gregg@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU (Greg Gaither) (08/23/90)
IMHO, the slow movement away from a patriarchal naming convention is a healthy one and is a logical (albeit small) step in the direction away from a repressive society. My (now -ex) wife kept her family name and I would be lying if I said it didn't bother me a little at first. About fifteen minutes of actual thought later, though, and I began to warm to the idea. If I marry again, I will more than likely encourage her to keep her family name (providing it is not the adopted name of a former husband). Why this distinction? I don't know. Shades to the issue. We did give our daughter my last name. This never really even became a point of discussion--it was simply something we did. Most of the people I know who have separate last names have done the same. Not that it's bad or good; it just seems to be the case in my experience. Hyphenations will never solve this problem in the long run. Any ideas on a solution that might? gregg@csufresno.edu
aalanm@phoenix.princeton.edu (A Alan Middleton) (08/27/90)
In article <81909@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gregg@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU (Greg Gaither) writes: >We did give our daughter my last name. This never really even became a >point of discussion--it was simply something we did. Most of the people >I know who have separate last names have done the same. Not that it's >bad or good; it just seems to be the case in my experience. >Hyphenations will never solve this problem in the long run. Any ideas >on a solution that might? My two cents on the whole situation: I haven't been married, but have thought about names -- hyphenation is clumsy: the only other symmetrical thing to do is to use chance - either (1) flip a coin at the marriage ceremony or whatever to see who gets to keep their name, or (2) keep original last names and flip for the first kid's last name, then alternate. I prefer (2). I think the idea (brought up by others) of naming the sons after the father and the daughters after the mother (or vice versa) is scary. [n.b. other symmetrical solution is to only allow people with same last name to marry or have children - would be tough on, for example, last name of 'Kvale']. A. Alan M.
stabosz@sun.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) (08/28/90)
I got married when I was 19. I went from being Rae D'Orazio to being Rae Stabosz. Although the year was 1969, I did not seriously consider not changing my name. About a week before my wedding, I had a dream which consisted solely of me writing on a piece of paper, over and over again, Rae D'Orazio, Rae D'Orazio, Rae D'Orazio. I viewed that as showing that my unconscious at least did not want to change the name. I've been Rae Stabosz now for most of my adult life (all of it, if you count adult life as starting at 21.) Hardly anyone remembers me as Rae D'Orazio, but many many people know me as Rae Stabosz. It's been a long time since I've thought of Stabosz as my husband's name: Rae Stabosz is WHO I AM. If I were to ever marry again, I'd remain Rae Stabosz. As I said, Rae Stabosz is WHO I AM in any sense that a name identifies a person. So I can see why a woman would definitely not want to change her name. All my children are Staboszes, so I haven't had to confront that problem, but I think it's not as big a problem as it's made out to be by those who bring it up as the main reason for husband & wife having one name. Rae
mcnay%isi.edu@usc.edu (Dan McNay) (09/15/90)
I've been reading this discussion with interest. My wife and I kept our own names and after a long discussion decided to give the kids my last name. What I thought was interesting in this net discussion was that was very little talk of the husband changing his last name to that of the wife's. (We had considered that as one of the possibilites, but opted for a conservative approach.) Are we all so unliberated that this possibility is not even realistically looked at?