adelle@mtfmk.att.COM (Adelle W Petrocco) (07/19/90)
I got married two months ago and want to use my maiden name as my middle name and my husband's last name. the NJ Division of Motor Vehicles won't let me do it. It is their "policy" that I would have to have a legal name change. However, I know several women who did it without any problems. Does anyone know what I can do? Example: Mary Ann Smith becomes Mary Smith Jones Adelle
marla@lucerne.Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) (07/20/90)
Maybe the problem is that you are dropping your old middle name. I just appended my husband's name, no hyphen, so that I now have 2 middle names (my old one plus my maiden name). I had to make this change with the state of CA through the DMV and separately with the Social Security Agency. In both cases I just filled out a form. Marla Corinne Wilcox Parker I generally leave out the Wilcox because I never liked the way it sounds. You could just as easily generally leave out your old middle name, and just use it for really important legal documents. marla -- Marla Parker (415) 336-2538 marla@eng.sun.com
mds@globe01.cs.duke.edu (Mark David Shattuck) (07/27/90)
In article <1990Jul13.180104.16435@cbnewsh.att.com> adelle@mtfmk.att.COM (Adelle W Petrocco) writes: >I got married two months ago and want to use my maiden name as >my middle name and my husband's last name. > >the NJ Division of Motor Vehicles won't let me do it. It is >their "policy" that I would have to have a legal name change. That's funny! My wife wanted to do just the opposite, keep her middle name, but NC DMV said that she had to use her maiden name unless she had a legal name change. Perhaps you should move to NC and we should move to NJ. :) Mark Shattuck (mds@cs.duke.edu)
phys168@canterbury.ac.nz (07/27/90)
In article <1990Jul13.180104.16435@cbnewsh.att.com>, adelle@mtfmk.att.COM (Adelle W Petrocco) writes: > I got married two months ago and want to use my maiden name as > my middle name and my husband's last name. > > the NJ Division of Motor Vehicles won't let me do it. It is > their "policy" that I would have to have a legal name change. > However, I know several women who did it without any problems. > Does anyone know what I can do? > > Example: Mary Ann Smith becomes Mary Smith Jones In this country, this is no legal requriment to change your name upon marriage. I know a few people who have not changed their names after marriage, for different reasons. My mother wishes she had not changed her name, and now sees marriage as a bad idea! Although, she is `happily' married! I'm amazed that the NJDMV have "policy" as you mentioned. Isn't there somethinhg in the Human Rights Amendment that gives you the right NOT to change your name? Does the NJDMV have any legallity? -- Alan Wadsworth Physics Department, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. a.wadsworth@canterbury.ac.nz (64)(3)642539 Fax (64)(3)642999
beckwith@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (beckwith) (08/17/90)
>It seems to me (a male) that changing your name shows belonging/ >allegiance/ownership/subservience/possession/etc (you pick the >word) to your husband. How do you see it? First, I am not now, nor have I ever been married, but I have always thought I would never "take my husband's name" should I marry. Period. I agree that changing your name shows all of the above listed things, and it seems to me to hark back to the days when a man owned his wife, literally owned her, legally. But the other problem I see is one of self identity. I know a woman who has been divorced 3 times and now is married the 4th time. Between each marriage she takes back her real ("maiden") name, then when she marries she takes her current husband's name. It seems to me, somewhere along the line you would lose track of who you are. I have not discussed this with this women because she is a little defensive whenever the subject of multiple marriages comes up, even when no one is talking about her specifically. I'd like to know how the married women in net.soc.feminism.land feel about this (potential) loss of identity. As for the hyphenated name, the women I know who have started out with "her last name-his last name" have found it so cumbersome that they ended up dropping their own name and taking the husband's. Some have deeply regretted not keeping their own name, others are not very concerned about it. I have wondered if there are any couples who have merged their two last names and created a new name (then both partners take the new name). I might consider doing something like that. It would be like marking the start of a new adventure. Is there anyone out there who has done this? Sharleen
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) (08/21/90)
beckwith@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (beckwith) writes: [on discussion of a woman "taking her husband's name"] >But the other problem I see is one of self identity. I know a woman >who has been divorced 3 times and now is married the 4th time. >Between each marriage she takes back her real ("maiden") name, then >when she marries she takes her current husband's name. It seems to me, >somewhere along the line you would lose track of who you are. >I'd like to know how the >married women in net.soc.feminism.land feel about this (potential) >loss of identity. I think it's a serious problem. Divorces happen, spouses die, women remarry. Once a woman changes her name, she's pretty much committed to changing it again under certain circumstances. Examples: Ann Jones marries Mike Smith, and becomes Ann Smith. After 15 years of marriage, Ann and Mike divorce. Ann doesn't feel like a Smith anymore, so she changes her name back to Jones. Alternatively, Ann doesn't change her name back, because it's too complicated. She meets Steve Anderson, and they get married. She thinks it's pretty silly to keep her ex-husband's name, so she changes her name to Ann Anderson. From a professional point of view, Ann has committed suicide. She has lost all name recognition. From a personal point of view, she's lost her _name_. I have to admit I'm always slightly amazed when I meet a professional woman who changed her name when she got married. The older the woman when she married, the more amazed I am. To me, it means that she's not completely serious about her own career, and she's willing to let it take second place to her husband's. --beth bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) (08/22/90)
In article <24409@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes: >I have to admit I'm always slightly amazed when I meet a >professional woman who changed her name when she got married. The >older the woman when she married, the more amazed I am. To me, >it means that she's not completely serious about her own career, and >she's willing to let it take second place to her husband's. You are exaggerating. I have known professional women to change their name with no damage to their career - in fact the vast majority I know fall into that category. Only some careers/situations cause your name to affect your value in the work market. And finally, it is untrue that changing names necessarily means "taking second place to your husband". If a women feels this way, then that is an excellent reason for her not to change her name. That is not a reason for women who do not feel that way to not change their name. A friend of mine claims to be looking foward to changing her name when married - she simply doesn't like her present (last) name (and yes, she is considering changing it anyway, without marriage). I can certainly understand anyone's attachment to their name. I have no intentions of changing my name should I marry, even if my spouse should desire me to. It is a mistake, however, to get up on the soap box and tell us that women (or men) who change their name at marriage are somehow devaluing themselves. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (08/24/90)
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes: ["Ann" changes name to match new husband's in mid life...] >From a professional point of view, Ann has committed suicide. She has >lost all name recognition. From a personal point of view, she's lost >her _name_. >I have to admit I'm always slightly amazed when I meet a >professional woman who changed her name when she got married. The >older the woman when she married, the more amazed I am. To me, >it means that she's not completely serious about her own career, and >she's willing to let it take second place to her husband's. There is nothing in particular preventing one from having it both ways. One of my sisters-in-law married after taking her MD in radiology. She is "Dr. Catherine Everett" professionally, but "Mrs. Jessie Joseph Goins" socially. [Mrs. Catherine Goins was not a viable option in her cultural group.] So long as there is not an attempt to deceive, most states' laws let you call yourself anything you please (men and women both). [Hereabouts, with an appropriate warning posted once in the papers, I can call myself "Treehouse Computer Consulting", legally, as one of my names to sign checks by, and it is done every day.] She chose what made her happy in her social setting and allowed her to retain her professional identity at the same time. In the (unlikely) event she and her husband end up deciding custody of their five children, she can resume her professional name exclusively, with minor disruption. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) (08/24/90)
I wanted to respond to a couple of recent comments on this topic. Allow me to state at the outset that I am entirely opposed to (women's) name change upon marriage. >From: beckwith@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (beckwith) >I have wondered if there are any couples who have merged their two last names >and created a new name (then both partners take the new name). I might >consider doing something like that. It would be like marking the >start of a new adventure. Is there anyone out there who has done this? All actual proposed mergings of names I've heard have sounded a little silly... Picking a new name that you both like sounds more likely to me. I have heard of both people taking on a hyphenated name, but it irks me that the woman's surname is always first in the hyphenated pair, and therefore sometimes becomes like a middle name rather than a component of the surname, due to the influence of the standard of the woman taking the man's surname. But anyway I for one would certainly not want to change my name. One of the objections to women changing their surname upon marriage is that it separates them from their previous career (publications, etc). This objection is not lessened just because the man has similar difficulties; it's maybe even worse because it's two people now. There are many things that are more important to share than a name. But if you find it necessary to share a name, an interesting idea that Jamie Andrews posted to the net a few years ago is worth repeating. He suggested (I don't know if this was original or not) that you could pick a new name, and both people would adopt it as their *middle* name. Then this new name could be the surname of any children. Furthermore, the parents could use the new name as a surname of convenience when visiting a child's school, for example, without any feeling of compromise -- for example the woman would not have to feel that she was giving in by temporarily using the man's surname, since it wouldn't be his. The main advantage of this scheme is that both spouses retain their old name and keep their connections to their previous professional lives. >From: hars@pws.bull.com (Adele Hars) >A question -- what do you name your kids? I favor hypenation, but in a few >generations, that could get a little long... any thoughts? I'm not too keen on hyphenation for a few reasons, although I'll have to admit I haven't been there (had kids) yet. One reason is that it's no longer a name in common with either adult, so it seems slightly pointless. Another is the problem you (Adele Hars) mention -- it gets too long after the second application, really. Also, the hyphenation problem I mentioned above seems to hold for children too. The idea of naming girls with the mother's surname and boys with the father's surname is interesting in a few ways. One is that it's a cute compromise -- some children get named each name. The more interesting aspect, in the long run, is that eventually women's surnames will reflect a matrilineal descent in the way that most of our surnames (in Western culture) reflect a patrilineal descent history today, while men's surnames will still be patrilineal. In fact, you could start by naming your female children with their farthest-back matrilineal name you can find (the mother's birth name, or better yet the mother's mother's birth name, or better yet the mother's mother's mother's birth name, etc). (But you might not want to, because it's not your surname.) Personally, I don't see why children aren't just given the mother's surname. After all, she gave birth to them, and the man's involvement was fairly negligible, especially if you assume he was intrinsically interested in performing the sex act at that time. (Also, the mother's identity can be known, modulo bizarre and infrequent hospital mixups, whereas many people cannot be sure of the father's identity.) regards everyone, ajr p.s. further discussion by e-mail (or otherwise) welcome!
dst@dst.boltz.cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) (08/24/90)
In article <24409@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>, Beth Weiss says, about a hypothetical Ann Jones changing her name after marriage: > From a professional point of view, Ann has committed suicide. She has > lost all name recognition. From a personal point of view, she's lost > her _name_. There is an alternative. Some women maintain a fixed "professional" name (usually their maiden name) under which they publish all their stuff. Then they are free to change their "legal name", the one they use socially, after each marriage, divorce, religious conversion, etc. -- Dave Touretzky
marla@lucerne.Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) (08/24/90)
In article <23824@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes: >their name. A friend of mine claims to be looking foward to >changing her name when married - she simply doesn't like her present >(last) name (and yes, she is considering changing it anyway, without >marriage). This is exactly what I did. Changing your name out of the blue just because you don't like it takes a bit of courage and more energy than it was worth to me. I never liked my old last name - Wilcox - and I welcomed marriage to someone with what I consider a good last name - Parker - as an easy way to get a better last name. If he'd been named Frankdoddle or something that I found worse than Wilcox, I would have kept Wilcox. I know its a good old English name, but I just never liked the sound of it. -- Marla Parker (415) 336-2538 marla@eng.sun.com
canada@tc.fluke.COM (Galena Alyson Canada) (08/28/90)
In article <220@sierra.STANFORD.EDU> beckwith@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (beckwith) writes: >But the other problem I see is one of self identity. [ ... ] >Sharleen I take names quite seriously, and for precisely this reason. In the process of becoming me, I went a step beyond the husband's- vs.-maiden name question. I abandoned my maiden/father's name and went back to my (late) mother's maiden name. (Basically, I hated my father; I identified with and wanted to preserve my mother. I never knew her father, so "Canada" was, for me, uniquely her.) Where the "identity" issue became interesting was in my daughters' reactions to my name change: My (then) 18-year-old kept her name (my maiden name) unchanged, while my (then) eight-year-old asked me to change hers with mine. I read this as so: It's not where the name originated, but what its identity is *now*, that matters. I was destroying my ties to my father and reconnecting to my mother; my teenager was in (the normal) rebel mode, *damned* if she was going to changer *her* name (I never suggested, dear...); and my little one's identity is still basically that of Mom, including the need to stay with her. I feel it is valuable to preserve the paternal line, and this tradition should be honored. I feel that preservation of the maternal line is every bit as valuable -- in fact, crucial to an independent female identity -- and both my daughters are, in their own way, doing just that. We'll see what happens when they mate... As for me, no man will ever name me again... (Attitude? Me?) 'Lena
BOYDJ%QUCDN.QueensU.CA@evans.ucar.EDU (Jeff Boyd) (08/28/90)
Ack ... my partner told me I'd get a chuckle out of this name-change discussion :-). I would be offended if she asked me to take her name after marriage (and we aren't). It would be a severe pain-in-the-posterior to deal with the necessary changes in my active and dormant lines of communi- cation. What on earth would induce me to ask the same of her ?! Children ? Here's my suggestion (um, the suggestion of boy takes father's and girl takes mother's would be a truly and perfectly sexist institution, and as such is ludicrous) : for the first child, toss a coin (no arm-wrestling :-)) and take one of the last names. Please don't hyphenate ... it makes no sense, unless you wish to see your great-great-grandchildren have 16-part hyphenated surnames and suffer the social stigma of their names not fitting into gov't databases. Subsequent children alternate surnames. This way, both proud parents get their fair shot at having name-carrying progeny. Wow. If they want certainty, they pop out a second bundle of joy. Effortlessly, I'm sure.
bweiss@cs.arizona.EDU (Beth Weiss) (08/28/90)
dst@dst.boltz.cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes: >There is an alternative. Some women maintain a fixed "professional" name >(usually their maiden name) under which they publish all their stuff. Then >they are free to change their "legal name", the one they use socially, after >each marriage, divorce, religious conversion, etc. Would you want your professional name to be different from your social name? Why would someone _want_ to be "free" to change their "legal name" after each change in their marital status/religion? I can see disadvantages to using the birth name as a professional name, and the spouse's name as the social name: People who know the name changer professionally have to cope with two names (many can't/won't--how often do you hear someone say "I can't remember her married name?), the "social networking" that goes on often won't include the person who uses different social/business names. Are there advantages that I'm overlooking? --beth
morphy@arrester.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) (08/28/90)
This whole name change debate is missing the point. There should be no last names, period. We should abolish these silly relics of a barbaric, patriarchal era. Then, couples won't have to worry about which name to change, or give the kids, or whatever. My roommate, who is from India, has only one name. He tells me that in his ethnic group, the Tamils, this is common. It is also common in Myanmar(Burma) and parts of Indonesia and Mongolia.
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) (08/29/90)
I have a great dislike of the term "maiden name" and prefer to use "birth name" as the description of the name I've used since birth. Since a "maiden" is considered to be an unmarried girl/woman, or occasionally simply defined as a virgin, I find the use of the term "maiden name" supportive of the traditional name change at the time a virgin woman becomes a bride. I now find that I react to the term "maiden name" in much the same way I react to hearing an adult female called a girl. Any thoughts on this topic? --beth bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
mn5y@krebs.acc.Virginia.EDU (Mukund Nori) (08/29/90)
In article ID <morphy.651805205@arrester> Jones Maxime Murphy says
that the Indian roommate has no last name. I too am from India and I
contend that statement. While it is true that most people from his
ethnic group do not *USE* a last name, they nevertheless have one. By
and large, they fall into two major groups, the Iyers and the
Iyengars. [There are other groups that I am told by Tamilians, are
not as large]. Usually the children are known by their given name and
their father's given name, which is used in lieu of the family/last
name. Hence, although it is not really so, it appears that the
"family" among such ethnic groups changes from generation to
genration. This is very similar to the suffixes among the Norse
people e.g Lief Erikson, Lief the son of Erik, etc.
As for the larger issue of name change after marriage, I never
understood it and do not expect to. The two people have earned the
right to their own names IMHO, and it is up to the individuals to
decide between themselves what name they are going to use, if they are
going to use only one. As for the children, again one cannot come up
with a solution that satisfies everyone, just the individual couples.
Here are two customs that I know are practiced in India:
(1) Among the Maharashtrians (people from the state of Maharashtra in
the west part of India, with Bombay as its capital), the bride/wife
not only is required to change her last name to that of her husband's
after marriage, but he also gets to rename her first name, i.e. change
her given name. I find this rather male domineering and demeaning to
the woman. It is almost as if she has absolutely no identity of her
own, except that provided by "the kindness of" her husband. Talk
about possessions. Comments anyone?
(2) Among a group of people from Kerala, a southern state in India,
west coast, hierarchy is via the maternal line. The man takes the
wife's last name upon marriage. Not only that, so do the children.
In the case of an inter-group marriage of a woman with a man from a
patriarchal family, it is left to the couple. The children from such
an union abide by the decision until they are deemed old enough to
make their own choices. In practice, this happens quite early on,
depending on the relative influences of the two groups. In the
reverse scenario, the woman from a patriarchal family will change her
name to that of her husband. One of my closest friends is the son of
the first kind (patriarchal father and matriarchal mother) of marriage
and before he finished high school decided to use his maternal last
name.
Hope you find this interesting. take care.
******************************************************************
___Raistlin___ Mukund Nori
Raistlin@Virginia.EDU mn5y@krebs.acc.Virginia.EDU
"VIOLENCE IS THE LAST RESORT OF THE INCOMPETENT" Asimov elle@midway.uchicago.EDU (Ellen Keyne Seebacher) (09/01/90)
In article <24693@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes: >I have a great dislike of the term "maiden name" and prefer to use >"birth name" as the description of the name I've used since birth... I'm not wild about "maiden name," but I prefer terms other than "birth name" as the default -- not all of us are using our birth names! My birth certificate reads "Ellen Keyne Seebacher" only because I had my name legally changed as an adult. (For the curious, I dropped my original first name and moved up my middle/confirmation names.) I had this discussion recently on another topic: that of "chosen family" (one's beloved friends and more pleasant relatives) vs. "? family" (the one you grew up in). I think people agreed with me that "original" or "former" family was preferable to "birth family" (which, for adopted children, is not true). So how about "former name"? "Unmarried name"? And, in the cases where one keeps one's own name, "own name"? :-) -- Ellen Keyne Seebacher I didn't say that I didn't say it. elle@midway.uchicago.edu I said that I didn't say that I said it. The University of Chicago I want to make that very clear. Academic/Public Computing --former Mich. gov. George Romney