quote:

---

Spouses' names

Both spouses keep their birth names after marriage and continue to exercise their civil rights under that name, i.e. they must use their birth name in contracts, on credit cards, on their driver's licence, etc. However, women are free however to assume their husband's name socially. Women married before April 2, 1981 who already use their husband's last name to exercise their civil rights may continue to do so.

---

Quebec govt page re all things related to marriage

I'm shocked I didn't break out in hives just by going to that site, but that's a whole other thread topic.

Of course, since we live in a patriarchy, women have the names of our fathers. A few years back I considered changing my last name to my mom's last name (she went back to her "maiden" name (damn, deconstruct THAT) after she got divorced. She was married way before 1981) but realized that's my not-so-wonderful grandfather's name. Women are owned by someone, always, it seems. But in the act of getting married, keeping the name we're born with, a way that works automatically for men, makes a lot of sense to me.

I thought it was always tradition in Quebec for women to keep their last names. Some of the most patriarchal societies on earth have the tradition of the woman keeping her last name (although, as bcg points out, the woman's last name is her father's last name so she's always "owned" by someone). Iran comes to mind. Women keep their own last names there, so they keep their father's last names, while their children take on their husbands' last names.

For me, I changed my name when I got married (would never do it again, and I'd do it differently if I had to do it over again). My reasoning was that I wanted to have the same last name as any children I might have. I know, there are other solutions to that, but that's the one I chose. I mean, it was the choice between taking on my husband's last name and having the same last name as my kids, or keeping my father's last name (or doing some sort of combination of my father's name and my husband's name) and having a different last name than my kids. Or putting up a futile fight to keep my father's last name and giving my father's last name to my kids?

I just figured that taking my husband's last name was the easiest way to have the same last name as my kid[s]. So I did it.

When I first heard about the feminist professor who changed her last name to her mother's given name, I thought that was really neat, and thought it would be a great statement to make. But not for me, for practical reasons. First of all, I'm not in any way estranged from any of my family and I get along with everyone very well, but that could go some way to MAKING it happen. Secondly, I like my last name, have no bad associations with it, love my father, and it would be way too much trouble for me to try to explain why I would, at this stage of my life, reject his name and take on my mother's.

If I were ever to take an action like this, then probably what I'd do is do it for my kids first. So, if I had a daughter, perhaps I'd give her a given name, and make her last name my mother's given name, and she could start the tradition and pass that name to her daughters, etc. That way I don't have to change the name I'm used to having, and she would grow up with her last name and be used to it.

[ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

There are rules in Ontario too, about marital name changes. You can "assume" your husband's name, in which case you can change documents like your driver's license and health card and utility bills by showing your marriage certificate, but your birth certificate doesn't change. That's what I did (thank goodness!). That's free.

Or, you can actually CHANGE your name, in which case your birth certificate changes as well. I didn't do that because I thought it was stupid to change my birth certificate to my married name - I was born with my maiden name!

If, on the other hand, you want to change your name to something completely different than your own or your husband's name, then I think you have to pay a fee. Anyone can change their name, as far as I know.

I'm not absolutely positive about people being allowed to change their name in Quebec, but I can't imagine that name changes aren't allowed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Hey, you know what's really weird? When I was filling out the forms for my son's birth certificate, he HAD to have either my last name or my husband's. If you want to name your kid something else, you have to send in an explanation and apply to do so, and I think the reason has to be along the lines of some sort of cultural tradition. I'm not positive about that, as it's been almost 9 years since I filled out the form, but that's how I remember it.

---

When Frank Zappa’s eldest son was born, he and his wife, Gail, wanted to name the son “Dweezil”. The hospital refused. So, Frank and Gail randomly wrote down some “normal” names and their son’s birth certificate read: Ian Donald Calvin Euclid Zappa!! The hospital accepted that.

quote:

---

It requires a serious reason, such as difficulty of use due to spelling or pronunciation, or bearing a name that is mocked or that has been made infamous.

---

[ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
I agree bcg- feminism is about more than choice or simply doing what you want, its about reconfiguring our society (ie patriarchy) so that women have the choice or freedom to fullfill their potential and not be opressed by the physical category they just happen to fall in to. But that's a whole other potentially very long discussion, and the above is rather general.

---

What a sec. First you say, “feminism is about more than choice or simply doing what you want” but then you say “its about reconfiguring our society (ie patriarchy) so that women have the choice or freedom to fullfill their potential and not be opressed by the physical category they just happen to fall in to.” The second quotation underscores the vital importance of having choice.

The choices are: keep the name that you had when married, revert to your birth name or take the name of your spouse.

None of the above requires a legal change of name but does require the onerous task of getting every piece of ID and credit cards, etc etc changed over by filing out forms for every single thing that you use your name for.

It means that for instance a man can legally take his spouses birth name as his last name or vice versa. The non-gender specific terminology is of course appropriate because we now finally have legal same sex marriage.

It would even allow for one spouse to revert to their birth name if they had been divoreced but never changed their name back previously and for the other spouse to then use their spouses last name.

CBA explanation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Then, if you have kids, you can give your last name to your daughters, and the father's last name to your sons.

---

A friendly ammendment: give the father's last name to the daughters and the mother's last name to the sons. This way, in time, ancestral identification will cut across the genders.

But really it didn`t change that much. I think the Quebec law is perfectly fine, if only for bureaucratic efficiency.

In the months leading up to our Big Wedding Thing, I was continually asked, by people who knew me fairly well no less, "so, are you keeping your own name?"

This struck me as a bizarre question. It's like asking an environmentalist whether their next car will be a fully-loaded Cadillac Escalade, or a consumer activist whether they will be shopping at The Gap from now on.

Well, of course I'm keeping my name. It is, after all, mine, and has been for about 45 years. And yes, my husband is keeping his name too (and no, he was not asked).

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
Then again, some couples call each other their con-joints. It sounds even worse in French with a Quebecois accent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
If feminism is about being able to make choices, then would feminists legislate its abolition?

---

I never understood feminism as being about "being able to make choices". I thought it was about eliminating every vestige of discrimination and oppression of women and achieving equality irrespective of sex.

The law in Québec was an extremely progressive one, designed to eliminate the by-default de-personalization of women upon marriage, as part of the Quiet Revolution, while still allowing women to shed their name and adopt some man's name if they really chose to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
If feminism were just about "choice", then feminists would declare victory if women "chose" to be domestic workers and adopt their husbands' names and stroll barefoot and pregnant around the kitchen.

---

You know, lots of women, and men, would like to stay at home with the kids and be responsible for all things domestic. For most of us, economic reality doesn't allow it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I never understood feminism as being about "being able to make choices". I thought it was about eliminating every vestige of discrimination and oppression of women and achieving equality irrespective of sex.

---

Well of course feminism is about choices, at least in part. If a person does not have any choice about something and that something is, instead, dictated to the person, the person has no autonomy over that part of her or his life.

Now, one might argue that as long as you strip a choice away from men and women equally, you are taking a “feminist position” (no gender discrimination). And, that may be true, as far as gender discrimination goes. But, over personal matters, I err on the side of more choice, for both men and women.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The law in Québec was an extremely progressive one, designed to eliminate the by-default de-personalization of women upon marriage, as part of the Quiet Revolution, while still allowing women to shed their name and adopt some man's name if they really chose to.

---

Does the law permit that? From the link supplied, it states that a married person “must” use their given name.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
If feminism were just about "choice", then feminists would declare victory if women "chose" to be domestic workers and adopt their husbands' names and stroll barefoot and pregnant around the kitchen. Feminism actively combats the socio-politico-economic status quo that imposes these allegedly "free choices" on women and girls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
Women, statistically still making about 79 cents on every dollar earned by a man, often make just enough to make it worth while to pay out most of their salary on daycare and the clothing and transportation costs associated with working outside the home. Now THAT's having your choices narrowed by economic disparity.

---

Look, I don't want to be a man telling women what feminism is, but the 79 cents gap is a key example of the inequality that all progressive people, including feminists, combat. That's why I said it's about equality. Fight inequality (social, economic, political), and choice becomes real rather than theoretical.

quote:

---

From Linked Article:
"It was seen as extremely progressive at the time," said Robert Leckey, who teaches family law at McGill University.

"I don't think feminists of the day imagined that 25 years later people would be complaining that they don't have the choice to be traditional."

[snip]

"There is a choice in terms of what you're using socially but there are no options when it comes to legal recourse."

---

quote:

---

In Quebec, women are sometimes allowed to have their name changed, but the director of civil status must give approval. Reasons to grant the change include names that are difficult to spell or pronounce, or names that are mocked or that have been made infamous.

---

Anyone know if that is only for women (one would hope not)?

I had been under the impression that the barriers were the same as the ones I'd face if I wanted to change my name to John Smith (eta: They are: I can't). But this looks as though name changes are not just a hassle, they're simply not allowed.

eta: The rules for changing one's name

quote:

---

Changing your given name or surname is somewhat like adopting a new identity. It is a significant act. This is why there must be a serious reason for seeking a name change.

---

(emphasis in the original)

It would appear that 'because I feel like it' doesn't count as a sufficient reason.

[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Anyone know if that is only for women (one would hope not)?

---

The law is exactly the same for men and women, as far as I can see - and it took Québec society a long time to get there.

The 1981 amendment reads as follows:

quote:

---

Article 393. In marriage, both spouses retain their respective names and exercise their civil rights under those names.

---

And I never heard of anyone challenging it until Ms. Parent came along (from your link) and said:

quote:

---

"One day we're going to start a family and I would love to share the same name as my future children," she told CTV News.

---

She appears to be unaware of the fact that she and her spouse can choose to name their kids after either parent, or both. I guess she believes kids automatically take their father's name!! Not in Québec. The decision is up to the parents.

If they disagree, the child is given a hyphenated name:

quote:

---

52. En cas de désaccord sur le choix du nom de famille, le directeur de l'état civil attribue à l'enfant un nom composé de deux parties provenant l'une du nom de famille du père, l'autre de celui de la mère, selon leur choix respectif.

---

Yes, it's true that you can't just change your name in Québec at will. No one can. There has to be a "serious reason", according to law, but the article very cleverly omits one of them. Here is the Code Civil article:

quote:

---

58. Le directeur de l'état civil a compétence pour autoriser le changement de nom pour un motif sérieux dans tous les cas qui ne ressortissent pas à la compétence du tribunal; il en est ainsi, notamment, lorsque le nom généralement utilisé ne correspond pas à celui qui est inscrit dans l'acte de naissance, que le nom est d'origine étrangère ou trop difficile à prononcer ou à écrire dans sa forme originale ou que le nom prête au ridicule ou est frappé d'infamie.

---

So, if Ms. Parent chooses to adopt her husband's surname in ordinary social usage, she can then apply to change her name legally with no obstacle WHATSOEVER, under the bolded portion of the above clause.

This whole story is a farce.

ETA: Sorry, for non-Francophones, let me explain. The law gives three examples of "serious reasons" for name change: 1. When the name generally used by the person isn't the same as on their birth certificate (which would be the case for any woman wishing to adopt her husband's name, or vice versa for that matter). 2. When the name is of foreign origin or too difficult to pronounce. 3. When the name lends itself to ridicule or has some notoriety attached to it.

[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Unionist, if a person can, without restriction, change their name (legally) to the name used socially, then what about the apparent directive that a married person must use their given name for legal purposes?

---

Just read the two sections I quoted.

Section 393 says both spouses keep their original names.

Section 58 says you can change your name if "the name generally used does not correspond to the name on the birth certificate".

My conclusion is that if a married person generally uses a name other than the one on their birth certificate, they can lawfully change their name correspondingly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Section 58 says you can change your name if "the name generally used does not correspond to the name on the birth certificate".

---

I’m working at a bit of a disadvantage by not being able to read the actual statutes, but the provision you cited, unionist, appears not to be a law relating to general changes of one’s name but to changing the name of a child.

ETA: Besides, if it was that easy to change one's name after marriage, that name-change right would completely eviscerate the law that a person, upon marriage, must retain, for legal purposes, the last name given to them at birth. Either there is no such obligation to retain one's birth name or it is not that easy to change one's last name. It cannot be both!

More generally, other than a significant difference in magnitude, it seems like telling a woman that she cannot choose to adopt her husband’s name when she gets married isn’t that different, in principle, than telling a woman she cannot choose to stay at home and raise her children and must, instead, join the workforce with her husband.

The purported reason for telling a woman she cannot chose her husband’s last name is to attempt to wipe out a historical practice (taking a husband’s last name) that many view as patriarchal. If that’s logical and appropriate, then shouldn’t the government also prohibit situations where mothers stay at home and fathers go to work outside of the home—something that could also legitimately be viewed as patriarchal—both to destroy that patriarchal practice as well as to enforce gender equality? Besides, if 99% of stay-at-home parents are women, isn’t that far more detrimental to gender equality than the issue of one’s last name? The latter may be quite symbolic but the practice of women staying home with the kids presents a much more significant and real barrier to gender equality.

I’m sure one could put together a long list of similar practices that should likewise be stamped out by legislative fiat, all in the name of creating gender equality and destroying a patriarchal practice, but all the while crushing freedom to choose.

[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The law in Québec was an extremely progressive one, designed to eliminate the by-default de-personalization of women upon marriage, as part of the Quiet Revolution, while still allowing women to shed their name and adopt some man's name if they really chose to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
It does not mean that Stephen Gordon can change his name to John Smith without "serious reason". But whether the ability to change one's name on a whim should be considered as a "fundamental human right" is quite a separate debate. All I know is that it is not considered as a human right either in Canada or under any international law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
But from the links posted here that specifically relate to a person’s legal last name post-marriage, it doesn’t appear to be the case (instead, it appears there is an outright prohibition on adopting one’s spouse’s last name—and hence the Caroline Parent complaint).

---

I note you use the word "appears" quite a lot, and you are correct to do so. You know little about Caroline Parent except that she has quite willingly become the object of scandal in CanWest. You don't even know if she has applied to change her name to her husband's name, nor do I.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

How could my changing my name to John Smith be a threat to the well-being of Quebec society?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

People who wanted to heap accolades on your economic theory might have a harder time finding you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I’m working at a bit of a disadvantage by not being able to read the actual statutes, but the provision you cited, unionist, appears not to be a law relating to general changes of one’s name but to changing the name of a child.

---

You're mistaken, and I appreciate the difficulty given the linguistic disadvantage. This section has nothing to do with children; it applies to everyone:

quote:

---

DIVISION III

CHANGE OF NAME

§ 1. — General provision

57. No change may be made to a person's name, whether of his surname or given name, without the authorization of the registrar of civil status or the court, in accordance with the provisions of this section.

1991, c. 64, a. 57.

§ 2. — Change of name by way of administrative process

58. The registrar of civil status has competence to authorize a change of name for a serious reason in every case that does not come under the jurisdiction of the court, and in particular where the name generally used does not correspond to that appearing in the act of birth, where the name is of foreign origin or too difficult to pronounce or write in its original form or where the name invites ridicule or has become infamous.

The registrar also has competence where a person applies for the addition to the surname of a part taken from the surname of the father or mother, as declared in the act of birth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Hilarity aside, it's not at all clear why Quebec makes it so hard to change one's name. In Ontario, for example, it seems quite straightforward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Why should people change their names anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Because they want to?

---

And their Social Insurance Numbers?

And their citizenship?

And who they pay child support to?

And whether they pay taxes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

And their Social Insurance Numbers?

And their citizenship?

And who they pay child support to?

And whether they pay taxes?

Inidividual Freedom Above All! Whim Over Logic! Down With Society! Vote Libertarian!

---

Many certainly believe in individual freedom when it doesn't harm others. That's why we have things like a charter. That's why we've made progress on issues such as gay marriage, free speech, et cetera.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
unionist, as illustrated in my little comment in my first post, I rather agree with you- in my eyes this is a patriarchal practice. However, sin't my imposing this on someone equally an oppressive act ?
There's also the question of whether one's name changed automatically after one was married (obligatorily) or whether it was something only imposed by tradition.

---

I think you're right - it was something of an overreaction (though I believe a necessary one) to the Great Darkness of the past.

You have to realize that women couldn't serve in a jury in Québec until 1970 (!!!!!!!). They couldn't legally buy draft beer until 1967 (where just one location - at Expo 67 - somehow got licensed to serve draft without being designated as a male-only "taverne"). And I'm not sure when the rule changed that children automatically took their father's surname. But it's amazing to think that in France, supposedly more progressive than Québec, that law was abandoned only in 2005!!!.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digiteyes:
1. It isn't illegal for a woman to change her name upon marriage. She just has to go through the same process that anyone else would have to go through if they wanted to change their name for a reason other than marriage. Effectively, the statute just puts her name change in the same realm as everyone else.

2. Quebec law isn't the same as the rest of Canada, which is based on precedent. It's codified. Some of it comes from French code. Get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digiteyes:
1. It isn't illegal for a woman to change her name upon marriage. She just has to go through the same process that anyone else would have to go through if they wanted to change their name for a reason other than marriage. Effectively, the statute just puts her name change in the same realm as everyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
bcg, you could make your mother's FIRST name your last name. I heard of a professor (I forget her name now!) who did this. I thought that was kind of neat. Then, if you have kids, you can give your last name to your daughters, and the father's last name to your sons. (I know this is heterosexist - not sure what you'd do in the case of two women or two men.)

---

Unfortunately a lot of provincial laws prohibit giving the child any name other than the surname of one parent or a hyphenation of both, like Ontario's Vital Statistics Act:

quote:

---

A child's surname shall be determined as follows:
1. If both parents certify the child’s birth, they may agree to give the child either parent’s surname or former surname or a surname consisting of one surname or former surname of each parent, hyphenated or combined.
2. If both parents certify the child’s birth but do not agree on the child’s surname, the child shall be given,
i. the parents’ surname, if they have the same surname, or
ii. a surname consisting of both parents’ surnames hyphenated or combined in alphabetical order, if they have different surnames.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

That would be fine, except that Quebec law makes it well-nigh impossible for anyone to change their name. As far as Quebec law goes, since Caroline Parent was not born with a name that is difficult to pronounce or which invites ridicule, she is not allowed to change her name *at all*. Not even her first name.

---

That's the 17th time you have repeated this falsehood - that's an approximation. You can also change your name if you are generally known by a name other than the one on your birth certificate. The difficulty in changing names without "sufficient" or "serious reason" is common to virtually all "civil law" jurisdictions in the world.

eta: And I'd also appreciate it if you withdrew the word 'falsehood'. I may be wrong, but I'm not lying. If you can't make the distinction, then I'm giving up on you entirely.

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I'd very much appreciate a reference that suggests that I'm reading the rules incorrectly.

---

For the third time (first in French, then in English, now in English again), here is Section 58 of the Code civil du Québec. This time, I am adding little letters in parentheses () for ease of comprehension:

quote:

---

58. The registrar of civil status has competence to authorize a change of name for a serious reason in every case that does not come under the jurisdiction of the court, and in particular (a) where the name generally used does not correspond to that appearing in the act of birth, (b) where the name is of foreign origin or too difficult to pronounce or write in its original form or (c) where the name invites ridicule or has become infamous.

The registrar also has competence where a person applies for the addition to the surname of a part taken from the surname of the father or mother, as declared in the act of birth.

---

Get it? Three (3) cases. Not two (2) cases. Three (3) cases. And these are only cited by way of example of "serious reason".

quote:

---

eta: And I'd also appreciate it if you withdrew the word 'falsehood'. I may be wrong, but I'm not lying.

---

Fine - I withdraw "falsehood", although all I meant by it was "false proposition", not "deliberately misleading false proposition".

I'm sure you're not lying. You are, however, definitely wrong.

And here, for the second time, is a link to the full text of the Code civil in English.

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
So how does that contradict what I've said? Caroline Parent's name doesn't fall into any of those three categories (nor does mine), so she has no right to change her name (nor do I). *At all*. No matter what forms we're willing to fill out, people we're willing to notify, obligations we're willing to accept under the new name, or fees we're willing to pay. It's just not allowed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
...the only reason for my intervention was to explain that the Québec law was progressive, pro-woman, and a step out of the dark ages of pre-Quiet Revolution. I was surprised at the opening post which seemed to paint the law as removing choice from women, where in fact the obvious intent was to say: "When you get married, the government will no long treat you as inferior to men - you keep your name unless you choose to change it."

---

I've watched a number of very progressively-minded groups and individuals attempt to address inequality in this particular way over the years, and more often than not it backfires.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
Quebec being what it was in the bad old days of Duplessis, I can see the progressive intent of the law, but I don't think an individual's choices are supported or diversified by the act of removing them. These kinds of things are just so ... reactionary. And patronizing. I mean, what is the law doing? It's seeking to change attitude by legislating behaviour.

---

We legislate behaviour all the time, long before attitudes have changed. We ban harassment and discrimination in employment, public services, etc., based on prohibited grounds. We have labour laws which legislate behaviour on the part of employers which reflects the actual attitudes of very few employers. We ban crimes long before the social and economic foundation of crime has been remedied.

In the case of Québec, I gave you examples of the horrific and antiquated behaviour of the state - actually, social attitudes were by then (1970s) way in advance of the law. The law has been playing catch-up.

In Québec today, it is universally accepted - except perhaps by some seniors who have had a hard time adjusting - that married spouses have different surnames. It's not some grudging act with one eye over the shoulder to ensure the cops aren't around! It is reality, and there is no move - zero - in society to go backwards on this point.

quote:

---

I've watched a number of very progressively-minded groups and individuals attempt to address inequality in this particular way over the years, and more often than not it backfires.

---

Maybe, but what do you think about human rights legislation? Has it backfired? Sure, there are difficulties in implementation, but who would seriously propose that we repeal the legislation until social attitudes have unanimously "caught up"?

quote:

---

It seems to be a sad fact that so many who are driven to lobby for social reform through progressive legislation are control freaks. They may be the most forward-thinking of individuals, but like their arch-conservative rivals, they don't trust the average person to make sensible and appropriate choices (ie., the same choices they would make).

---

That seems like a rather breath-taking generalization. Workers and unions lobbied for decades for legislated minimum wage, the 40-hour week, vacations, the right to refuse unsafe work, mandatory recognition of unions once a majority of workers had made their choice, etc. etc. etc. I for one do not trust anyone to "make sensible and appropriate choices" in this realm, nor in the realm of discrimination in employment, in housing, in commerce, in society as a whole.

For example, it's ridiculous enough that religious clergy are allowed to choose whether to perform same-sex marriages or not. Would you have preferred that the law had allowed all civil authorities, courts, etc., to choose whether they wanted to perform such marriages? Would you have trusted them to "make sensible and appropriate choices"?

However, that can get a bit impractical.
My solution is as follows.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
We legislate behaviour all the time, long before attitudes have changed. We ban harassment and discrimination in employment, public services, etc., based on prohibited grounds. We have labour laws which legislate behaviour on the part of employers which reflects the actual attitudes of very few employers. We ban crimes long before the social and economic foundation of crime has been remedied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

Actually, we legislate against acts like harassment and discrimination because people have a right to be protected from the very real harm that these can cause.

The question then is, what harm are people being protected from when they are prevented from voluntarily choosing their name?

---

The same harm as when workers "voluntarily" work for less than minimum wage.

Or women "voluntarily" "accept" a salary less than men for performing the same work.

Or a young person "voluntarily" marrying someone of the same religion that the parents approve of.

Or employees "voluntarily" signing an application for employment that states: "I hereby waive my right to join a union so long as I remain employed in this position."

Or a restaurant owner, with lots of competitors on the same block, asking all customers to sign a statement before entering saying, "I am choosing voluntarily to eat here in full knowledge that I may be subject to second-hand smoke."

When you can prove to me that social pressures have disappeared whereby women should celebrate their union by abandoning their name and adopting that of "hubby", then perhaps the need for a law protecting a woman's dignity and identity will disappear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The same harm as when workers "voluntarily" work for less than minimum wage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Or a restaurant owner, with lots of competitors on the same block, asking all customers to sign a statement before entering saying, "I am choosing voluntarily to eat here in full knowledge that I may be subject to second-hand smoke."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
When you can prove to me that social pressures have disappeared whereby women should celebrate their union by abandoning their name and adopting that of "hubby", then perhaps the need for a law protecting a woman's dignity and identity will disappear.

---

When we proscribe someone's freedom of action, we should have very good reason to do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:
In my humble opinion, all children should have their mother's last name, after all you always know who the mother is....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatman:
When two people marry, they hyphenate their name, and their children will also get their name. When the sons marry, they drop their mother's name and adopt their wife's name while their daughter's drop their father's name and get their husband's name.

---

My partner has a hyphenated last name. She has tons of trouble with people and her last name. When someone asks her what last name is, she starts with "My last name is really big and you'll need more space" and it always takes at least two tries. Lately she just gives them her drivers license or gives them my last name.

Granted her both names in her last name are kind of long and uncommon but I wouldn't wish a hyphenated name on any one. Her line is that parents that give their kids hyphenated last names must hate them, or not know the trouble they are. She's looking forward to changing her last name when we get married.

You think this was a "choice"?

Way too many still do.

You think this is a sign of women's right to choose?

How many men do you know who took their spouse's surname on marriage?

Zero?

Why is that - because men don't realize they have the "right" to change their name?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I find this discussion extremely hard to believe. But the more it evolves, the more convinced I am of the need for the 1981 Québec law. If anyone was unclear about its ongoing importance, just read this thread.

---

Maybe the next “logical” step Quebec could take would be to make it illegal to have a gender-specific first name. “Mary” would be verboten as would “James”. “Kelly” would be okay and so would “Terry”. And, this would be done, of course, in the best interest of the people too stupid to understand the importance of this issue.

Better yet?

Assign everyone a number for a name (but you would have to take steps to scrupulously avoid giving the odd numbers just to boys and even numbers just to girls—perhaps a random number generator would do the trick?).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Maybe the next “logical” step Quebec could take would be to make it illegal to have a gender-specific first name.

---

What really gets me about some of the posts here is the notion that Québec women had a "right" prior to 1981 - the "right" to take their husbands' name - and that "right" has now been abolished.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
What really gets me about some of the posts here is the notion that Québec women had a "right" prior to 1981 - the "right" to take their husbands' name - and that "right" has now been abolished.

---

Is it a good thing that most women ultimately "chose" their husband's name? No, because for most of those there was no choice involved - we all know that.

For some, however, it was a genuine choice that they freely made - but today can't. Others in the past, men and women, may have made a choice to adopt any kind of name they preferred - and are also barred from doing that today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
For some, however, it was a genuine choice that they freely made - but today can't.

---

How many men do you know who have taken their wife's surname? Or was this "free choice" only exercised by women?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
What really gets me about some of the posts here is the notion that Québec women had a "right" prior to 1981 - the "right" to take their husbands' name - and that "right" has now been abolished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Was a woman, prior to 1981, required to adopt their husband’s last name upon marriage? If so, then the simple, and appropriate, remedy would have been to pass a law abolishing that requirement.

---

You really don't understand the immense social, religious, traditional pressures to change one's name on marriage - really, really? Or is this just some intellectual debate?

ETA: Sven, how many men do you know who have taken their spouse's name on marriage?

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
How many men do you know who have taken their wife's surname? Or was this "free choice" only exercised by women?

Please reply.

---

Venturing away from the issue of last names, I suppose that another “logical” step that Quebec could take would be to require men—randomly selected, of course—to stay at home with children, should the parents wish to have any parent stay at home, in order to ensure that there is a 50-50 split of moms and dads staying home with kids.

Right now, 99% of parents who choose to have one of the parents stay at home with children “choose” the mother to do so, no?

I actually think this is a serious issue, because the practice of moms, and not dads, staying at home contributes to gender pay inequality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
how many men do you know who have taken their spouse's name on marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Right now, 99% of parents who choose to have one of the parents stay at home with children “choose” the mother to do so, no?

---

Your 99% is a bit wild, but your point is well taken. No one should have to "stay at home with children" if they don't want to. Nor should they have to "stay at home" to cook or clean. That's why civilized society addresses this problem very seriously, by tearing down barriers to women in the workforce (such as discrimination, inequality of pay, etc.); enacting cheap or free public child care (as in Québec, which has made a good start); providing access to skills and job training; changing school curricula to combat antiquated and hierarchical role models; introducing employment equity legislation to help achieve a balance in the workplace more reflective of society; etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Right now, 99% of parents who choose to have one of the parents stay at home with children “choose” the mother to do so, no?

---

quote:

---

In 2001, single-parent mothers accounted for 85 percent of all single-parent families in Canada and over 90 percent of all poor single-parent families (NCW 2001: 14).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

If it matters: two. One had an almost unpronounceable name that he was happy to be rid of. The other was a very intelligent and deferential man whose wife had an ancestral name highly respected in this area; he said he was honoured that she allowed him to take it.

---

Thanks, Wilf, and yes it very much does matter. It means that in a province where people are free to take the other spouse's name, far fewer than 1% of those who exercise that "freedom" are men. I think that reflects a model where the male is the leader of the household.

I could be wrong, though - it could just be a totally random coincidence, based on people's free unconstrained individual choices.

BTW, where do you stand on the idea of outlawing the hijab?

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
We have lots to do before we have to force anyone to "stay at home". The very notion that anyone needs to "stay at home" speaks volumes about your example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Why does it matter? Haven't you figured out that some people will, sadly, makes choices that you wouldn't? Get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I feel as if I've inadvertently walked into to someone else's conversation. Sorry to disturb, carry right on, John Smith.

---

:sigh:

Interesting to see the usual list of men waxing eloquent about women's right to choose their last name. No one has complained yet that Québec males have "lost" their right to take their wives' names!!!! I wonder why!!!!

quote:

---

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (from Anatole France, The Red Lily, 1894).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Whatever. Carry on, oh He Who Must be Obeyed.

---

Oh, hi there, it's you - I didn't recognize the name since you changed it back.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Thanks, Wilf, and yes it very much does matter. It means that in a province where people are free to take the other spouse's name, far fewer than 1% of those who exercise that "freedom" are men. I think that reflects a model where the male is the leader of the household.

I could be wrong, though - it could just be a totally random coincidence, based on people's free unconstrained individual choices.

---

But do we need to attempt to ham-handedly legislate the problem away?

There are a whole host of other things problematic about “the male is the leader of the household”. Do you legislate how parents interact with their children? I would imagine you would because the way the parents live their lives will certainly impact how their children view the world (i.e., “men should be the leader of the household because that’s how my parents did it”).

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Yeah, kropotkin1951, Sven has no explanation for why couples "choose" to leave the mother at home with the kids - "99% of the time" he says - but he will no doubt fight to the finish to defend the democratic right of parents to freely and individually choose to leave the Mom at home.

---

quote:

---

Was a woman, prior to 1981, required to adopt their husband’s last name upon marriage? If so, then the simple, and appropriate, remedy would have been to pass a law abolishing that requirement.

---

Women were considered chattel and that's why they had were required to take their husband's last name. Much like slaves all took the names of their owners.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

And your solution to that particular issue is...what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You forgot my recent post about child care, skills training, discrimination, equity, equality of role models? Would you like a link back to it?

---

No. I think those things are very helpful for parents who both want to work outside of the home and leave day-to-day care with child care folks.

quote:

---

But, there is a significant number of parents who, even if those services were available, would elect to have a parent stay at home with their children because they believe it is better for their children to do that. And, in those case, the overwhelming majority of parents “choose” to have the mom be the one staying at home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:

Hmmm. I wouldn't say that it's a choice. I would say that it is expected that the woman stays home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:
Hmmm. I wouldn't say that it's a choice. I would say that it is expected that the woman stays home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Should that be legislatively prohibited, such as unionist has advocated regarding a woman’s traditional “choice” to choose her husband’s last name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I advocated nothing. A woman's traditional obligation to dump her name and adopt some man's name has been legally banned in Québec for 26 years, at the demand of women's organizations and their allies. Now, a few men on this forum, ignorant of this law for 26 years, are leaping to the "defence" of women's "choice". This is very sad, but oh so unsurprising.

---

If feel like I'm walking in circles now. Because earlier this afternoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Was a woman, prior to 1981, required to adopt their husband’s last name upon marriage? If so, then the simple, and appropriate, remedy would have been to pass a law abolishing that requirement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You really don't understand the immense social, religious, traditional pressures to change one's name on marriage - really, really?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ouroboros:

My partner has a hyphenated last name. She has tons of trouble with people and her last name. When someone asks her what last name is, she starts with "My last name is really big and you'll need more space" and it always takes at least two tries. Lately she just gives them her drivers license or gives them my last name.

Granted her both names in her last name are kind of long and uncommon but I wouldn't wish a hyphenated name on any one. Her line is that parents that give their kids hyphenated last names must hate them, or not know the trouble they are. She's looking forward to changing her last name when we get married.

I don't mind the idea of making up a last name when you get married. I think people could think up some pretty neat last names.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I said "traditional obligation". Any unclarity in that?

---

I'm sorry. I was whupped-tired last night when I posted that!

Actually, what I was trying to reconcile, unionist, were these earlier statements:

1. Prior to 1981, a woman was (traditionally) required to change her name to her husband's name.

2. In 1981, the state passed a law that a woman would retain her last name given at birth. And you have argued that that was necessary in order to combat point 1 above.

3. Yet you cite Section 58 as a means for a person to simply change their legal name to the name they commonly use (i.e., a woman's husband's name if she uses his name socially).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

So, doesn't point 3 trump point 2? Or, does point 2 really mean that a womany must keep her given name at marriage and Section 58 cannot be used to "get around" it?

---

Good question. I believe the courts have said you have to use a name for a significant period of time (a number of years) before you can invoke Section 58 to change to it. So, it would not probably be available to a newlywed who was yearning for her bridegroom's last name.

But because it's such a complete non-issue in Québec society, which has embraced the new respect for individual dignity, I'm not sure if this particular issue (e.g. applying for name change immediately upon marriage) has ever been tested.

ETA: However, the law does allow the authority to grant a name change for any "serious reason", without limitation, even if it doesn't fall within the stated examples - so presumably a person could plead that case if they wished.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

But because it's such a complete non-issue in Québec society, which has embraced the new respect for individual dignity, I'm not sure if this particular issue (e.g. applying for name change immediately upon marriage) has ever been tested.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Summer:

I just spat my juice out.

---