Name Changes & Marriage

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!

Quote Of The Day

Goethe_1

From the Great Quotes file:

"Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiation (and creation) there is one elemental truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves in too." –Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Who was Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?

CLICK HERE.

Do You Have A Baby Einstein?

Baby_einstein

If you have been buying Baby Einstein videos in the hopes of turning your child into a miniature genius, or even in the hopes of having a few minutes of peace, you may be interested in reading about the "The $165 Million Scam":

"Back when I was 8 months pregnant with Alex, my mother and I were washing windows outside. I lamented that 21-month-old Andie was getting in my way whenever I needed to do chores around the house. I wasn’t ready to resort to baby videos, but I completely empathized with parents needing their kids out of their hair. Having raised four girls without any educational videos, my mother’s response was simple: have them work along with you. I laughed, thinking surely she must have forgotten what it was like with little kids.

"’Think of your ancestors,’ she said to me as she filled up a bucket with soapy water. ‘What do you think the pioneers did with their children?’

[…]

"But it’s not just parents’ need for breaks that sells Baby Einstein. It’s the pressure we put on ourselves to create the optimum learning environment for our kids, from the minute they are home from the hospital.

[…]

But Dr. [Patricia] Kuhl’s most recent work proves videos ineffective in teaching babies foreign languages. In her July 2003 experiment, Kuhl showed that exposing 10-month-olds to videos and DVDs of native Mandarin Chinese speakers had zero effect on their language development. But if that video is replaced with a living, breathing, person speaking Mandarin, babies showed great learning of that language in a short time period, according to her report. Even though Aigner-Clark had good intentions with her language video, Baby Einstein does not teach babies foreign languages — only live people can do that. And without specifically mentioning the company or its products, Kuhl’s research actually debunks Baby Einstein‘s theory that certain videos could create little ‘Einsteins.’ In The Scientist in the Crib, the trend of making babies smarter is referred to as ‘pseudoscience,’ warning parents to be ‘deeply suspicious of any enterprise that offers a formula for making babies smarter or teaching them more, from flash cards to Mozart tapes … these artificial interventions are at best useless and at worst distractions from the normal interaction between grown-ups and babies’ (Kuhl, et. al., 201)."

GET THE STORY.

Not to mention that using a video as an electronic babysitter or babytutor is a sure-fire way to turn your child into a television addict before he even learns to walk.

Quote Of The Day

Bradley

While surfing the Internet, I stumbled across a great quote, which seems to say so much more than it’s speaker originally intended. Every so often, as I find more quotes that seem almost prophetic in nature, I’ll share them here.

"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living." –Omar N. Bradley

Who was Omar N. Bradley?

CLICK HERE.

Tales From The Freezer

In the never-ending quest to Have It All, young women who want to put off having a family until they’re finished playing Career Barbie can freeze their eggs for future use.

"Young career women will soon be routinely freezing their eggs so they can have children after their fertility has declined, experts are predicting.

"Fertility pioneer Dr. Simon Fishel said coming technological developments in the embryo-freezing process would allow women to effectively delay motherhood.

"Unless there was a ‘sea change’ in social attitudes the practice would be common within 10 years, said Dr. Fishel."

GET THE STORY.

My crack about young women "playing Career Barbie" shouldn’t mislead you: I am not against a young woman choosing to remain single and have a career rather than get married and have a family. If she later changes her mind and decides to marry and try for children, that’s great. If she continues working while married until children arrive, that’s fine too.  And if financial necessity demands that she combine motherhood with an outside job, that is the business of her and her husband. 

But what this article appears to suggest is a young woman remaining "childless by choice" for the sake of her career, presumably through use of contraception, and then trying for a family once she can no longer hit the snooze alarm on her biological clock. The foul procedure reported by the article simply confirms such a woman in her selfishness rather than challenge her to accept that she cannot Have It All.

De Nada

Michelle here.

My high-school Spanish is pretty sketchy, but I do know that de nada is the Spanish response to "thank you" (gracias). Literally, it means "of nothing," which would be roughly translated to the English colloquialism "It was nothing."

It seems that a good many generous Americans should consider taking up the phrase "It was nothing" rather than "You’re welcome" if and when they receive a modern thank-you note. The notes they’re receiving are often worse than having received nothing at all in response to a gift they’ve given.

"In fact, that’s what many generous Americans will receive during this season of giving: absolutely nothing in return. This time of year, when virtually everyone owes someone a thank-you, many people assume that if they open a present in the presence of the giver, no formal thank-you is required.

"Even when it comes to expensive baby shower and wedding gifts, the thank-you note increasingly is becoming the thank-you not. Putting fountain pen to ecru eggshell has just about gone the way of plunking IBM Selectric keys onto onion skin.

"It’s not just that people don’t write as many personal notes as they used to. Today, when gratitude is expressed in writing, it’s often done grudgingly, as obligation rather than art — via a casual card or e-mail with a generic, hastily scribbled message: ‘Thank you for the present.’"

GET THE STORY.

I recently read a great book on the art of thank-you notes. Among other interesting factoids, it reprinted a lovely letter that Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis managed to write to President Lyndon B. Johnson within days of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. At the time I reflected that if she could set aside the enormous hardships she was suffering at the time to write what today would be considered a "gratuitous" thank-you letter (not a note), lesser excuses for failing to write thank-yous do not suffice.

GET THE BOOK.

How Victimized Are You?

The culture of victimization that has infected much of Western society has led to the creation of a culture consisting largely of victims.

John Leo offers a handy summary of some of the most absurd victim stories of 2005.

EXCERPTS:

CHILDREN OF WITCHES ARE VICTIMIZED BY HALLOWEEN. Coming to class dressed as a witch on Halloween is a violation of "equitable schools policies," according to the Toronto district school board. The board said it feared "traumatic shock" if children treat "the Christian sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs as ‘fun.’"

BRITISH MUSLIMS ARE VICTIMIZED BY PIGLET AND PIGGY BANKS. Novelty pig calendars, toys, and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet have been banned in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, out of deference to Muslim sensibilities.

STUDENTS ARE VICTIMIZED BY THE DISAPPEARANCE OF LOW WEEKEND PRICES IN BARS. Pressured by the University of Wisconsin and a federal campaign against binge drinking, 24 bars near the Madison campus agreed to end cut-rate weekend prices. Three students and a Minneapolis law firm failed to convince a Wisconsin circuit judge that this represented conspiracy and price-fixing. But they are suing again in federal court. Legal costs to the bar owners so far: $250,000.

FIRED CBS EMPLOYEE IS VICTIMIZED BY VIACOM, CBS, VICIOUS BLOGGERS, THE PANEL THAT INVESTIGATED HER, AND A "MCCARTHYITE" PANEL MEMBER WHO ASKED IF SHE IS A LIBERAL. Mary Mapes complained last week that people were saying mean things about her and the discredited "60 Minutes II" segment she produced about President Bush’s military service. She felt "extremely battered" by "having my head kicked around a soccer stadium by much of the western world." No apology, though. For unknown reasons, Mapes’ new book is titled "Truth and Duty" rather than "I Messed Up Big Time and I’m Sorry."

GET THE STORY.

Sixteen Children … And Counting!

You’re 39, you’ve just delivered your sixteenth child, what are you going to do?

"I’m going to do it again!"

Is that a response that springs to mind for many mothers and many families? Probably not, at least in this day and age. (Although, centuries ago, it may have been. St. Therese of Lisieux was the last of nine children; St. Catherine of Siena was her mother’s twenty-fourth child.) But there are still a few modern families heroically open to life:

"Michelle Duggar just delivered her 16th child, and she’s already thinking about doing it again.

"Johannah Faith Duggar was born at 6:30 a.m. Tuesday and weighed 7 pounds, 6.5 ounces.

"The baby’s father, Jim Bob Duggar, a former state representative, said Wednesday that mother and child were doing well.

"He said Johannah’s birth was especially exciting because it was the first time in eight years the family has had a girl.

"Jim Bob Duggar, 40, said he and Michelle, 39, want more children.

"’We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them,’ he said."

GET THE STORY.

Sounds like the Duggars have filled one quiver and are working on another (cf. Ps. 127:3-5).

AAP: “Prevent Crib Death By Putting Babies In Cribs!”

Okay, BIG RED DISCLAIMER: I’m not a parent (yet) or a medical expert on this type of thing, or a medical expert on any type of thing, and you should not be getting infant-care advice from a stranger on the Internet. That said, I couldn’t help but note this recent release from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

"Infants should be put to sleep on their backs only, not their sides, and pacifiers can be used to help prevent sudden infant death syndrome [SIDS], U.S. pediatricians said on Monday.

"Revised guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] issued on Monday also discourage parents from sleeping with their infants at all, saying babies are safer in their own cribs.

"SIDS, the sudden, unexplained death of an infant in the first year of life, is the third leading cause of infant mortality in the United States, causing the deaths of 2,500 infants each year.

"Campaigns to encourage parents and other caregivers to put babies to sleep on their backs instead of their tummies slashed the death rates from SIDS, also known as crib death or cot death, in countries such as Britain and the United States in the 1980s and 1990s."

GET THE STORY.

Does it strike anyone else as strange that the AAP is advising parents to avoid SIDS, also known as "crib death," by advising parents to put their babies in cribs? I might also note that SIDS is extremely rare outside of Western society. In developing societies, parents routinely sleep with their babies and are bemused that Western parents put their infants in cribs that are often in separate rooms from the parental bed. (One very interesting book that explores these differences in parenting styles between Western society and developing societies is Our Babies, Ourselves: How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Parent by Meredith F. Small.)

Now, whether the "family bed" or some variant of it, such as a sidecar crib attachment, is the right solution for families is something that each family will have to study and decide for itself, and families should definitely consider what medical science has to say when doing so. But it just seems strange to me that the AAP thinks the solution to the tragedy of crib death is to encourage parents to use cribs.