but a normal American boy doesn’t become a Smith Jones just because the latter was his mother’s maiden name (while there’d be nothing wrong with it). Really? Even among white Americans and white Europeans (who have similar practices when it comes to taking names i think) there seems to be variation with this. In my experience at least, the ratio of white Westerners who take their husbands names and those who do not is around 50:50. I just do not think of it as being one of the things which defines the American culture you are referring to, and thus, dont think opting not to take on a spouse’s name is particularly rebellious IMO. What I’m saying is we can’t take out a single thing out of a whole different culture and claim it as an excuse for giving in to some tendency we have which has nothing to do with cultural reasons (e.g. aversion to perceived male domination).
People see it as a sign of male domination because no one ever questions why the man is not taking on the woman’s name.
What’s a problem is giving in to a fear of unity and avoiding the external signs of it.
I have heard the reasoning that a single family name helps with family unity and so on. While from personal experience myriad surnames in one family does not make it less loving and cohesive, I can certainly understand this line of argument. However again, why must the woman automatically be the one to give up her name, or take on her husband’s name. I might sound radical here, but I think these are all valid thoughts.
Yeah, but we’re not doing that here. Just saying that some stated or unstated reasons for not so much retaining the current name as refusing to take the husband’s may be signs of a problematic attitude, i.e. one that’s not very open to living in a relationship in which one needs to compromise for a man, make mutual concessions, do things together etc. (even if we don’t arrive at a mention of the man being the head of the household).
How are they signs of a problematic attitude? I am honestly trying to figure this out, because the women I know who **have **given up and taken on their husband’s names, are certainly not necessarily always conciliatory, meek, submissive individuals.
I believe the Western civilisation (not just American) is going too heavily in the “don’t owe anybody an explanation” direction and I personally prefer a model in which people explain things to people and don’t make manifestations of their rights, avoid making others put up with their unilateral decisions etc. This may be a legacy of constitutional rights perhaps: we’re prone to expect others to live with whatever we’re legally entitled to, even though it wouldn’t hurt us to be more outgoing and accommodating. I watched a Turkish film a week ago.
Do you think a woman who chooses to dye her black hair blond or red owes anyone an explanation? I am not saying one should be rude or standoffish to inquirers, but I am not talking about having an obligation to explain a choice that does not really affect anyone else.
To be honest I dread the, “so which of your names do I take,” moment, personally, let alone the discussion when it comes to children.
If I can offer you some perspective: this isn’t about a man popping out of the blue and asking you to take his surname, in the same way e.g. your best lady friend would (i.e. out of the blue and without a cause). It’s about reasons for changing a pattern. He may feel that (for example, since I don’t know which culture you personally come from) his father’s name was good enough for his mother (and grandfather’s for grandmother and so on up the family line) and your father’s for your mother but somehow his isn’t good enough for you. And since the gesture is a sign of unity, he might be worried as to why you are, in his perception, avoiding that sign. Some men may take this to heart more than others.
I know and I feel for them. I too have been known to have somewhat silly and unreasonable requirements of the people I get close to, which I try everyday to be rid off, without compromising myself too much. If it was a case of a man seriously hurt or left insecure by his wife not taking his name, then I would treat the issue the way I would treat any other issue - sensitively, but without giving in to and thus confirming an insecurity.
If we exaggerate a bit, I once read about the example of a woman who agreed to a religious marriage but wanted her civil status (i.e. in the eyes of the state) to be single, so “single” in documents (and for this reason, in her words, not because of e.g. believing civil marriage to be superfluous). One could ask what’s the problem if she did agree to the religious marriage, but we can all see something odd in it. Now, I’m not equating name change with civil marriage but trying to give you an example easier to relate with.
I can live without having the respective skills at all or especially continually honed by constant use, and I can let other people earn their bread off them the same as I live off the jobs I did actually learn. In fact, I actually can’t drive but this is a different subject.
We work with each other’s strengths and weaknesses. We are married, but I kept my last name, as we both have futures in academics, and we didn’t want a house with two Dr.'s with the same last name. Our daughter and future children will all have hyphenated names, to honor both sides of our families.