Why don't more men take their wife's surname when they marry?(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Why don't more men take their wife's surname when they marry?
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/07/why-dont-more-men-take-their-wives-last-names/565898/?single_page=true
11 comments
Say your name were Stephanie Coontz and you were marrying a fellow named England France. You could legally change your name to Stephanie France Coontz (dropping a given middle name or not) and then continue to go professionally by Stephanie Coontz.
You can legally change your name to whatever you want as long as you are not trying to escape a debt or prison or something..
I’ve been married for over 4 years now and my wife still hasn’t changed her name. She was in college when we got married and it was a pain to change all of the documents halfway through her education so we put it off.
The only time it’s even a minor inconvenience is picking up mail in the odd chance that the post office won’t leave it in our small apartment mailbox so one of us has to pick it up from the post office.
All the software in the world is setup for different surnames due to long term, live in boyfriend/girlfriend situations, as well as wives who want to concatenate their new name with the old. Marriage has been condensed to a checkbox on every important form and I’m glad it’s that way.
We’ve decided that our children will take my name and my wife will likely change hers then to make it easier for them to remember while growing up, but until then, we’re in no hurry.
The only time it’s even a minor inconvenience is picking up mail in the odd chance that the post office won’t leave it in our small apartment mailbox so one of us has to pick it up from the post office.
All the software in the world is setup for different surnames due to long term, live in boyfriend/girlfriend situations, as well as wives who want to concatenate their new name with the old. Marriage has been condensed to a checkbox on every important form and I’m glad it’s that way.
We’ve decided that our children will take my name and my wife will likely change hers then to make it easier for them to remember while growing up, but until then, we’re in no hurry.
Iceland has a fun system for last names.
You last name is your fathers (or rarely, your mothers) name plus a 'son' or 'dottir' at the end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name
You last name is your fathers (or rarely, your mothers) name plus a 'son' or 'dottir' at the end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name
Such a suffix based on the father's name is called a patronymic, and is not just Icelandic, but seen throughout the world, mostly Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronymic
In Russia and other Slavic nations, the -ich patronymic is used:
>> a man named Ivan with a father named Nikolay would be known as Ivan Nikolayevich or "Ivan, son of Nikolay"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronymic
In Russia and other Slavic nations, the -ich patronymic is used:
>> a man named Ivan with a father named Nikolay would be known as Ivan Nikolayevich or "Ivan, son of Nikolay"
> * Seventy-two percent of adults polled in a 2011 study said they believe a woman should give up her maiden name when she gets married, and half of those who responded said they believe that it should be a legal requirement, not a choice. *
I find this extraordinary. I've never really thought about it much, I've just known I've always wanted to get rid of "Smith" since I have a common first name as well. I wish there was a freely accessible copy of that study.
I find this extraordinary. I've never really thought about it much, I've just known I've always wanted to get rid of "Smith" since I have a common first name as well. I wish there was a freely accessible copy of that study.
That is absolutely nuts. Do these people not realise you can change your name anyway? It's one of those really weird positions I don't understand the process of getting to.
I have to assume those people are nutjobs who want to enforce traditional gender roles and have servile women, and see this as an aspect of that, literally having ownership over their identity.
It's kinda horrifying.
I have to assume those people are nutjobs who want to enforce traditional gender roles and have servile women, and see this as an aspect of that, literally having ownership over their identity.
It's kinda horrifying.
My wife and I have been married for almost 20 years. But she has never taken my last name.
When we were engaged, I learned that she wasn’t planning on taking my last name, and the thought didn’t really bother me —- I felt it was her choice to do as she wished in that regard, and it wouldn’t change the fact that we were married.
As it turned out, she already had a number of years of experience as a lawyer with her existing name, and there would have been a reputational cost to the change, so she just wanted to keep her name. Makes total sense to me!
Since then, I’ve been called “Mr. Geyer” more than a few times, and I’m kind of used to it by now —- maybe about as much as women get called Mrs. Husband-name, when they didn’t actually change theirs.
Household-wise, we are the “Geyer-Knowles Family”, by dint of alphabetical sorting. We don’t have children, but if we did, then they might have a hyphenated last name.
Now, I do have a male friend who changed his last name to match that of his wife after they got married, and the story I heard was that he never liked his last name. So that totally made sense.
When we were engaged, I learned that she wasn’t planning on taking my last name, and the thought didn’t really bother me —- I felt it was her choice to do as she wished in that regard, and it wouldn’t change the fact that we were married.
As it turned out, she already had a number of years of experience as a lawyer with her existing name, and there would have been a reputational cost to the change, so she just wanted to keep her name. Makes total sense to me!
Since then, I’ve been called “Mr. Geyer” more than a few times, and I’m kind of used to it by now —- maybe about as much as women get called Mrs. Husband-name, when they didn’t actually change theirs.
Household-wise, we are the “Geyer-Knowles Family”, by dint of alphabetical sorting. We don’t have children, but if we did, then they might have a hyphenated last name.
Now, I do have a male friend who changed his last name to match that of his wife after they got married, and the story I heard was that he never liked his last name. So that totally made sense.
I wish the US had more provisions for having multiple names. Instead we have to have one single "legal" name that is recognized by the government and we have to change it at great difficulty and expense. Heaven help you if everything doesn't match up. My partner is still struggling because he took his ex-wife's name and his social security card doesn't match his birth certificate anymore. Our system is utter insanity because of assumptions about how many names someone can have...
It feels like there has been a trend toward just not changing your last name at all. It's quite a pain due to update everything and deal with the occasional confusion of names not matching.
The messy case that this article doesn't mention is what to do about your last name on divorce. There's less tradition there, and sometimes children get upset at the idea of their parents' names no longer matching theirs.
The messy case that this article doesn't mention is what to do about your last name on divorce. There's less tradition there, and sometimes children get upset at the idea of their parents' names no longer matching theirs.
Why do women change their surname at all? In regard to children, using both parents surnames, in whatever order, seems to be fair to everybody.
Please note I’m not advocating for Portuguese or Spanish naming customs per se. I’d like to hear what other HN readers think about this particular option.
Please note I’m not advocating for Portuguese or Spanish naming customs per se. I’d like to hear what other HN readers think about this particular option.
What do you do after the next generation?
Example: John Smith and Maria Lopez have a daughter named Angel Smith Lopez.
Who then marries Walter Dunkirk Kim.
The daughter would be Angel Smith Lopez Dunkirk Kim? Or some random combination?
Example: John Smith and Maria Lopez have a daughter named Angel Smith Lopez.
Who then marries Walter Dunkirk Kim.
The daughter would be Angel Smith Lopez Dunkirk Kim? Or some random combination?
You pick a name each that you want your children to carry.
Both my wife and I have two surnames, one from each of our parents. We have chosen one of those each and given to our children.
Both my wife and I have two surnames, one from each of our parents. We have chosen one of those each and given to our children.
If you do it the way members of spanish speaking cultures typically do it (and Angel named her daughter Angel, too :)), then it'd be Angel Dunkirk Smith. The convention is for children to take the first surname of their father as their first surname and the first surname of their mother as their second surname.
You do it however you feel like it. Spanish speaking people often carry around more than 1 surname.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surname#Spanish_compound_surna...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surname#Spanish_compound_surna...
I can think of a few options:
* The least common surname
* The one from the more affluent family
* The one you like the most
* The least common surname
* The one from the more affluent family
* The one you like the most
What about their kid’s kids?
Come on, this is basic database normalization. Men can have multiple wives, but it makes no sense for women to have multiple husbands. So men taking a woman's last name doesn't work.
> Men can have multiple wives, but it makes no sense for women to have multiple husbands.
Sorry for being dense, but is this sarcasm?
Sorry for being dense, but is this sarcasm?
No. Men can have kids with multiple women at the same time, but women can only have one man's baby at a time, i.e. the best possible option for them. A marriage with N men is one with N-1 cuckolds.
That's why polygamy has generally happened in only one direction throughout history.
That's why polygamy has generally happened in only one direction throughout history.
You are making the (wrong) assumption that relationships are all about reproduction. Marriage has no requirement for reproduction.
The argument is also deeply flawed because "women can only have one man's baby at a time" ignores the fact that relationships last longer than a pregnancy. A woman could have two husbands and have kids with them sequentially, even in a world where the "having kids" part mattered.
The argument is also deeply flawed because "women can only have one man's baby at a time" ignores the fact that relationships last longer than a pregnancy. A woman could have two husbands and have kids with them sequentially, even in a world where the "having kids" part mattered.
There are all sorts of weird hypothetical marriages you could imagine (and we could grade them on a scale from 0 to 5 Macrons). Human behavior as a matter of fact does not normally work that way.
> You are making the (wrong) assumption that relationships are all about reproduction.
It's not wrong. It's based in biology.
> Marriage has no requirement for reproduction.
In the same way that getting a law degree doesn't have a requirement of getting a job as a lawyer. But generally, you get a law degree to become a lawyer. The reason marriage was created was for family creation.
> The argument is also deeply flawed because "women can only have one man's baby at a time" ignores the fact that relationships last longer than a pregnancy.
What? How is that a flaw? Sure it last longer than the pregnancy because the kid is there.
> A woman could have two husbands and have kids with them sequentially
Right. And a man can have two wives and have kids with them in parallel.
> even in a world where the "having kids" part mattered.
Of course it matters. It's the basis of existence. It's a biological imperative of pretty much every human being.
I can't believe you are arguing against that.
It's not wrong. It's based in biology.
> Marriage has no requirement for reproduction.
In the same way that getting a law degree doesn't have a requirement of getting a job as a lawyer. But generally, you get a law degree to become a lawyer. The reason marriage was created was for family creation.
> The argument is also deeply flawed because "women can only have one man's baby at a time" ignores the fact that relationships last longer than a pregnancy.
What? How is that a flaw? Sure it last longer than the pregnancy because the kid is there.
> A woman could have two husbands and have kids with them sequentially
Right. And a man can have two wives and have kids with them in parallel.
> even in a world where the "having kids" part mattered.
Of course it matters. It's the basis of existence. It's a biological imperative of pretty much every human being.
I can't believe you are arguing against that.
It can matter, but it doesn't matter universally. Just because some, or even most, people want to reproduce, doesn't mean that has to be everyone's goal or plan.
People who can't or don't want to reproduce routinely get married. There is no legal requirement for reproduction, and people don't only get married for that reason.
You can't take the root causes for human behaviour and say they apply universally - e.g: humans want to eat more than they need to eat at that moment to stockpile a reserve - this behaviour is no longer relevant in most modern societies. Food is not about just fuelling our bodies today, even if that's the root of the behaviour "based in biology". Human desires and motives are distinct from the evolutionary reasons for them, and pretending they aren't is rejecting reality.
Your view is deeply and fundamentally flawed - it doesn't reflect reality as we see it in practice. Data models where you just throw away edge cases is failing to do the job well.
People who can't or don't want to reproduce routinely get married. There is no legal requirement for reproduction, and people don't only get married for that reason.
You can't take the root causes for human behaviour and say they apply universally - e.g: humans want to eat more than they need to eat at that moment to stockpile a reserve - this behaviour is no longer relevant in most modern societies. Food is not about just fuelling our bodies today, even if that's the root of the behaviour "based in biology". Human desires and motives are distinct from the evolutionary reasons for them, and pretending they aren't is rejecting reality.
Your view is deeply and fundamentally flawed - it doesn't reflect reality as we see it in practice. Data models where you just throw away edge cases is failing to do the job well.
You are looking at pregnancy with modern eyes. It has not been uncommon to believe that a child could have multiple fathers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
(specifically the part about partible paternity)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
(specifically the part about partible paternity)
That has in fact been very uncommon.
Yeah, but your original comment was about database normalization. Generally you want your database to store all of your data, not just most of it.
The Mosuo avoided this, but did so by putting societal expectations of child rearing and daily support on male relatives of the mother, and not on the father(s) of her child(ren).
or you know both can keep their family name without any change, sounds like best solution to me, why change anyone's name because of relationship document?
i didn't even had to think about it since i have western name, my wife has Chinese, so either combination would look extremely strange at least for us (for mixed children i find it acceptable to see western given name with Chinese foreign name, but for someone not mixed it's odd)
i didn't even had to think about it since i have western name, my wife has Chinese, so either combination would look extremely strange at least for us (for mixed children i find it acceptable to see western given name with Chinese foreign name, but for someone not mixed it's odd)
There is a convenience in having the same last name but I agree, no reason to always change names if one doesn't want to.
I could see this resulting in similar debate over how the children get named though.
I could see this resulting in similar debate over how the children get named though.
oh well that would be whole other post how we were choosing international name with same transcription in English and most European countries (including our potential destinations for settling), how it could not contain R because wife it's Chinese (who unlike Japanese can't really pronounce it) and didn't want extremely common name like quarter of children in class (i had name like that and it's PITA and don't understand people who don't check statistics and just choose one of the top 10 names) and how the length should balance with my family name and other factors i don't remember now
there really should be some training for people how to choose proper name and they should pass some basic test so their choice would be accepted because their child will be living with such name, not careless parents
there really should be some training for people how to choose proper name and they should pass some basic test so their choice would be accepted because their child will be living with such name, not careless parents
Tradition? Family tree? History? More women want to take the husband's name than vice versa? Because kids traditionally get the father's surname?
Isn't there real journalism that theatlantic can do rather than silly nonsense like this. I expect this from reddit's ELI5 rather than a supposedly respectable magazine. Also is every other headline from theatlantic going to be a question?
Isn't there real journalism that theatlantic can do rather than silly nonsense like this. I expect this from reddit's ELI5 rather than a supposedly respectable magazine. Also is every other headline from theatlantic going to be a question?
[deleted]
> In medieval England, men who married women from wealthier, more prestigious families would sometimes take their wife’s last name, says Stephanie Coontz, a professor of marriage and family history at Evergreen State College. From the 12th to the 15th century, Coontz told me, in many “highly hierarchical societies” in England and France, “class outweighed gender.”
It's not that I am particularly high-born; in fact, I think her family would count as much more high-status than mine. But her family name is very ordinary, and my surname sounds royal and is spelled in a very old-style aristocratic way. I strongly believe this has given me opportunities I would not otherwise have gotten, and it's something we both think it'd be foolish to give up.