldn’t be treated as the common occurrence.
The article on in the wikipedia also seems to imply that the Spanish norm is to imply family allegiance to the husband’s line after matrimony. In fact the only exceptions to the wife using the man’s name in any of the cultures listed appear to be modern tradition and rules regarding heiresses.
I would also conclude that most women who reject taking there husband’s name do so out of some confused insistence on equality of authority (not dignity). This is something that by nature is given to man in the marriage. It is often abused and therefore has resulted, as promised in the curse of Genesis, in quite a bit of trouble.
Well, I’d consider girls taking their mother’s family name first and boys their fathers: that way, there would be both matrilineal and patriarchal name succession paths. But many people would probably find that anarchic due to unfamiliarity with it.
Ken,
Well, it was Brokaw. So I’d always get “like the guy on tv!?” now it’s Garrison. So now they just sing the south park song. (like EVERY NEW PERSON i’d meet would say ‘like the guy on tv?’ and it was REALLY annoying)
I always have thought that the real solution was for the couple to take an entirely new surname.
Each could then be known by their family of origin name-new surname.
Kids take new surname.
Would sure make genalogy a lot easier and would demonstrate the equality of both man and woman.
Changing your last name derives its signifiance from the significiance that society gives it.
Me, I’ve read a number of Chinese works. Chinese women do not change their names. It always reminds that a woman doesn’t _marry into_ a family.
Ken, you haven’t offered any reason why names are unimportant–you’ve just asserted it. In this case, I think the Bible contradicts you–Gabriel specifies a name for Jesus, which is a good sign that it’s important. There are several references to names being written in the book of life. Also, it always marks an IMMENSELY important event in the Bible when God changes someone’s name–Simon’s name becomes Peter, Abram’s becomes Abraham, and Saul’s becomes Paul. These all reflect immensely important events, and I think that indicates that names are indeed important.
There’s always the medieval Scandinavian solution – no surnames, or very few; instead children are A X’s son or B X’s daughter. Kristin Lavransdatter marries Erlend Nikulausson, but does not become Kristin Nikulausson because she’s not the offspring of Nikulaus and furthermore, isn’t male :). So there’s a solution, in one way; dispense with surnames altogether!
As one of the 30ish college educated women who chose to keep a name, rather than change, I have found the “Christian” arguments against what I have done laughable. I also am amused by the strange looks I have encountered, like people have me figured out (as what? a Steinmen feminist? a swinger?) because I have maintained my birth name (maiden name assumes some personal details that are better left unsaid). I have found the decline of this practice over the past 30 years interesting, particularly with the rise in the marrying age in this country. One of the reasons I kept my name was that I was a lot closer to 30 than I was to 20, and a lot of me was truly tied up in this name (personally and professionally), and it wasn’t that important to my husband. My son has my husband’s name (giving him my name as anything other than a middle name would have given my mother in law heart failure). But it seems to me in some of the people, women in particular, that I encounter that act like I have betrayed all that is good by keeping my name, that the taking on of the husband’s name is part and parcel with the marriage package–the perfect dress, large diamond ring, new name. That without the material evidence of your marriage, no one will immediately know that you are in fact good enough to be married, and that is what is important–to be good enough to be married. Not to be good at being married.
Now, that is not to say that I doubt for one minute any of the posters here have the right intentions regarding names uniting families. Absolutely not. But if you have ever sat through a bridal shower, reminded for the 50th time that the Bride-to-Be is about to be Mrs. Dr. Someone else, you know what I mean.
Back in the days when everybody spoke Gaelic, the Irish woman didn’t change her name on marriage. She was still X daughter of Y, though occasionally she would be identified as X wife of Z. (Or even X mother of A.) Clan was very important, but patronymics were the way you distinguished which Maureen O’Brien was which, if she didn’t have a distinctive nickname. (Still a problem in families which repeat names often.) This naming pattern got brought back in the sixties and seventies in Ireland.
Yes, Spanish children take both their father and mother’s surname: Perez y Guzman. A Spanish woman who married a guy named, say, Guerrero y Alvarez, would start calling herself Perez y Guzman de Guerrero y Alvarez — formally. For simplicity’s sake and legal use, most Spanish women would leave off “y Alvarez”, but it’s still there. In fact, depending on how proud someone is of his or her lineage, they could throw in a lot more family names than that. They don’t usually do that anymore; but it’s not incorrect. Of course, we are talking about Spain of the gazillion baptismal sponsors and names, here. They traditionally do not mind a little naming overkill.
“De” doesn’t imply changing family allegiance. It implies the wife “of”. And the Spanish marriage customs include the groom’s mother taking him down the aisle, so don’t make assumptions!
My personal feeling is that, as long as the person isn’t keeping or getting rid of a last name to be obnoxious and rude, their personal preferences ought to rule. If they don’t mind explaining their naming custom a zillion times, that’s between wife and husband, and none of my business at all.
I am a person who kept their maiden name and added my husband’s name. My grandmother did something similar when she was married in the 30’s. My husband didn’t care at all. I would not classify myself as a blazing feminist. I just like my maiden name. To the poster (Margaret) who said you should consinder taking back your proposal to someone like me, come on! I have been a very good wife, and my husband and I work as a team. You make it sound as if a woman wants to keep her maiden name she is uncompromising. Everybody is different, I don’t know if keeping my maiden name because I like it is a good reason or not. I do know that I am not a selfish person. If my husband would not have married me simply because I liked my last name, than he didn’t really love me or know me.
I vey much like the way this work in hispanic countries (my case, Chile): My name is Patricio Mario Acevedo Silva, my wife’s Eugenia del Tránsito Gómez Hermosilla, we are known as the Acevedo Gómez family and my daughter is Rosario Paz Acevedo Gómez. I found this very symbolic: I’m not just keeping a family name, but WE (my wife and me) are creating something new: family and sons.
Since father’s surname goes first, eventually mother’s is lost, so it’s still a big deal to have sons so they can keep the name, but it gives a sense of importance to the mother greater than just keep the father’s surname.
Some people who has a big mother’s surname (for instance: perez echevarrÃa) hypens both and creates a new surname.
I have to agree with Sean and argue against Ken’s assertion that names are not important. They certainly are important, as Sean pointed out, throughout the entire Bible. A change of someone’s name signifies a huge change in the person. We have lost a lot of our ability to see real symbols today. I don’t think that a woman who keeps her maiden name is necessarily wrong at all. I just think she’s lost a little part of the awesome symbolism of marriage.
In religious life, women and men receive a new name. Henceforth, they are beginning a new life. As my friend Sr. Faith said on the day of her investiture, “Caitlin is gone!”
While marriage is certainly different and a woman is not called to be hidden from the world in any way, there is a kind of symbolism in her taking the name of her husband. It seems to act out in a way his being the head of the family, and it shows concretely that as far as she is concerned, he IS her family now. (Although I never thought about the fact that in Genesis it says that the MAN leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife… innnteresting)
It’s not a trifle though. Especially as people wait until later in life to get married, a name is a part of your identity. It’s how you’re known in your career if you have one. If you’re like me, people call you by your full name all the time because it flows. Let’s not act as if it’s an insignificant sacrifice.
I agree Sean and Earthie that changing a name is important. That’s a different statement from the one I made. When ever we DO something, that has meaning. Changing a name is an action. In the case of for marriage it is an action to say that the two people are now part of one family. In the case of biblical examples it is to reflect a change in the person (Peter becoming the rock, etc.).
But if Christ hadn’t renamed Peter, he still would have been who he was. If someone else in the group renamed him punk-idiot, he still would have been the first pope.
Said differently, a name change can only reflects reality, it is not reality of itself. Words in general only have the meaning we as a society give them. I just commented in the more recent post about the survey to see if you’re a fundamentalist, that the original definition of the word is not how it is used today, especially by the media. This happens all the time.
A name can not have meaning in and of itself. It can only point at or reflect existing meaning. Additionally, a name that is not accurate to the person, will either be ignored or the implications of the name will change.
I stand by my original assertion: if a person can’t get over the pride associated with their name for their spouse-to-be, it is likely a sign that there may be other difficulties to come.
Gracias a Patricio Acevedo for the explanation of Hispanic last names (thus saving me the trouble). If I were to marry into a Hispanic family, I would probably keep my father’s name and add my husband’s. If I were to marry an Anglo, I would take his last name. If he had a particularly weird last name, I would talk him into changing his to mine. (A discussion I once had with a man whose last name was “Dean” – Jean Dean? Blech!)
“In things essential, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity.”
-Thomas a Kempis
To me it seems like this is the sort of thing that ought to be left in the hands of the marrying couple and no one else, though they ought to take into account how the decision might be misconstrued by others. For instance, it might be seen as a kind of leftover from the sixties, implying a general rejection of tradition. It could easily be seen by some as an insult to the groom’s family. You might get weary of always having to explain it to people. The kids will eventually have to explain it to their friends, too.
We know a family where the Mom has one surname, the Dad another and the daughter yet another (she’s adopted). This might not seem like that big a deal, but let me tell you, when the little girl invited our daughter over to spend the night, some ‘splainin’ was required. I had to KNOW the family situation before sending my child into their home. Was the “Dad” a real dad, or just the mom’s latest live-in boyfriend? It was awkward, but I had to ask (in as tactful a way as I could muster).
Still, the couple ought to work it out themselves and then do what they like.
My wife changed her name – but she was happy to rid herself of ‘Smith.’
In general, the naming after marriage question is societal. If a woman (in an English-cultured location) doesn’t have a good reason for not changing thier name after marriage (professional reputation under maiden name, etc), then maybe they need to really ask themselves what they are trying to say be going against society.
This is less a question about religion than it is a question about tradition, and how important tradition is to society, and whether a specific tradition is injurious and needs to be changed.
The family name convention in America is arbitrary, but traditional. It is arbitrary in the sense that other cultures have different criteria. Spanish and Iceland were mentioned as examples. All are correct within their tradition.
The problem is when people ask whether to change tradition because it’s arbitrary. This is much more dangerous ground. Whether to drive in the right or left lane is arbitrary, but it is vitally important everyone in one society adheres to one standard. Thus, even arbitrary standards can be important.
But what about situations which are not so clear cut? Driving on different sides of the road would lead to deaths after all, and one’s choice of last name does not lead to that. How important is tradition then?
In a closed system, the state of disorder will only increase. In other words, any time you make a change, there is less energy available and eventually you’ll run out of any energy. Now life and society is not exactly a closed system of thermodynamics, but in general we can see the effects of entropy everywhere. Tradition, in a sense, preserves against entropy by dictating which areas are best left alone. Don’t waste vital energy changing this, tradition says, it’s not worth it.
In making a large scale social change like changing the family names, should we be concerned?
One, will the change be beneficial?
Two, will the benefit we are getting for the change outweigh the costs associated with it?
Three, could the energy and effort used for this change be better used for something else? This is a bit dodgier criteria because it could qualify for the fallacy of the excluded middle. But it is an important reminder that there is no free lunch.
I think other people have already posted about the costs and benefits of it. I am unmoved by most feminist arguments for keeping their maiden names. It honestly appears to me to be simply a push for power – showing the husband “who is the boss.” It’s egocentric. I don’t feel that’s a valid reason for change, nor do I feel I should simply surrender in to demands to change tradition simply because the advocates are prepared to be more loud or being a power play.
As part and parcel of the initial wave of Feminism, I think this issue might have been worthy of discussion. But I think it’s past it’s sell-by date now.
People have accepted female celebrities and artists keeping their original last names for publicity reasons for a long time. And the hyphenated solution (Rodham-Clinton) seems to be accepted for the most part, even if some people do raise their eyebrows. I have no problem with it either provided that if I do not object to someone calling herself Rodham-Clinton, that I likewise not be subjected to a tirade if I choose to shorten it simply to Clinton.
The “why” of whatever you do is most often more important than what you do 🙂 I know so many women who keep their maiden name out of stubborness, and when they talk about their decision, there’s spite and anger in their voice for tradtion, society, etc. I took my husband’s last name without question because that’s how it works in my culture.
As for the idea that you’re not marrying into a family… it’s rediculous. Regardless of how many times people say I’m marrying so and so, not their family… it’s just not true. When you get me, you get my crazy mother and my needy sibilings. When I married him, I also got not only the shadow of his neat freak perfect housewife mother, but the real thing as well. That’s life in the fast lane 🙂
“Me, I’ve read a number of Chinese works. Chinese women do not change their names. It always reminds that a woman doesn’t _marry into_ a family.” ad nauseam was simply too clumsy and tiring. (Try being a herald at a jousting tournament….) I come from Hispanic lineage (Filipino…Asian Hispanic, k?) and we do not go by that old practice of listing all the names of your lineage. I simply have my father’s last name and my mother’s maiden name for a middle. It simply fulfills both the practical and symbolic requirements.
I wouldn’t give so much admiration to this cultural point of view if I were you. Chinese women indeed are not considered “married” or whatever-ed “into the family”. The reason being that the fortune is meant to be passed on the the male heir, and the woman not taking the man’s name means neither she nor her family will have any part of that fortune. It is a way of keeping riches within the family instead of spreading and thinning out. And it is partially why, given a one-child environment, a male child is infinitely preferred to a female child.
Personally, I’ve always believed that the current practice of taking the man’s family name was the reaction/solution to the old problem of having too many names tacked on to a person that was common in the middle ages. Yes, even the Spanish had this problem…those that adopt the old practice on tacking on every single name in the lineage usually do not realize how problematic this had become before, especially among the nobility for whom it was once obliged. Guys that were called, say, “Robert of Normandy” were usually done so because saying Robert
woops…part of my example didn’t register…
That would be “Robert (name) (name) (name) (name), ad nauseam.”
I don’t admire it. It’s a nasty reminder. Indeed, it first crystallized in my thoughts when reading about a novel where the heroine was a Chinese-American. And the hero’s brother said at one point something like “she’s a Smith, now.” as explaining why he was acting on her behalf.
The novelist appeared not to notice the culture clash involved. . . .
Maggie Gallanger offers a different reason to change the name. Read to the end. . . .
I welcome functional counter examples of where the name doesn’t imply something in accepted social practice. There’s been a wonderful example of why chinese women don’t use their husband’s family name. I haven’t seen a good counter example. I maintain my assertions that:
1.) The names have meaning
2.) That it is traditional in the majority of cultures to give children names derived from thier father.
3.) That it is common for women to show the bond to thier husband via a name.
4.) That many exceptions to (3) derive from the practice of needing to maintian property via an heiress.
5.) That given the increasing ownership of property by women that (4) is becomming much more of an issue.
6.) That the rejection of adopting the family name comes more from an issue with masculine authority in our culture than anything else.
Cite one you disagree w/. Send me private mail. I’ll dig up the evidence. The email address has a not too subtle spam blocker. You should be able to figure it out.
where I live (chile) maiden names don’t exist you never lose your name.
You are a born with a paternal-maternal last name and die with them.
In most Spanish Speaking countries the mother’s surname is part of your name and comes after your fathers surname.
My children will have their given names, their father’s last name and then mine.
So if your name is mary and your dads surname is smith and mums was jones
you’ll be mary smith jones till you die.
If your husband is john Williams your kids will be baby Williams Smith.
Always paternal followed by maternal and those cant be touched.
So herre I was just curio0us about the rest of the worlds customs 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_names#Spanish_names
can you tell us how we can add my maiden name to our childrens last name. I am European and I use my maiden name with my husbands name hypenated.
ex smith-manno. How can we add my maiden name to our children’s last name. Both my children are under 18 years old. But my son is attending college and he filled out all his forms with just my husbands name – we all now decided we would like to add my maiden name. Is it to late for my son. He starts college in June.
Let us know if you have any idea about this.
Regards
hey the my name is miguel lonergan ahumada and i come from spain, my name is half my fathers and half my mothers, lonergan comes from my dad and ahumada from my mother… i aktualy love my both names and im close to them too… in my opinion the spanish way preservs the both people as individuals that join to become one as they plant there seed thats me… i take on the heritege..
For any man who questions or critizes a women for keeping her name, I have a few questions for you. Ask yourself, would you change your name to your fiances’ or wife’s name if she asks? If not, Why not? Be honest and fair and consider that she feels the same way about her name and heritage that you may feel. You will find the answer in your own.
Filipina Brides
many Japanese and Korean women came to the United S
Codeine and pseudoephedrine separation.
Codeine us pharmacy. Codeine phosphate. Codeine and pseudoephedrine separation. Apap codeine 300 30.
Apap codeine.
Tylenol with codeine. Buy 222 codeine. Buy 222 with codeine. Codeine. Allergic symptoms signs codeine. Source of codeine. Codeine and the brain.