dyer@tau.DEC (09/04/85)
Names, Marriage, and Offspring__________________________________________________
Patrilinear Scheme The patrilinear scheme is the one most of us are used to:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The husband's name becomes the family name and the children
and the wife take it as their own. This is, of course, sexist. A popular vari-
ation is that the wife keeps her own name and the children take the husband's
name. This is less sexist, but still sexist. Another practical problem that
arises whenever *either* partner changes their name is that their professional
lives - where they have established their name for something or the other - are
disrupted.
Matrilinear Scheme With the matrilinear scheme, the husband and/or children
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ take the wife's name. This actually makes more sense than
the patrilinear scheme, since there's never any question about who the mother
is! (There are those who would suggest that the patrilinear scheme is a result
of men having an inferiority complex for not being able to bear children. There
are, of course, other specultions. One can choose one that matches one's preju-
dices, I guess. As far as I'm concerned, we'll never really know and it doesn't
matter anyways!) At any rate, the matrilinear scheme is also sexist.
Hyphenization I see two main problems with hyphenization. The first is that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ the number of names hyphenated increases exponentially with each
generation. Two people with hyphenated last names could, if all marry hyphen-
ated people and hyphenate *their* names, have grandchildren with sixteen names
hyphenated together. The other problem is deciding whose name comes first in
the new hyphenated name. To base it on sex would, of course, be sexist.
Names Given By Sex In this scheme, daughters are given their mother's name and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ sons are given their father's name. Alternately, daughters
can get the father's name and sons can get the mother's name. Though not sex-
ist, such a scheme assumes that the married couple are of the opposite sex. I'm
also not thrilled with the idea of implementing yet another cultural dividing
line between the sexes.
Whatever's Convenient This is not a scheme but the absence of a scheme. If two
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ people want to get married and one of their names is (in
their opinion) awful and the other real dandy, they could opt for the dandy one.
If they can't agree, they could flip a coin. The problem with this is that
somebody will have to change their name, which might complicate their profess-
ional life (or whatever else applies).
Family Name I just love this scheme. The happy couple chooses a *new* name to
~~~~~~~~~~~ refer to their union. They use this name as a middle name and give
the name to the children. By keeping their own names (as last names), they
don't disrupt their professional lives. When they have to deal with people as
a family (e.g., the clerk at the hotel) or with regard to their children (e.g.,
the school), they stress the family name.
For example, let's suppose Pat Smith met Sandy Jones on a hayride and
they get married, choosing "Hayride" as their family name. They would then
become Pat Hayride Smith and Sandy Hayride Jones. They could have kids and name
them Kelly and Terry Hayride.
Only three problems: (1) Names only last for two generations, so grand-
children will not have any grandparent's name. This is no big deal, since only
one of the four grandparents (the paternal grandfather) sees his name carry on.
(2) You have to figure out a new family name. My fiancee and I are working on
one, but we keep coming up with silly pet names that our children would despise
us for. (How would *you* like to be named "Snuggle-Bunny?") (3) Miss Manners
doesn't approve of the idea, so you would probably be discouraged from inviting
her to your wedding. I haven't heard Politenessman's opinions about it . . .
By the way, I didn't think this up myself. I read it in an article in
_CoEvolution_Quarterly_.
<_Jym_>
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Jym Dyer :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (09/16/85)
In article <310@decwrl.UUCP> dyer@tau.DEC writes: >Hyphenization I see two main problems with hyphenization. The first is that >~~~~~~~~~~~~~ the number of names hyphenated increases exponentially with each >generation. Two people with hyphenated last names could, if all marry hyphen- >ated people and hyphenate *their* names, have grandchildren with sixteen names >hyphenated together. The other problem is deciding whose name comes first in >the new hyphenated name. To base it on sex would, of course, be sexist. This is a great article, and I especially like the "family name" scheme too. However, I have a suggestion referring to the "hyphenization" scheme: when Ms. A-B and Mr. C-D get married, their kids are named A-D. This makes the second part (D) the normal patrilinear name, and the first part (A) the corresponding matrilinear name. I don't think the order is really important; the patrilinear name might be taken as the "real last" name, but on the other hand the matrilinear one comes first in the name. We could initialize this scheme by all sticking onto the front of our name the name of the furthest back matrilinear-line ancestor we know. For instance, in my case my new name would be Robertson-Andrews, since my mother's mother's mother's name was Margaret Robertson, and I don't know her mother's name. However, this plays havoc with another idea I like, which is for people to take each other's middle name when they get married (as I believe John Lennon and Yoko Ono did). If each of those is hyphenated, it makes for pretty long names! --Jamie.