Maiden names

  • Thread starter Thread starter kfarose2585
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kfarose2585

Guest
These days one often hears about a certain unsual group of women who just refuse to take their husband’s last name. They’ll keep their own, or hyphenate the two, or try to blend them together. Meanwhile, Joe Schmoe was always and will always be Joe Schmoe, while his wife is struggling over whether she should be Jane Doe, Jane Doe-Schmoe, Jane Schmoedoe, etc. Why are these women being so petty? Shouldn’t a married couple share the same last name to signify their unity with each other?

It seems so simple, yet this has bothered me for years. Yes, couples should submit to each other, and ultimately names are just words. But I have to wonder, what will I do when I get married? What is truly the right, Christian thing to do? Although I surely don’t want my children to be Schmoedoes, I also feel uncomfortable with the thought of being known as Mrs. Joe Schmoe. Don’t get me wrong–I would be honored to be Mrs. Schmoe. But I would be a little hurt that my husband would never be known as Mr. Jane Doe. Don’t I and my family matter too?

So I did some research, with some surprising results. I discovered that the practice of a married woman replacing her maiden name with her husband’s family name has some pretty brutal origins. According to Bible scholar Dr. Katharine Bushnell, the Bible suggests that God desired a “matriarchal” world, but that the introduction of sin into the world allowed for patriarchy to become the norm. These suggestions lie in God’s warning to Eve in Genesis 3:16, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you,” (suggesting that this was not His original plan), then again in Genesis 3:20, in which Adam proclaims Eve as “the mother of all living,” (no mention of Adam being the father of all living), and in Genesis 2:24, “for this reason a man will leave his father and his mother, and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (meaning that men are to join their wife’s family, not vice versa), among a handful of other passages.

So, why the change? Well, since many ancient tribes did not allow people to marry within them, members of the tribe would have to look elsewhere to find a spouse. Obviously men had the physical advantage here. Therefore, the men would find the woman/women they desired, then would go kidnap them (often violently) in the middle of the night and force them into marriage in the man’s tribe. While the actual kidnapping was not practiced everywhere, some variation of women being taken from their family was. Thus, the dawn of polygamy and patriarchy.

Doesn’t sound very Christian, does it? That’s what I thought too. So why do we still practice male kinship? Is it just blind traditionalism or is there something that I am missing? Please help!
 
Interesting interpretations of scripture, but I’ve heard another version. The passages about ‘toiling the earth’ and ‘pains in childbirth’ etc are not meant as a punishment but rather as God’s SOLUTION. It is through this physical labour that the man learns to sacrifice for HIS family, and it is through the birth pains that a woman learns to sacrifice for HER family and it is through the many pains of child rearing that both man and woman learn to sacrifice for THEIR family. In other words they are united in this goal and their last name should reflect as much.

Should it be the male’s name? Technically it shouldn’t matter, I agree, but then again to many men it does. Let’s face it. In our society we want the men to start taking responsibility for their families, so taking away their contribution to the family name probably isn’t the best start.
 
There was a thread about this before.

Way back when, women were treated as chattle. They ceased being under the ownership of their father, and became owned by their husband.

When I get married, I’ll use my husbands name socially, but I will be keeping my name professionally. I’ve worked too hard to become “Elizabeth HusbandsSurname, who’s that?”.
 
I wasn’t suggesting that God was punishing women. The tone of the passage about childbirth and turning to one’s husband sounds more like a warning to me. In other words, the woman has turned away from God and she is punishing herself by allowing herself to be her husband’s subordinate.

Even if it was a punishment from God, or a solution, when Jesus came everything changed. He elevated women and educated men to help level the playing ground. A lot of the Old Testament law was replaced or overshadowed by Jesus’ teachings. He brought forth a new law of love that conquered the old law of fear.

I agree–men need to better remember their responsibilites to their family. Humility, whether by changing his last name or by some other means, is a great place to start. When men learn to place the interests of others above their own, that is when they make the best fathers and husbands. Teaching them that such humility isn’t masculine is not a good way to shift their focus to the family.

Women are no longer owned by men, and I am not suggesting that men should be owned by women. I am simply wondering if a matriarchal family could be better, or at least as good as, a patriarchal one. Does anyone else think that, over time, such a change could strengthen a man’s loyalty to his new family?
 
In many Hispanic countries linking the family names of both husband and wife has a long tradition, and the children have hyphenated names to denote the link. The custom is not identical in each country, but it is something I have had to learn when it comes to deciphering birth and baptismal records from Mexico & S. America.

Keeping your maiden name was getting popular when I got married in the dark ages (the sixties) but my reasoning was: does it make more sense to go through life identified as my father’s chattel or my husband’s?

I believe in Scandinavian countries, (Kirsten Lavrensdatter) and in Russia it is customary for the woman, to be identified by her father’s name all through life. (Larissa Antepov) (Nicolai Andreavitch, Nicholas son of Andre)
 
Well in many ways we still have matriarchal family activites that are passed down.

Traditionally women passed religion down. A) because if a woman was raped, you didn’t necessarily know who the father was if she became pregnant. Therefor in order to keep the child in the faith, it was passed down by the mother. Also, in a lot of ways, family history is passed down by the mother, and that’s been that way for eons, until recently because women used to sit with their daughters and sew and cook and pass down family stories that were important.

There are some Latin American cultures where the womans surname is passed down.

In most 1st world countries though, people don’t"leave one family and cling to their spouses" Families are far more nuclear with mom dad kids dogs and cats living in one places while aunts uncles cousins and grandparents live else where. While oftentimes grandparents/aunts/uncles do play a role in child rearing, far more often extended family is really relegated to seeing on holidays and special occasions.
I’m very close with my dads family. He has several bros and sisters and they have lots of kids. My mom has one sister who’s a nun. Guess which side I liked to hang out more with because there were kids my age?

As for the wider branches on family trees, I generally only see them when someone dies, gets married or is baptized.

I don’t think theres any sort of actual “Christian” doctrine on women taking the man’s name because thats how we could be subservient.

I have to say though that whenever that passage comes up for reading during mass, the snickers of the wives always makes me giggle a little bit. My last boyfriend used to lean over and say " Seeeee God says you need to be more submissive" to which my response was a poke in the ribs and making him take me out to brunch.
 
So you guys don’t think it would be totally wrong for a man to take a woman’s last name? Although there are different norms in different countries, there are no Catholic/Christian “rules” on this matter? If that’s what I understand, then I am so glad to hear that. It would make me insanely happy if I could find a man who would be willing to make such a sacrifice for me. I know I’d have a winner then!
 
I don’t think it would be wrong. I think it would be a little odd, and you might come up against some small minded people when he goes to change his name.

I wouldn’t ask anyone to change their name for me, and I won’t change my name for someone else.
 
In many Hispanic countries linking the family names of both husband and wife has a long tradition, and the children have hyphenated names to denote the link. The custom is not identical in each country, but it is something I have had to learn when it comes to deciphering birth and baptismal records from Mexico & S. America.
Click to expand...
I married a Hispanic man. He was shocked that I would change my name when we got married. We discussed it and I did anyway for the sake of the kids since we would be living in the US. In his country and several others we have visited. Seniorita Maria Lopez stays Maria Lopez but becomes Senora Gonzalez after marrying Jose Gonzalez. Official docs say Lopez but all polite address for business or social is Sra. Gonzalez. In an ultra formal introduction, she would be Sra. Maria Lopez de Gonzalez. We are living in VZ for a while and I have to use my maiden name on all the forms for the kids school etc. even though I changed my name legally in the US on the day I wed, 13 years ago. Very confusing.

As an aside, my kids learned from day one that they have two last names and when asked their name, they give “First name” “middle name” “father’s last name” “mother’s last name” to the amazement of their US teachers. In Colombia, where my husband is from and VZ, where we are now, it is not hyphenated, everyone just has two last names.
 
40.png
lizziebeth730:
I don’t think it would be wrong. I think it would be a little odd, and you might come up against some small minded people when he goes to change his name.

I wouldn’t ask anyone to change their name for me, and I won’t change my name for someone else.
Click to expand...
Small minded? I disagree with that characterization. A woman, basically, is choosing between her father’s name and her husband’s. I chose my husband’s. Not because I have anything against my dad. I don’t but our family is more united, IMO, with a common last name.

If you won’t change your name for his upon marriage then you are holding on too tightly to your independence. What else will you not give up?
When we get married and have children, we learn sacrifice. We have to or the family falls apart. Christ demonstrated sacrifice. Should we do any less?
 
40.png
SusanL:
Small minded? I disagree with that characterization. A woman, basically, is choosing between her father’s name and her husband’s. I chose my husband’s. Not because I have anything against my dad. I don’t but our family is more united, IMO, with a common last name.

If you won’t change your name for his upon marriage then you are holding on too tightly to your independence. What else will you not give up?

When we get married and have children, we learn sacrifice. We have to or the family falls apart. Christ demonstrated sacrifice. Should we do any less?
Click to expand...
I mean people in the court clerks office, people at credit card companies, people at DMV being small minded. Not me.

I don’t think I’m holding to tightly to anything. I don’t think taking someone elses last name means I’m being a strident uppity female. If my husband is so insecure about me loving and respecting him, that he DEMANDS I change my name, well then he probably isn’t going to bend on anything else so maybe he’s not the right one for me.

Hey I’m all for sacrificing, but my parents have been married for over 30 years, and are very happy, and my mother still is legally her last name and socially my dads surname.
 
When we married, I kept my maiden name as an extra middle name, no hyphen. We also gave maiden name to our son as a middle name.

My dad is the only child of an only child. My brother does not plan to marry, so, I felt the need to carry on that family name to some extent.
 
In Asian cultures its very important to keep a family name in each generation. So if you had all girls and your eldest girls married someone who wasn’t a firstborn son then he and their children would take the wife’s family name. Every culture is different.

I think one of the reasons people took on the names of their fathers & not mothers is because thats who people would know. Most people were known as “son of x” The men were the ones involved in trade etc. Mostly women stayed around the camps and did their work. It could be dangerous for a woman to be out trading etc among men. I think it was done to protect the women from other men, as a poster above mentioned there was kidnapping etc. If someone saw your wife or daughter he might try & take 'em so you would keep them away form other men to protect them.
 
lizziebeth–I understand where you are coming from. I basically remain legally my maiden name and socially my husband’s name. Though frankly it gets very difficult as time goes on for a variety of reasons. After almost 20 years of marriage, I really feel more a part of the family that I am with my husband and my child than I do my “family of origin”. But more than anything, it became harder when my child entered school. It is just easier to be “Mrs. Husband’s Last Name” when dealing with child related matters. I can’t tell you how I fought the banks and other establishments that automatically assumed I was “Mrs. So and So”. Now I have the opposite problem–having to prove that I have the right to be “Mrs. So and So” because my medical records are in my maiden name and the health insurance is in my husband’s. After 20 years of marriage, I am tired of fighting with bureaucrats and have bigger fish to fry than to educate people on such issues. (Though I still haven’t taken the step to change my last name on voter’s registration, Social Security, etc.)

My Catholic sister-in-law who always kept her last name and brother got divorced last year after 25 years and teen-age kids because she was having an affair, and it came out that she had had other affairs that my brother suspected early in their marriage and an abortion. Anyway, that really gave me pause that she kept her last name all those years as a symbol that she was not fully entering the marriage and always kept open the back door (to divorce if she chose.)
 
I see that being more of your sister in law(?)s mindset going into the marriage rather than not changing her last name.

I understand that it might be a pain in the rear with legal documents and health insurance. It’s a bridge I’ll cross when I come to I suppose.

I just think that what my last name is has no bearing on the state of my marriage.

The boy I’m seeing now, (while I just broke off an engagement a few (8) months ago) and I have talked about getting married, not soon or anything, just talking. He said he’s fine with me keeping my last name. He also has a ridiculously difficult to spell ethnic last name. Whereas mine is quite simple and phonetic. It would be quite hard to go from Ms. Elizabeth “easy irish last name” to Elizabeth “Holy vowels batman! portuguese last name” at least in a business setting.

Which is why proffesionally I will keep my own last name. I may decide to legally change my last name to whomever I marry, I may not. It’s something that will be discussed during Pre-Cana or I’ll just try to slip it in under his nose when I’m boring him with floral arrangements/invitations/music/seating arrangements etc
 
When we got engaged, my husband said he’d take my last name because, between the two of us, mine is easier to pronounce and spell. Plus, his surname starts with a ‘Z’ and, alphabetically, he always was at the back of the lunch line in school and wanted to spare our kids that fate.

In the end, we both kept our last names as they were. We’ve had no problems because of this.

To some people, I think names are more than just words. One of my friends got married and, as per tradition, took her husband’s name. Two years later, he beat her with a golf club and then dumped her in a cornfield. Now, he’s in jail and she’s filing for divorce and trying to get her name and her daughter’s last name changed because she can’t stand to have that reminder of him on all her personal documents. And yes, they were Catholic.
 
Amazing how much unrelated baggage people can dump on what is basically a cultural and personal preference issue. -D
 
There may be good reason for a woman to retain her maiden name. My daughter will be earning her Ph.D. under her maiden name and professionally that is how she will be known. If she gets married and takes her husband’s name colleagues (and I’m not speaking the immediate workplace, but those who may have read her research in journals) would not connect her with her previous work. Its not a matter of feminism, but of practicality.
👍
 
40.png
deaconswife:
There may be good reason for a woman to retain her maiden name. My daughter will be earning her Ph.D. under her maiden name and professionally that is how she will be known. If she gets married and takes her husband’s name colleagues (and I’m not speaking the immediate workplace, but those who may have read her research in journals) would not connect her with her previous work. Its not a matter of feminism, but of practicality.
👍
Click to expand...
It is fairly common to publish under the same name for your entire career.

There is a nice security bonus with using a different name at work than you have at home. You can be in the phonebook and those who do not know you will have difficulty finding you.

A friend of mine used to work where part of the staff’s job was to handle calls from the public, which were sometimes of a legitimately personal nature. They all had false* first and last* names for work, so none of the clients would bother them at home.
 
Yes, ultimately women and men do have the option of taking either their spouse’s last name or maintaining their father’s. Even if I decided to change my last name to my mother’s maiden name, it would still be from a man–her father. However, I do have the feeling that this will be changing as more families hyphenate or combine surnames, or use the mother’s (in those rare instances).

Wouldn’t it be funny if someone replied and said, “I legally kept my last name, but socially I am known by my wife’s”, or “My last name was perfectly fine, and hers was a jumble of Zs and Js, but I changed my name for her anyway”? That, to me, would be amazing. Just a thought.

I don’t think that having different last names makes a couple any less unified. It just makes their lives, and the lives of their children, that much more confusing. If we want a perfectly equal sacrifice, then the man should take his wife’s last name and the woman should take her husband’s. Or they should both have both names, as in Maria and Jose Morales de Gonzalez. But again, this just seems so complicated, especially if the same thing is continued in the next generation (Maria Morales Hernandez de Gonzalez de Domingo?).

Ultimately, a sacrifice is made by someone. Whether it’s the woman who is constantly nagging the bank to get her name right, or the poor guy who gets ridiculed for taking his wife’s name, or the woman who drops her family name for her husband’s, a sacrifice is made. My only hope is that husbands these days will be willing to make the same sort of sacrifice that their wives have always so graciously made for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top