The great name-changing debate

Recently there’s been some talk in the national media about the practice of women taking their husbands’ surnames when they marry. A few days ago, two similar and thought-provoking articles in the Irish Independent by writers Barbara Scully and Dearbhail McDonald – both self-declared feminists – examined the merits of the custom, with each expressing some surprise that in this enlightened age of feminism, women should be taking their husbands’ names at all.

For women in Ireland, historically the practice of changing name after marriage has almost been a foregone conclusion. However, the sands as ever are shifting, and there has been a quiet, but growing resistance to the custom. The aforementioned articles generated much debate on social media – including Twitter, where people just love a good argument – and the exchanges threw up some interesting perspectives on the tradition.

Many women who had kept their names said they did so to retain their own identity. For some, it amounted to a political statement; a public rejection of traditional patriarchal structures and notions of submission and subordination. Professional women argued – many from experience – that name-changing can negate years of work put into building a strong reputation or personal brand. Some, rather less optimistically, maintained that they wouldn’t want to be still called by their ex-husband’s names when – when! – they got divorced.

On the other hand, there were women who for various personal reasons embraced the chance to rid themselves of their old name and make a fresh start with a new one. More enjoyed the unity symbolised by their family all having the same surname, while others had happily adopted the double-barrelled system. Some declared that they just liked the novelty, or simply the old-fashioned romance of it all.

Bride And Groom Enjoying Meal At Wedding Reception

Men also contributed to the debate, many of whom declared it wouldn’t bother them either way. However, as McDonald herself mentioned, once the subject of children was broached that perspective tended to change. A small minority had taken their wives’ surnames after marriage, while others visibly balked at the notion. (The very idea!) Men and women alike wondered how the process would work within same-sex marriages. All in all, the exchanges demonstrated once again that nothing is ever black or white; the beauty of it being the freedom that exists for people to make the choice for themselves. Indeed most women were adamant that the decision should be theirs; not dictated by husbands, families or interfering in-laws, and that their preference should not be assumed by others, either – something to bear in mind when addressing your Christmas cards!

On that note, such was the interest in the topic that following McDonald’s article, the Irish Independent even ran a poll on the topic, asking “Should a woman take her husband’s surname?” And therein lies the rub. Women are constantly dictated to – how they should behave, how they should dress, the body shape they should  behave. As feminists, surely we should be asking why on earth should a woman have to do anything? Why would anyone assume they have the right to dictate to women what they should – or should not – be doing with their own names? Why are we not asking why more men don’t offer to make the change? But ultimately, whose business is it, anyway?

Scully’s article suggested that we follow the leads of jurisdictions such as Quebec and Greece (you won’t hear that too often these days) in actually outlawing the practice of wives taking their husbands’ names. This restriction also applies in countries like Netherlands, Belgium and France.  Japan, on the other hand, legally requires couples to adopt either one of the spouses’ surnames when married – but unsurprisingly and somewhat disappointingly, this means that 96% of women make the change.

What seems ludicrous in all of this is the idea of the State having any say either way in what is a private matter.

Implying that women who change their name are somehow damaging the feminist cause is a contradiction in terms. While the feminist argument appears in the main to be that women who take their husband’s names are complicit in preserving a patriarchal structure, surely true feminism means promoting  the freedom of women to make their own choices – including taking their husbands’ names if they wish – and supporting and respecting that freedom, even if the outcome contradicts your own philosophy? Judging women for making this choice is unnecessarily divisive, and  . once again assigns women with sole responsibility for changing societal norms.

There are plenty of battles yet to be fought by women in the quest for equality. This should not be one of them.

This column first appeared in the print version of The Mayo News on Tuesday 4th August 2015

4 thoughts on “The great name-changing debate

  1. Could not agree with you more … I want to make my own decisions and ‘not allowing’ me to do so, be it name changing or anything else that concerns me, would be stifling …. a change of name is refreshing for many – and it – in NO WAY damaged my feministic view on the world … as a matter of fact, it might have even given me more balls … new balls … ha ha .. great piece.

    • Reminds me of a time some years ago when I walked into a pub at home and the publican welcomed me with the usual ‘Hi Trace.” She then greeted my then-boyfriend as ‘Mr. Trace’!…

  2. Nice piece. I have been surprised at how many U.S. Female professionals, like academics, take their husbands name – given a divorce rate of 50%. Apparently this is why they do it though. Bringing up kids after divorce but with a different surname can be difficult eg when traveling, with schools etched.

  3. The ancient tradition in Eire was for married women to keep their own family name.
    The Roman Catholic notion of married women being breeders only and in needing of husbanding – animal husbandry-like cows for the system meant the forced name change. The wife became the husbands property as did the children.
    No mother was ever entitled to custody in 5000 years and only a few realise the law.
    The RC church control the family court system even in 2015. Annual Red Mass for all to see.
    When I see text “I am not a vessel” I realise the sisters do not realise the law- Roman law declares they are breeding vessels who berth/birth children through their waters- maritime- holy See law.
    Then the berth cert bonds the children- bond= slave and money is created from that bond.
    I never changed my name on marriage- simply because Mayo tradition in my family was that women kept their own names- clan names and it was easier as a teacher not to have students call me by a different name.
    I agree it is a choice for each woman and its no one elses business.
    Oh I got the whole lecture re changing my name-and the various depts gave me no choice either.
    I changed it officially by deed poll and that was the end of it.
    Its not so much the name – but feeling that I have the right to use any name I wish- blood family or not.
    I prefer to see us all as children of the Universe-rather than narrowing us down to blood families etc…….in the patriarchal divide and rule game.
    It is past time to stop judging and blaming women – Eve ill Eve for everything in the old catch 22 mind game.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s