My Name
Amusing half-assed article on Yahoo about married women changing names, which is a topic I've been asked about a few times recently. Many of the article comments are quite honestly appalling. I wonder what assumptions will be made about me because I plan on hyphenating (and not even that until we have children). Quite honestly, if the expectation that women SHOULD take their husbands' names wasn't so arbitrarily sexist, I might change mine. (America is a melting pot with no one single defined tradition and no National Religion, so yes, in this country its arbitrary). But the sexist bent (uhm, when men are just as likely to take their wives names as vice versa, then it will no longer be sexist, but not before) combined with the fact that I'm lazy, pretty much guarantees that I wont be doing that pile of paperwork too soon.
I've heard it said that women who wont change their names are bound to cheat...that we're 'not committed to the relationship'...that we're rude and bitchy and ungrateful (that last one just cracks me up.) Whats amusing is these same arguments could be applied equally to the man, because there's no female biological imperative for a woman to take a man's name. Nope, folks, not one. You can keep your maiden name and still live to a ripe old age. You can keep your maiden name and still eat, sleep, breathe, pee, poo, menstruate and procreate. It is a total psychological/cultural construct. So the arguments that people like to throw around for women taking the husband's name are totally illogical, and yet they persist.
And I mean REALLY illogical. Dare I say....even straight-up offensively stupid. Because they all hinge on conceptrs like "have to" and "must."
LOL.
I mean really. Lets throw out rude, bitchy and ungrateful, because....c'mon. If you think they need refuting, then why the hell are you reading my blog posts?
Also....more likely to cheat? Weeeellll. I've looked about. There does not seem to be a drop of statistical evidence to support this. If anyone can find me a study, feel free to pass it along. But what I smell all over this one is male ego issues.
But then there's the big one...the old argument: a woman must take her man's name because she's going to be joining HIS family.
Here's the thing. In modern America, especially since the advent of the Nuclear Family Unit, the woman does not, in fact, 'join' her husband's family. Communal family living is no longer the norm in this country. No, a great majority of married couples move somewhere separate from the bulk of the family unit, usually because of work. At that time, the new family gets to work out all the big issues on their own: Kids, yes or no? (She'll be bearing them and birthing them, and possibly breastfeeding them her damn self...not anyone else from his family will be doing that for her, and if someone is helping her do it, its often her mother, not his.) Can either one of them afford to stay home? Does she even WANT to stay home? Who will take care of the babies (since both their families, including his, are so far away)? If they both want to work, because they enjoy it, are both their salaries worth paying for childcare to keep, or does one of them need to quit? (Probably her, since few men will happily ditch their jobs to be Mr Mom, even if their paycheck is smaller.)
So where in this scenario is the woman 'joining his family'? Looks like she's making her own family to me.
I will be in a scenario similar to this. I am joining no one's family. I am forging my own.
I know that when I was growing up, it was my Mother's family who lived close by, took care of me so that my parents never had to pay childcare, and were all-around inclusive and supportive. However, Mom took Dad's name and not the other way around. Why? Aside from my paternal grandmother who was invalid and almost totally dependent on my Mother's care, I hardly saw anyone from my father's side of the family. Maybe that's why this whole thing confuses me.
Maybe I'm just ungrateful that any guy would be willing to take on the burden of having me as his property. Poor Richard. I'm such a trial. (I know a couple male relatives have told me so.)
Luckily he's kind of an angel, and doesn't mind that I'm rude enough to decide on Wolverton-Chang as a surname. Eventually...when I get around to it. I just can't bring myself to ditch a perfectly good last name unless someone can give me an actual reason to.
I've heard it said that women who wont change their names are bound to cheat...that we're 'not committed to the relationship'...that we're rude and bitchy and ungrateful (that last one just cracks me up.) Whats amusing is these same arguments could be applied equally to the man, because there's no female biological imperative for a woman to take a man's name. Nope, folks, not one. You can keep your maiden name and still live to a ripe old age. You can keep your maiden name and still eat, sleep, breathe, pee, poo, menstruate and procreate. It is a total psychological/cultural construct. So the arguments that people like to throw around for women taking the husband's name are totally illogical, and yet they persist.
And I mean REALLY illogical. Dare I say....even straight-up offensively stupid. Because they all hinge on conceptrs like "have to" and "must."
LOL.
I mean really. Lets throw out rude, bitchy and ungrateful, because....c'mon. If you think they need refuting, then why the hell are you reading my blog posts?
Also....more likely to cheat? Weeeellll. I've looked about. There does not seem to be a drop of statistical evidence to support this. If anyone can find me a study, feel free to pass it along. But what I smell all over this one is male ego issues.
But then there's the big one...the old argument: a woman must take her man's name because she's going to be joining HIS family.
Here's the thing. In modern America, especially since the advent of the Nuclear Family Unit, the woman does not, in fact, 'join' her husband's family. Communal family living is no longer the norm in this country. No, a great majority of married couples move somewhere separate from the bulk of the family unit, usually because of work. At that time, the new family gets to work out all the big issues on their own: Kids, yes or no? (She'll be bearing them and birthing them, and possibly breastfeeding them her damn self...not anyone else from his family will be doing that for her, and if someone is helping her do it, its often her mother, not his.) Can either one of them afford to stay home? Does she even WANT to stay home? Who will take care of the babies (since both their families, including his, are so far away)? If they both want to work, because they enjoy it, are both their salaries worth paying for childcare to keep, or does one of them need to quit? (Probably her, since few men will happily ditch their jobs to be Mr Mom, even if their paycheck is smaller.)
So where in this scenario is the woman 'joining his family'? Looks like she's making her own family to me.
I will be in a scenario similar to this. I am joining no one's family. I am forging my own.
I know that when I was growing up, it was my Mother's family who lived close by, took care of me so that my parents never had to pay childcare, and were all-around inclusive and supportive. However, Mom took Dad's name and not the other way around. Why? Aside from my paternal grandmother who was invalid and almost totally dependent on my Mother's care, I hardly saw anyone from my father's side of the family. Maybe that's why this whole thing confuses me.
Maybe I'm just ungrateful that any guy would be willing to take on the burden of having me as his property. Poor Richard. I'm such a trial. (I know a couple male relatives have told me so.)
Luckily he's kind of an angel, and doesn't mind that I'm rude enough to decide on Wolverton-Chang as a surname. Eventually...when I get around to it. I just can't bring myself to ditch a perfectly good last name unless someone can give me an actual reason to.