Evolving.
Patience is a virtue, and feminism doesn't mean doing away with it
Published on September 19, 2004 By Angloesque In Personal Relationships
I have a beef with a particular aspect of feminism--a small beef, perhaps veal--but beef nonetheless.

It's when a married couple for whatever reason doesn't have the same last name (generally speaking, when the wife keeps her name); specifically, when the wife gets very upset by being incorrectly addressed. For example, I have two friends, we'll call them John Smith and Jane Andrews, who have been married for three years now, and they have separate names, not because Jane was established in any field or because she wanted to carry on her lineage (she has at least four brothers doing that) but because she didn't like John's last name. And also she wanted to "retain her identity." (*Aside--see bottom.)

Furthermore, if she receives any mail addressed to "John and Jane Smith," she returns it and writes "not at this address." John's mother was very upset by her decision and tried sending them letters addressed as "John and Jane Smith" but, needless to say, that did not go over well with Jane, causing strained relations and inconveniencing John by putting him in the middle between them. (Granted, I think the mom just needs to let it go, but I think Jane does, too.)

Recently, I asked them what their children's last name would be, as they are nearing that era in their lives. Evidently they haven't decided that and it began a huge row, so I bowed out and vowed to never ask anyone that ever again, period and exclamation point.

Also recently, Jane was talking to another feminist who kept her last name but added her husband's name, i.e. Susan Johnson Watson (no hyphen). Susan was upset that she was getting mail addressed to "Susan Watson" and not "Susan Johnson Watson." (Since many parents choose to give the mother's maiden name as a middle name, I don't understand how we're supposed to know if Johnson is part of the middle name or the last name.)

Both Jane and Susan are equally upset (actually, upset is an understatement--try "incensed") when they receive mail addressed to Mrs. John Smith or Mrs. Tom Watson. I find it archaic but they go nutso over it, threatening to confront people, to not return calls or Christmas letters, etc. Yikes.

Here's the thing: If they'd just relax a little while the world gets used to women and men who are married but with different last names, they'd save their heart a whole lot of blood pressure-related stress. When a social norm is changing, don't accept everyone to embrace it equally and quickly. It takes time. Personally, I'm tired of hearing about their stupid last name issues THREE YEARS INTO MARRIAGE.

(*) My personal opinion is that a married couple loses the identity that comes with being single; they lose their Singletondom, as it were, so they are in fact losing a part of their identity when they choose to marry, anyway. I think it's highly convenient for a family to have a last name--it saves a lot of questions in terms of filling out forms, addressing letters, and so forth. But I don't expect everyone to share that--I just ask for a little patience while the rest of the world tries to sort it out. Is that too much?

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 19, 2004
Your last paragraph was right on the money, in my opinion. I do think that the concept of marriage being watered down has something to do with the substantial divorce rate. Marriage is about two becoming one, and working together, too many folks don't understand that.
on Sep 19, 2004
I could agree with you, Gideon, but what does keeping last names really have to do with watering down marriage? Are you opposed to homosexual union too, believing that somehow the admittance of loving, committed homosexuals into the marriage spectrum also "waters down" commitments in general? Angloesque's friends do sound like they're taking things a little too personally, being unaccepting in turn of the places other people are in. But it's also easy to cast judgement and argue for "ease" when our entire society is in denial about the patriarchal status quo.
on Sep 19, 2004
Are you opposed to homosexual union too, believing that somehow the admittance of loving, committed homosexuals into the marriage spectrum also "waters down" commitments in general


I believe my position on this issue is well enough known that I don't need to repeat it further.

But it's also easy to cast judgement and argue for "ease" when our entire society is in denial about the patriarchal status quo.


well, Sarah, you can be as militant as you want and tell your future husband that you absolutely refuse to have the same last name, bank accounts as him, and all of that. Be as independent as you want. But marriage is NOT about independence, it's about working TOGETHER. And I NEVER, NOT ONCE, said a WORD about patriarchy, NOR did I say that the last name taken HAD to be the husband's, did I? Maybe you might want to stop reading things into my response that I DIDN'T say!
on Sep 19, 2004
Way to twist and turn Gideon's words on him there Sarah. Try reading what he wrote and not what you wanted to see. He's saying the percieved value and sanctity of marraige is erroding because of the increased divorce rate (i.e people jumping ship with increasing frequency)... not because of homosexual marraige or anything of the sort. As more people treat it as a temporary thing, a deal to back out on when it becomes unpleasant, the less value it will have. People aren't willing to take their time about entering into a union, and certainly aren't putting in the blood sweat and tears that some of our parents did to keep things working.

As with everything else in society lately, we're entirely focused on "me me me" Refusing to bow to other people but at the same time expecting everyone else to bow to us. If someone's going to have such a fit over something as truely trivial as a last name (I mean, come on... how long has it been since your last name was really that big of a deal?), what are they going to do when confronted with a real conflict?

If you and your spouse agree to separate names, all well and good, but the rest of the world is used to doing things differently and you can't expect them to start dancing along to your tune.
on Sep 19, 2004
As more people treat it as a temporary thing, a deal to back out on when it becomes unpleasant, the less value it will have.


Hear, hear. Although the point of this blog isn't about divorce, it's been in the back of my mind. I used to frequent theknot.com, which is a site for brides. Fairly useful in terms of getting information but man, when you put a thousand brides and their individual mindsets and worldviews into one forum, you get a lot of conflicting opinions. Among the many things I was told were these gems:

"You should get a prenup because you never know."

"Everyone should have a second marriage--they're way better."

(regarding living together before marriage when I stated that I'd rather learn to accommodate each other without having leaving as an option) "Oh pleeeze. Men are as likely to leave a marriage as they are to leave a relationship. It doesn't matter."

So with those mindsets, I thought I was better off with my own common sense and I left. Honestly, the women who wrote those were chronic whiners and ranters. Nothing ever satisfied them and they seemed more addicted to their forum than their marriages--they'd go to anonymous people on the forum for advice instead of their husbands or fiances. Pardon my language, but that's fucked up.

As for keeping their own last names, they seemed to think that anyone who *didn't* was backwards, conservative, or (gasp) Republican. I am none of those and I took H's last name when we married in June. To me it's important that we're seen as one family--and anyway, it simplifies the world. (I've done mass mailings from an alumni office--I KNOW what kind of a pain it is to make sure that the couple's name is correct.)

My friends as noted above are good, decent people. I think their marriages will be fine. They simply need a bit of Prozac in the meantime. :/

on Sep 19, 2004
what's funny, anglo, is that the whole last name thing is such an issue. I had stated years ago that I would have no problem taking my wife's last name if I preferred it over mine. It just so happened, though, that my wife's last name is THE most common last name in the state of Wisconsin, and close to it nationwide, and she was more than eager to rid herself of it! (there were 7 women with the same first and last name at her gynecologist's office in our community of 60,000!)
on Sep 19, 2004
I would have no problem taking my wife's last name if I preferred it over mine.


Do you mean if she preferred it over yours? Er.... Or your way sort of makes sense.

I would say, then, that your wife and I would have something in common in the way we chose our married last names. H said he'd have given his up if that's what it took, but I think he was relieved not to. (Anyway, he has a cool last name and I'm very happy with it.)
on Sep 19, 2004
Dang!
I never gave much thought about married couples, where the wife kept her own name.
Will she be known as Mrs. "who?"
His name or her name?
Would she even considered a Mrs.?
This is going to take some getting used to.

Good article!
on Sep 20, 2004
I had stated years ago that I would have no problem taking my wife's last name if I preferred it over mine.


And Jack White of the White Stripes took that step himself.
on Sep 20, 2004
I didn't expect to based on your start, but I agree with you that it is unrealistic to expect everyone to adapt to the changing social norm. My personal view is that couple should amalgamate their names to create a new whole, which is entirely representative of what happens with marriage. Your couple may for instance take on the rather silly sounding "Smandrews" or "Smithews" or "Andrith". Silly as they sound, most last names do until you get used to them. Smith is a ridiculous combination of sounds, but people are very used to it. Nonetheless, perhaps the only way to get people used to this new social norm is to make people constantly aware of it and to kick up a stink about it.
on Sep 20, 2004
What's in a name, though? I mean, I adopted this as my pseudonym, and use it in certain real life circumstances, and it's just as "real" a name as my birth name....perhaps a little more real because I chose it myself. My wife has a name that goes with this name (just in case I get rich and famous one day, ya know?).

So maybe that's what we need to do. Choose arbitrary new names and pick them out of a hat. lol.
on Sep 20, 2004
Max Power and Hootie McBoob already taken . . .
on Sep 20, 2004
Nonetheless, perhaps the only way to get people used to this new social norm is to make people constantly aware of it and to kick up a stink about it.


Yes, some people are a bit thick about learning these things. My own dad, for one. Personally, it only takes me one (maybe two if I'm being dumb) gentle corrections before I get it right. I can tell you right off, though, if I were a recipient of one of those returned letters marked "not at this address" or "return to sender," I'd be mightily pissed off, especially if it were a simple mistake on my part.

-A.
on Sep 21, 2004
I beleive a hybrid is a thought that should be entertained...

i.e. Marge and Homer Simpier or Bouvson.



BAM!!!
on Sep 30, 2004
"In a perfect world, we'd all be known as the Flimpsons"
2 Pages1 2