A reader writes:
My sister is getting married this summer. She is thinking about keeping our last name instead of taking her husbands name or hyphenation of the two names. I am not sure how I feel about this except that if it is ok with her future husband and her it’s probably ok.
My wife and I talked about it before marrying – my wife changed her maiden name into a second middle name (my family has a two middle name tradition). I might be old fashioned; I would have had a problem with my wife completely rejecting my name and hanging on to hers.
Where does the name change tradition come from? Is there a reason besides tradition to take the grooms last name?
Different cultures handle this issue differently. Not all cultures even have last names, much less do they all have women taking them at marriage.
As a result, there is no in principle reason why your sister could not keep her last name.
That being said, there is a reason why the custom exists in our culture. The basic reason is that our culture (a) does have family names and (b) it is a patrilineal culture.
What the second thing means is that we trace our ancestry, at least dominantly, by the male line (hence: patri- lineal = "by the father’s line"). Not all cultures do this. Some are matrilineal, meaning that they trace descent primarily by the female line (hence: matri- lineal = "by the mother’s line").
The cultures from which ours descended, including not only the major western cultures but also biblical Judaism, were patrilineal. That’s why, even though they didn’t have last names in biblical times, you have Peter being named Simon bar-Jonah (bar- is Aramaic for "son of").
In patrilineal cultures when a marriage occurs the wife becomes part of her husband’s family, and if you have family names in such a culture, it becomes natural for the wife to take her husband’s family name.
There may be a sense in such cultures that both the husband and wife are really part of each other’s families now, but since descent is reckoned by the male line, there is a greater sense that the wife is part of the husband’s family rather than visa versa.
These are the reasons that the custom exists anthropologically, but the origins of the custom tended to be obscured in the minds of many.
When radical feminism came along, it wanted to radically tinker with the sexual status quo, to smash traditional gender roles, and even to call into question the institution of the nuclear family. (I’m talking about radical feminism, mind you, not moderate feminism that merely wanted better treatment for women.)
Doing away with the historical naming conventions would serve those goals (as well as making it harder to keep track of who is related to whom, thus undermining the family), and so not taking the husband’s name became a symbol of defiance against traditional values.
That reason is enough for a traditional minded person to be suspicious of the practice.
It’s not that there’s anything wrong with a woman keeping her own name in principle. It’s done that way in many cultures. But to reject the practice of taking the husband’s name in our culture signifies a rejection of how our culture handles marriage, and that is rightly regarded by many as a danger signal.
Personally, my instincts on such matters are traditional, and I think that we are biblically required to maintain certain elements of the husband-wife relationship as it has been historically understood in Christian culture.
As St. Paul says in Ephesians 5:
21: Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.
23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
24: As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
25: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her,
26: that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27: that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
28: Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29: For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church,
30: because we are members of his body.
31: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
32: This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church;
33: however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
This passage reflects a unity-in-diversity between husbands and wives. Their roles in marriage are not simply interchangeable, but neither may one side take advantage of the other. Both must be treated with equal dignity, even if their roles and obligations are not identical (note: a husband is required to sacrifice himself for his wife in a way that is not true in reverse).
My late wife–Renee–was also traditional in this matter. She wanted to
be called Mrs. Akin. In fact, she loved being called Mrs. James Akin (James being my legal name at the time),
and I felt proud to have her want to share not just one but both of my
names.
I understand the suspicion that many men would have upon learning that a prospective marriage partner wanted to keep her own last name. The question that would immediately come to mind is: "If she rejects this aspect of marriage as it is traditionally handled in our culture, what else about traditional marriage does she reject?"
Should I marry again (as I hope to), I would definitely start asking myself that question if a prospective marriage partner told me that she wanted to keep her own name.
Hope this helps!
Great answer Jimmy!
Great answer.
For a brief flash of time, I though about hyphenating my name – why, I don’t really know. But I don’t regret for a second that I ultimately chose to take my husband’s name. I’m proud to be “Mrs. Dave Pawlak” and see this traditional course as bucking radical feminism. If I didn’t want to be joined through marriage to my husband in every way – including our name – how could I justify building a strong and faithful marriage, a Sacrament in which we are no longer two, but one? I couldn’t.
Also, from a maternal standpoint, I though about how my last name would affect our children. Had I kept my maiden name, would they be “Seeger-Pawlak” or “Pawlak” or “Seeger”? I’ver heard mothers with hyphenated or retained maiden names run into trouble with schools when they, or their husband, goes to pick up children and the names don’t always jive. But I also thought about how my children would think of me – would they see my husband and I as united, heads of our household and the figures of authority who work together? Or would they come to realize that, if I didn’t even take his name, that we aren’t the same team we could – and should – have been.
Thanks, Jimmy. My sentiments exactly. Implicit in your discussion is the very biblical principal of the semiotics of names – i.e., names carry meaning, and the meaning of personhood is reflected in a person’s names. When you tinker with names you are tinkering with something much deeper than you think.
Ah, Jimmy, if I only knew of a woman who was good enough for you!
I took my husband’s name when we were married, and gladly so. My maiden name wasn’t pronounced the same way it was (oddly) spelled, and I was completely pleased with the idea to give it up with something “normal.” Now I only have to deal with people asking me if my last name ends with an “en” or an “on.”
I agree heartily with all that has been said.
However, I’m not sure it’s always a point worth arguing over with certain people. I think it would depend on the relationship between the person who posed the question and his sister. And on what he knows of her views in general. And on the culture of her future husband.
If she’s doing it for good reasons, then good. (for example, if her husband is from a women-keep-last-names culture). And if she’s doing it for bad reasons, then there may be some issue more directly bad to address with her than this one. But if she hasn’t really thought it out well, then it could be a good discussion to have.
I always found it intriguing that a feminist would reject taking her husband’s name and keep instead the surname bestowed on her by her FATHER!
I made the decision to keep my name long before I met my husband and before I was even a Christian. While I completely agree with Church teaching on marriage and family, I don’t see how my name undermines any of it.
We are expecting our first child this fall and I will explain to him or her that I have my father’s last name and he or she has his or her father’s last name. There’s no reason a child has to have a hyphenate name just because I have a different last name.
All of this is a straw man, I believe. It’s a convenient way to “pick out” feminists. I don’t think it’s a good idea to ascribe subversive motives to every professional woman who established a career long before marriage.
“All of this is a straw man, I believe. It’s a convenient way to “pick out” feminists. I don’t think it’s a good idea to ascribe subversive motives to every professional woman who established a career long before marriage.”
I thought it was pretty clear that Jimmy was not against the practice – but gave obvious reasons why one *might* be suspicious of the practice. Usually when someone reacts this way, there are some other reasons lingering around.
I should also have added that there are MUCH bigger threats to the way our culture handles marriage than the issue of names. We’ve somehow managed to get along just fine for hundreds of years co-existing with people from the various types of naming cultures Jimmy outlines, without any damage. Some of the earliest “Americans” would have had compound Spanish surnames, after all.
And Liz, there’s a difference between the name you had “bestowed” on you at birth (my family name) and a name you are expected to take on at marriage, which may or may not have even been that siginificant to your husband’s family in the first place.
Ok, I’ll go calm down now. This just hits a nerve.
This is, as Jimmy noted, a highly cultural matter. I know many very traditional, family-oriented, Catholic Spanish women who used the same name before and after marriage. If I understand correctly, in Spain the the children are typically given two Christian names, followed by the father’s last name, then the mother’s last name. So if Maria Gomez and Juan Sanchez have a son, he might be named Ignacio Pedro Sanchez Gomez. In everyday usage, he would simply go by Ignacio Sanchez, but his full legal name would be as above. Similarly, both parents would actually have compound last names reflecting their mothers’ and fathers’ family names…
I think Michelle Arnold recently said that she would change her name upon getting married. I may be way too biased for my own good, but that [Michelle’s opinion] ought to be good enough for any Catholic. It’ll be one lucky–blessed, really-guy that stands at the end of an altar and sees Michelle actually coming toward him.
All right. If anything, verse 31 points out best that a man leaves his own family to make a new family. Nothing is mentioned in the way of, “Oh yea, you leave your family but no you don’t, not really. You’re still theirs and so is your wife.” This smacks of wishful pseudo-traditionalist thinking and it’s a big stretch to try to support the notion in this way. If we could extend this to wives taking names, and we’re to take “bar Johah” for support of this idea in Judeo-Christian culture, then we should be very shocked to learn that “Jewishness” is understood to be passed down on the maternal side, for one thing. There’s no reason to connect the dots like Jimmy did unless you *want* to see things a certain way.
In patrilineal cultures when a marriage occurs the wife becomes part of her husband’s family, and if you have family names in such a culture, it becomes natural for the wife to take her husband’s family name.
Egads. I almost feel obligated to make up my own last name now, considering how totally out of sync with my husband’s parents he is and I am. I’m part of *that* family? I don’t think so. It’s natural? Errr, we’re not talking about nature, so let’s not accord the man-made tradition with the same inherent value we would accord to actual nature. That’s a manipulation of “natural”.
I could not have less in common with my husband’s family and I already can’t stand their presumption in the way of trying to control what we do, think, have, and even *like*, because of the “family name”. We moved thousands of miles away for a reason. I’d rather be ostracized and have them off my back than to be “one of them.”
I took my husband’s name to honor him but I can’t say I didn’t think about choosing another name just to 1.) get that domineering monkey family off my back who thinks that if I share the last name, they own us and 2.) it’s difficult to spell and I’m Sick And Tired of repeating how it’s spellt 10+ times while doing business. The latter in itself is a good enough reason to change your last name, and people did this often, quite traditionally, when they moved to other countries.
I like to see wives take their husbands’ names, probably for many of the same reasons everyone else does, but not because a wife becomes part of the husband’s family because “patristic culture expects it”. The bottom line is, that’s too strong an assertion, that wives probably should take husbands’ names, based on the flimsy “evidence” at hand. The gospels don’t even implicitly suggest anything of the sort, especially considering verse 31. It only looks that way if that’s what you want it to look like. There is something charming about complying with traditional norms, but saying that you probably should for unfounded reasons is simply too strong an assertion.
Margaret:
That’s correct. In most Spanish-derived cultures, children keep the surnames of both their parents. Hence, a number of Latin American cardinals go by what appear to be two surnames: e.g., Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez. Ignorant folk call them by what appear to be their “last names,” viz., Cardinal Hoyos and Cardinal Estevez, but in doing so, they’re using their mothers’ maiden names (which is incorrect).
As you correctly state, in common parlance, they should be Cardinal Castrillon and Cardinal Medina, but I personally think it’s better to keep with their native tradition, and call them by their “full last names” (Cardinal Medina Estevez and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos).
Now, all that said, Filipinos (of whom I am one), who have a derivative Spanish culture, go about things slightly differently. We still use our mother’s maiden names, but as a middle name. The late Archbishop of Manila was Jaime Lachica Cardinal Sin. Here, Lachica was the Cardinal’s mother’s maiden name, and Sin his father’s last name.
When Filipino women marry, they generally keep their maiden names as middle names, and take their husband’s name as a last name. So, if Maria Lopez married Juan Garcia, in the Philippines, she would be known as Maria Lopez Garcia, or Maria L. Garcia. Their son Jose would be Jose Lopez Garcia, or just Jose L. Garcia.
I’ve always loved that in my Filipino culture, people’s names made it so easy to trace family trees and to figure out who was related to whom (and how they were related)!
And no, this isn’t indicative of a marital problem. Most people would be happy to be as happily married as we are.
This is one of those fun topics that is nearly guaranteed to start a rukus. Jimmy, I think you handled it very well.
I’d like to add a slightly different and complimentary angle to it:
As all of us who are married know, marriage requires tons of different sacrifices. We have to be willing to think beyond ourselves. What most worries me about a woman who is unwilling (and that’s the key word: unwilling, not just hesitant) is what that reflects about their willingness to make other FAR more difficult sacrifices later in the marriage. The edge cuts both ways however and a man who was unwilling to make a similar change is similarly as suspect as to whether they’ll be able to make the more difficult sacrifices later in life.
So, in my opinion, it’s not so much whether the bride actually takes the groom’s name but whether she is willing to.
As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.
Disgruntled-
I think you are attributing more to Jimmy’s post than you need. He was very circumspect and gave reasons why a woman might or might not choose to take her husbands name.
He attached no moral significance to either preference, but only explored some different angles.
It is an American tradition to take the husband’s last name, and if you go for that sort of thing, then that is reason enough to do so.
If you’d rather not, that is also fine.
If a woman is simply dead against the traditional family, despises men, or just wants to give traditionalists a poke in the eye, then she will be judged for these attitudes and not on her choice of a last name.
Pray for your husband’s family, and you may find them a *little* easier to take.
And don’t feel bad. I have been a bit cranky today myself.
Those who wish to buck a ubiqitous custom (as the bride’s name-changing upon marriage is in American culture) must accept that the burden of proof is on them.
For example, we’ve all forgotten why we shake hands as a greeting. The stories I’ve heard say that it is supposedly a way to show that you are unarmed. Obviously, that’s not much of a concern in modern culture, but the custom persists. It’s become so ingrained, in fact, that to not do it indicates disrespect or laziness.
Sometimes there is a good reason to deliberately refuse to follow a custom, for example if an anti-Christian practice was common in a new convert’s culture. But it remains that those who buck traditional customs must present their reasons for doing so.
In my experience, refusing to change a name is often indicative of a non-traditional perception of marriage.
But basically, my point is that simply because the reason a custom was instituted is no longer a concern is not a reason to throw away a custom. It has taken on a deeper meaning than it originally had, and one must have a good reason to disregard that common meaning. And I can’t think of any good reason (in our culture) for refusing to change your name.
Disgruntled-
Perhaps you could follow the example of a couple I read of, who took this problem head on by discarding both of their surnames and picking one together. It has the advantages of emphasizing nuclear family unity while simultaneously dissing annoying in-laws on both sides.
I found it easier to drop surnames altogether.
Hyphenated names didn’t originate among feminists, however. They originally came from English gentry (and maybe French or German ones before that? Can’t remember) who were proud of the family names on both sides, and the long history involved.
If Henrietta Ancientname is the last of the Ancientnames, her parents might well beg her husband not to let the name die out. (There might even have been conditions to that effect in Daddy’s will or the marriage contract.) And her husband would probably be glad to comply.
Particularly if John Smith married Henrietta Ancientname. I mean, if they get announced as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith, how unimpressive. But Mr. and Mrs. John Ancientname-Smith — hoity-toity! 🙂
Although Mr. and Mrs. John Jacob-Jingleheimer-Schmidt-Hisname-Izmynemtu probably are just proud of their family, and come from a long line of similarly proud folks.
This is a sticking point for me.
My girlfriend is Korean. In Korean culture, a woman keeps her father’s last name even in marriage, so you would have Mr. Kim and his wife Mrs. Kang.
I happen to be very enamored with the tradition and symbolism of a wife taking her husband’s last name.
Conflicting cultures suck.
On the positive side of things, she likes pretzels, chili, and especially my recipe for bean dip, none of which she ever had in Korea.
Let’s kill the Iberian myth. Hispanic surnames come from a combination of the two parents. However, traditionally, the father’s is given precedence and is the only one passed beyond the child’s generation. The tradition itself was given birth due to the necessity of accounting for heiresses (this is the same reason “quartering” is needed in heraldry).
Matronymic names tend to only exist when women can own property (or more appropriately title). This is historically both recent and rare.
Now for the second myth, Jews use matrilineal decent. While it is true that you are Jewish only if the decent can be proved through your mother you generally inherit both your surname and property from your father. Maternal decent of Jewishness is due to the father’s, who have more moral culpability due to their leadership positions, violating the law personally by intermarriage with a woman of another religion (effectively race); whereas a woman, who traditionally had little authority in this area, was viewed as innocent (anyways that’s how I understand the Jewish sources).
Indeed cross-cultural relationships are a heavy burden. You think it is hard to talk to a woman? Try doing it in Japanese!
After a while, I just gave up (read: she dumped me) and now I am happy to be engage to a woman who gets all my stupid references to Gilligan’s Island, Scooby Doo, and MST 3K.
I also feel blessed that she is willing to take my Latino last name when we marry and thereby become a double minority: Catholic AND latino. It is an impressive sacrifice that I hope I will be able to live up to.
Side note: ever notice how liberals these days seem kind of … crotchety and narrow-minded.
I dislike my last name. If i ever get married I’ll be glad to get rid it, so long as my husbands isn’t worse.
lar– Ha!!! I went from a last name that was frequently mispronounced, to my husband’s last name, which is mispronounced just as frequently. The advantage to having a name like that? It’s never a question that the person on the other end of the phone is a telemarketer if they don’t even know how to say your name right. 🙂
Disgruntled-
Perhaps you could follow the example of a couple I read of, who took this problem head on by discarding both of their surnames and picking one together. It has the advantages of emphasizing nuclear family unity while simultaneously dissing annoying in-laws on both sides.
I really like this idea in theory, but I don’t think it tends to work well in practice. Most men aren’t willing to go to the length of changing their name for their wives, even though they expect their wives to be willing to go to the length of changing their names for them. Perhaps traditionalists are forgetting that husbands are the ones called to be self-giving and sacrificial? It only makes sense, theologically, for husbands to be the ones to lay down their last names and sacrifice their past identity for their wives. Wives, like the church, should then yield and accept their husbands’ sacrifice of name.;-)
Ok, I’m sort of joking, and sort of not. I don’t think the Corinthians text supports the reading I just gave it above- but I don’t think it supports Jimmy’s reading, either. I don’t think there are Scriptural principles which apply directly to this question: I think it is a cultural and personal matter. The cultural has shifted enough to allow the possibility of hyphenated names, women keeping their names, and couples making up a new name, and nowhere does the Bible say that we have to be “traditional” on such cultural issues.
I’d also question the idea that marriage involves wives joining their husband’s families moreso than vice versa. It may be true with regard to names, but is it actually true in any other way? In American culture, families actually tend to be emotionally closer to the wive’s family of origin, because wives are the ones responsible for maintaining relationships, and they are often better at maintaining their relationship with their family of origin than with their in-laws. (I know that readers can probably point to dozens of marriages which are emotionally/socially/whatervally closer to the husband’s family than to the wives, but I don’t know of any myself, and I have seen relationship writers make the same generalization about our culture, so I’m not just making this up!) But think about it: if women are naturally the relationship maintainers and they naturally tend to be closer to their own families, it would follow that trying to force marriage into a cultural pattern where the husband’s family of origin is predominate is actually unnatural. Why would orthodox Catholics want to support unnatural marriage? Tsk tsk.
For the record, I did change my name when I married- but I now wish I’d hyphenated. Live and learn.
I kept my name upon marriage for purely practical reasons. I am a radio journalist, and changing my sign-off would be extremely confusing to the listener, and disruptive to the “line” of my work — it is my only form of “signature”.
I honour my husband by being a good, faithful and obediant wife (obediant in the sense that I acknowledge he is the spiritual head of our family, and has authority over me), and a good mother to our three children.
On a side note, I hadn’t realized you were unmarried, Jimmy. Amazed you haven’t been snapped up! And both my condolences (to you) and congratulations (to her) if your first wife has left us to enter the glorious realm of Heaven.
Oops, just gave the entry a better read. I sincerely pray for your lovely wife’s soul, and hope she is enjoying the beatific vision as I type.
What a powerful prayer warrior you have in Heaven, Jimmy!
>If Henrietta Ancientname is the last of the >Ancientnames, her parents might well beg her >husband not to let the name die out. (There >might even have been conditions to that effect >in Daddy’s will or the marriage contract.) And >her husband would probably be glad to comply.
I happen to know of an example from Victorian England- a young man named James Hope. He married the granddaughter of Sir Walter Scott. The male line of the Scotts had died out, so James, who had a deep respect for his wife’s famous grandfather, did the hyphen-thing, and the couple were known as Mr. and Mrs. James Hope-Scott.
The Hope-Scotts converted to Catholicism and were good friends of Venerable Newman. In fact, when Mr. Hope-Scott died, the Venerable preached at his funeral.
Spacemouse said:
“But think about it: if women are naturally the relationship maintainers and they naturally tend to be closer to their own families, it would follow that trying to force marriage into a cultural pattern where the husband’s family of origin is predominate is actually unnatural.”
Or you could argue that taking the man’s name is a kindly gesture by the woman, which balances out the fact that she and her family will henceforth be running the man’s life. 🙂
I went through a streak of pseudo-feminism in my college years and was determined not to change my name after I married. I did change it, but I insisted on the hyphen thing for several years.
When I was a professional musician early in our marriage, I dropped my last name altogether and went with only my first name (a la Cher and Madonna, only with more clothes).
Then I deleted the hyphen and used my maiden name as my middle name.
Now I use only my first name and my husband’s surname unless I’m doing something artistic or musical, when I add my maiden name as my middle name (I was known by my maiden name, so I’d like people to know I’m the same Ruthann).
So, I’ve had it all ways, and frankly I prefer my name the way it is now — it’s certainly less confusing for our son (who is inordinately proud of his name, Ted Andrew Tadeusz Zaroff III, and signs it in full everywhere he can!)
‘thann (oh, yeah, and sometimes I just use ” ‘thann”!
Or you could argue that taking the man’s name is a kindly gesture by the woman, which balances out the fact that she and her family will henceforth be running the man’s life. 🙂
He he he. Good point.
For the record, I don’t really think that taking a husband’s name is “unnatural” in any negative sense. My argument is just that it isn’t a natural phenomanon at all, but a cultural one. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the innate roles for men and women as described in the Bible.
I kept my name upon marriage for purely practical reasons. I am a radio journalist, and changing my sign-off would be extremely confusing to the listener, and disruptive to the “line” of my work — it is my only form of “signature”.
Cin, I think this is covered by the willingness to take your husband’s name, but I would imagine (correct me I I’m wrong) that you discussed the practical considerations, and came to a mutually agreeable decision.
A woman who said to me: “I would not take your name”, or would hyphenate it, would be indicative of issues that I would not want to confront at the beginning of my marriage. The signs would be there that this was a problem. (But this is coming into it with my 40+ years of accumulated wisdom. When I was a lot younger I probably would have had a fight, said: “Oh, ok” had have been resentful from then on.)
Sometimes God tries to smack us upside of the head, and we just don’t get it.
I think that Jimmy hit the mark with this one; there isn’t any moral preference for a wife to take her husband’s surname, the reasons for doing so being wholly cultural. However, the question that must be asked is: why is such-and-such a woman going against her cultural traditions, and not taking her husbands name? The reasons behind such actions are often more important than the actions themselves.
As I man, I can only say that if some day I am lucky enough to be wed, and if my wife did not wish to drop her maiden name for whatever reason, then I would probably change my name to match hers. It just seems rather odd, to me, to have a man and a woman living under the same room, being of one flesh and united in Holy Matrimony, and having two last names. Perhaps this inclination of mine is cultural, as well, but that’s the way I think.
Scripture does have something to say about this:
“…a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh.” (RSV, Matt. 19:5-6, cf. Mark 10:8)
Okay, so the Lord is not talking specifically about name changes. But we can infer from this. Really, in order to be one, we need to show that we are one. Armies don’t wear different uniforms. Soccer teams don’t wear different uniforms. The family uniform is the name. That means one name for all in the family, not different names for the husband and wife and a hyphenated name for the children. This “my-own-name-ism” breeds individualism and disunity. When people believe that they need to hold something back from their spouse, even something as “small” as a name, they also tend to hold other things back. This is hardly the recipe for a happy, life-long, sacramental marriage.
All that said, this does not mean that those with different names cannot have good, happy faithful marriages. They can. But in not giving totally of themselves, their marriage may be lacking. Again, not in all cases.
Why is it the husband’s name? Tradition dictates it. Does it have to be the husband’s name? In my opinion, no. But it should be the same name… “two become one”.
Apologies. Forgot to close to italics tag!
I have always used my husband’s name for everything, but it’s been said that it’s not a bad idea for a woman to keep one or two credit cards in her maiden name, because if, God forbid. she should become a widow it can be difficult for her to reestablish credit (buying or renting a home or a car, etc.) without her husband’s income and credit rating to back up hers.
But if a widow has a good credit record of many years in her own name, she is less likely to face these kinds of hassles,
So, in addition to a good life insurance policy, we have one credit card in our joint name, one in my husband’s name only, and one in my maiden name only.
There is one aspect nobody seems to notice. The last name in western European culture is an indication of not just family, but clan/tribe. Traditionally a woman changed her name because she was joining her husband’s clan and needed a name to reflect that. It’s the same thing in matrilinear societies. In those cultures, a man joins his wife’s clan on marriage. It’s also closely associated with whether a family charges a bride-price or bestows a dowry.
I take issue with the use of the term “radical feminism”. I believe feminism (no modifier needed) is, in its very essence, of the evil one. Jesus talked about knowing trees by their fruits. Feminism seeks and has largely ruined the dance that God designed in masculinity/femininity. And it is not just “radical” feminism. The statement,”Radical feminism is evil,” is essentially meaningless. The emphasis is on the word “radical”. It’s like saying, “Radical communism is evil.” A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. And we are seeing the results of decades of feministic leavening of our society right now. Feminists seek to form a gender homogeneity that is contrary to what God intended. Instead of the feminists of the day, let us seek to encourage women to emulate the peasant girl who gave her fiat to the Lord God Almighty in beautiful humility. That wasn’t the response of a young feminist, but a girl clothed with the most wonderful femininity. There is quite a radical difference.
Jimmy,
File this in the ‘different cultures do it differently’ drawer. When I lived in Japan a high school teacher I knew was getting married and her husband was taking her family name. The reason for this odd bit of supposed feminism in a traditionalist society is that the survival of one’s family name is paramount in Japanese culture. This teacher’s parents had no sons and their surname (or at least this branch of it) would’ve die out when their daughters got married or passed away as spinsters.
The groom’s family, however, had at least one other son to carry on their name so the groom took his bride’s name and technically became part of his wife’s family. As a westerner, it struck me as an odd but quintessentially Japanese thing to do.
Actually, changing your name in European cultures is relatively recent. As in, several centuries. Legally in Scotland a married woman is still FirstName MaidenName alias LastName.
Then, family names as we now have them are relatively recent.
IHMO – I’ll be glad to get this off my chest (I guess I’m responding to William’s comment):
Radical feminism which advocates abortion, contraception, and “sameness” and androgyny has definitely had a negative effect on our culture. However, I think it is the “fruit” of a failure on the part of the men as “heads of their wives” to let women speak for themselves and fully recognize their abilities and allow them to use them. I would not want to go back to a time when women couldn’t vote, were the property of their husbands or fathers, were unable to get higher education, when the man’s role was more important than the woman’s because he was the breadwinner, therefore the woman was expected to be his dutiful servant (but not the other way around) and had no right to question his decisions or complain or discuss her problems, it was all about him. If a husband beat his wife, the police wouldn’t do anything about it because he was just “keeping her in line.” Even though it wasn’t quite a master/slave relationship, it was still demeaning to women.
I’m not saying that husbands shouldn’t have a leadership position in the home, or that women should work outside the home at the expense of their children, that women shouldn’t be humble, or that there should be a competition between spouses for power in a marriage. But there is a root cause behind feminism, namely the emphasis on the submission of woman to man, reducing her to a mere servant in the home, as if she was made to glorify her husband.
Sheesh… this whole thing is making me glad I’m single and don’t have to worry about this stuff….
I’ve been doing the genealogy thing lately, and I love that women in French Canadian records, while they were called by their husband’s surname in their life, are written with their maiden name on every single document, and even often on their tombstones. It makes for much easier research, being able to follow the maternal line. Whereas my German-Amerian ancestors, I could despair at the way a woman is just Mrs. ____ on the American records.
I would not want to go back to a time when women couldn’t vote,
Do you mean like back when abortion was illegal?
I would not want to go back to a time when women couldn’t vote,
Do you mean like back when abortion was illegal?
Billy, your linking of the two issues is mystifying — at least from a US prospective. Women’s suffrage was granted nationwide by the 19th Amendment in 1920. Abortion was illegal in the great majority of the states in this country until 1973, 53 years later. It didn’t become legal because of the votes of any women, but because of the votes of seven justices on the Supreme Court.
Billy – Many of the early “feminists” were opposed to abortion, as am I. Actually, according to Feminists for Life, it was because of two male doctors that abortion became part of the NOW agenda. They convinced the leaders of NOW that women would never be able to “move up” in the world until abortion was legal.
Actually, there are a good few Japanese men who took their wives’ names and were adopted into their clans. Historically, it was a very good thing for a man of ability but without high birth.
In one of the Lupin III movies, the samurai Goemon Ishikawa plans to marry an only daughter and take her family’s name. Very romantic…. 🙂
This is marginally off-topic, whatever the topic might be at this point. And as long as we’re telling stories. . .
I once asked a French couple about married-name issues in Brittany. The wife told me that where she grew up, babies were typically abandoned at the parish church and thereafter carried as a last name the day of the week when found. She indicated that she was happy after getting married to be rid of her last name: Saturday.
There’s a naming custom that imposed a real burden.
First of all, I just wanted to thank Mary for your comments on feminism and women’s rights. (“However, I think it is the “fruit” of a failure on the part of the men as “heads of their wives” to let women speak for themselves and fully recognize their abilities and allow them to use them.”)
I can’t even believe where this thread has been going. And I’d like to point out that the majority (although not all) of those who feel so strongly that wives take their husbands’ names seem to be men. I think it is narrow thinking to state that we should be following name changing by our *culture’s* rules—weren’t there a lot of cultural issues in the Bible that Jesus himself questioned? If it isn’t stated in the Bible that women must take their husbands’ names at marriage, then it seems that there is no right or wrong answer to this issue. While judgmental people may question the strength of my marriage (as I kept my maiden name), this reflects their limitations as Christians as they can’t see past their own biased expectations. I can’t help what other people judge me or my marriage on, but my husband and I are closer in spirit than many other husbands and wives that share the husband’s last name.
wats your sister’s future husband’s last name?
I am shocked by such narrow mindedness. A choice to change your name is a very personal one. It should not be dictated by tradition or what cultural states- if that was the case, then women should be in the kitchen and men should be waited on hand and foot. This is not the case. For those who think it is, I pity you for not modernizing your beliefs to account for societal changes and women as equal partners. As women being equal partners, that brings into question the taking of the husband’s name. It takes an elightened person to understand this practice. Something that others who have posted may want to consider.
Woman draws her life from man, and gives it back again.
It’s a win-win thing.
insurance car affordable chicago