I've interpreted Trudeau's take on feminism as saying that its really important, it just needs to fight today's battles (like Feministing!) instead of those of yesteryear.

Speaking of which, Ann Althouse and I recently got into an argument over EXACTLY that. Here's the link.

Hmmm... thanks for the link, Wade -- although, for what it's worth (and I usually disagree with Althouse, so this is funny), I'm 25 and I ABSOLUTELY think that the name-changing issue is a huge and current one.

So... the old fuddy-duddies aren't the only ones getting worked up about the expectation that it's more acceptable for a woman to lose her identity, which absolutely still exists. Just sayin'.

I'm surprised that more women don't keep their names. My girlfriend plans to keep hers forever, as does my roommate's fiance. This is just anecdotal, but, looking around at my friends and classmates, almost all of the married women have taken their husband's name.

Yeah, me too, TLF. I would maybe consider it a non-issue if the majority of women in this country had ever kept their names, but it seems to me that moving forward, the next logical step would be for women to pass their last names onto their children. I've never really understood the desire to change one's name.

Further...if those battles had been won, I'd be willing to let them lie. But one only has to look at abortion rights to see what happens if we don't hold the line every inch.

Wade-
I DO NOT plan to change my name to my fiance's, in fact we are going to make up a different last name together.
I'm only 23 and I don't think the name change business is an old battle. Just a few months ago there was a case about a guy trying to change his name to his wife's and they had to jump through like 90 extra hoops. That shows the name battle is not over. You are dismissing a lot of people's real experience by making that blanket statement.
(Although OBVIOUSLY there are more pressing feminist issues.)
Like the Law Fairy, I would agree more with Ann than you based on the link you provided.

Also "keeping" your name is just as bad, 'cause it's typically your father's, and therefore it's just as patriarchal. Just sayin.'

Eh, I've heard that argument before, about my last name being my father's name, and I don't buy it. It's my name. I've had it ever since I was born, just like he did. It hasn't been on loan; it's mine. My mother picked out my first name, but then she gave it to me. So now it's mine. I've had my first name and my last name for the same amount of time, and they're both mine. Names have to start somewhere (and mine is a matrynomic, actually, indicating that way back when it was first chosen, it was based on the mother's first name), and this one can start, matrilineally, with me.

EG, I think that's the point exactly -- we need to be careful that we're not ceding ground, ANYWHERE. We need to remember that even if a majority of people just plain don't give a shit, there are lurkers in the wings who will take a shot at women the first chance they get.

It gets exhausting, frankly. I'm impressed that there ARE older feminists. I'm still in my mid-twenties and I have days where I wonder how much strength I have left to keep fighting these constant constant battles on every front. Actually making the effort to speak up and make sure I get equal respect/credit in my workplace. Confronting people, gently, when they make unintentionally sexist remarks -- and then usually having to get into a mentally exhausting fifteen-minute (or more!) conversation explaining WHY they are sexist. Constantly re-examining my life to make sure that *I* am not acting as a sexist, and also that I am not simultaneously making myself miserable just by being AWARE of inequality.

It's fucking tiring. I'm compelled to give kudos to ANY woman who makes it to middle age-ish and still considers herself an honest-to-God feminist.

Anyway, to try and bring it all back, full circle, to Doonesbury :0) I guess I'd have to see more comics to know if simply addressing the fact that women have body issues counts as "feminism"... it seems to me it's kind of "in vogue" to comment on body issues nowadays, and in some ways could almost be seen as being ANTI-feminist. I think that by focusing our attention on the desire to be thin, in some ways we pathologize modern American womanhood in a way that is more demeaning than helpful. For one thing, there are lots of men who also have major body issues. For another, when we look at body issues as simply being about WEIGHT, we completely miss the point. For a very very short time in my life, I was anorexic (fortunately got it under control before I became unhealthy). My brother has also struggled with it(to some extent still does, though he's much healthier than he used to be), although because he is male he is unable to admit that's what it is. The common denominator between us? Not a desire to be physically attractive to the opposite sex (the girls always LOVED him growing up, if anything it made him horribly shy). Not a desire to look like movie stars. The common denominator is that we both grew up with a very controlling father, and fucking with our bodies was a way to re-assert control. I've come to terms with this, but because we have such a hard time acknowledging that these issues affect men as well (and WHY), I don't know if he has.

Anyway, this is kind of my long-winded way of saying that I don't think a comic showing a woman who struggles with her desire to be thin but also to eat a donut, is particularly feminist. Y'all are welcome to disagree, though :)

IF, if I ever got married, I wouldnt give a damn about having my wifes name instead of my own. I never got all this name keeping business anyway, since its most likely because my surname means nothing to me. My father was Shipley, My mother was Brown, and somehow Lawrence came out from my fathers side of the family somewhere.

Now since he topped himself when I was a little sprog, and My mum remarried and changed her name again, Im left with a rather redundant surname as I never even knew anyone from my fathers side of the family anyway.

Okay maybe I didnt need to give out my life story to simply say "Bollocks to it, if I meet a women who wants to keep her own name, she can for whatever reasons. I dont care."

As for the strip, I didnt see the earlier one, but it doesnt look THAT bad to me. Didnt make me laugh though.

I don't mind what others do, I was just explaining why I want to change my name. I personally like the idea of making up my own name. I was always much closer to my mother's extended family than my father's, so I always wished my last name was her maiden name (although obviously that was her father's name). . . . Anyway, no offense meant EG.

Oh, God, none taken, Semelee, and I hope you didn't take any from my comments, either! I was just explaining why I don't think the desire to keep your name as a feminist statement is undermined by the name often coming from the dad.

I've known more than one couple who've chosen a name together when they got married, and I kind of think it's a very romantic thing to do. Murder on the genealogists of course, but that's their problem!

Maybe I misspoke in my previous comment.

I realize that women of roughly my age choose to keep their name for all sorts of reasons. My point was that the issue of women keeping their own last name was controversial when my mother was my age, but it doesn't seem to be controversial anymore. Women can keep their name, take their husband's name, or choose an altogether different name. I think its safe to say that it is an issue that feminists have already won. But that's just my opinion; I haven't lived in the parts of the country where something like this is likely to still be controversial.

Wade-
Why don't you look at it the other way? It may be easy for women to change/not change their name, but what about men?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/01/12/man_files_lawsuit_to_take_wifes_name/

Why doesn't my (male) fiance have a choice of taking my name or one of our choosing just as easily?

honwood is a combination of my father's last name and my mother's maiden name. it's what i'll be changing to after the divorce.

The battle over names has most certainly NOT been won by feminists.

I've heard countless guys declare that their future wives WILL take their last names or else they're not marrying them. I get looks from other women, too, when I mention that I don't intend to take the man's name if I marry.

"That's just what women do!" people exclaim. The fact that women (and men) don't examine WHY that's "just what women do" should tell you something about where the public stands on the issue.

A friend of mine who recently got married was pressured by her in-laws to take her husband's name. They informed her they would read it as a "personal affront" if she didn't. I do think keeping one's name not very controversial for a lot of people, Wade, but definitely not for everyone.

Eh... Wade, I still don't buy that it's non-controversial. I live in Los Angeles, which is one of the liberal capitals of the western world, and I think it is still somewhat controversial. One of my friends got married a couple years ago, and people STILL assume she has taken her husband's last name (she hasn't). Another friend felt pressured into taking her husband's name and did so, even though she hadn't really planned on it (but it just wasn't a big deal to her). Both of these women live, again, in LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

Plus, as EG noted, having children take the mother's last name is still HIGHLY controversial, even taboo. Hell, Angelina Jolie's children, WHO HAD HER NAME FIRST, went and took Brad Pitt's name after the wedding.

The name thing is still a very, very big issue. It's not at all fair to say this is a battle we've won. Yes, we've won the legal right to keep our names -- well, in the late 19th century black people had the legal right to vote. Yet voting disenfranchisement of black Americans remained RAMPANT for decades afterwards. Just because we technically have a legal right, does not mean we've won the battle by any stretch.

I don't think it's fair to say that it's a battle that's been won, either. I kept my last name when I got married (goig on 2 years now) and I still have extended family and "friends" who I don't see very often completely refuse to acknowledge that fact, and send everything to me at Cara My Husband's Last Name. I've told them countless times and the next time it's still the same. It's insulting and disrespectful-- and I doubt that I'm the only one with the problem.

I didn't mean to pick a fight over this. I'm sure it is still controversial in certain families and social circles. Family members, particularly in-laws, sometimes look for things to criticize each other about, and different communities have different standards for this sort of thing. Most women I know for whom this is a serious issue say things like "I couldn't get serious about a guy who wanted me to change my name," and I think that's great -- against, its their choice.

Anecdotally, I haven't seen it cause any controversies in a professional setting, or that sort of thing. Some of my law school classmates have kept their names, others have taken their husbands' names, and I haven't heard people comment about it either way. Then again, that's just me, and Madison is probably a relatively open-minded climate.

I'm interested in hearing what other readers have to say about this issue in their own lives!

Wade-

You never responded to my point that men can't change their names to their fiances or to a different name unless they pay extra money, do extra paperwork, etc.
Do you not see how this is significant to the discussion? The other side of the coin, so to speak?

Sure, I see that side of the issue, I didn't know you wanted me to respond to it. I don't plan on changing my name, for all of the reasons a lot of women don't want to change theirs! But, having said that, I don't see how eliminating the requirements that men have to pay money and do paperwork in order to change their name is a significant feminist issue.

“The battle over names has most certainly NOT been won by feminists.�

Oh, most definitely not. Here are a few examples:

1- It annoys me that everyone (in the US) always assumes my Mom’s surname is the same as mine and my Dad’s. It isn’t (and that’s not b/c my mom is an ardent feminist; in my culture it’s just not common to change your name after marriage.)

2- A few years ago my boyfriend and I got into a serious argument about that because he said he was offended to find out I wasn’t gonna take his name if we got married. Needless to say that made me furious.

3- A couple of days ago my mother-in-law was booking a trip for after the wedding next year and she needed to give the names, she emailed to ask what my married name will be, suggesting she hoped it would be her son’s last name added to mine.

“I don't see how eliminating the requirements that men have to pay money and do paperwork in order to change their name is a significant feminist issue.�

Well it’s not a “significant� feminist issue. That’s why you don’t see feminists taking part in make-it-easier-for-men-to-change-their-names marches. Semlee wasn’t saying that it was either. Just that it is an example of how the name change issue and how it is viewed by society is not non-controversial.

Um, Wade, the name issue (whether we are talking about it as it applies to men or women) is a feminist issue, because feminism is supposed to be about men and women having EQUAL RIGHTS, therefore, men and women should have an EQUAL RIGHT to change or not change their name when they get married (which men obviously don't based on the fact they have to pay extra, etc). This is further evidence that the name battle is NOT solved, because just like Cara said she keeps getting mail to her husband's last name, MY (male) fiance is sure to still get mail under his name if he changes his name to mine or another one. The fact men can't easily change their names further demonstrates how society sees it as a "norm," for men to keep their names and women to change them.

I don't see how eliminating the requirements that men have to pay money and do paperwork in order to change their name is a significant feminist issue.

Because the fact that women don't have to jump through hoops while women don't reflects the societal expectation that women WILL change their names and men WILL not change theirs. Men don't change their names more often for several reasons, but one of them is definitely that it's seen as a Woman's Thing. Anytime we penalize men for acting "too feminine" that is an attack on feminine gender identity, and I think THAT is a feminist issue.

I don't think it is the most important issue (I said in an earlier post that I "OBVIOUSLY" think their are more important feminist issues, but I would equally say that a law that made it hard for men to obtain child custody was a FEMINIST issue, because that law works under the assumption that all women should get the children and all men should not (just like the extra fees for the name change), instead of recognizing men and women as individuals with different goals and choices.

Hey, sojourner--you're getting married? Congrats!

The battle will have been "won" when little girls no longer scribble their first names paired with the last names of whomever they're crushing on.

Craney808 - what an interesting point! Wow. I don't know what to say, but I so so feel that.

I'm ardently anti-surname-changing-because-of-marriage, but sometimes some people just make you look at discussions from a completely different perspective. Nice one!

Personally, I see keeping my name after marriage as a feminist issue, but for different reasons. In my job, my name goes on work that I do. I'd like to have continuity in my professional portfolio and make it easy for people to recognize my work as mine, whether it was from before or after marriage. Men have that continuity—I intend to have it as well.

Of course, I'm divorced and went through all the effort of getting my birth name back. There's no way I was keeping my ex-husband's name. (This was before my current career.) After all that work, I am never giving up my name again.

Words have power. My name shapes my identity, and that identity is as the woman I am and will always be, not as the spouse I may become.

Ohhh, thanks SBJ!

Hell, I wonder what it'd be like to have my boyfriend's last name rather than Crane. But I'm 99% he has never considered what his name would sound like with my last name (or any other girl/woman for that matter).

It's something men just take for granted.
With girls, it's so automatic. If you love someone and marry them you acquire their last name. Until that's no longer "just how it is," the battle's not nearly over.

That should read, "99% sure..."

Right. The name changing issue is a VERY current feminist issue precisely because the vast majority of women continue to change their names upon marriage. The default assumption that women's identities are less important has prevailed. The default assumption that women should be eager to accept a badge of second class citizenship has prevailed. As a woman I have to explain to people all the time why I didn't give up my name. I have to explain that yes, I DO love my husband, despite the fact that I didn't give up my name. My husband doesn't have to go around explaining his choice to keep his name. The sacrifice of a woman's identity as an individual is (at least symbolically) the way women are still expected to express love for their husbands!

I also view the opportunity for men to change their names upon marriage as a feminist issue. Until it is accepted that name changing is a choice either sex makes, name changing upon marriage will always mark women as lesser.

Is this a significant issue? I think looking at it in terms of significant/ not significant is the wrong way to go. It is a SYMBOLIC issue -- and, as symbolic issues go, a particular potent one.

Some of my law school classmates have kept their names, others have taken their husbands' names, and I haven't heard people comment about it either way.

Interesting, Wade. Like you, I went to law school in a large city in the midwest. But the MAJORITY of female lawyers I know have taken their husband's last names. Off the top of my head, I can think of one female lawyer who I know for sure has not taken her husband's name, whereas I can think of at least five to ten, right off the bat, who have.

Conversely, I cannot think of a single male lawyer who has taken his wife's name. I know one male lawyer and one male law student who combined their names with their wives' names, a la Mayor Villaraigosa.

So, my anecdotal evidence tells me that we're nowhere near equality.

Since you said you didn't want to pick a fight, I'll just point out that this

I'm sure it is still controversial in certain families and social circles

frankly, comes off as demeaning. You may not have meant it this way, but it kind of smacks of "look, maybe YOU guys think it's an issue, but in my enlightened progressive community, it isn't." It sounds like you're marginalizing our experiences. I understand if you're trying to say "I didn't realize" -- but if you're trying to make a larger point, that this is not a feminist issue because it isn't for you, then you're being counterproductive.

Again, I live in Los Angeles. I went to law school in Chicago. I have close friends and family in New York City. I think that if you put those three cities together, you'll find some pretty damn progressive enlightenment. And this is still a huge issue for me and my friends and family in ALL of these cities.

Weighing in kinda late on this but I'm going to echo what a lot of women have been saying: that while the name changing isn't as big an issue as say, reproductive rights, it's still an issue we're fighting because it's still a patriarchal expectation that women take their husbands last name. From what I've heard the last name thing was either a kind of consolation prize to men (sorry you can't have babies yourself, here, it has your last name!) and also an issue of paternity, (I kept my wife in check, this child is most definitely mine!). Then again, women were considered less than men and not deserving of passing their last names onto their children. (there's also the story of Athena, she did something and I can't remember what, but her punishment was that human male children no longer had to take their mother's last names).

If I get married then I'm keeping my last name. I asked my mother one day why she didn't hyphenate or keep her last name and she told me point black that she liked my dad's last name better. I like the combination of my first name with the last, and I kinda have a unique name because of it and I want to keep it. If they guy has a problem with that, so be it.

And also, a friend of mine got married about two years ago and later when I was addressing a letter to her I stopped and took the time to IM her to see if she'd taken her husband's last name before I addressed the letter. She'd kept her last name and was happy that I'd asked first:)

Off topic, but did anyone read this?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/the-supreme-courts-catholic-majority/#respond

Naming is an important issue when we think of it in terms of owning our own identity. During slavery, people were given their owners' names (changing with each sale); there is a parallel in marriage, a fact that first wave feminists of the 19th c. were well aware of. I kept my own name [i refuse to refer to it as my 'maiden' name] and my children bear a merged name beginning with mine and ending with their father's. Patriarchal lineage and ownership in the paternalistic institution of slavery are intimately connected. Too many women college students still assume that they will give up their name upon marriage, and those that don't almost never think about using their identity in the naming of their children. Despite all the hassles and requests for clarification, etc., I have never regretted and often rejoiced that my children bear my last name.

What really saddens me (oh, hi, first time commenter!) is when women say things like "Well, I just don't really care for my name" or "It's too hard for people to say" or "It makes us really feel like a family" when the real answer is "I'm doing this because I am a woman and it is what is expected of me."

And I do actually care what other people do because it does affect me. It makes it harder for me to keep my own name when there are still women my age giving their own names up. That doesn't mean that I begrudge them; it's their choice, but man if it doesn't bug me sometimes.

When we were married, my husband took my last name. Entirely his idea. His was long and hard to spell; mine is short and easy.

I read not too long ago about a couple who had filed suit, with the help of the ACLU, in federal court, because he (in CA) wasn't permitted to change his name by marriage (as opposed to by getting court order). The article said that only seven states permit the husband to take the wife's name.

However, my state wasn't listed, and yet we didn't really have any problem. He just signed his new name on the marriage license, just as I would have done, and then used it to get a new driver's license and social security card. The DMV gave him a little hassle; the guy called his supervisor, who then called HIS supervisor, but eventually he got the okay. Otherwise, no problem.

I agree, it's a feminist issue when it's harder for men than women to change names. Names are powerfully symbolic, of course.

While I'm at it, I'd like to gripe about the "Ms." thing. I like to go by "Ms." because I don't see why my marital status should be any more relevant than that of all the "Mr."s out there. But it really irks me that most forms have four options now: "Mr." "Mrs." "Miss" and "Ms." Translation: "Man" "Wife" "Sexually Available" and "Feminazi." Pisses me off.

Thanks EG :-)

I don't see how eliminating the requirements that men have to pay money and do paperwork in order to change their name is a significant feminist issue.

The requirement that black people sit on the back of the bus wasn't a significant civil rights issue, either. Equality was, and is, a very significant issue.

I kept my name. It's an easy excuse to say it's because my professional degree is under that name, but I don't have a big reputation or publications and I never planned on taking my husband's name in the first place.

For reasons I cannot fathom, my husband's family believes it is imperative that our future children take his name. It's almost understandable since he's the only male in his generation, but their name is Johnson--not like the whole surname is going to die with him. I haven't really decided what to do about that.

What did this have to do with Doonesbury? Nothing I guess. I like Doonesbury but I don't think this strip is very funny or really says anything feminist. I agree with Law Fairy that it's somewhat un-feminist to blame body issues wholly on beauty demands (not that they are insignificant)--it makes women seem superficial and ignores the fact that women and men have a host of disordered eating and exercise habits stemming from many causes.

hmm... my given name is hyphenated, and a huge pain in the ass, and I kept it, because it is mine. My husband- who has the easiest name in the world- was totally happy for us to create a new family name, but I've spent 25 years learning how to own this damn name and I'm not giving it up now.
I still get letters, not just to "My first name His last name", but to the all time most insulting- "Mr. and Mrs His First Name His Last Name". From people who know better, and are being passive aggressive. Awesome.
And not to be a total pop-culture tool, but Law Fairy, Angelina Jolie isn't married to Brad Pitt, though the kids do have a legal name change to hyphenated (which was your point). It is important that they're not married though, in part because they have stated that they will not marry until there is marriage equality in the US.

I live In NYC and even here many women change their names.Ever since I announced my engagement a few months ago I've been asked by random people what i'm going to do and they seem taken aback when i tell them I"m keeping my name. My FH's name is spanish sounding and I"m white, how many times a day would people comment on that? Not to mention that i've known literally all my life that i wanted to keep my name, no matter what the name of the man i married. My name is short, common, boring and ALL MINE. So i'm sticking with it.
ps.not to go off on a total wedding tangent, but why does everyone tell you that "you'll change your mind" and want to wear a veil? I don't and I won't, thanks! Just today I was told that by 2 smug married co-workers.

I still get letters, not just to "My first name His last name", but to the all time most insulting- "Mr. and Mrs His First Name His Last Name".

That reminds me of one of the reasons I do have a problem with the whole name change, the women assumes the identity of the man. Once she's married and takes his name she's no longer her but a female HIM. Even though my friend didn't take her husband's last name, when they announced them for the reception they said, "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith (not real names;) and not John and Jane Smith or something to that effect but just his name. She had been completely absorbed into his identity. And you'll still get a lot of girls with that thinking, the "Don't you want to become Mrs. So and So?"

It's kinda sad when you think about it...

I did not have a traditional wedding, we married on the beach in The Virgin Islands, no family or friends, just us. LM, I had NO veil and I do not regret it nor did I ever even think of changing my mind.

I did change my name. I had never given it much thought, I just had always thought that the same last name "defined" a family unit and I wanted my children and I to have the same last name.

Now that I am back in school and am planning on getting my PhD, I am sad that my "maiden" name will not get any of the honor. I have thought of going back and hyphenating, although the new last name will be very long and awkward sounding.

Sunburned Counsel-

I get the same thing from people being jerks (in-laws) that think I should have taken his name. Not only is his name 3 times longer than mine, but I couldn't get used to writing it out to sign stuff. I did try, but it just didn't feel right to me. Even though my husband is fine with my name and there is acceptable manners protocol to the name issue (I saw it in a Miss Manners book), people just keep insisting I'm Jessica His-name because they're assholes. We thought they didn't know any better at first, but since we've tried to correct them and told them it hurts my feelings, now they have no excuse.

Not only that, but my name is special to me, because my parents gave me my mom's maiden as a middle. In other words, my name means that I'm the daughter to my mom and my dad. I told my husband that as long as the kids are his, I'll give them his last name, but he doesn't think that's too funny.

i had a very traditional wedding...as traditional as a wedding in which the couples' two-year-old is the ring bearer can be! i did take my husband's last name, because for me it represented a break from an overbearing and claustrophobic family...now that a few years have gone by(and my relationship with my parents has relaxed), i'm hyphenating my last name, and we're talking about hyphenating the kids' last names. i think the point of a lot of this discussion is why shouldn't there be more fluidity in naming ourselves and our families?

Thanks for the interesting comments everyone. I struggle with all these thoughts on names - I have decided against marriage, so I won't have this issue come up - but I think it is still a very topical feminist issue. Also, high five to Kattyben for translating the "Ms." "Miss" thing - I fervently go by Ms. and have since I was a teen... but my mother insists on addressing letters to me as "Miss". She also insists on distinguishing between "maids" and "matrons" of honour at my friend's weddings, on a somewhat related tangent...

Emily, welcome! I agree, I totally get it's an individual choice, and I'll absolutely respect whatever choice a woman makes (I would never be so passive-aggressive as to, for instance, write a letter to Ms. [Original Name] when she's made it clear she wants to be Mrs. [His Name]... although I *might* still write Ms. [His Name], for reasons detailed below). But, a small part of me can't help but be bothered when I see SO MANY WOMEN -- professional women, attorneys I know and work with, some of whom have been out of law school for several YEARS -- changing their names. It entrenches the normality of women but not men changing their names, which makes the decision a firmly gendered and decided "normal" one.

Kattyben, I love your take on "Ms." -- as for myself, I proudly proclaim myself a "Ms." whenever I can. Of course, I have the advantage (of sorts) that people often mistake me for "nice good girl" because I'm pretty and feminine. Little do they know there's a rabid angry feminazi lurking inside. Mwahahaha! ;)

But, in all seriousness, I am a bit bothered that there's still an option. Yes, yes, I know we're all about options, but this is one option that, frankly, has no value imo. There is simply no good reason, in this day and age, to call women "Miss" or "Mrs." The ONLY reason I've EVER run into people who prefer it is precisely BECAUSE it is traditional, and they cling to it in reaction to "Ms." Yes, there are women who actively prefer it... but there are women who would prefer to eliminate reproductive choice, as well. The existence of these words in common parlance is actively damaging, so I don't think it's a legitimate option. This is one thing I love about being a lawyer -- the default for every woman is Ms. Yay for corporate America getting one thing right!

sunburned, you're totally right. Sorry for the misinformation -- I do think Brad and Angelina's example on that point is awesome and admirable (and one I'd like to follow, in the depressing event that equality is not reached if and when I decide to get hitched).

WTF? Did anybody else who has their blog linked to their name here get an insulting email from some troll about this thread?

Seriously, I'm kind of creeped out. Here's the email (sorry it's so long):

Hi Cara:

Some of our female writers in one of our newsrooms were roaring laughing at some comments you made on feministing regarding a woman keeping her own name. This caused an interesting discussion among the writers in that newsroom regarding “feminism�. One of the women pointed out something I had never thought of before and I was interested in your take on it.

She pointed out that she has never met an attractive feminist. Sadly, neither have I. I thought back to a recent feminist conference at a nearby university I was invited to speak at and was surprised to realize that the women there were all either very unattractive or just very plain. Also, the few feminist women I know that are married are always married to VERY wimpy and un-masculine men. Why is this?

I notice you talk of your “husband� and claim to have kept your own name. I have known only one man who every put up with such an insult from their wife – but he came out 4 years later and left his wife for one of our printing supervisors in Chicago. The fact that you are “married� is interesting to me. Are you married to a man or is your use of “married� a euphemism for a gay “marriage�. If you are married to a man please tell me about him, it fascinates me that someone would be so weak and unashamed. How does he feel about this huge insult you have perpetrated against him. Why would you marry someone you so clearly disrespect? What if you and your husband were somewhere and someone attempted to rob you or attack you, who would protect you? NO real man – the kind who would protect someone else – would be of the type you describe. Is your pick of a weak, sniveling un-masculine man a result of your unattractiveness and your (possibly mistaken) belief that an attractive man who is masculine would never have you?

Isn’t it possible that unattractive women who allowed their perceived ugliness to drive them to “Feminsim� and man-hating haven’t given society a chance? I know many men who are attracted to more than a woman’s appearance and value the truly important parts of her such as her character and integrity.

I realize that my questions may anger you but I am quite sincere. I am – and always have been—curious about all of this. And, I think “feminists� inability to talk rationally with those of us who just don’t understand is a typical problem that your “movement� has.

Thank you…

Michael F. Hagan, Sr.

CEO & Executive Publisher

Community Media USA

MichaelFHaganSr@CommunityMediaUSA.com

The reason I'm slightly creeped out is because the domain name was just registered.

I also liked the transition into "Ms." etc. I like to be called Ms. I used to work in sales and I look really young (I am still pretty young) and that would always be the most annoying thing. Customers saying "Miss" in such a condescending, degrading way.
Bad memories.

Cara-
That is really spooky (and stupid, I mean 'all feminists are ugly') WTF!

I still think it needs to come down to the choice of the woman, and not garner any judgment from other women either way. One of my best friends got married about a year ago and changed her name because, well, her dad was an asshole. Her fiance's family really opened their arms to her in a way her own father never did, and taking their name felt to her like a symbol of being part of a new family who loved her.

Well I know that the email was supposed to be stupid and insulting and generally harassing and misogynist. I guess now that I'm running a blog (a feminist blog, no less!) I will have to start getting used to it. Not that any of us should have to. But it's still really fucking creepy. I went to the website, because I thought that at first some jackass might have set up some purposely-sexist, anti-feminist site. But no. And that's where it got spooky.

Cara, I think we just found our new asshole of the week.

This is a man who has absolutely no life whatsoever if he's taking the time to personally email the other women who've posted. He can't bring himself to troll directly so he's attacking you one by one. If Michael F. Hagen Sr. is still reading these comments, giggling to himself as his heart races faster and faster waiting to see what we're going to say, allow me this:

You're an asshole. You're a misogynist and since you're making generalizations about all feminists I'm going to say that the "women" you work with are either men you've turned into women or they're patriarchal apologists who are agreeing with you in the hopes that you will pat them on the head and give them a cookie. Please do, or else they might lose their minds trying to come up with ways to please you and get approval.

I notice you talk of your “husband� and claim to have kept your own name. I have known only one man who every put up with such an insult from their wife

So a woman choosing to keep her name, and thus a part of her identity is an "insult"? It may come as a shock to you but there are millions of men in this and other countries who don't care either way and that leads me to this:

If you are married to a man please tell me about him, it fascinates me that someone would be so weak and unashamed. How does he feel about this huge insult you have perpetrated against him. Why would you marry someone you so clearly disrespect?

It fascinates me that a total stranger is so threatened by a woman who doesn't do what's expected of her, which is probably why you fantasize violence in your next line:

What if you and your husband were somewhere and someone attempted to rob you or attack you, who would protect you? NO real man – the kind who would protect someone else – would be of the type you describe.

What if you and your wife were somewhere and you got the shit kicked out of you? Why didn't your wife taking your last name prevent you from experiencing random violence? Then again you're probably the type of man who'd single handedly Chuck Norris a gang of evil minorities holding guns on you with your bare hands, right? I certainly hope you get to test my theory. :)

I could go on but this guy basically proved any point I could make about his state of mind. He needs attention Cara, desperately and he probably wants either you or all of us to respond to his idiocy. I say another round of signing him up for shitloads of spam is in order, how 'bout it?

Cara, I had to laugh at that email. I can just imagine the little turd, clapping his chubby little hands in glee -- "sending troll emails is FUN!!! EEEEE!"

At first I thought, maybe it's someone who has something against Michael Hagan and wants to make him look like a jerk. But there's no such person at a company called "Community Media USA" (or at least if there is, google has no record of him). So I'm forced to conclude he's just a run-of-the-mill bottom-feeder. How boring.

I'm really sorry Cara. That sucks. I don't have a name that can be linked too, or otherwise I imagine I would have gotten a similar one.
That's a long email for him to write, about a topic he loathes, on a site he doesn't understand. Why bother be soing creepy?

I'm really sorry Cara. That sucks. I don't have a name that can be linked too, or otherwise I imagine I would have gotten a similar one.
That's a long email for him to write, about a topic he loathes, on a site he doesn't understand. Why bother be so energetically creepy?

Well, if Wade checks back he'll see that Michael Hagan and co. all think a woman not changing her name is VERY threatening and "disrespectful."
That was why this conversation got started, because Wade was saying it wasn't controversial.

Thanks everyone :)

Again, the creepy aspect isn't the fact that the whole email is purposely insulting-- it's the fact that someone took the time to find me, contact me, write that long ass email and apparently register a website. It says that the website was "just registered," but maybe they're rather liberal with their use of the phrase?

In any case, I obviously didn't respond to him, I just reported it as spam to gmail, so he hopefully won't be able to get anymore through to me with that email address.

Cara, I'm sorry to hear that some asshat is bothering you. FWIW, I don't think there's any reason to feel threatened. He's obviously made up the whole thing -- there's no newsroom, there are no women colleagues agreeing with him, and there is no such organization as Community Media USA.

It's pretty transparent, really. E.g., we're supposed to believe that this guy was invited to a nearby university to speak at a feminist conference? I don't think so. He's some sad jerkoff who spent $9.95 to register a domain name so that he'd sound important.

Don't sweat the trolls; they're noisy but impotent. And keep fighting the good fight with your blog - we've got your back.

hmm, weird slightly different double posts.

Whoa Cara, that is creepy, but don't let the bastard get you too down.
Just think about what a sad little creep he must be...all alone, feeling really bad about himself. Not having any real friendships with half the population of the world.
I almost feel sorry for him.
Almost.
But what Kattyben said - we've got your back!

Any hoo, about the name thing, it is something I think about a lot.
I will never get married, but my (male) partner and I do plan to have children/a child at some point, and I really don't know what last name she/he would have.
The funny thing is that both our respective last names are similar to "Garden" and "Seat" (just for example, I'm too shy to put our real last names), so a hyphenated name would be like Garden-Seat.
It's pretty funny, but it does leave me in a quandry...
We need a new system for children's last names!

We need a new system for children's last names!

I agree. Personally, I'm a fan of making up an entirely new "family name" altogether. It can be a combo name, it can be a relative or close friend's name, anything you want -- but that way we get rid of the expectation that 1) kids have to have the same last name as their parents, and therefore 2) one of the parents doesn't get to pass on (usually) her name. I understand the value of having a connection to your roots, but people change their names so often nowadays, a name doesn't necessarily tell you a whole lot anyway (also, adopted kids' last names will often not reflect their BIOLOGICAL heritage -- which kind of makes us even one step further removed from any reason to pass names with lineage). We can easily keep track of family trees, without NEEDING everyone to have the same name. Personally, if I get married and have kids, I plan to either agree on a new "family name" with my husband/partner (heck, if he'll take it socially, I will too -- but I'm not going to legally/professionally change my name ever), or reach an agreement where half the kids get my name, and half get his.

Seems like a totally reasonable and equitable system to me.

Can I make the case that expending energy on 'wives changing names' is actually, anti-feminist?

Look - there are an enormous number of truly substantive examples of unhealthy social and gender inequality: body image and health, wages, the ongoing threat of violence, the persistence of myths like the ones Mr Hagan trots out.

Ann Althouse's obsession with the inconsequential (Bill & bewbs, etc) says a lot about how innane she is. But as Wade argues, these side-line fights can distract everyone from what should be front and central. (Though I part company with him where he says feminism today doesn't know where to go next ....)

BTW: Trudeau has earned enough feminist street cred to be cut some slack. This Doonesbury strip is funny because this is Boopsie (for Gloria Steinam's sake!) setting the joke. Boopsie's not the sharpest knife in the draw. But her development as a character over the years is exhibit A for Trudeau's feminist sensitivities.

( And or anyone's who's keeping score, my wife is a staunch feminist, she kept her name and my daughters share it. And she's a gym rat. Hubba, hubba.

Oh. In case Mr. Hagan wants to compare machismo, I played rugby well into my 30s. And I have the ears, nose and knees to prove it! )

Eh... Paul, I think the problem is in presuming it's not a "substantive" or "significant" feminist issue.

For someone like me, this is one of the BIGGEST issues. Yes, I get that I'm super crazy blessed to be in a position where one of my primary concerns is getting equal symbolic respect in my personal relationships -- but this strikes me as along the lines of people chiding us for criticizing Girls Gone Wild, which similarly is not a "substantive" issue when you consider the fact that women in Darfur are routinely raped and sexually assaulted with no recourse.

As feminists, I think on some level we care about all issues -- but we can't be faulted for speaking strongly on the ones that resonate deeply with us. Keeping one's name is absolutely important and significant. I have worked HARD for the recognition I've received in my life. People know me by my name. I did NOT work my ass off and never party in college, and spend three of my best years and tens of thousands of my best dollars on law school, all so that people could completely disregard MY identity and subsume ME into my HUSBAND. It is offensive on a deep and important level. I am ME, and I deserve to be recognized as ME, not as an extension of my husband.

We can call this "non-substantive" if it makes us feel less guilty for being rich Americans, but in my mind it doesn't change the fact that women are still blatantly and explicitly treated as second-class citizens in marriage.

I mean, I don't even plan on getting married, Paul, but I still think the changing names is an issue, just like all the other things are issues. Even though you can prioritize some issues as more directly threatening to women's well-being, all the various issues are linked culturally. The reason women historically took men's names was to trace geneology, but also b/c once a woman married she was considered to belong to her husband and her husband's family. Many laws over the years have reflected this, such as the laws that until the 1970s gave men full sexual ownership of their wives. So a name can be a symbol for oppression, if nothing else.

On a much more practical front for women who are professionals, changing your name mid-career can hurt your career. Especially if you're an author or academic, who publishes things under your own name.

I'm not gonna say a name should be the most important issue, b/c I think it is not that important one way or the other to a lot of people anymore. But I think women (and men) should absolutely have a right to do whatever they want with their names.

I agree with you, Paul, insofar as there are more life-threatening causes that feminists tackle, but I disagree with you completely that debating name-changing is anti-feminist.
Name-changing is a reflection of the (historical ?!) property-exchange of a woman from her father to her husband.
Continuing the tradition, or not questioning it at all, is pretty problematic for THIS feminist.

considering the process of naming is not anti-feminist and it's not peripheral--it's another way that the patriarchy gets reproduced; it implicitly puts women in an inferior position, passed from man to man and absorbed into another. It is subtle, but not peripheral, and it is subtle only because it is taken for granted; when fully analyzed it's not subtle at all!

I agree with the law fairy (i've already posted that my children have a merged (not hyphenated) name).

wow, what circles do i travel in? i never thought my world was especially progressive, but i've been married for ten years and this question has never come up. my husband just assumed that i'd keep my name and i did. my dad sometimes addresses me as MRS 'my husband's name', but then again he sometimes addresses mail to my husband as MR 'my wife's name'. I attribute that to just the way my dad is. Considering that he JOINED NOW right after it was founded - because he had two baby daughters and wanted them to have the same priveleges he has as a white man - i cut him some slack.

None of his family or my family questioned us either. None of our friends hassled us. I don't mean to sound incredulous - i mostly see that i've been very fortunate in this regard - i had no idea that there were people for whom taking a husband's name was such a life or death issue. i had no idea that so many men and women were threatened by something pretty damned inocuous in the greater scheme. (And i mean no insult to people who did take spousal names - i'm just really really surprised that this is an issue that attracted so many comments and a very special TROLL.)

i'm equally astonished by the Troll's comments. i'm always amused that the 'worst' insult that one of these guys can hurl is that we feminists are ugly. With abortion rights, equal pay issues, sexual harassment, rape and other problems in the society being addressed by feminists of all genders, colors, classes etc - does someone who sees us taking on such things really think we'll crumble because some idiot calls us ugly?
And mano a mano i'll put up my hiking, biking, kayaking motorcycling husband, my sun and moon and equal partner against any of you manly trolls. I doubt any of your are strong enough to support your spouse through cancer twice - which is where the real measure of a man may be taken.

argh.

I don't think anyone here was saying that the name issue was
"THE MOST IMPORTANT FEMINIST ISSUE EVER PERIOD."
As someone said earlier, it's mainly symbolic, and like Ninapendamaishi, etc. said, because of the traditions surrounding marriage it is significant and certainly not anti-feminist.

so far off topic but . . .

LM, I wore two veils in my hair at my wedding, but they did not cover my face, and the reason I wore them was because they had been worn by my mother and mother-in-law--it was my way of honoring our parents' lasting marriages. In my mind, a veil over your face is a nod to patriarchal tradition; a piece of lace or tulle in your hair is an accessory. But unless you like the accessory or have a sentimental reason to wear it, I seriously doubt you'll regret not wearing a veil. Just like I didn't regret skipping the "giving away," using modern and matching vows, and having the pastor announce us as simply "[Myfirstname] and [Hubby'sfirstname]" since our surnames don't match.

Good point about Boopsie, Paul G. Brown.

I actually thought that him calling my husband weak and feminine, etc, was actually far more strange and amusing. If my husband was insulted by someone questioning his masculinity, I'm pretty sure that I never would have married him.

Here's what I don't get about the whole thing.

It's a *hassle* to change your name. Yes, they give you a form to fill out on your marriage license. But then you've got to take your license to the DMV and get a new driver's license. And then you've got to take that to Social Security to get a new SSN card. And you have to call all your credit card companies to re-issue your cards, and if one of those cards is a debit card, it won't be the same number and anything that automatically debits off it, you'll have to contact with an update. In the meantime, sucks to you if you are getting a passport or registering to vote in some states, because without the right paperwork in your hands yet, you're out of luck.

Yet people do this *automatically*. Without *thinking* about it.

Your work email probably is based around your name. So when Joe Schmoe is told to email something to "Karen Smith", he knows to send to karen.smith@yourcompany.com. Except you just changed your name; your email is actually karen.jones@yourcompany.com and IT hasn't changed it yet (and if they do, you'll have to notify your entire contacts list...) So you never get the email.

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. Why doesn't sheer *laziness* and hatred of bureaucracy lead more women to keep their names?

I mean, I'm an ideologue *and* obsessed with family *and* not so keen on romance *and* very attached to my name, so I have about eight billion reasons why changing my name was never an option in my mind. But I remain appalled at how many women do this thing that takes EFFORT, it takes work, follow-up phone calls, it's a pain in the ass! It's as bad as getting all your credit cards stolen, and the week you don't have anything to pay anyone with because you had to cancel them all! So why? I can understand if it was easy and simple, but no, it's really not. Are most women just unaware of the bureaucratic nightmares involved until they do it?

I didn't really mean to get the thread so far off topic, I swear. Doonesbury has been around for almost 40 years. His characters Joanie and Alex are both feminists, but they're each feminist in their own way. I think its greatly to his credit - it shows he's keeping up with the times. Just from reading the strip, you can tell he's a great husband and father.

Ah, don't worry about it, mate!
We're always getting off-topic around here, that's how some of the most interesting discussions get started!

I agree with anorak!

And I officially hijack the thread.

It's now about movies.

Just saw "Hot Fuzz". Very, very funny and subsersive.

Saw 300. WTF were they thinking? Gayest ... movie ... eva! And I mean that in the best possible sense.

Rented "In America". Utterly moving. I cried.

coming in a bit late, as usual but:
cara, what a bunch of junk. i sometimes feel so insulated, because i work pretty much only women, pretty much all of whom are feminists, my friends and partner tend to be of that persuasion as well, and i get sometimes where i think there aren't asshats with nothing better to do than write a carefully worded letter like the one you got. and the things he said...i mean, cripes. sucktown.

re: name changing. if i ever would, it wouldn't be to his name for sure. when i was in what i thought was a forever thing, we talked about a merger-name to which we both would switch.
when i was in college i talked with two women about this very ish, and they were startlingly adamant about how NOT taking their partners' name would be SO UNFAIR to the children.
to which i was like, um, really? but they were like, who will they feel connected to? the other kids will give em hell for it. to which i was like, um, really?
such a perspective i'm not familiar with. and one had a really shattered family background and the other was from about as 'typical' nuclear a family as you can imagine.

anyway. this isn't about movies but i wrote it all the same. i just say amelie and liked it a bunch (i tend to come in late with the movies too).

ps - dear feministing, thank you for, among many things, giving me 'asshat'

I didn't even consider taking my husband's name (much to my grandfather's consternation). We went to the justice of the peace one morning and then continued our lives as they were.

My name is the name of my mother, my father, my sisters, my brother, his daughter. It came from my father's family, whom we have essentially disowned, but that doesn't matter. It's ~our~ clan name.

If the letters I send to my kid sisters, if that wasn't my name too I wrote on the envelopes, my heart would break.

I like the new thread. FWIW, in Korea women don't take their husbands' names when they marry--and the rest of the culture is pretty sexist. When your parents-in-law (and much of society) treat you as an inferior being, relocated into your new household to breed and submit, it may not feel liberating for you not to share the family name. Not that I agree with Wade Garrett; I don't.

While I'm at it, I'd like to gripe about the "Ms." thing. I like to go by "Ms." because I don't see why my marital status should be any more relevant than that of all the "Mr."s out there. But it really irks me that most forms have four options now: "Mr." "Mrs." "Miss" and "Ms." Translation: "Man" "Wife" "Sexually Available" and "Feminazi." Pisses me off.

Ditto, I had a similar thought today after filling out a bunch of online forms and I found it seriously annoying.

Mmm. On a side note, I'd love for Michael F. Hagen Sr. (snickers) to meet MY boyfriend. He has already cheerily offered to take on my last name because he's "not attached" to his and he reckons the kiddies will be less confused if mum and dad have the same name.

Did I mention my BF is ex-military? I don't think Mr. Michael F. Hagen Sr. (snickers) would call him "wimpy and effeminate" to his face. (grins)

If we're planning to meet up with Mr. Hagen, count me in!
I know violence doesn't solve anything, but it would sure make me feel better.

I'm just glad The Law Fairy is commenting so much again! I really look forward to reading your perspective on issues.

Back to the name change thing... my fiance and I are both going to be attorneys, and will (hopefully) both be admitted to practice within the next year. We'd decided to change our names so that it would be as follows...
For him: Hisfirstname Mylastname Hislastname.

For me: Myfirstname Mylastname Hislastname.

But, he was planning on using my name legally, but not professionally. I was planning on using his name and mine professionally.

After reading all these posts, I'm rethinking the whole situation. I mean, shouldn't he be willing to use my name professionally, too??? I know he'll be open to it, but it hadn't really occurred to me. Now I'm feeling strongly about it!

On the surface name changing it may not seem that big of a deal, but if you look at it more, it is. It is essentially taking away the identity of a woman to expect her to change her name. I am Polish, my husband is Irish, I took his very Irish last name and get the "Oh you look Irish" comments all of the time, then I have to explain that I am not and that it was my husband's name. It feels weird when I address letters to my father because our names are now different. When I run into people I knew from awhile back, I find myself saying "Remember me, I WAS Sara and am now Sara . When I went back to school it was a real hassle getting all of my records in order and officially changing my name at school, my "maiden" (I hate that term) name is officially considered my "alias".

It just seems that I had lost so much of my identity by changing my name.

I am a Doonesbury groupie, though I don't always agree 100% with his characters :). I think he raises hugely important issues and deals with them in smart, funny ways.

I remember the first "is feminism dead?" cartoon, and being mildly annoyed by it, just because I don't like the generational-conflict narrative the media likes to tell about feminists. But it was interesting to see it brought up at all. And Boopsie, as a character, is not exactly at the forefront of political activism. So it makes sense she's just raising some of these issues. There are other characters--Ms. Caucus, who went back to law school, for example--who speak more firmly for feminist ideas.

He also recently did a strip on sexual assault in the military (March 26-30), which I mentioned on a previous thread and is worth noting again. I hope he comes back to the storyline.

* * *

Thanks for the discussion of name changes too! I've always been intrigued by the idea of creating an entirely new name with a spouse and children. Of course, the historian in me pales at the implications for doing historical research if there is no set custom for name changes . . . but I think I could suck it up and deal with that. Historians will just have to get smarter.

My one freak-out during my little brother's wedding was at rehearsal when my grandfather--who was doing the service--presented "Mr. and Mrs. [my brother's name]" at the very end. No mention of my sister-in-law's first name . It seemed WAY out of line. I knew that she was taking my brother's last name, but I didn't think that had to mean, you know, the erasure of her first name as well! I was pissed at my grandfather and everyone else who let it go. Sigh. But it was what my sister-in-law wanted (I asked my brother about it), and my brother let her make that call.

"But it was what my sister-in-law wanted (I asked my brother about it), and my brother let her make that call."

mmmm Your brother LET HER make that call?

"But it was what my sister-in-law wanted (I asked my brother about it), and my brother let her make that call."

mmmm Your brother LET HER make that call?

This probably isn't the best example, but does anyone remember that episode of Friends where Ross & Rachel got married in Vegas? As they were coming out of the chapel (completely trashed, of course), they said, "Helloooooo, Mrs. Ross!" and "Hellooooooooooo, Mr. Rachel!"

I loved that. Instead of the woman taking on the identity of the man, they were each taking on the identity of the other, which is what marriage is SUPPOSED to be about, the merging of two individuals.

Even though Friends wasn't exactly a gender norm-defiant show...

This probably isn't the best example, but does anyone remember that episode of Friends where Ross & Rachel got married in Vegas? As they were coming out of the chapel (completely trashed, of course), they said, "Helloooooo, Mrs. Ross!" and "Hellooooooooooo, Mr. Rachel!"

I loved that. Instead of the woman taking on the identity of the man, they were each taking on the identity of the other, which is what marriage is SUPPOSED to be about, the merging of two individuals.

Even though Friends wasn't exactly a gender norm-defiant show...

Going back to the "keeping your father's name is also patriarchal," I also disagree that it means my father "owns" me. Yes, it is a bit patriarchal in that women and children are men's possessions, but once you reach adulthood, it's your name. I mean, we're not talking about taking your fiance's father's name, are we? Plus, I plan on being the third Dr. Mylastname in a row -- my father and his father were both doctors. That's pretty important to me. (And even though he supports pretty much every choice I make, I think my dad would be disappointed if I did change my name!)

And for all the folks who bemoan how all this lack of name-changing messes up genealogy (not on this thread, but I've seen it elsewhere), they forget how many families immigrated to the US and changed their names in the past two hundred years. Yet no one complains about this, do they?

Family Values...The "doing the right thing for the family" argument or the "not a big enough deal" is what gets me.
Repression is not a family value. One person's life and experience being diluted and judged trivial is not a family value. Misogyny is not a family value. Not unless the family is dysfunctional.

I know several women who have retained their last names, mostly due to issues of publication etc. that have a really difficult time say...accessing their partners in the emergency room...because their last names are different.
They have similar issues as homosexual partnerships here. they are looked at as strange and dangerous creatures whose opinions must be taken with a grain of salt, and whose veracity can be questioned at will. The strength of their partnerships can be questioned, the legality of their union can be questioned.
I live in a very cosmopolitan Texas city.

It's still a problem. And a big one, if we have a commitment to education and academic equality.

coming very late to this thread, but a lot of very interesting stuff. personally, i plan to keep my last name, for many reasons. i love that many people have difficulty pronouncing it, i get a kick out of the immediate "now how do you spell that?" response i get when i give it to people over the phone. most importantly, i have had it my whole life so it's a huge part of who i am, and i love who i am. also, it's one of the few things i have from my father, who passed away when i was young, and i treasure it because of that.

a few years ago my 3 closest girlfriends from college and i were talking about just this subject. one of them had recently gotten married and exchanged her common, easy to pronounce last name, for his uncommon, difficult to pronounce last name. another friend planned to definitely take her husband's last name. my other 2 friends' jaws essentially hit the floor when the third friend said she wasn't sure she'd take her husband's name. she said that it would depend on many things, such as what his last name was, how old she was when she got married, and what her professional circumstances were at the time, among other things. i was gleeful and heartily agreed and seconded everything she said. my friends all know me as a feminist and expected that response from me, not her.

i must admit it came as a bit of a surprise to me as well since i wouldn't consider her a feminist (nor do i think she would consider herself as such) but over the years, this particular friend (who was quite conservative in college) continues to pleasantly surprise me with her refreshingly progressive attitudes as she's developed into a professionally successful and personally confident woman. i love every second of it and like to occasionally indulge in the possibility that my influence as a vocal feminist has had some effect not only on her but on my other more conservative friends as well.

mmmm Your brother LET HER make that call?

It's a long story, Grace, a lot of which I can't go into 'cause it's their lives not mine. They were young when they got married (still in college), and my brother's wife and her family had very traditional ideas about the wedding (and marriage as well, which has gotten them into trouble since . . .). My brother is really laid back, and while I think he put a lot of working into making the wedding THEIRS instead of HERS, he also didn't have very strong preferences. My sister-in-law is gritty, and somewhat critical of her family's views on marriage and gender, but not sure what she wants yet.

I think if she had wanted to keep her own name, or choose a new name, or whatever, my brother would have completely supported the decision.

And I didn't mean "let" as in, you know, having the power to call the shots. I just meant he hadn't actively opposed her decision. Sounds like maybe that came across poorly :).

Also . . .

Eh... Paul, I think the problem is in presuming it's not a "substantive" or "significant" feminist issue.

After posting earlier this morning, I've been thinking a lot about the debate re: whether this is an important feminist issue. I want to agree with many posters here that, while not as materially urgent as, say, sexual assault, reproductive rights, or poverty . . . it's all connected. So how can we say "this is a frivolous issue" when it's all connected to sustaining a patriarchal structure that demeans women and contributes to ALL of us (female, male, in between) living more proscribed lives?

I think another thing I would point out is that it's a "big issue" in relation to the opposition for change. If people can still have heated debates about whether or not it's appropriate to do whatever you damn well please with your name when you get married . . . as long as families or significant others are insulted by breaks with tradition, this tells me that there's something deeper at stake that needs to be talked over.

“They have similar issues as homosexual partnerships here. they are looked at as strange and dangerous creatures whose opinions must be taken with a grain of salt, and whose veracity can be questioned at will.�

When applying for a green card through marrying a US citizen, you and your spouse have to go for an interview, where the interviewer is to determine whether your marriage is bona fide. I’ve been told by several people that if you don’t take your husband’s name they look at you with suspicion, now I don’t know if that is true.

As established, I didn't take my husband's last name. And he is an immigrant. But we had a fiance visa, which meant that he was allowed in the country on the condition that we got married. So we were just engaged during most of the process. But we did have to go back for an interview after the wedding, and no one even asked about that.

Maybe it's just me, but I like being "Miss Oenophile." I'm not ambiguously married and DAMN proud of myself for not wedding the creeps whom are attracted to me. ;)

Personally, I plan on being "Miss Oenophile" to the day I die, unless I happen to marry, at which point I'll a) keep my last name and b) run out and get a doctorate so I can be "Dr. Oenophile." (Kidding about the doctorate part... maybe....)

I see no problem with Mrs., Miss, and Ms. If you are divorced (as 1/2 of all women who marry are), you cannot be a Miss. Mrs. seems odd if you are not married or widowed. I guess I see those options as:
Mrs.: married and proud of it;
Miss: unmarried and proud of it;
Ms.: none of your damn business and proud of it.

Incidentally, when my mum remarried, she retained her maiden name (something about going through 35 years with that name). The Social Security administration called her up to yell at her for not informing them of the name change. Conversation:
SSA: "But you got married."
mum: "I didn't change my last name; I'm not chattel!"

Such crap.

"Hell, Angelina Jolie's children, WHO HAD HER NAME FIRST, went and took Brad Pitt's name after the wedding."

First?

Maddox Chivan Jolie-Pitt was Rath Vibol first and Maddox Chivan Thornton Jolie second. Zahara Marley Jolie-Pitt was Tena Adam first and Zahara Marley Jolie second. Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt has been Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt her whole life. Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt was Truong Quang Sang first and Pax Thien Jolie second.

"'I'm sure it is still controversial in certain families and social circles'

frankly, comes off as demeaning. You may not have meant it this way, but it kind of smacks of 'look, maybe YOU guys think it's an issue, but in my enlightened progressive community, it isn't.'"

Good point there - it helps to be careful when phrasing these things. Whether the meaning was closer to "but in my enlightened progressive community, it isn't" or "but in families with Iranian ancestry, it isn't" (name-changing isn't a tradition there) or whatever could have been clearer.

"But it really irks me that most forms have four options now: 'Mr.' 'Mrs.' 'Miss' and 'Ms.' Translation: 'Man' 'Wife' 'Sexually Available' and 'Feminazi.' Pisses me off."

It also excludes doctors!

Meanwhile, the other day I had to write a business letter to a woman. Not knowing whether to use "Dr." or not, I searched for her name on the web. I found stuff about her - stuff about her work, nothing about her havign a doctorate, and her wedding announcement. I still wasn't sure so I used "Ms." (default). I wasn't sure because I was wondering if maybe using "Mrs." would have been creepy (an "I stalked you on the web!" statement?) or respectful (an "I do recognize your same-sex marriage as real!" statement?).

"I know several women who have retained their last names, mostly due to issues of publication etc. that have a really difficult time say...accessing their partners in the emergency room...because their last names are different."

Also, I once heard of a married woman who did change her name having a hassle at the hospital (unfortunately, I don't remember where I read this). Apparently some maternity ward nurse didn't get that the kinda-tan newborn wearing an ID bracelet with a Japanese surname was born to a black patient and almost handed the baby to an Asian patient instead of the child's mother (who was understandably dismayed about the assumption that a black woman can't have a name like Mrs. Watanabe).

Random manners/etiquette response to the Dr./Ms. issue:

If you are sending the letter to a physician, always address it to "Dr."

If you are sending the letter to a Ph.D., and the letter is in regards to the person's area of expertise/professional capacity, address it to "Dr. Smith," regardless of marital status.

I believe that married couples with different last names are addressed as such in correspondence:
Mr. Philip Smith and Dr. Jane Jones.

I find it strange that correspondence - even social correspondence - is addressed to the husband first, as, traditionally, women handled the social aspects of the marriage.

Coming in really late to the thread...

In Spain I got into a conversation with a very nice woman who was extremely puzzled about why American women were so willing to give up their family names. As she told me, it is very uncommon there for people to have only two names, a first and a last, and children generally bear the surnames of their mother and father. However, it is the man's name that ultimately makes it down to later generations, as the husband's name goes at the very end.

On another subject, I think that keeping or changing a name is a very personal decision. Among my friends and acquaintances, I can't think of many common factors (or at least not ones apparent to me) among those who have decided to keep their last names, or among those who have taken their husbands' last names.

And I do agree that there should be no marriage double standard for name-changing requirements. It should either be completely separated, or the name-changing part made gender neutral.

oenophile, as I said, I understand that there are women who prefer the "Miss" and "Mrs." titles to "Ms." -- but this, to me, is not one of those issues where ultimately what we should have is a "choice" -- unless and until there are just as many options for men. That there are options to have a name reflecting marital status for women, but not for men, inherently suggests that there is something fundamentally different between married and non-married women, where there is not a similar fundamental difference between married and non-married men. Bottom line is, there is simply no way that this is not sexist, so it's a choice I cannot respect.

So what about a woman who keeps her original name (I refuse to say "maiden name") when she gets married? You can't call her Mrs. or Miss -- Mrs. Jones is likely the name of her mother or grandmother or some other relative. I know I would feel weird being called Mrs. [My Last Name] -- I'm not married to my dad or brother, for chrissakes. But Miss [My Last Name] would be just as weird, because I'm not a "Miss."

All these titles do is add confusion and sexism to the issue. So, in short, they have no validity.

I think I'm perfectly capable of being proud of staying single by choice, without needing to broadcast this to random telephone solicitors. My personal life is no one's damn business unless I decide to make it their business. If I want to proclaim to the world that I'm single and not looking, I can always just say "I'm single and not looking." That's essentially what "Miss" does -- so why bother being coy about it?

LawFairy,

I ignored the "Mr." issue because I am in complete agreement about it - it is odd that there is no corresponding title for married men. (Arguably, very young men are "Master," but that is hardly ever used.)

Likewise, I never disputed that there SHOULD be a choice of which title to use. It as another poster who dislikes the idea of "Miss, Mrs., and Ms." I responded to that.

I'm sorry, but I REALLY disagree that "Miss" says, "I'm single and not looking" or "sexually available," (both having been posited here). That reflects, IMO, more the commenter's own beliefs than any social ones. "Miss" says, generally, young and never married.

If you retain your last name in marriage, you are Mrs. Fairy or Ms. Fairy, at your discretion. A widowed woman retains Mrs, and a divorced woman may retain both Mrs. and the husband's last name, if she chooses (although in France he may refuse to allow her to continue to use it, as I recall).

No one complains that doctors are ALWAYS "Dr. Jones," even though a telephone solicitation for carpet cleaner has nothing to do with the practice of medicine. (The Ph.D. rule makes more sense to me.)You're probably very proud of being a litigator, but would be thoroughly weirded out if your personal correspondence or junk mail were addressed to "Ms. Law Fairy, Esquire." Doctors deal with that all the time, though.

"Mr." is actually the exception to the rule that one's various life events actually do factor into honourifics.

While I am not too hot & bothered about what people do as single people about the Miss/Ms. decision (the "Mrs." decision seems more problematic to me, as it reinforces a view of marriage I strongly disagree with), I myself have not liked being called "Miss" anything since I was maybe 16. It feels like someone is speaking down to me by referring to me as "Miss."

Maybe my experience is coloured by the fact that the only context I hear it in regularly is when kids are told to address me as "Miss Anna." It seems silly and weirdly condescending. I'd rather be just "Anna" or "Ms. Cook."

I also appreciate it when people address me as "ma'am" rather than "miss" . . . though I realize that's my own preference. I've always wanted to be considered "grown up" :).

oenophile, to be clear, I'm saying there should not be a choice in this instance, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you think there should be. My point is that there is simply no way that it is not sexist, unless and until men are likewise given different titles based on marital status.

My point about single and not looking had more to do with the part of your comment where you said you were proud of the fact that you'd turned down the less-than-awesome guys who want you. I totally get that, and I'm totally with you there -- my point was more that if you want people to know that you can tell them that. But I don't see it as a legitimate reason to use "Miss."

How on earth could I be "Mrs. Fairy"? In that case I've gone from "Miss Fairy" to "Mrs. Fairy." It's just WEIRD. I'm not married to "Mr. Fairy." Mr. Fairy is my dad, or my brother, and calling myself Mrs. Fairy is fucking CREEPY.

I would be much less bothered by the "Esq." in personal correspondence than by a "Miss" or "Mrs." "Esq." is a little formal for my tastes but at least it isn't disrespectful, whereas I see "Miss" as incredibly disrespectful. Also, as an aside, my mom addresses correspondence to me to "Dr. Fairy" as a joke (my dad is a doctor who's not terribly fond of lawyers, so naturally we delight in teasing him that there are now two "doctors" in the family).

I'm not complaining about using proper titles. I have zero problem with proper titles. I see nothing at all troubling about all correspondence going to Dr. Suchandsuch or Ms. Whatshername, Esq. I would imagine most people, if sending letters to friends, would except in formal circumstances simply send them to Jimbob Smith. I'm complaining that Mrs. and Miss are sexist and, therefore, improper and disrespectful. Really has nothing to do with whether or not any individual person is a doctor, lawyer, or tax collector.

"How on earth could I be 'Mrs. Fairy'?"

By being married and female and having the surname "Fairy"?

"In that case I've gone from 'Miss Fairy' to 'Mrs. Fairy.' It's just WEIRD. I'm not married to 'Mr. Fairy.'"

I thought the idea was that "Mrs. X" can just mean "married and female and has the surname X" instead of necessarily meaning "married and female and has the surname X which she got from her husband whose surname is X."

Hence my wondering whether to address the recipient of my business letter as "Ms." or "Mrs." once I found out that she doesn't have a doctorate and she does have a wife.

Mina, but WHY do women have different titles for married vs. unmarried? Or, more importantly, why don't men?

Law Fairy:

My comment re: pride was that, in choosing between Ms. and Miss, I prefer the latter.

My discussion was limited to that choice. It seems as if you are inventing disagreement on issues not related to what I wrote. I see no problem with also designating men as Mr. or something else, based on marital status.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that we DO discriminate in the assignation of honourifics on many grounds, such as education, occupation (a judge or a solicitor), and marital status. Mr. is the exception and I see no reason to change that.

I do find it disrespectful when I am called "Mrs." whenever I check into a hotel room. I've said, "I'm not married," and been utterly ignored.

Mina, given that divorced women can retain their married names and Mrs., I'm pretty sure that Law Fairy's construction is off; Mrs. only designates a woman who has been married and has the surname in question - i.e. you are correct.

LawFairy: I think that men used to have slightly different titles (master v. mister), but that faded out of practice.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that we DO discriminate in the assignation of honourifics on many grounds, such as education, occupation (a judge or a solicitor), and marital status. Mr. is the exception and I see no reason to change that.

Then I think the problem is I just plain don't understand this point. Honorific titles belong only to a very very small percentage of people. So I don't understand why it's relevant to bring up the fact that we recognize a few people's accomplishments with special titles. If you're making a broader point about how society ought to be more egalitarian, I won't fight you on that. It still has nothing to do with whether or not we call women different names by marital status.

Calling someone "Dr." because she is a doctor has zero connection to calling someone "Mrs." because she is married. I don't see how on earth you can draw a relevant and useful analogy.

I'm aware of the Master/Mister distinction, but my impression is that "Master" was generally only applied to very young men, not to older adult male bachelors who had never been married; whereas you were a "Miss" and a "maiden" until and unless you were married. Old male bachelors were never "Master," but "old maids" were still "Miss."

We don't really distinguish education by titles: "Dr." is the only one I can think of, though I guess "esq.," too. The only distinction being made is on whether or not you completed a doctorate. Finished high school? College? Master's degree? Makes no difference to your title. When it comes to profession, you get "Professor," "Reverend/Rabbi/Father/Sister/Brother," and not much else. And when it comes to marriage that only applies to women. If you're an aristocrat you can try to get people to call you Lord Muckamuck, a class-based division. But no, our honorifics don't signify a large set of life events. They're singularly restricted, actually.

Of course divorced women can keep on calling themselves "Mrs.," though I've never met one who wanted to). Hell, I can start calling myself Mrs. G right now, and who's to say me nay? It won't change the meaning of the title, though, unless many people do it.

"Mina, but WHY do women have different titles for married vs. unmarried? Or, more importantly, why don't men?"

...and why do married women still have different titles for married vs. unmarried in Iceland ("Frú" for married and "Ungfrú" for unmarried), where they often keep "-dóttir" surnames instead of taking their husbands' "-son" surnames? I'm not sure.

My guess is that the title change thing might not just be a symbol of the name change thing, but instead might have a more direct connection to a society caring more about a woman's marital status than about a man's.

Meanwhile, there's another awkward thing about all these titles. Back when I was applying for jobs, sometimes I'd write a cover letter to someone whose name I knew but whose gender I couldn't figure out from her or his name.

I didn't want to send a "Mr. X" letter to a woman or a "Ms. X" letter to a man because that reminded me of the bullying in my schools, and leaving out the "Dr." for someone who has one seemed disrespectful too. I could sometimes find out which title to use by searching for the name on the web, but when that didn't help I called the company and asked the receptionist "I'm applying for [job], which title does [name] prefer? I don't want to be rude and use the wrong one on the cover letter."

Sometimes I think even using "Ms." for non-"Dr." women the way we use "Mr." for non-"Dr." men isn't enough and maybe a switch to "M." for both could be cool...

Mina, I love that. I am SOOOOOO on board with the gender-neutral M. I'm downright giddy :)

And, I agree that you're right about us caring more about women's marital status than men's but I think it's for the exact same reasons as women are expected to change their names, so that was kind of more my point. I don't see them as very distinct at all. "Mrs. Smith" signifies that she hasn't always been a Smith -- she's a "Mrs." so that means "Smith" is her husband's name, which means she's "taken" which means hands off the other man's property. If you met "Mrs. Smith" and had never before known her, you wouldn't know that Smith was not her original name -- so the "Mrs." tips you off that she's married. So, I just see them as two sides of the same ugly, sexist coin.

"We don't really distinguish education by titles: 'Dr.' is the only one I can think of, though I guess 'esq.,' too."

I thought "Esq." was an ingredient in a whole different alphabet soup. You know, a counterpart of the "MD," "PhD," or whichever after a doctor's name instead of the "Dr." before her or his name, and a counterpart of the "AIA," "AICP," "DBIA," "PE," "SE," in other professions.

"The only distinction being made is on whether or not you completed a doctorate. Finished high school? College? Master's degree? Makes no difference to your title. When it comes to profession, you get 'Professor,' 'Reverend/Rabbi/Father/Sister/Brother,' and not much else."

If military training counts, then I guess all those rank titles go on the list too.

Also, I've seen some karate teachers in the U.S. use "-sensei" instead of "-san".

I guess I've seen people put "MD" or "PhD" after their names, but you wouldn't do that and use "Dr.," unless you were being kind of silly, because they stand for "Doctor of Medicine" and "Doctor of Philosphy," So I'd be calling myself Dr. EG, Doctor of Philosophy, and as proud as I am, that seems like overkill. I think the equivalent for a lawyer would be "JD," right TLF?

I forgot about the military. I've only heard "sensei" being used by students about their teachers--I wouldn't put it in the same category as the appellations that routinely turn up on your junk mail.

After I got my Master's, I thought about having my students call me Magistra G. And then I decided against it.

"Mina, I love that. I am SOOOOOO on board with the gender-neutral M. I'm downright giddy :)"

Aww, thanks! :)

EG, exactly.

It would look pretty silly to write "Dr. Law Fairy, Juris Doctor." Of course, "Dr. Law Fairy, Esq." is almost as silly but my mom still writes it anyway (although -- I guess the whole point of that is to be silly) ;)

One of the women I go to church with said that she was once looking through the bevy of different titles available on a website she was registering on. On a whim, she picked "Lady" -- and now she knows exactly who they sold her information to, since all of that junk mail comes to "Lady Jones." Hehehehe

Okay, let's add professors, judges, senseis, and the militia into that group.

I do understand (and agree with) only changing the woman's name upon marriage. We should either be "miss" in our youth and "Mrs" when we age, or men should have a different appellation for bachelors, or we should use M. That all said, it's common to change appellations upon a momentous life event: marriage, getting a doctorate, becoming a professor,etc. It's just weird that MEN change their honourifics for all BUT one of those occasions.

Thanks for your response, Anna. I hope I didn't jump on you; I'm on high alert lately. I agree that there is something deeply significant about this seemingly peripheral issue.

The Ms. Miss Mrs business galls me too. In the 60s/70s Ms. was introduced to parallel Mr. and dismantle these marriage signifiers. But the attempt was subverted and instead we got 3 choices rather than 2. Crazy!

I also love the use of M. It gets rid of all the irrelevant distinctions. I'm using it from now on.

I love the M. That makes four of us now. If we spread the word, we can make it standard practice by nightfall. ;)

I'm all for a gender-neutral "M." as well!

Hey Grace, no worries :). I didn't feel jumped on. It's always interesting to be asked to clarify thoughts, so I have a chance to explore something further. Thanks again for a fascinating discussion!

So if we're all "M." does that mean we pronounce it "Em"? It sounds like a secret-agent identity :). So now are choices are virgin/married/radical/and . . . spy.

hahahahaha!

yeah, probably there'll now be 4 choices. I'm still going with 'Em.' Always wanted to be a spy!

Hmmm...in reference to names and such...'Thought about that long and hard. I don't like that my last name is my dad's, that nothing of my mother's given names are mine. When my maternal g-ma died, I was thinking of taking her first name, Hazel, and making that a last name (I'd add "Grove" to it, 'sounds better and also a little 'ancient'). So, I'd be Mary Jane Hazelgrove -- no patriarchy at all! Yay! As for kids: I don't get why women hem and haw over this -- the woman bears the children and raises them. The men toss in a little sperm and maybe a backrub during labor -- why give them all the credit?? I look at it this way, boys can be "Michael Hazelgrove Smith" and girls can be "Jane Smith Hazelgrove". This way, no one gets their fur ruffled. Meddling in-laws need to butt out. Period. As for weddings: I don't subscribe to them. The whole point is to seal the transfer of property from one man (father of bride) to another (groom). Talk about the most patriachal and sexist thing going!! Marriage itself is more of a feminist crisis than the name-game, IMHO. Thanks for listening.

Ali,

Some of the reason for giving the father's name to the children is that they are then "his." It's obvious that the kids belong to the mom - heck, she carried them for nine months!

Incidentally, I heard a story about a mother-in-law who favoured her daughter's children, and snarked to her daughter-in-law, "At least I know they are my grandkids."

OK, so I started reading this because I used to read Doonesbury, but then I got sucked into the whole names thing.

I'm all but 40, I married at 26, and yes, I did take my husband's family name. Why? Well, for one thing I wasn't a feminist in those days - even now I'm sure my credentials are fairly weak, but regular reading of Feministing is changing that - but I'm still glad I did. OK, trivially, my husband's family name sounds a lot better with my given name than my father's family name does. And as we are now the parents of two children, I do like that the shared family name makes it very clear that we are a family. And I'm not sure that I personally would have favoured a new made-up name for our family unit - I like the sense of history that goes with family names (ours probably came over to the UK during the French Revolution, and in the 1880s was found most in the Glasgow tenements - I like being able to discover that.)

However, that's me and my preferences - what depresses me reading what other people write is that other preferences are much harder to arrange. It doesn't surprise me, but I agree wholeheartedly that the battle is NOT won until the choices of both women and men are equal.

Oh, and I totally love the M idea.

"At least I know they are my grandkids."

oenophile,

It is funny that you bring that up, I was just speaking with one of my psych professors, and she was talking about the day that she met a very well known evolutionary psychologist who claimed that maternal grandparents favored their grandchildren more because they knew for sure that the grandchildren belonged to their daughter, therefore, a blood relation.

I don't really buy into it, I think it has more to do with mother/daughter relationships and the such. It is interesting nonetheless.

If you're talking about history and such though, the reason the male's name gets past on is definitely about the fact that once warried his wife and children are considered to belong to him. That may not be the way our laws treat the situation anymore, but historically it definitely was. Children were /not/ considered under older European law to belong to their mother, they were considered to belong to their father.

If my beloved daughter should ask my opinion on the topic, I will likely ask her: why on earth would a woman regard a man, whose name is not worth assuming and wearing proudly, as being worthy of being considered, even briefly, as a prospective husband?

I support the right of individual choice in this highly personal matter; however, a male who would regard his bride's rejection of his name as anything but a profound insult hardly deserves to be called a man.

I support the right of individual choice in this highly personal matter; however, a male who would regard his bride's rejection of his name as anything but a profound insult hardly deserves to be called a man.

Likewise, a man who cannot hear a legitimate complaint without feeling personal insult is not worth marrying, either.

Likewise, a man who could not conceive of taking his beloved wife's name as his own hardly deserves to be called a man.

The bride isn't rejecting his name. She isn't rejecting, if she considers a blended name or a hyphenation, part of him. What she is rejecting is all of the attendant issues that go along with it: imagine changing YOUR name. For a woman whose entire identity will be that of a wife, with no room for a profession, taking another name is a fine choice. For other people, though, changing a name mid-career is disastrous. A man who does not understand that his wife will suffer professionally and struggle as her entire professional identity is erased is really not worth marrying.

There's no such thing as a non-substantive feminist issue, IMHO. There are issues that might not be the best use of our time as activists, but all of these little problems speak to the more fundamental reality of institutional sexism. If two people walk into an ice cream shop and the man can have 37 flavors but the woman can only choose among 36, that's a problem even if the additional flavor is extra nutty beer-flavored horseshit. The issue is the institutional sexism that the distinction condones.

Likewise, if a woman can buy 37 and a man can only buy 36, I don't especially care because it doesn't condone institutional sexism. There is no such thing as institutional anti-male sexism, and I'm doubtful that there ever will be because by the time we've eliminated the old fashioned variety, I like to think humanity will have advanced beyond gender bias, assuming there is still such a thing as gender at that point.

For my part, I've made the Mr. and Mrs. mistake because if you see something 999 times out of 1,000, it's human nature to screw up on the outlier. But I can't imagine caring whether my future wife--assuming I get married, and don't decide to find my intimacy in a less dull-looking institution--takes my name or not.

John Bear, the guy who got me my first book deal, was originally John Klemner. His wife, Marina Bear, was originally Marina Dobolubova. Deciding that they didn't want to just go with Klempner, and that Dobrolubova-Klempner would be an awkward hyphenated name, they just legally changed their names to Bear.

For my part, I've gotten used to my name and don't anticipate changing it, so I can't imagine being insulted if my significant other doesn't want to change hers. Or if she does, for that matter. Either works. It isn't an issue for me.

Cheers,

TH

Oh look, the asshole troll who emailed me finally decided to comment on this thread! Hi John/Michael F Hagen! How're things?

And oenophile, it is never okay for a woman's full identity to be that of a wife. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that you were implying that, and please correct me if I am. But while it is perfectly okay to be a wife (I am married myself) it is NOT ever okay to have no identity outside of your husband. This is preciesly the type of thing that feminism has fought against for decades.

why on earth would a woman regard a man, whose name is not worth assuming and wearing proudly, as being worthy of being considered, even briefly, as a prospective husband?

Would you ask that of your son? Should he not consider a woman as a potential wife if her name isn't worth assuming and wearing proudly?

a male who would regard his bride's rejection of his name as anything but a profound insult hardly deserves to be called a man.

If being an insecure, disrespectful jerk is what it takes to be worthy of being "called a man," I'll gladly pass. I neither want nor need my partner to take my name, if I ever get married.

a male who would regard his bride's rejection of his name as anything but a profound insult hardly deserves to be called a man.

OK, gather round, students, because here is a prime example of male privilege! Here is a man who thinks that a woman's every decision is about him! She doesn't want to change her last name? Well, it's not about her love for her own name, her valuing and acceptance of her own identity and personhood, or her professional identity. Don't be foolish! Since only men matter, nothing a woman does could just be about her--remember, she doesn't matter! What she's actually doing is insulting her husband! Because men have the right to expect that women will take their names, but women don't have the right to expect that they'll get to keep their own names! Expecting that a woman give up her name/identity for you, a MAN, isn't an insult, but if a woman objects, that is! Because....because...only men matter!

Shorter John: the world revolves around me! Suggesting that it doesn't is a profound insult!

There is no such thing as institutional anti-male sexism, and I'm doubtful that there ever will be because by the time we've eliminated the old fashioned variety, I like to think humanity will have advanced beyond gender bias, assuming there is still such a thing as gender at that point.

Except there is, Tom. It's just part and parcel of the regular garden variety sexism.

This whole discussion coming about because a man can't change his name without jumping through hoops that a woman doesn't have to is sexism against men, arising from sexism against women. Other examples would be policies that deny men paternal leave but give women maternal leave (because then it's all about the medical experience of being a mother, not the experience of being a parent to a born child -- this would discriminate against adoptive mothers, as well -- and it denies a woman the right to have the father of her child there with her to support her when she needs help), lack of diaper changing tables in men's rooms (because then the woman always has to change the diaper), the presumption that male elementary school teachers or day care providers must be pedophiles (because children are denied male role models, and the care of children is further ghettoized as "women's work", not worth paying for), and so on.

In my view, sexism against men is part and parcel of sexism against women, and the two can't be disentangled. In the case of redressing *specific* inequities, it may be appropriate to limit participants to a single sex. Woman-only workshops for business, for instance, redress the fact that the business world is heavily male dominated, thus men don't *need* a special space and tend to take up all the oxygen in mixed groups. I could see a men's workshop on fathering excluding women for the same reason and not being sexist. But giving women 37 flavors and men only 36 would undoubtedly turn out to be *some* flavor of sexism against women -- such as treating women as bait to get them into the store so men will follow, assuming that ice cream is girly and therefore only women could possibly like it, enforcing gender roles against men which cripple men emotionally and deny them the ability to empathize with others who are not like them (for example, if only women were allowed to buy Sparkly Pink Flavor), especially women and gays, and so on.

The difference between institutional anti-male sexism and institutional anti-female sexism is that both are primarily perpetrated by institutions run by men, due to the lack of institutions run by women. Most institutions run by women that do have restrictions on men have good reasons for such (eg, battered women's shelters, rape recovery workshops... it's not that men don't need the services, but women could be harmed by trying to recover from male violence in a mixed-sex environment, so men really need their own safe spaces to do things like recover from domestic violence or rape, not take over the women's spaces.) Men have a harder battle in fighting sexism because it is their own they fight... women do sometimes perpetuate sexism on the micro-level of personal relationships, the way they treat their lovers or raise their sons, but the *instutional* sexism against men comes *from* men.

If my beloved daughter should ask my opinion on the topic, I will likely ask her: why on earth would a woman regard a man, whose name is not worth assuming and wearing proudly, as being worthy of being considered, even briefly, as a prospective husband?

Why do you consider yourself so unworthy that your beloved daughter can't carry on *your* name? She has to go out and find a name to replace yours with because you're such a bad father? Because when I talk to women who changed their names, half the time it's not about how much they love their husbands so much as how much they don't love their dads.

Me, I love my dad. And I love myself. And I was Alara Rogers for 35 years before I was married, so why would I change that?

As for my husband, his name is worth bearing and wearing proudly. By him. It's just not *my* name. He himself chose it when he had the option -- it was his stepfather's name, and he chose to reject his abusive birthfather and embrace a man he cared for as his new father. It's also a really cool name, and I'm happy for my children that they get to carry it. But it's not my name. My name is the one that means *me*, and anyone who thinks that I have to change my name away from me to be someone else to avoid giving *insult* is appallingly stupid, and I don't have sex with stupid men, much less marry them.

I support the right of individual choice in this highly personal matter; however, a male who would regard his bride's rejection of his name as anything but a profound insult hardly deserves to be called a man.

I'm pretty sure my husband has a bigger penis than yours. And he probably makes more money, too.

Because when I talk to women who changed their names, half the time it's not about how much they love their husbands so much as how much they don't love their dads.

EXACTLY, Alara.

My sister is also a big feminist, and she's often said that, while she absolutely agrees that changing one's name upon marriage is an outdated and sexist tradition, she also has major issues with our dad and doesn't value "his" name any more than some random dude she may end up with. I've argued with her that it isn't just "his" name, it's hers also -- I have my share of issues with Dad (though I do still love and value him... he tries, imperfectly, in his own way, to be a good father, and he's the only father I'll ever have) but those have nothing to do with my choice to keep my name. I've identified with this name for 25 years and there is absolutely no reason, none, for me to suddenly go and change it. It's who I am, for better or worse, and I'm okay with being who I am, warts and all. The only "reason" to change it is because of a sexist tradition -- and that's not much of a reason at all. Trying to cloak it in terms of "love" for your future husband doesn't change what it is. I love lots of people. I love my friends from law school. I love my grandparents. I love my cousins. I love my dog. And yet I haven't changed my name to any of theirs. Funny, that.

Actually, Cara, I think that a woman can identify herself however she damn well pleases.

The fact that you find this to be offensive and think that I'm in need of a little feminist schooling is your problem, not mine. :)

Um, yeah. I disagree.

Ah, so women should not be able to identify themselves as they please? They need a feminist to do it for them?

I know women who want nothing more than to be a mother and a wife. Sure, it would be great if they also wanted careers, but I'm not one to judge. Maybe it's because I know too many MEN who would also be happy with a wife who works so they could stay home with the babies.

To each his own, different strokes, etc.

Being a stay at home mother is a valid life choice (albeit one that I would never choose for myself). However, that woman is still something more than a mother and/or wife. She is also a person with her own beliefs, talents and interests, regardless of whether she has a career. Women who walk around proudly stating "I'm a wife and mother" as though it's their identity piss me off, because no, they are women. I'm married, but I'm not my husband's wife. I'm Cara. I was before I met my husband, I am now and I always will be. For centuries, women have been defined by the OTHER PEOPLE in their lives. They have been someone's daughter, someone's wife, someone's mother. That is not how it should ever have been, and I think that encouraging women to find identities outside of marriage and motherhood, though still sometimes incorporating those aspects into their identity, has been a basic goal of feminism.

Feminism, contrary to popular myth, is not all about "choice" and respecting any choice that is made by a woman. Pick up a copy of Bitchfest, there is an excellent article in there on the matter. Having choices is excellent, but that does not mean that every choice a woman makes is a healthy and/or feminist choice. If a woman who has an abusive husband wants nothing more than to be identified as his wife and nothing else, should we encourage her to stay in that relationship because we think she can identify herself anyway she pleases? No. The fact that she identifies herself as such is in fact one of a multitude of reasons why she CAN'T get out of that marriage. So we can "let" women identify themselves however they want. But that does not mean we have to accept or encourage it.

Alara, I'm not sure I disagree but I think something got lost in translation.

I do feel oppressed by traditional gender roles, just as I feel oppressed in some ways by my own whiteness and my own heterosexual status. But my oppression does not deny me power; it gives me more power. Where it is oppressive is in the way it creates expectations. To be "normative"--male, white, het--is to accept a deal society offers you: More power in exchange for a different set of expectations. I did not agree to that deal. It was imposed on me against my will.

But you know what? I still materially benefit from it. I still have power I don't deserve.

So while I might get annoyed when I get excluded from groups and opportunities because I'm male, or white, or het, I don't think of it as unjust. I do try to do what I can to challenge and break down oppressive norms, but my primary concern is for people who are denied things like power and health care and food and liberty because they are excluded from those norms by virtue of their gender or race or sexual orientation.

Yes, giving women an extra flavor at an ice cream shop is not a good thing. But it's not something that would make me boycott the ice cream shop. The reverse, where men get a flavor women can't have, very well might.

Cheers,

TH

The fact that you are equating ALL women who want to be SAHMs as abused, IMO, speaks volumes about you.

Some women want to be identified by their careers. Does the fact that one of them may die on the job or have a heart attack from it mean that ALL women shouldn't do that, or we should go on auto-attack mode because someone, somewhere will not benefit from this choice?

You're being ridiculous. Nice try with the backpedaling, but my point stands - different strokes, to each his own, etc. No one needs a feminist to tell her what's best for her anymore than she needs a misogynist.

--

Tom Head,

As usual, excellent comments. I laughed out loud at the 37th flavour. ;)

Thanks, oenophile. :o)

And for whatever it's worth, I think we actually agree in this case (though I haven't followed earlier posts in this particular thread of the discussion, so I hope nobody reads my comments below as being directed at anyone in particular).

One of the great scandals of second-wave feminism was its emphasis on treating parenting, caregiving, homemaking, etc. as something other than "real" work. It is all real work. When we say it isn't, we say that the only meaningful stuff in life is the stuff that has been attributed to the male gender role. Well, most of the power and material benefit traditionally has been, but there's so much more to life than power and material benefit.

NOW, to its considerable credit, has made an effort to support women who choose to be full-time nurturers--pursuing a campaign for parents and caregivers, selling "All Mothers are Working Mothers" t-shirts, etc.

This is not to say that I support the movement to pressure women to opt out of the workforce. I don't, and neither (obviously) does NOW. But when a woman does define herself primarily as a wife and mother, I have tremendous respect for that. I also have tremendous respect for men who define themselves primarily as husbands and fathers. Our materialistic culture does not value nurturers and caretakers, but I believe the feminist movement can and, these days, generally does.

Cheers,

TH

I wasn't trying to backpedal. I stand by what I said.

I wasn't equating SAHMs with abused wives. I was using an extreme example to show that we can not sit back and accept every lifestyle a woman chooses as "her choice." Notice how I said "Having choices is excellent, but that does not mean that every choice a woman makes is a healthy and/or feminist choice."

I also wasn't equating SAHMs with the type of woman you describe who has no aspirations in life other than to make her husband and children happy. Notice how I said "Being a stay at home mother is a valid life choice (albeit one that I would never choose for myself). However, that woman is still something more than a mother and/or wife. She is also a person with her own beliefs, talents and interests, regardless of whether she has a career."

And I hate to stoop to your level, but who am I kidding?-- I can't pass up a chance to be snarky. In my opinion, it speaks volumes about you that you're sitting here saying that it's awesome for a woman to CHOOSE to have no identity outside of her relationships to men, but espouse rhetoric everywhere else that is against womens' reproductive choice.

You know, Tom, it was the second-wave feminist movement that put the slogan "Wages for Housework" on buttons and signs--while there were some nasty aspects of its rhetoric, I know that you know it wasn't a monolithic movement either.

Cara, the fact that you think that abortion is just nifty and hate on women who identify themselves as mothers and wives speaks volumes about you.

Personally, I have no desire for children and have found a 100% foolproof method of ensuring that I don't have them. That is somehow problematic... although only to feminists.

Nevertheless, let's recap:
Me: For a woman whose entire identity will be that of a wife, with no room for a profession, taking another name is a fine choice.

And oenophile, it is never okay for a woman's full identity to be that of a wife. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that you were implying that, and please correct me if I am. But while it is perfectly okay to be a wife (I am married myself) it is NOT ever okay to have no identity outside of your husband. This is preciesly the type of thing that feminism has fought against for decades.

Me: Actually, Cara, I think that a woman can identify herself however she damn well pleases.

You: Um, yeah. I disagree.

Backpedal all you want, Cara. You give women a choice so long as it's one straight out of your feminist colouring book - and your example of abused women who stay at home is textbook reactionary nonsense. No, you couldn't say that we don't condone women who amputate themselves; you had to say, in a discussion about not condoning SAHMs, that the abused ones are making bad choices - hence the lack of condoning ALL women who so identify themselves. Such crap.

No, TH. Don't blame 2nd wave feminists for not valuing work at home. Not historically accurate. Blame the patriarchy. We fought for recognition--dignity and wages-- of that work. Sometimes I feel like a troll here because I'm not a 20 or 30 something, but a bit of historical perspective is needed every so often.

Oenophile, you are putting words into Cara's mouth, and being hateful.
Go have a cup of tea, seriously.

Consider the opposite, a man who when asked what he "did", replied "I'm a husband". Sounds a bit creepy to me.
Not being defined by marital status is pretty important to me.

Cara, is that doodbag John really the same guy as the email doodbag? If he is -

READ MY WORDS YOU SAD LITTLE MAN. GO GET SOME HELP BEFORE YOU END UP IN JAIL. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE. I AM SORRY ABOUT YOUR LIFE. IT OBVIOUSLY SUCKS TO BE YOU.

If it's not him, oops.

Grace, point taken.

Let me try that again (or "backpedal," if you will): One of the great scandals of second-wave feminism was that there were prominent folks speaking for the movement who...[etc.] Even I am aware of the fact that the movement itself was not like that.

Cheers,

TH

I think that you're purposely misconstruing what I'm saying. So I'm done with this discussion.

But for the record, my comment saying that "I disagree" was not a response to your comment that women can identify themselves however they please-- it was a response to your comment directly after that I was the one with the problem, not you.

Tom,

You put it about a thousand times better than I, as usual.

For centuries, women's work was devalued because women did and their contributions were not seen as valuable. Along the lines of what EG said, someone calculated out the salary of a SAHM for comparable work in the private sector - and it's something absolutely insane. 96-hour workweeks, divided among various jobs (chauffeur, CEO of small business, housekeeper, computer tech, tutor, etc) comes out to well over six figures annually.

Our materialistic culture does not value nurturers and caretakers, but I believe the feminist movement can and, these days, generally does.

My problem (and the problem of others here, too) is that we assume that only women can do these jobs (and women shouldn't do anything else). I've been raised by my dad since age 3, so I'm pretty sure that men can be really excellent primary caregivers. That's why I get pissed off when people extol the virtues of motherhood and opting out, as if the world would collapse if men were to change a diaper. In fact, children who grow up with a SAHD are more well-adjusted and have better relationships with both parents, and, I think, better long-term outcomes than those raised by SAHMs or two working parents.

Second-wave feminism was reacting to the suffocating ideal of Virgin Mary-esque motherhood: blissful, content, and utterly patient at all times. We're still working towards validating any choice that a women and men can make in the matter.

See, oenophile, now I agree with you.
I think you and Cara are basically saying the same thing, just in different ways.

Thank you, anorak.

And I have no way of proving if it's the same guy or not. But doesn't it seem like a strange coincidence?

Yes, I read oneophile's last post in response to Tom, and I agree with most of what she says there as well. Which is really, really strange to me.

Yeah, I had to keep checking the username too.
Maybe it was a REALLY GOOD cup of tea.

I mean Oenophile's username.

About the doodbag, yeah, could easily be the same one...it is really sad, isn't it?
I hope you're feeling recovered from your nasty email, can you picture the guy, alone in his room?
I SO can, and all I'm seeing is LOSER.

The feminist movement has pushed for men's involvement in child care and housework since the beginning and I have been pushing salary.com's $131,000 figure for SAHM's 100-hour work week since the study came out.

Oh, and while I'm posting up a storm, I want to say to Grace I always enjoy hearing from the women who were on the frontlines fighting for things we (younger women) now take for granted.
Your hard work isn't overlooked by this (youngish) feminist.

Hey, anorak, in the end that asshole just got me really riled up to write my Take Back the Blog entry. And I think that it turned out pretty well. So the joke's on him :)

My position, which I've stated too many times to count:

If a woman, who wants to be a mother and a wife above all, chooses to keep her husband's name, great. Otherwise, it's a huge PITA for women with professional ties to their names. (I do know a young woman who waited a year to change her name; she moved and switched jobs and changed then, so everyone in the new job/town knows her by her married name. Rare that it works like that, though.)

I also know a bunch of women who really want to be moms. They are smart women but don't plan on working until the kids are out of elementary school, at the earliest. For them, taking their husband's name makes sense.

What I cannot understand, still, is how Cara disagrees with this - and why she felt the need to jump down by throat.

Anorak - there was no cup of tea. I responded rationally to a really thoughtful post of Tom's (redundancy that it is).

Consider the opposite, a man who when asked what he "did", replied "I'm a husband". Sounds a bit creepy to me.
Not being defined by marital status is pretty important to me.

A man, or a woman, would reply, "I'm a stay-at-home parent," or, "I'm a homemaker."

Many people have honeymoon babies, so being a parent and being married are inextricably intertwined. Hence my point about wife AND mother.

What I still don't get is why Cara found it to be inappropriate that women would so identify themselves as such - enough to criticise me for even pointing out that it happens.

Donna: I spaced on the exact figure, thanks for bringing it up. :)

Grace, I second what anorak said. Please comment here more often! It's great to hear from our foremothers who fought on the front lines so we could get all the benefits that too many in our generation now take for granted.

Also, FWIW, and at the risk of flogging a nearly-dead horse, I didn't take Cara to be saying that SAHM is not a valuable occupation. I think she was just saying that -- just as in ANY career or descriptor -- "wife" or "mother" (or for that matter, "lawyer" or "doctor") should not be ALL that you are. Every person is a complete individual and deserves to be respected and recognized as a whole unique person, not as merely one aspect of him or herself. My mom was a SAHM -- and she's also definitely her own individual person. This didn't take away from her ability to do her job as a mom -- indeed, it enhanced her performance. She was happy and self-assured, and because of that she was more able to love being a mom. Because it was something she CHOSE and LOVED, but it did not define her, so when we were being particularly bratty she knew that it was not her entire existence crashing down around her.

Again, what I said is here:

What she is rejecting is all of the attendant issues that go along with it: imagine changing YOUR name. For a woman whose entire identity will be that of a wife, with no room for a profession, taking another name is a fine choice. For other people, though, changing a name mid-career is disastrous. A man who does not understand that his wife will suffer professionally and struggle as her entire professional identity is erased is really not worth marrying.

Wow... sooo controversial.

There's NO NEED to jump down by throat for saying that, for heaven's sake.

For them, taking their husband's name makes sense.

See, I disagree with this. I think the issue is not that it inherently makes sense to take the husband's name in this circumstance, but rather that some of the reasons for NOT doing so don't exist.

The problem is that there's really NOT a good reason to take the husband's name. The only reason it has evolved as a tradition is because of sexism. Sexism is not a good reason for anything. Therefore, the only reason for a wife changing her name to the husband's, is not a good one.

So, while you may be right that a desire to be a SAHM removes one of many reasons for arguing AGAINST taking a husband's name, you are incorrect in suggestion it gives an affirmative reason TO take it. Plus, there are still tons of reasons not to.

Oenophile, it's this bit I don't like:

"For a woman whose entire identity will be that of a wife, with no room for a profession, taking another name is a fine choice."

Imagine saying the same thing a about a man. A MAN whose entire identity will be that of HUSBAND. It just doesn't happen. Therein lies the problem. I'm not saying there aren't any stay at home dads (your Dad sounds great!)I'm saying that when men do saty at home, they aren't defined by their marriage.

I don't think that two differing choices are necessarily both irrational, or that only one can be rational.

There is good reason for married people to have the same last name. It's also good to have the same last name as your parents. (I didn't; it was weird.) So I mean, you're a family - and yes, when you get married, you're starting your own family. Acquiring the same last name by some mechanism - or a men can take their wives' names (sensible option #1); women can take their husband's names (sensible option #2); or they can blend their names (sensible option #3).

I'm sorry, but sexism isn't the only reason for people to have the same last name. Families should have the same last name or something similar (i.e. hyphenations). For thousands of years, people from the same family have so indicated by having the same last name. The sexist part is it ALWAYS being the man's name, but, whatever - if her last name is Buttkiss and his is Lovejoy, is it sexist to take his last name instead of keeping hers or hyphenating? (Not trying to be sarcastic with my examples, but the point is that some people have really lousy last names.)

"...and I have been pushing salary.com's $131,000 figure for SAHM's 100-hour work week since the study came out."

Fortunately, salary.com isn't an insurance agency.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/P46800.asp

"...The economists who make these calculations -- for wrongful death suits, airplane crash settlements and insurance purposes -- recognize that while homemaking has economic value, it's nowhere near the six-figure range.

"The reality is that many homemakers don't have the skills of, say, a professional bookkeeper, a licensed chauffeur or a recreational director, says economist Evan Schouten, vice president of the economic consulting firm Charles River Associates in Boston and an expert witness in many wrongful death trials.

"And families who lose a stay-at-home spouse typically do not rush out to hire 17 professionals to take his or her place, let alone employ them 24/7. They may hire one or two people, usually for 50 hours a week or less, and pay them an hourly wage of $10 to $15.

"That's why the economic payout is typically less in wrongful death and other lawsuits when the victim is a stay-at-home spouse than when the victim is employed. The _lifetime_ economic value of a female homemaker who dies at age 30 is currently about $300,000, Schouten said, based on statistics from a seminal study in this area, The Dollar Value of Household Work.

"...If you doubt the veracity of all this, just try to buy life or disability insurance on a stay-at-home spouse.

"If you use the most inflated statistics as a guide, and multiply the annual figure by the 10 years of care until the kids are grown, you could come up with an insurance need of $5 million. But unless your insurance agent has extraordinary pull, you're not going to get that coverage.

"That's because life insurers don't want you taking out policies that have no economic basis. Their theory is that it becomes way too tempting to snuff an overinsured spouse..."

TLF and anorak, you both seem to be expressing what I was trying to say much more clearly than I did . . . so thanks :)

It's also good to have the same last name as your parents. (I didn't; it was weird.)

See, I don't buy this. I mean, yes, of course I believe you that it could be "weird" to grow up with a different last name from your parents... but that's only because it's normalized and expected in our sexist culture. That doing something different is "weird" is not a reason to keep doing things the same old way.

I honestly don't see what's so important about having the same last name as your parents. If you're a family, you're a family. You don't need to all have the same name. The only reason I can think of is to help genealogists, but it's clearly failed at this. Really, what reasons are there to all have the same name, other than "well, that's what everyone does"?

A lot of women simply pick which name sounds better.

Mina, they changed the figure because a SAHM is not a professional "housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, CEO, psychologist, laundry machine operator, computer operator, and facilities manager." The fact they do it all simultaneously and satisfactorily is a feat in itself. So women should keep the high salary.

If paid, SAHMs would earn $134,121 annually. Working Moms would earn $85,876 annually for the "mom job" portion of their work, in addition to their actual "work job" salary. Salary.com found the job titles that best matched a mom's definition of her work to be (in order of hours spent per week): housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, CEO, psychologist, laundry machine operator, computer operator, and facilities manager.

I agree with Donna. Moreover, moms give better care to their kids. If you pay someone $15/hour, they aren't going to cook healthy, organic meals, teach your kids how to read, and give them one-on-one attention. In fact, if you want one-on-one attention from a college educated individual, who also cooks, cleans, and teaches the kids how to read instead of plopping them in front of the TV, you're going to pay some serious money. If you want that care all day, every day, be prepared to have a seriously thin wallet.

What I'm saying is that, yes, after a SAHM dies, the family will replace her responsibilities by paying someone $10/hour. That doesn't mean that the person who charges $10/hour is analogous to the SAHM, nor does it mean that the family considered and rejected paying someone $50/hour for the work. It's quite simple: families can't afford to pay someone $50/hour for that high-level care.

An analogy: I tutor for some families for free or very little money, done out of affection for the kids. If I were to bite the dust tomorrow, the families may not get another tutor; or, they might do it themselves or find a high schooler willing to do it for $5/hour. If they don't run out and pay someone $50/hour to tutor their kids, it's probably because they can't afford it - but that doesn't mean that I can't, if I so chose, market my skills for $50/hour.

It's just bad statistical analysis to assume that people can afford to replace a family member who does it for free.

LawFairy: taking down a system just because it has some sexist roots doesn't make much sense, either.

Moreover, moms give better care to their kids.

Than whom?

taking down a system just because it has some sexist roots doesn't make much sense, either.

I said it ONLY has sexist roots. Unless you can point me to non-sexist roots I'm unaware of.

Than, obviously, some teenager hired for $10/hour to watch them after school.

At least that's what I learned in contract law. ;) You recall all those cases about reasonable consideration for services rendered? When a family member is performing the services, courts will let pretty much anything go, deeming that people would rather be taken care of by their family members than by strangers.

Also, nothing against nannies or teenagers who baby-sit, but they aren't PARENTS. They might really care about those kids, but it's just different to be taken care of by your parents than by day care or babysitters. The latter can do a fine job.

I think I've pointed to several non-sexist roots: the desire for everyone in the family to have the same name for genaeological or social purposes would be one of them. The social aspect is quite simple: knowing who is part of which family. Trust me, it's WEIRD to have a different last name than a parent - and it's not because everyone else does it that way. It's because everyone else IN YOUR FAMILY has the same last name.

Whether or not you think those are VALID reasons is a different story, and, frankly, one that I refuse to debate. The reasons are there; rational people can think them valid; that's, IMO, enough for people to continue doing it.

okay, I get that moms are better than babysitters (on average) -- but I would have said "parents" rather than "moms," that's all.

You're free not to debate, but I still think that you're not questioning the underlying assumptions. I don't think it's important for everyone in the family to have the same name. I don't feel any less connected to my cousins because they all have different last names than I do -- I have NO cousins with my last name bc my dad was an only child. This doesn't distance me from them.

Also, saying you have a different name from everyone else in the family still falls into the trap of normalization of the practice -- everyone else in your family only has the same last name because "that's how it's done," etc. Positive change takes discomfort and bravery from the people who would undertake to cause the change.

And I don't understand why you wouldn't want to debate the validity of certain preferences. In my mind, that's a huge part of what feminism is about -- questioning why we have the thoughts and feelings we do.

LawFairy:

The question was about women's salaries as SAHMs, so I limited my discussion to such.

What I will NOT debate is whether YOUR preference or MY preference should be normalised. Yes, I do think we should question underlying assumptions, but, at the same time, we shouldn't change a functional system merely because it feels nice to do so.

Imagine a world where families had no name connection to each other. That has nothing to do with sexism... because people have been using NAMES since time began to indicate where they are from - either geographically or genetically. It crosses culture, race, time, and geography. What shocks me is that you would throw out something that's obviously deeply rooted in the human psyche because some people used it for sexist ends.

oenophile, no need to get testy.

Bear in mind that right now it is YOUR preference that is engrained, and you are getting worked up at the fact that I am questioning it. You yourself cannot seem to think of a better reason for this "functional system" than that it "feels nice."

I asked for good non-sexist reasons for this tradition. Haven't seen any yet.

"It's just bad statistical analysis to assume that people can afford to replace a family member who does it for free."

...but is she doing it for free? Or does keeping her around still cost the breadwinner something?

"I don't feel any less connected to my cousins because they all have different last names than I do -- I have NO cousins with my last name bc my dad was an only child. This doesn't distance me from them."

Exactly. For another example, one of my classmates in elementary school didn't have the same surname as her father, because her surname labeled her his daughter and his surname sure didn't label him anyone's daughter. This didn't seem to distance the two at all. ;)

Mina, I am so tired I almost didn't get that! Awesome.

Having not followed this thread at all, I was thinking, damn, so much debate over Doonesbury?? Now I understand.

I can't honestly remember how it would even have been apparent to my childhood peers if I had a different last name than my parents, unless they came to my house and formally addressed my mother or father or something, or if they saw a teacher do so. I was actually mortified to have a "strange" and hard-to-pronounce last name as a child, and got a lot of teasing for *that*. I think I would have gladly changed it back then. Funnily enough, I kept it when I got married, because as Alara and TLF stated, by this point it's my damn name, and I'm proud to have weathered all the teasing and the questioning about it. There is a demonstrated psychological attachment people have to their *own* names, even such that they favor letters in their own names over other letters of the alphabet. Think of all the times you introduce yourself, write your name, say your name, use your name by the time you get married (if and when that happens). Can anyone honestly say there's no loss to giving that up and taking on some other arbitrary name just because it's attached to a man or woman you're marrying? Does anyone really believe there's no effect on one's identity and sense of self-ownership (or loss thereof) of having to identify, privately and publicly, by someone else's name after marriage? (Unless of course, as others have mentioned, you hate your father or have some other horrific association to your original last name, and the status quo is more painful...in that case I might advocate choosing another name for yourSELF). Those are my random thoughts about it...I guess I'm more passionate about it than I realized.

I mainly just wanted to give further kudos to the "second wave," though. I think we could do with a great deal more attention to the issue of false choice (as Cara was noting upthread, I think) and a great deal more analysis of the political context of what we now (IMO) too casually conceptualize as "personal" decisions. That's NOT the same as villifying women for making those decisions, as some commentors seem to think. IBTP is all we need to remember.

Thanks, Anorak and Law Fairy!

TH--I think that if you did a little research, you would find that even in your back-pedaling, you are misstating remarks of major feminist leaders of the 60s and 70s and instead are regurgitating opposition tactics that drove wedges between women.

I agree with all those who have stressed that naming is about identity and identity goes deep below and far beyond work/marital status/reproductive status/religious affiliation/etc. Taking a new name in marriage is not about family unity, but about dismantling a woman's identity and subsuming it into her husband's. In the 19th c, a married woman had no legal identity. She WAS her husband. In the 1970s when my husband and I bought a house, the deed listed his name et ux (and wife)--until I insisted it be changed or I wouldn't sign!

Only when approaching this issue ahistorically can it be divorced from patriarchal practices.

Sorry, but I have NO idea what IMO or IBTP mean!

IMO and IMHO mean "In my opinion", and "in my honest opinion".
I don't know IBTP, but Urban Dictionary suggests it stands for "in before the poll", meaning that a discussion thread could use a poll.
I'm not quite sure of the context of it in Charity's post though.
I'm pretty internet illiterate, really, but I'm trying to improve!

So sorry for that...yes IMO is in my opinion and IBTP is I Blame the Patriarchy, which is a blog listed on feministing's blogroll...many comments there are simply signed off that way (as a way of saying, for example, look at this fucked up phenomenon that we observe among women--mothers fighting with other mothers, or women declaring painfully high heels their intrinsic preference or an empowering choice--but let's remember to place the blame squarely where it belongs for that fucked up phenomenon, and for social injustice more broadly, rather than demonizing women for just trying to survive or thrive in an inherently oppressive culture). But there is of course no way of knowing that if you don't read that blog. Apologies again, I am really tired!

Taking your husband's name is like finding a new daddy. No thanks. Couples should choose whatever names they like - usually whatever sounds good.

The $134,121 and $85,876 should be offered to SAHDs too. Just watch them up the number as soon as they grab that opportunity, though! Who pays? It's not feasible at this point but is a reminder of how much running around like a chicken with its head cut off primary caretakers too.

re: my last comment, re: patriarchy-blaming, I just looked back over the thread and realized you said exactly that at the end of one of your posts, Grace. I'm certainly not telling you anything you don't already know!

Grace writes:
TH--I think that if you did a little research, you would find that even in your back-pedaling, you are misstating remarks of major feminist leaders of the 60s and 70s and instead are regurgitating opposition tactics that drove wedges between women.

You'll get no argument from me; even I know Betty Friedan and the other NOW leadership of her generation, Gloria Steinem, etc. by and large had a great deal of respect for women who chose the full-time caregiving route, and that statement on my part was so inarticulate that I'm not going to be able to rescue it by backpedaling alone.

Maybe we can just replace "the great scandal of second-wave feminism" with "the great scandal of several cranky retired college professors I used to know" and leave it at that? ;o)

Cheers,

TH

Damn, Charity, I'm a Blamer from way back, and I somehow didn't compute your shorthand!
Sorry for the confusion, your post is clear to me now.