jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (09/03/85)
It's all very well for a man, who will never be called upon to change *his* name, to think it foolish for women to protest having to change theirs. One's inner identity is not dependent upon one's name, but one's credit rating, professional reputation, etc., most certainly is. When I got married, I owned property in my name, had credit cards and a credit rating, and a professional reputation based on that name. Ask any man, those things *are* important. Appealing to tradition won't cut it. If we were depending on "tradition", why, then I wouldn't own property, have credit cards or a profession at all ! It is also historically true that a woman takes a man's name as a sign of becoming his property - in effect, her virginity ceases to be the property of her father and is given over to her husband. That is why the father "gives" the bride away at the wedding (another tradition I didn't go along with !). This is well-documented in historical analysis. If we are trying to dispense with "traditional" views of women as weak-minded, helpless children, or as sex and baby-making machines for the dominant males, then we should dispense with the "traditions" that subtly reinforce those views. As they say, men of quality are not threatened by women for equality. -- jcpatilla "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."
norman@lasspvax.UUCP (Norman Ramsey) (09/05/85)
I've been Norman Ramsey all my life. I like being Norman Ramsey. I can't
conceive of wanting to be (called) anything else. It always sort of
surprises me to discover that there are people (almost always women) who
want to or are willing to change their names just because they're getting
married. (I do, however, sympathize with my former colleague Michael Boring,
who changed his last name to Clayton).
--
Norman Ramsey
ARPA: norman@lasspvax -- or -- norman%lasspvax@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,...}!cornell!lasspvax!norman
BITNET: (in desperation only) ZSYJARTJ at CORNELLA
US Mail: Dept Physics, Clark Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
Telephone: (607)-256-3944 (work) (607)-272-7750 (home)rick@bmcg.UUCP (Rick Yarbrough) (09/05/85)
> > It's all very well for a man, who will never be called upon to > change *his* name, to think it foolish for women to protest having to > change theirs. One's inner identity is not dependent upon one's name, > but one's credit rating, professional reputation, etc., most certainly > is. When I got married, I owned property in my name, had credit cards > and a credit rating, and a professional reputation based on that name. > Ask any man, those things *are* important. Appealing to tradition won't > cut it. If we were depending on "tradition", why, then I wouldn't own > property, have credit cards or a profession at all ! > It is also historically true that a woman takes a man's name as a > sign of becoming his property - in effect, her virginity ceases to be the > property of her father and is given over to her husband. That is why the > father "gives" the bride away at the wedding (another tradition I didn't > go along with !). This is well-documented in historical analysis. If we > are trying to dispense with "traditional" views of women as weak-minded, > helpless children, or as sex and baby-making machines for the dominant > males, then we should dispense with the "traditions" that subtly reinforce > those views. > As they say, men of quality are not threatened by women for equality. > > > -- > jcpatilla > > "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch." HEAR!!! HEAR!!! My sentiments exactly!!! I don't want to put words into peoples mouths, and I didn't save the article to which the above is obviously replying; so for those who didn't see it I will try to give a generalization of what was said. A lady had posted, saying that she had agreed to change her name if her prospective husband would agree to change his. He had refused and so had she... In response to this someone said that SHE was endangering her chances of the marriage lasting by refusing such a petty thing. I agree. To me it is a petty thing. Were I ever to marry again, I would have no difficulty with the situation of my wife keeping her own name. The only problem I have with his response (I am almost sure it was a man) was that he didn't seem to put any of the responsibility on the prospective husband. This is where I feel I may be putting MY interpretation of what was said. I apologize in advance if I am incorrect in my feeling that he was telling me the man had no obligation to change his name. If it was important enough for him to refuse to do the same thing, then it IS NOT a trivial issue, and I feel both partners are equally responsible for the trouble that the refusal may cause in the future. Although things may have changed somewhat in the last few years, I know for a fact the problems with credit and related issues that name changes CAN (not necessarily do) cause. At the least it CAN be a HUGE inconvenience to the person who has had to change their name. How can he expect her to put herself in this position if he is not willing to do the same? I just can't help but feel the above mentioned respondent really doesn't feel it is a petty issue, EXCEPT IN THE WOMAN'S CASE. FROM THE KEYBOARD OF The High Flying, Low Diving, Sneaky & Conniving Road Dog
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (09/06/85)
When I got married 16 years ago, I changed my last name to that of my husband, partly on the grounds that I liked him a lot more than my father. (Yeah, I suppose I could have been contrary and taken my mother's maiden name when I got married, but somehow....) Anyway, I have since noticed that while I feel quite comfortable at no longer being (Miss) Lee (Ann) Klingstein but (Mrs.) Lee Gold and answer quickly in response to this, I *Don't* answer quickly in response to "Mrs. Gold," which I still somehow feel equals my mother-in-law, not me. I talked to my friends (men and women) and discovered that most of them feel uncomfortable with any honorific, especially when the first name is dropped as well. How do other netters feel? --Lee Gold
barbaraz@tektools.UUCP (Barbara Zanzig) (09/10/85)
"In order to do different things, You need to do things differently." - Deal
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (09/13/85)
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) says: > It is also historically true that a woman takes a man's name as a >sign of becoming his property - in effect, her virginity ceases to be the >property of her father and is given over to her husband. That is why the >father "gives" the bride away at the wedding (another tradition I didn't >go along with !). This is well-documented in historical analysis. If we >are trying to dispense with "traditional" views of women as weak-minded, >helpless children, or as sex and baby-making machines for the dominant >males, then we should dispense with the "traditions" that subtly reinforce >those views. > As they say, men of quality are not threatened by women for equality. There is also the aspect that when a woman takes the man's name, or vice versa if you prefer, it means that the "family" as a whole has one name. This tends to unite the family as a group, giving it a sense of unity, which hopefully will *keep* it a family. When each individual in the family has a different name, there is an element of unity missing, which has a tendency to split up the family. And there are already enough elements out there waiting to split up families. I also had property in my name, credit cards, a profession, etc., when I got married. I changed my name to my husband's name to signify my unity with him. I preferred not to hang on to that element of individuality. Many others I did hang on to, but that one presented to the world at large our unity as a family, and that meant a lot to me. I wanted the world to know--not that I was his property--but that he and I were joined in a common cause, creating an enduring family unit. -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry
mary@bunkerb.UUCP (Mary Shurtleff) (09/17/85)
> There is also the aspect that when a woman takes the man's name, or > vice versa if you prefer, it means that the "family" as a whole has > one name. This tends to unite the family as a group, giving it a > sense of unity, which hopefully will *keep* it a family. When each > individual in the family has a different name, there is an element of > unity missing, which has a tendency to split up the family. And there > are already enough elements out there waiting to split up families. > > I also had property in my name, credit cards, a profession, etc., when > I got married. I changed my name to my husband's name to signify my > unity with him. I preferred not to hang on to that element of > individuality. Many others I did hang on to, but that one presented > to the world at large our unity as a family, and that meant a lot to > me. I wanted the world to know--not that I was his property--but that > he and I were joined in a common cause, creating an enduring family > unit. > > Terry Grevstad I did likewise when I got married, and for the same reasons. While I was debating whether or not to change my name, my husband asked me to take his, because we would be members of one family, and he felt that as such, we should share the same name. That was the ONLY argument which I would have accepted as reasonable for changing names. I essentially added his name to mine, and use the first letter of my birth name as a second middle initial in most instances in which a signature is required. I feel in no way any less an individual due to taking on an additional name. If I had felt extremely strongly about the matter, my husband would not have objected to my keeping my birth name. However, his concern for us as a family unit indicated to me that he harbored none of those "You're MY wife, and you'll have MY name!" attitudes. BTW, at my 10th year high school reunion, all the married women were asked to put both birth and married names on their name tags. My husband put my birth name on his name tag and then his, so we were both "Regalbuto Shurtleff"s. He did this without my prompting, and without indicating to me beforehand that he was going to. I don't mean by this to indicate that women have to change their names on marriage if they feel strongly about it. I would, however, like to point out that there are those of us who still consider ourselves feminists, who believe in careers and equal opportunities, etc, who have made a reasoned choice to change names. That choice should not be disparaged, and we should not be thought of as somehow succumbing to the pressure of tradition or losing our individuality. I don't feel that I have. Mary JR Shurtleff -- Mary Shurtleff ....decvax!ittatc!bunker!bunkerb!mary <---***---> "And now for something completely different, a man with three legs." "He ran away!" <---***--->
waltervj@dartvax.UUCP (walter jeffries) (09/19/85)
A personal note:
My mother uses two names and all of us in the family find it rather fun!
First a little history... Both of my parents are family physicians and they
share a practice. When my parents married they followed the traditional route
and we all have my father's families name, offically. But as my parents are
both in the same office, it would get rather confusing if they were both called
Dr. Jeffries, so... they both kept their maiden names for business purposes
resulting in Dr. Arnold and Dr. Jeffries. This saves the confusion of asking,
"Yes, I understand you want to speak with Dr. Jeffries, but which one, the Lady
Doctor or the Man Doctor." They've found that this works very well for their
situation. The fun part is that we all use the two names somewhat interchange-
ably, especially when traveling. Sometimes we're all the Jeffries, and sometimes
we're all the Arnolds. We kids have had alot of fun with this in the past...
The purpose of this was to present a situation where a family went by two
names (Our mailbox says Arnold & Jeffries, my college application refered to my
parents as Jeanne Arnold and Peter Jeffries, etc...) Not having all the family
under one name has not weakened our family ties, maybe it has even stregthened
them as it fit our humor... By the way, in this age of short lived marriages
they are still verymuchtogether. (they recently had their silver anniversary.)
Enough rambling....
Cheers! 8-)
-Walter.
< o>\< o>
_\
-==-
"I see said the blindman as he picked up his hammer and saw."arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (09/19/85)
In article <255@nrcvax.UUCP> terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) writes: >jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) says: >> It is also historically true that a woman takes a man's name as a >>sign of becoming his property - in effect, her virginity ceases to be the >>property of her father and is given over to her husband. > >There is also the aspect that when a woman takes the man's name, or >vice versa if you prefer, it means that the "family" as a whole has >one name. This tends to unite the family as a group, giving it a >sense of unity, which hopefully will *keep* it a family. When each >individual in the family has a different name, there is an element of >unity missing, which has a tendency to split up the family. Prove this, please. Or, to be more precise, please cite enough references of reputable studies which show or imply this conclusion that would at least lead a reasonable person to believe this even *might* be true. If you cannot, then you are only stating your own world view, which is not butressed by any data. You could please distinguish. I feel that a lifetime commitment is cemented by mutual respect. Insisting that that one individual follow a tradition based in inequality, if they don't want to, doesn't seem to show much respect for that individual. I kept my name when I married because I have lived with it all my life, and it is, in a subtle but real sense, part of my identity. I respect my spouse's identity, and would never ask her to modify it if she didn't want to. This kind of respect for the other's humanity, at least for me, makes me feel much more secure and loving and, thefore, more *united*. Not less. Ken Arnold