I was thinking the other day about surnames, and all the social issues tied up in them.
This isn’t going to be a blog about whether or not women should take their husband’s name. I don’t care what other people do; it’s up to them. For what it’s worth, I think there are valid reasons on both sides. On the one hand, maybe you can’t be bothered filling out all the forms, you don’t want to give up the name that connects you to your ancestors, you just prefer the sound of your own name to the other person’s, the recognisability of your name is important in your career, or you resent the blatant patriarchal expectation. On the other hand, maybe you want to take the other person’s name because it identifies the two of you as a unit, you want the convenience of not having to explain why you have two different surnames, or you feel the irresistible pull of convention. Ultimately, I just don’t think it matters all that much.
Here’s where I think it gets interesting: if the couple has kids, whose last name do the kids get?
Just to make things more interesting, let’s suppose everyone was forced to follow the same naming convention. Which would work best? Is there one naming convention that would actually work for everyone?
Let me answer that for you: no.
Option #1: Traditional (Wife and Offspring Takes Husband’s Surname)
In this scenario, the wife takes her husband’s last name, as do their children. This wouldn’t appeal to many women, for reasons outlined above. After all, it’s pretty unfair. Why should a woman have to give up her name if her husband doesn’t? Why is his name more important than hers?
Grade: D
Option #2: Feminist Resistance to Traditional Route (Wife Keeps Own Name, But Offspring Take Father’s Name)
In my experience, almost all of the women who choose to keep their own name have no problem with their children taking their husband’s name. After all, hasn’t the woman bucked convention enough my keeping her own name? Time to settle down and conform to convention. That seems to be the underpinning logic here.
However, if a woman wants to keep her own name because she feels it connects her to her lineage, or because she resents the patriarchal implications, how much better is this than the traditional route? The man’s name and family history is still being deemed more important. Not only that, she now has a different surname to the rest of her family. Once again, she is expected to make a sacrifice that he is not expected to make.
Grade: C+
Option #3: Full Feminist Subversion (Husband and Offspring Take Wife’s Name)
In this (less common) scenario, the roles are completely flipped, and everyone in the family takes the wife’s name. It’s appealing in an “ah, how the tables have turned!” way, but I don’t think it’s actually an improvement. It just unbalances the see-saw in the opposite direction.
Grade: D
Option #4: Gender Split (Parents Keep Own Names, Offspring Take Surname of Same-Gender Parent)
In parts of Europe, both spouses keep their own names, then sons take their father’s name and daughter’s take their mother’s. In terms of equality, there’s no denying the appeal of this one. However, if you value the idea of everyone in a family having the same surname, this would not appeal to you. Also, what happens when a gay couple has a child? And if someone transitions from one gender to the other, must they now change their last name as well as their first? What if they don’t identify as either gender? Gay and gender-queer people are in the minority, but the whole point of this exercise is to see if a PERFECT solution exists, one that cannot possibly negatively impact someone on a sociopolitical level. This one is close, but no cigar.
Grade: A-
Option #5: Hyphenated Surnames (Husband and Wife Join Names and Give to Offspring)
This option seems to tick all the boxes - husband and wife on equal footing, whole family gets to share the same surname, no gender messiness - but it has serious practical limitations. Every now and then, sure, couples can do it, but it only takes a few generations to become ridiculous. What if two people with hyphenated surnames get married? Do they now have a four-surname-last-name? What if their four-surname-last-name children want to marry another four-surname-last-name person? In the words of Selma Bouvier: “My name's already Selma Bouvier Terwilliger Hutz McClure. God knows it's long enough without Nahassapetapeeta-whatever.”
Grade: C+
Option #6: Celebrity Couple Names (Husband and Wife Smoosh their Surnames Together to Create New Surname)
What if, instead of hyphenating surnames, you take the first half of one and add it to the second half of the next, creating a celebrity couple name for yourselves? It still has all the equality/unity benefits of Option #5, without adding length progressively with each generation. The only problem with this solution is that a lot of the resulting surnames will sound a little silly. Mr Jones and Mrs Smith become… Jith? Or Smones?
Grade: B+
Option #7: Burn It All To The Ground and Start Again (Husband and Wife Pick Entirely New Name For Themselves)
Following on from the theme of the last three, what if the couple picks an entirely new name for themselves, unrelated to their previous surnames? It’s sort of sweet and Romantic in a capital R sort of way. In order to embark on a new chapter of your life, you pick a new surname, together. The main drawback? It’s just kind of… absurd? Allowing - nay, EXPECTING - everyone to choose their own surnames… AS A COUPLE? Couples have a hard enough time trying to decide on who to invite to the wedding, let alone deciding on their own surname for the rest of their lives. Then again, it might be worth it to see all the weird names people come up with.
Grade: B-
Am I missing any options? Let me know in the comments.