Author
|
Topic: Mrs. Feminist? family-name retention falls
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 18 October 2003 04:14 PM
I don't know what the rules in Ontario are now, but under the Peterson regime the old rules did change: upon marriage, a woman kept her family name by default unless she filled in a form and chose to take her husband's name.But there were some strange variations. One could choose either name, family ("maiden" -- wretched expression) or husband's, or one could choose a hyphenated version of both. So I could be s k s dadl s k-dadl, or s dadl-k -- all those, for free. There was one option that was not allowed (for free), and that was simply moving my family name up to be a second middle name. In other words, I could not be s a k dadl (which is really who I am). The Peterson regime considered that last option a formal change of name, and told me I'd have to go to court and pay $100 to do it. So I did one of the hyphenated options, but on all my official stuff, I do what I like. I thought and still think the hyphens are silly, and will obviously mess up the next generation impossibly. Still, the Peterson regime seemed to like them. Perhaps someone has encountered more recent changes? It is indicative of our deeper, conservative social reality that it still often makes my life a lot easier, especially in financial or emergency situations, if I am Mrs Dadl. People still have almost Pavlovian reactions to that form. It's a shame but it's true, and when you're in trouble, that matters.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 18 October 2003 04:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by skdadl: I don't know what the rules in Ontario are now, but under the Peterson regime the old rules did change: upon marriage, a woman kept her family name by default unless she filled in a form and chose to take her husband's name.
Exactly. Your name stays the same by default. And if you want to take your husband's last name (or he wants to take yours - it happens!) you have a choice. You can either actually change your name legally, or you can just "assume" your married name. When I got married, I assumed my husband's last name (yeah yeah, I know, save your peanuts), but it wasn't that my name was LEGALLY changed. My birth certificate and SIN had my maiden name on it. I could have changed those legally, but why? I don't think there's any reason to change a birth certificate - I was born with my MAIDEN name, not my married name. Anyhow, the way you assume your married name in Ontario is that you basically just bring your marriage certificate to the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Health, the bank, etc., and show it to them, and they change your name on your documentation for you, just like that. The other great thing about assuming your married name is that if you don't want to go by your married name any longer, you can just assume your maiden name again by showing your birth certificate and declaring that you are going to go by your maiden name again. Some places tried to tell me that I had to show them a divorce decree before I could change it back, because they'd rather discourage the paperwork. But I knew from having called the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services (which handles birth, death, marriage, and name registrations) that it was not necessary to be divorced to assume your maiden name again. It's better to get it done with your license and health card first, though, otherwise banks and other private corporations will give you a hard time about it. I'm happy to have my last name back. I swore I'd never change it again, even if I do get married again (something else I swore I wouldn't do). But then again, there are no guarantees in life, so I can't say for sure that I'll never do it again. Certainly my name change was the easiest thing I had to do when I left my husband! [ 18 October 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 18 October 2003 05:11 PM
Yeah, skdadl, I like that option too. I now wish I had been able to do exactly that with my own last name - and also, I wish I had given my son my last name as his last "middle" name. I was also allergic to hyphens, and both my last name AND my ex-husbands are doozies. I wouldn't saddle any poor kid with our last names hyphenated. His was even worse than mine.Yeah, Sara, I knew that about Quebec. I think it's too bad, actually. I prefer more options to less. Well anyhow, at least it was completely my choice to take my married name. My husband didn't pressure me in the least, nor was I afraid it would "hurt his feelings" if I didn't do it, because in Iran, women keep their maiden names and the children take the husband's family name. I took my husband's name because I wanted all of us (thinking of the future child(ren) to have the same name. You know what I think? I think the whole "family name" business should be done away with, and everyone should just choose first and last names that they like for their kids. Everyone can have a unique last name that way. Unfortunately, when you have a child, you're not allowed to give them a completely different surname to that of the parents. I seem to remember from the forms I filled out that if you wanted to pick a different surname from those of the parents, you had to do some kind of a justification or show some kind of family connection to the name or something like that. I'm not positive about that though - I filled out those forms within 24 hours of giving birth, and I'm groggy on the details.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 18 October 2003 05:16 PM
I did what Michelle did, I have assumed my husband's last name, but, I haven't "legally" changed it.I like using the same last name for both of us, we are a unit, we plan on having children, I want us all to have the same last name in everyday use. I'm trying to think of a way to incorporate my own family name into our children's names. I don't want to hyphenate it, but, I was thinking of a second middle name or something. I don't feel like offically changing my "legal" name though. What is the point? I like having my family name on my most official things, like voter cards, SIN, etc. All of the rest though, I just have assumed his name.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714
|
posted 18 October 2003 05:17 PM
I've actually been thinking about this whole name business for a while. Being on the cusp of motherhood, my interest is especially with regards to my future kids name.Since my father was not in the picture when I was born, my mother gave me her last name. She subsequently had two other kids with my step dad, but she didn't change her name and my brother got his father's last name, and somehow my sister also got my mom's last name. I kind of liked growing up with all of of us having different last names, it kind of made us "special". A few years after I was born, it became the norm in many Quebec communities for kids to get a "double-barelled" last name (i.e. a hyphenated almalgm of both parents names). I remember looking at my cousin's class list one day, and everyone (including her) save for one student had a double-barelled name. As these kids grow up and have kids of their own it will be interesting to see what tradition will emerge when they have their own kids and have four names to chose from. Myself, I don't know how comfortable I would be to giving my kids a name that I don't have. But I guess I would be imposing the same feelings on my spouse if the kids had my last name (although he says he would be fine with that). The hypenated thig is a possibility, but my spouse is not a fan. The thing is, as my own childhood taught me, it doesn't matter what you last name is, your family will still be strong regardless. I guess I should just decide and get over this.
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230
|
posted 18 October 2003 05:26 PM
The hypenated system comes into problems when a man with a hyphenated name and a woman with another hyphenated name have a child. What do you do then, give the kid a four barrelled name? Take half the name from each parent?How common is it for husbands to take their wives' names? I know two men who've done that but not because they're very liberated as much as because they wanted to obsc ure their ethnic origns. My father changed his name after the war. Having just been through the Holocaust he wanted to change his name to avoid being targetted as Jewish. The name he chose doesn't sound particularly great in English and given that the name didn't exactly have a strong familial attachment I decided to change it (also I felt the need to distance myself from my father psychicly if that makes any sense since his experiences weighed a bit too heavily on me at one point). At first I used my mother's maiden name but it didn't really sound very good in English either. Or so I thought at the time. (Actually someone said "that's a funny name" to me so I started having doubts). Ironically, in the years Debra Messing has become a well known model/actor so it doesn't seem so odd now so perhaps I should have kept it (my mother thinks I should have but at the time it sounded too much like "messy" so I stopped using it. I started using another name and changed it officially a few years ago. In retrospect it's not a great name, tends to get mangled in pronunciation if people haven't heard it before, but once I started using that name when I returned to school it became too late to change it again. When I had my name legally changed three years ago (after having already used my "new" name for several years) I changed my old last name to a middle name. [ 18 October 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
windymustang
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4509
|
posted 19 October 2003 01:48 AM
I feel this is an interesting and timely thread. I was just married June/02 for the 3rd time. The 1st time I took my husband's name(had I child same name). The 2nd I hyphenated our names (2 children father's name) Last year I kept my birth name which I had returned to after both previous marriages.My step daughter just got married and took her husband's name. My 2 daughters plan to take their husband's name. The latter claiming not from experiences, but because of tradition. Each time I changed my name, I felt a loss for my own identity. I thought that that would change by hyphenating my name, but that was just confusing to most people and an incovenience to me. To me, my family name has been part of my identity for my whole life, and although I want to change aspects of myself, I never want to change who I am. (I also like my last name better than all the other choices.) I think everyone should have the right to choose, but find it interesting that the young women I know plan to or have adopted their husbands' names. Does this say anything about young (15-20 year old's) women's view on feminism? Feminism certainly is not a topic that receives any attention in my daughter's and their friend's lives, unless they are affected by sexism or discrimination. Personally, I find that it is women over 40 in our community who are more interested in feminism. Is that common or not in larger centers or in the East or Vancouver? I am the only woman I know in this town who has kept her maiden name. I don't know everyone of course only having lived here 6 years, but I know of no other one here.
From: from the locker of Mad Mary Flint | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 19 October 2003 09:14 AM
quote: Originally posted by windymustang: Does this say anything about young (15-20 year old's) women's view on feminism? Feminism certainly is not a topic that receives any attention in my daughter's and their friend's lives, unless they are affected by sexism or discrimination. Personally, I find that it is women over 40 in our community who are more interested in feminism. Is that common or not in larger centers or in the East or Vancouver?
In one of Gloria Steinem's articles called "Why Young Women Are More Conservative," she writes about how when it comes to feminism, she thinks women become more radical the older they get. She believes (and I agree with her) that it's because young women in their late teens and early 20's are at their "prime age", and they often haven't yet faced some of the concrete discrimination or oppression that women with more life experience have faced. She says, "As young women, whether students or not, we're still in the stage most valued by male-dominated cultures: we have our full potential as workers, wives, sex partners, and childbearers. That means we haven't yet experienced the life events that are most radicalizing for women: entering the paid labour force and discovering how women are treated there; marrying and finding out that it is not yet an equal partnership; having children and discovering who is responsible for them and who is not; and aging, still a greater penalty for women than for men."
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 19 October 2003 04:37 PM
I changed my name in my first marriage because my ex insisted that I do so. He felt it was a complete insult to keep my last name in any way shape or form. This was shortly before the wedding, and although it left me with a bad feeling for things to come, I dismissed it. Shouldn't have. I went back to my own name (I never felt his last name was ever "mine", even though, legally, I suppose it was) when we divorced. 8 years later, I got married again, but the question of name change hasn't ever come up, really, except for a brief mention that I didn't intend to change. The blond guy's response was "Why would you?" I chose well. Our first daughter was born before we were married, and I decided at the time that, although taking one's father's name is the convention, I deserved at least equal billing. So both kids have hyphenated names. I expect that when they are older, they may drop one name or the other, and it's okay with us if they do. I'll respect and support the decision regardless which name is dropped. I'll even pay for a legal name change, if need be. But for now, I think both parents' names work just fine together -- much like the parents.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625
|
posted 19 October 2003 07:12 PM
I've always like the hyphenated forms, for some reason, even when I was really young. I guess it just seemed more unusual, and maybe more radcial than what I was used to in mid-sized-town Newfoundland.In my own relationships, my general rule would be either both hyphenate, or both leave their names as is. Whenever I hear people complain about both spouses hyphenating, using the argument "well what about the kids? What if this were to prop up all over, and everyone had two last names, would you want your kids being Mr or Ms blankity-blank-blankity-blank?" My instant reaction is to just say "Oh, shut up." as quickly as possible. First of all, it's NOT two last names. It's one because I fucking say so. Second, if the (theoretical) children want to be Jenskins-Nahasapeemapetilan-Smith-Armstrong-Johnson-Anderson-Meades-MeadesBobeadesfofanafanafofeadus, that's there fucking legal right. And you know what's more? You, when need be, will sit there, and call them Mr or Mrs or Ms or Miss or Sir Jenskins-Nahasapeemapetilan-Smith-Armstrong-Johnson-Anderson-Meades-MeadesBobeadesfofanafanafofeadus, and you will pronounce it correctly, god dammit! It's their choice, and it will be respected. [ 19 October 2003: Message edited by: meades ]
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 19 October 2003 09:46 PM
Meades is right, of course: everyone is entitled to use whatever name(s) they want (though i seriously doubt i'll remember or pronounce them correctly... probably just call his kids, like, JayPee or UmEr).I took my husband's name, because i never liked my father's, which, anyway, was universally mispronounced. But then, so was my husband's, until he changed it. What we have is an easy-to-spell assumed name that we both like. My daughter took her husband's name, because she likes it and wants it for her kid. She's not a gung-ho feminist, but neither does she let anybody push her around.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 20 October 2003 11:45 AM
I'm not sure what I'll do about names if I get married. My family name is on its last legs, as my dad is the last male born into it, and he has only daughters to "carry it on". I like my family name, and I do respect family lineage as something to uphold and commemorate, which makes me want to keep my name. All the same, I feel like marriage is not only a legal bond between two people, but also a merger of the two families they come from, so there must, somehow be a way to concretize that relationship also. I'm a romantic, and a traditionalist in a lot of ways, so I feel sort of naturally inclined to do it the way it's always been done... Add to the confusion my professional aspirations, which do hinge somewhat on name recognition, and it gets more complicated. I'd like to publish and exhibit some day, and it's important to have a documented history for things like that--which means it's important to have the same name on all my work through the years. I'd hate to disappear from the scene just because I got married and nobody recognizes my new name. I also do want to have kids, and as others have pointed out, this does make the hyphen or double name solution less of a solution. I would hate for my kids to have my husband's name, and not be nominally associated with me at all...It's tricky. It'll be a difficult decision to make, I think.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 20 October 2003 11:55 AM
quote: Unfortunately, when you have a child, you're not allowed to give them a completely different surname to that of the parents.
I'd say it's more like fortunately! Can you even imagine how many children would get "flavour o' the day" names like "Britney Spears", or soap-opera names, or characters from Hollywood movies? Sheesh!
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361
|
posted 20 October 2003 12:28 PM
One of the first feminist decisions I ever made, long before I knew what feminism was or that I could be one, was to keep my family name if I ever got married. I remember announcing this to my parents and grandmother at surely no more than ten years old. Of course, the name retention was coupled with my certainty that I'd some day be a famous writer (don't laugh, there's still time!) so a continuous and recognizable name was important to me.That I'm now unlikely to marry a man removes that potential conflict from my life. My girlfriend, on the other hand, doesn't love her surname and might be tempted to change it upon marriage but we're unlikely to get married and really, her first name doesn't sound any better with my surname than with her own. There's been an attempt to combine our surnames - not just hyphenating but actually combinging the first syllable of hers with the last syllable of mine, etc - to some quite disasterous results. I've tried to convince her to adopt her mother's family name (which, when combined with her first name produces a sexy Italian-movie-star sounding name a la Gina Lollobrigida) but she's pretty sure that any such effort would drive her father into an early grave. I also have two names; my birth name, which only appears on my adoption order (birth certificates are altered when you're adopted) and my adoptive name, which is the one I like and go by. Some adopted people, after reunion with their birthfamilies, will change their names (or just one of them) back to their birthname. I'm not just sure of the reasoning behind that...perhaps to demonstrate connection to the family of origin, perhaps to disconnect from a possibly unhappy adoptive family. I never really considered the option myself; for one thing, both my birthmother and I like the name that my adoptive parents chose for me better than the one that she chose (no offence to all the Pamelas out there, but I'm really not one). And my birthmother didn't keep her own family name when she married, neither did her sisters, so it's only my grandparents who still have the family name. Like Lima Bean's family, it's poised to die off. Which does seem a little sad. [ 20 October 2003: Message edited by: andrean ]
From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
athena_dreaming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4574
|
posted 21 October 2003 10:30 AM
Hi, skdadl. Remember me? I thought I'd add a few words to this debate since I have recently faced both decisions--naming in marriage and with kids. When I was 21 and got (disastrously) married way too young, I changed my name. It was the worst decision I could have made. It altered my personality. This may seem extreme, but something about renaming myself and taking on the identity of "wife" that completely changed me more than I was ready for or wanted. I became much more conciliatory, submissive and obsessed with keeping a clean house--not like me at all! I realize this isn't something that all woman have lurking in their psyches, but it's worth it to keep in mind, I think. I've even seen some studies that demonstrate that keeping your own name after marriage seems correlated to greater success in maintaining shared housework and an equitable partnership generally. (I can't comment on how reputable or well-conducted they are since that's all I know about them, but again, it may be something to keep in mind.) I know it was true for me--I got married again a few years ago, kept my own name, and did not morph into a Stepford Wife. Much better! (I should also add that, 6 years after my divorce, I am still getting mail in my old married name--including, most recently, my provincial election registration card. Now if you want something that will really ruin your day....) Now we're expecting our first child in January, so we had to deal with the naming thing there, too. My position is that I don't care what the last name is, it could be Smith, it could be Kronkite, I don't care--as long as it's not automatically one parter's prerogative to assume the child will have his last name. To me, the same old symbolism and tradition of male ownership of women and children causes the same ethical problems with assuming that children should have their father's last name. I don't think it has anything to do with making a "family"--names don't make families, IMO. So my only condition was that I wanted it to be fair. I suggested that we could flip a coin, or we could have it so that the child would have my last name if a girl, and his last name if a boy (or vice versa). We weren't going to determine the sex, so either would be equally "random." He suggested a variation on the second suggestion. If it's a girl, it will have my last name, and his current last name will be the child's third given name. And if it's a boy, he will have my husband's last name, and my last name as his third given name. Both of us were less than happy with the idea of hyphenating, but this allows us to each include our own heritage in the name of our child and allows us to avoid a tradition that is really abhorrent (to me, anyway). I think it is going to work well for us.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 21 October 2003 11:05 AM
A friend and her husband thought they'd alternate surnames among their children, with the first child (a girl) getting his last name. The second child was a boy, and his family flipped out. A boy child, carrying his mother's last name? They'd have none of it, and pressured him hard not to allow it. Of course this was seen by his wife as reneging on a deal, and much weeping and gnashing of teeth ensued.Do I need to add that they aren't together anymore? Incidentally, Mrs. Magoo (not her real name) has made it clear that should we ever stand up in some kind of official structure and declare our love to the state, she'll have none of my last name, which she considers kind of "goofy" sounding. I couldn't care less, and I actually prefer that reasoning to her trying to shake off the chains of 'male ownership' by keeping her father's name.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
athena_dreaming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4574
|
posted 21 October 2003 11:36 AM
Mr. Magoo, that is very sad. I'm not sure yet how my in-laws will react, being rather elderly and traditional folk, but I do know my hubby doesn't give a rats' ass what they think of our names for our children, so I'm sure we will weather it just fine. But lord help me--it took three years to get them to stop calling me "Mrs. Hubby's-last-name" so I can just foresee a decade of birthday cards sent to "child hubby's-last-name." If it's a girl. If it's a boy, we won't have that problem. And, with all respect, I do not consider my name my "father's name." I know that is where my name came from, but it is *my name.* I have had it since birth and my indentity has attached itself rather strongly to it. I'm no more thrilled about that State's previous insistence that I be marked with my father's ownership of me than I am thrilled about hte current pressure to mark myself with my husband's ownership of me, but I have to start somewhere, and I can only start from where I am. O/T--did you know that in the Roman Empire, it was a woman's first name that changed? A woman's first name at birth was the feminine variant of her father's, and at marriage became the feminine variant of her husband's. So you really never had a name that was all "your own." Thanks for the congrats, skdadl.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 07 May 2008 04:45 PM
I just thought of the solution!!! [Um, or I could read the WHOLE thread and see that this very suggestion has already been made about three times already. Blush!]When people get married, they keep their own last names or ditch them, whatever they like. But they ADD a brand new surname that both of them like and agree upon, which has significance to them as a couple. Then they give THAT name to the kids! Then the kids do the same thing when they get married. How does that affect people who don't get married? Well, they can just choose a brand new surname for their kids that has special meaning to both of them. Or if it's a single parent not in a relationship with the other parent, then there's no issue because the child would just get the one parent's current last name. Of course, the problem with this is the law as it stands now because I think you're not allowed to give your child a surname that belongs to neither parent in Ontario. Personally, though, I don't like that solution as much as I like the idea of matrilineal naming for girls and patrilineal naming for boys. [ 07 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 07 May 2008 04:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: When people get married, they keep their own last names or ditch them, whatever they like. But they ADD a brand new surname that both of them like and agree upon, which has significance to them as a couple.
I can't prove it, but a variation of that was my idea . Years ago, I proposed (to a large group of two or so friends) that a married couple should be required to keep their pre-existing names, which by the way has been the law in Québec for more than 25 years I believe. Forget about changing your name just because you're married. How about changing your name on your Bar Mitzah or high school grad or first job or when you lose your virginity (not necessarily in that order) or.... It's dumb IMO. When children come along, however, they should be given a brand new surname - a combination of the parents' first names. Thus, Françoise and Samir's children would be Michelle Françoise-Samir, Jorge Françoise-Samir, etc. Thoughts? Downside? All rights reserved.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 07 May 2008 05:01 PM
I like that the best, I think!It's a variation on something I read about some feminist (I forget her name now) who decided that since keeping her maiden name is just deciding in favour of her father's name instead of her husband's, that she would change her last name to her mother's first name. I think that's a neat idea too, for women who want to start "fresh" with a non-patrilineal name, but still have some connection to their ancestors. Hmm...actually, I change my mind - I don't like it the best, although I still like it. The problem with your solution, unionist, is this: how will you decide which name comes first? Do I name my child Jane Michelle-John, or Jane John-Michelle? [ 07 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 07 May 2008 05:02 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: The problem with your solution, unionist, is this: how will you decide which name comes first? Do I name my child Jane Michelle-John, or Jane John-Michelle?
1. Alphabetical; or 2. Coin-toss; or 3. Euphony; or 4. Let the kid decide.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 08 May 2008 03:18 AM
I wonder how many kids given double-barreled surnames wish they hadn't been. I just finished correcting a set of exams, and out of 50 students, there were at least three who didn't use both names on their exam paper. Inconveniently for me, they had dropped the *first* one, so I had to search up and down the official class list to find that Jean-François Fortin* was registered as Jean-François Tremblay-Fortin. *Not the name of an actual student.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 08 May 2008 04:02 AM
I always thought double-barreled names based on parents' surnames were dumb, for several reasons:1. The parents' surnames are pretty arbitrary, because they generally only reflect their immediate patriarchal lineage. 2. The same pattern (mother-father hyphenation) can't possibly continue to the next generation, because you would have exponential growth in the surname length. Hence my suggestion that everyone be named after their parents' first names. In a way, it's like gender-neutralizing the naming protocol that exists in many ancient cultures - instead of saying Jesus ben Joseph, or Jesus ibn Joseph, or Jesus Josephson, or Jesus Josipovich (etc.), we would say Jesus Mary-Joseph.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 08 May 2008 04:19 AM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: I always thought double-barreled names based on parents' surnames were dumb, for several reasons:1. The parents' surnames are pretty arbitrary, because they generally only reflect their immediate patriarchal lineage. 2. The same pattern (mother-father hyphenation) can't possibly continue to the next generation, because you would have exponential growth in the surname length. Hence my suggestion that everyone be named after their parents' first names. In a way, it's like gender-neutralizing the naming protocol that exists in many ancient cultures - instead of saying Jesus ben Joseph, or Jesus ibn Joseph, or Jesus Josephson, or Jesus Josipovich (etc.), we would say Jesus Mary-Joseph.
Right, I missed that it was based on the first names - thus eliminating exponential growth in last name length. That idea seems quite reasonable, but as a I understand it is not legal in most places.
I still don't think that option would be for me - as my goal of whatever option I choose would be for my children and husband to have the same family name as me. I like the "create a last name" idea. I believe the law would have to be altered for both options. As an aside, I find it strange that more people don't want to create their own last names for their children these days. Obviously last names had to originate somewhere and there was a point in history where they were being created left, right and centre. Even aside from the issue of having a patriarchal structure, it seems we are quite complacent when it comes to names.
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355
|
posted 08 May 2008 05:00 AM
Interesting discussion. I was recently married, though it was done under a traditional FN's ceremony so technically according to the 'state' we aren't 'legally married.' We don't care a whit about that, though it does make the whole issue of names interesting, as well as contemplating the recognition of my other half's traditions and values. His tradition is matrilineal, though naming conventions are different and follow clan lines. I still haven't sorted it all out in detail, nor have we come to any conclusions on what we are going to do about the 'kids'. Right now I use both my name and his name. On all my legal stuff, like bank accounts I still use my birth name mainly because it's a pain in the ass to change it all because we don't have the government paper that makes it easy. I do go by his name though in social situations simply because I like it better, plus for me it was representative a new and significant event in my life. I debated the whole patricarchy and feminist reasons for keeping and not keeping it and figured out that none of it really mattered to me in any political sense. My husband didn't favor one or the other and left it up to me. His relationship to his own 'legal' "state" name is ambivalent because it's not who he is and I think some of this ambivalence about even my own name has been passed on to me. I just don't care about it as much as I used to. His actual identity is his traditional 'native' name. We have actually talked about seeing if we can change all his legal stuff to that name, though on first perusal it would be difficult because the 'state' wants a first AND last name. His traditional names at their purest don't work like that. This is something that we may fight for in the future. The most interesting naming convention and to me the neatest are traditional Haudensaunee names. The names are given through clans and no one person alive is supposed to have the same name as any other. It's totally individual, so "XXXX" is simply "XXXX" and you will always know who is being talked about because there is no other "XXXX" out there. For me this whole meeting of traditions has got me thinking of who I am and yes 'names'. Our family has traced it's geneology back hundreds of years, but of course it's been patrilineally. So what if it was done matrilineally like his traditions. Who would I be and what could my name be? How far back can this go. This is actually a personal project that I work on when I have time. It's a lot harder to trace lineage this way, but it sure is a fascinating 'whatif.'
From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 08 May 2008 06:23 AM
The only genealogists disturbed by this discussion would be those who consider it irrelevant to trace matrilineal descent. They should just take a deep breath and adjust to the fact that many people no longer consider the male to rule the household and the family tree.ETA: A system where everyone bears the same last name as their father's father's father's father's father's father... has something noticeably biased about it, don't you think? It would be nice, but mathematically impossible, for every person's name to reflect the exponentially enormous totality of all their ancestors, so the only recourse is to keep good records. With due respect to Ghislaine's opinion, I have always had some difficulty with the view that "we want everyone in the family to have the same last name" - because 99999999 times out of 100000000, it means the daddy's last name. Coincidence? I think Québec did a great thing when it bowed to feminist lobbying and effectively required everyone to be known by their birth name even after marriage, with some very strict exceptions. It was a bit draconian, but sometimes steps toward equality need to be that way. [ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|