The CBE Scroll

Comment by Jason

September 13, 2007 @ 10:57 pm

This is funny that I’m reading this. About an hour ago I was walking Rian, a sister in the Lord, home from Bible study to her apartment. She brought up the subject about changing her maiden name. I told her that she has every right to keep her maiden name. She is not forced to take her future husband’s name. Rian said she understands that but she was thinking about respecting her husband as the head of the household and having her children’s name. I told her (ignorantly) that her maiden name is her father’s name. I come to realize that her name is her name.

It is so true that it is primarily a Western cultural norm for a woman to take her husband’s name. I sometimes think about this. I know it’s my future wife’s decision to take my name as her name… or not. But, I also think about our children’s last name. Will it be my last name, hers, or both? This is challenging. I have to pray on this one to find some rest in my soul. Thank you for posting this, Mary Ann.

Comment by sally

September 14, 2007 @ 2:23 am

Personally, I think the French tradition is the best of a bad lot, if you must change names. The woman has a double-barreled name and the children have the father’s name.

So Mary Jones marrying Tom Smith would be Mary Jones-Smith.

It’s just a tradition. I sometimes wish I hadn’t changed mine. I did think long and hard about it though.

In the end we decided we wanted all of us to be the same – i.e. our children have the same last name as us. The other reason was we wanted to make it clear we were married, as opposed to just being partners, without having to explain ourselves all the time. And, because my changing my name was the more socially accepted norm, I did it.

We did consider the hyphenation possibility, but it sounded clunky.

I’m used to it now, and I like being closer to the front of the alphabet, but I do miss my old name.

Comment by Jadon

September 14, 2007 @ 3:13 am

This is why I’ve figured that both parties should sacrifice their original surnames for something else, whether an amalgam of them or completely different. Thusly, there is a distinction between unmarried and married people, and - if it dissolves - then the original name can be reprised. Moreover, both give up their names for the sake of the other. It makes sense to me, anyway.

Comment by PS

September 14, 2007 @ 6:47 am

I’ve been married thirty-four years. I did ‘give up’ my family name to ‘take’ my husband’s name. I don’t regret it, for several reasons, mainly because our family all has the same name.

My husband’s family name is an odd sounding name, one that sometimes gets made fun of. My husband-to-be said, ‘you don’t have to take my name.’ I said, ‘Well, you could take my name.’ My family name is one of the very common ones. He said that he didn’t want a name that so many people had; he was sticking with what he had.

So, I took his name. I realized many years ago that I feel many more ties to my husband, and hence to his name, than I did to the name of my childhood. It has been my name for thirty-four years and it is a one-of-a-kind name, so I am unique. I had no important history with my maiden name.

By the way, his sisters were glad to give up that family name when they got married!

I was recently looking up someone with my maiden name, and I found how hard it is to find somebody whose last name is common.

All that said, I am not and will never be Mrs. Man’s-First-Name Last-Name. I am My-First-Name Last-Name. Otherwise, if I were a third wife my name would be the same as the first and second wife.

My reasoning regarding name changes would have to be reconsidered if I were to go into a second marriage at some time. But I’ve known an older woman who married who kept her first married name because it is how people knew her - her adult children and her grandchildren.

Comment by Andrea

September 14, 2007 @ 9:27 am

I wrestled with this, too. I got married almost two years ago and in my early thirties. (I do think it’s harder to let go of a name the longer you’ve had it. Not to mention that I’d had a chance to become ‘me, the independent adult’ under that name, as opposed to me at twenty-two, when I was still strongly dependent on my parents.)

Anyway, the fact that my husband in no way ‘insisted’ I take his name was a factor. He was happy to share his name with me, but would be supportive and in agreement if I kept my name.

The other factor that played a huge part for me was an understanding of the way that the law works (at least in Canada): that I do not ‘change my name.’ The marriage license simply gives me the right to go by my maiden name or my spouse’s last name. At any time, I could go to the DMV, etc. and change it. They are both mine according to the law.

Somehow this helped - the idea that I wasn’t ‘abandoning’ my original name.

And then the ‘family’ factor was a big one, too. I wanted my children to have the same name as both of their parents.

So I changed it, though it has taken some getting used to. (Picture a bit of a pause when someone asks my name… or me signing the wrong signature on all kinds of things!)

Every once in awhile, I see someone who has known me for a few years, at least, and they automatically call out my name, saying my maiden name. Then they usually apologize. I’m never sad to hear it, but it’s partly because I don’t think I actually left it behind. I’m still me.

Comment by B-W

September 14, 2007 @ 9:39 am

This is an issue that more and more people are starting to wrestle with, as it becomes more acceptable to not ‘just accept’ what other people tell us is ‘right.’ For me and my wife, we hyphenated (‘B-W’ stands for ‘Baker-Wright’). My wife was told by her very conservative Catholic sister (important note: by this, I mean the sister is conservative compared to other Catholics, not suggesting that Catholics are, per se, conservative) that wanting to retain her own name suggested that my wife had ‘control issues.’ My dad was upset when he first heard about it, thinking that (somehow) a hyphenated name was somehow a loss of the original name. And, of course, quite a few folks have worried about what this might mean for our kids (which, itself, is not a foregone conclusion, and I wish folks would stop assuming that it is).

But, for the most part, our families have come to accept the situation as it is, even if they would not have made the same choices. There’s good news here, too, as many of our friends have been encouraged by our decision, and it has given them the strength to attempt similar actions when they’ve gotten married. There really is strength in numbers, and the numbers continue to grow.

That’s not say the resistance isn’t still there, of course…

Comment by Natalie

September 14, 2007 @ 10:07 am

Hi, Mary Ann. Thanks for sharing so candidly here. I know that God has been with you as you journey and trust him with all of these questions, wonderings, and new hopes and perspectives. It’s definitely encouraged me that you are so bold as to ask these questions to our Lord while considering the counsel of those you trust. I appreciate the honesty in both your qualms as well as in the bounds of your certainty in how to resolve the issue. I want to have our date sometime soon to chat more and pray for one another as we continue the journey.

I’m excited for your writing ministry, and the path you’re taking! Love, your friend Natalie.

Comment by Lainie

September 14, 2007 @ 10:54 am

A woman changing her name is primarily a cultural issue, not strictly a feminist one. In many parts of the world (including the Middle East) women don’t change their names, and it has nothing to do with feminism, it is just a cultural tradition.

I didn’t change my name, and while some family members chose not to respect this decision, it hasn’t given me much grief. Occasionally I get snarky about it and, say, refuse to attend a family event if the invitation is addressed to ‘Mr. and Mrs. Suchandso,’ but that is usually only when I don’t really want to attend anyway.

Funny but true: Occasionally my husband will have to visit the post office and pick up some mail for me. The postal workers will sometimes give him a hard time about his having a different last name than my own, but his standard reply is: ‘My wife is an ordained minister and had to keep her maiden name for professional reasons.’ The waters part when he says this and much respect (and my mail) is automatically given to him.

Comment by pw

September 14, 2007 @ 11:35 am

We married thirty years ago, when options were not so much talked about. The ‘Mrs.’ chose to take the ‘Mr.’s’ last name because it was a non-issue at the time (and probably would have anyways due to issues related to her family of origin). Over time, ‘Mr.’ became ‘Rev.’ and ‘Mrs.’ became ‘Dr.’

Please read the following with an eye for the absurd humor in it:

The church where ‘Rev.’ was an associate at the time (and the Senior Pastor was very much a believer in patriarchy) announced in the bulletin that Dr. Smith (another parishioner) and ‘Mrs.’ (Rev.’s wife) had both received their doctorates.

Years later, ‘Dr.’ and spouse were invited to participate in a prestigious event, which she accepted. Letters regarding the event began to come in addressed to ‘Dr. and Mrs.’ No amount of explaining that ‘Dr.’ was the ‘she’ in the relationship and ‘he’ was the spouse seemed to be able to clear this up.

Then, when the IRS sends out their summary of earnings, according to IRS records, ‘Dr.’ apparently took a pay cut that resulted in earning the amount made by him that year. And, ‘Rev.’ got an incredible pay raise earning the amount she had (i.e. the IRS had assumed ‘Dr.,’ the higher wage earner, was the male).

To add insult to injury, this last year, ‘Rev.’ had a parishioner come into his office and tell him that she (the parishioner) had been reading that a Godly wife learns how to live on her husband’s income. When ‘Rev.’ asked if she was saying that our marriage was not a Christian one because ‘Dr.’ earned considerably more, the woman refused to answer, only saying that her prior statement ‘said all that needed to be said.’

Fortunately, we take all of this with a ton of bemused humor (except for the IRS thing which we are trying to take action to change).

I write the above to say: do what God has put in your heart to do. Don’t expect others to understand or necessarily support. Take it all with a grain of salty humor and do good work (i.e. the goal is to be called a good and faithful servant by God).

Comment by kim

September 14, 2007 @ 11:35 am

I don’t think name changing can be either biblical or non-biblical, not the least because women in the Bible did not have last names. Last names are a more recent invention and I think changing one or not is of primarily cultural rather than religious significance.

Neither my husband nor I changed our names, in part because my name was such a part of my identity, but also because I didn’t agree with the underlying assumption that only the female partner had to give up something or take on something new. That my husband and I made the same decision about our names is a sign of our equality. I like the philosophy of both spouses hyphenating, but it didn’t work out aesthetically in our case. Additionally, our daughter has my husband’s last name, and my last name is her middle name.

Comment by Lolly

September 14, 2007 @ 11:57 am

See comment 67597.

It’s just a tradition. I sometimes wish I hadn’t changed mine. I did think long and hard about it though.

Changing names is such a hassle. I didn’t have any qualms about taking my husband’s name, though.

In the end we decided we wanted all of us to be the same – i.e. our children have the same last name as us.

Same here. Trying to juggle various names for various people in the same family just sounded too messy. Plus, there’s trying to explain to your kids why they have a different name than you.

The other reason was we wanted to make it clear we were married, as opposed to just being partners, without having to explain ourselves all the time.

Amen! In this day and age, when it’s increasingly acceptable for unmarried people to cohabitate, I want to make it loud and clear that we are married. One flesh, not two individuals who just happen to share a roof.

And because my changing my name was the more socially accepted norm, I did it.

We did consider the hyphenation possibility, but it sounded clunky.

I used to work in a pharmacy, where everything is alphabetized by patient last names. To be honest, hyphens were a pain. What name do you put them under, the first or the last? Plus, there is all the extra typing when you go to put the patient’s records in the computer. I prefer things nice and simple for my own name - first, middle, and last name.

In addition, I didn’t particularly like my maiden name. It was one of those that I always had to spell to other people. Therefore, it was kind of a relief to take my husband’s name, which I don’t have to spell.

As for the men in the original post who tried to justify women giving up their names biblically, that’s just silly. It’s simply an example of patriarchal people once again trying to find reasons in the Bible for their own cultural beliefs.

Comment by someone

September 14, 2007 @ 2:22 pm

I am twenty-four, recently got married and didn’t take my husband’s name. It wasn’t a difficult decision for me to make; ever since I was old enough to understand the tradition of female-name-changing-upon-marriage I’ve regarded it as sexist.

The concept is based in inequality - in the idea that women should have to ‘prove’ their love for and commitment to their husbands by making a sacrifice (and a pretty big sacrifice for some women) that men don’t have to make. Why start off a marriage on an unequal footing if you believe that inequality is a bad thing?

By the way, I don’t regard my name as my ‘maiden name’. It’s my name, just as my husband’s is his name. I’m looking forward to the day when the term ‘maiden name’ passes out of existence.

Comment by JLP

September 14, 2007 @ 3:49 pm

I know it’s traditional for Chinese women not to take their husband’s surname. However, the children do take their father’s surname.

I’m not sure, but I think there are other Asian nations in which women also do not traditionally take their husband’s surname.

Comment by PS

September 14, 2007 @ 4:18 pm

In Korea, the woman just keeps the same name she had when married. At least it is so these days, legally. I don’t remember the details, but I think that the woman used to not be called by any name after marriage, just ‘wife.’ Perhaps that is parallel to the Korean custom of children calling each other big brother, big sister, little sister, etc. instead of by name.

By the way, since there are several names in Korea that are extremely common, such as Kim, often the husband and wife do have the same name.

If a person reads obituaries and other family lists, you will see that nowadays there can be a number of different last names in the same family. We can’t assume anything about relationships anymore based on names.

Comment by PS

September 14, 2007 @ 4:21 pm

See this on family names.

Comment by Mary Ann

September 14, 2007 @ 4:22 pm

Yes, that is true, JLP (see comment 67666). In many Asian countries, there is no tradition of the wife taking her husband’s name. For example, I am Vietnamese. My mom has her family name and my dad has his family name. I grew up with parents who have different last names (that’s Vietnamese tradition); I was given my dad’s surname. If you look at married couples among Asian emigrants, you will find that this is not uncommon at all.

However, strangely enough, the children of these Asian emigrants who are born and raised in America acculturate ‘so well’ that the Asian-American woman often takes her husband’s name. The phenomenon extends further - the Asian churches in Asia (for example, in China) embrace God’s called and chosen ones regardless of gender (many women lead the churches in China). However, the Asian-American churches in America are very ‘conservative’ and espouse the complementarian mindset. From my observation, it seems to me that there’s more patriarchy among American-born Asians (who are Christians) than Asian-born Asians (who are Christians). I’ve been puzzling for a while over why this is true.

Comment by Mary Ann

September 14, 2007 @ 4:32 pm

B-W (see comment 67632), I really appreciated your input. My question is - so both you and your wife changed your name? You changed it too? (Is this common that when one hyphenates, both hyphenate too?) And, how did you decide which name goes first? My husband and I have discussed doing this but couldn’t decide which to put first.

Comment by jinnan-tonnyx

September 14, 2007 @ 7:24 pm

My husband and I got married two years ago and we decided that we would both take on a new last name and hyphenate them without old names (whenever we get around to filling out the paperwork and shelling out for the fee). For example, he will be ‘Mr. Smith-Lemoncake’ and I will be ‘Ms. Jones-Lemoncake.’ In the meantime we both use our own birth last names. Any kids we have will have our shared last name of ‘Lemoncake.’

Comment by sally

September 14, 2007 @ 7:59 pm

See comment 67696 by Jinnan-Tonnyx (cute acronym, by the way).

I definitely prefer Ms. to Mrs., but I’m over taking offense now.

Before I turned thirty it was especially irksome to be referred to as Mrs. - that seemed like an old lady name!

This is off the topic, but can anyone tell me how many hits this blog gets? I’m intrigued to know how many of us CBE bloggers and lurkers there are out there.

Comment by indie

September 14, 2007 @ 8:12 pm

It seemed kind of pointless to me to keep my maiden name since it was my father’s name and not my mother’s. How is keeping my father’s name feminist? Even if I had taken my mother’s name, it was her father’s and so on back through my ancestors.

Comment by Mary Ann

September 14, 2007 @ 9:10 pm

Referring to comment 67701, I think that for most women whose desire it is to keep their name, it’s not so much for the sake of being ‘feminist’ as much as the fact that it’s already their name, the one they grew up with, the name that identifies who they are and have been. It’s not my father’s name. It’s my name.

Comment by Susan

September 14, 2007 @ 9:37 pm

Your post brought me back. I have been married for sixteen years, but married late: I was nearly thirty-five. I had an established career under my own name and was determined to keep it.

What changed? As other things grew more important, that became less important. Once we had children, the emphasis was on them. Not only that, but it was simpler to be Mrs. M. It was much easier on my kids’ little friends. I ultimately opted to keep my own name as my middle name, and go by my married name. I’ve still only been married less than half the time I was single, but after a few years into the marriage, both identities felt like me.

Go with what works for you!

Comment by A.Lin

September 14, 2007 @ 11:47 pm

I was married at twenty, and I did change my name. It was before I had thought about any gender issues or what it would say about our new household. I just liked the way my name sounded with my husband’s surname. I dropped my middle name and I used my maiden name as my middle one instead. Sometimes I use my given, maiden, and last name all together.

My husband is Chinese. No one ever explained to me before how Asian women don’t change their name. I don’t think it would have mattered, though. I am in the South, and I did not know any woman personally who had kept her name.

I am happy with my name. It is my identity after almost eleven years of marriage. I am glad it is not confusing to decide on children’s last names. And, I do not remember that changing it was much of a hassle. It seemed to me that changing it because of marriage was much easier than changing it for another reason (like because of divorce). I never had to pay anything to change it - I just contacted the Social Security Administration, my banks, etc. No questions asked.

Comment by Jadon

September 15, 2007 @ 1:58 am

Jinnan-Tonnyx (see comment 67696):

Wow! If that’s true, you’re the only person to do something similar to what I suggested earlier. The hyphenation thing seems awkward a little, but then I tend to hate hyphenations in general. Quite creative, though.

Comment by JLP

September 15, 2007 @ 3:30 am

The Mrs. title bothers me. If a man’s title is not based on marriage, why should a woman’s be? And, what business is it of anyone’s whether a woman is married or not?

Comment by someone

September 15, 2007 @ 9:58 am

See comment 67701:

It seemed kind of pointless to me to keep my maiden name since it was my father’s name and not my mother’s. How is keeping my father’s name feminist? Even if I had taken my mother’s name, it was her father’s and so on back through my ancestors.

I disagree. If inheriting a surname means that that surname isn’t yours, then no one owns their surname, not your father, not your husband, no one (well, unless you go by a surname chosen and legally changed by yourself). If you believe that no one owns their surname, then fine, at least that’s consistent and not sexist. But the fact that you say ‘my father’s name’ implies that you believe that men own their surnames and women never do, which is a double standard.

My surname may be my father’s surname, but it is also my surname.

It is more feminist to keep my surname when I get married because every reason in favor of changing my surname to my husband’s is sexist.

Comment by Kate

September 17, 2007 @ 7:47 am

I have contemplated this situation since college. It’s not so much that I would object to having my husband’s last name, since I see it as a cultural tradition more than as an issue of patriarchy, but I love my last name. In high school and college, many people referred to me only by my last name, which made it even more a part of my identity.

Recently, I did hear a story about a couple who, wishing to flout sexist tradition but still wanting to identify by having the last name, traced their family lines until they found a common surname in both their families and then each took that. I probably wouldn’t expend this much effort, but it’s certainly a creative solution to a sometimes perplexing problem. Of course, some couples would have more trouble than others finding a common last name.

Comment by Alone

September 17, 2007 @ 10:25 am

I had the same debate when I got married. Here was our solution: I changed my last name to match my husband’s, and he took my last name as his middle name. We each then changed our driver’s licenses after we were married. This was a great solution for us - it represented that we were both becoming new people as part of a new whole in this marriage. I, too, had big issues with the fact that I was the only one changing - it represented the ideal (that I did not agree with) that he was staying the same and I was joining his team. Our solution showed we were joining each other’s teams.

Anyway, I would think it would be more biblical for the man to change his name… after all, it is the man who is told to leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (Genesis 2:24).

Comment by LMcC

September 17, 2007 @ 11:02 am

I had wanted to use both last names when I married (scandalous as that may have been in my old southern family), but I ended up just changing to his last name when the person at the Social Security office was going to be no help when it came to answering some last-minute questions.

I am a late-life bride, so I have a lifetime’s worth of paperwork in my old name: a mortgage, job records, and so on. I’m still not through making the switch. It has been strange and difficult to have to watch everything I’ve worked for by myself disappear into this other identity. In one case (my soon-to-be-ex-bank), it’s like I’m a different customer entirely. My accounts have been completely messed up thanks to the name change, and I’ve had to clean up the bank’s mistakes more than once. (On the other hand, a certain credit card company has gone out of its way to make sure I stay happy with it since the wedding, so there are some reasonable financial institutions out there.) At best, name changing is an annoyance. Usually, at least one thing besides the Social Security office will create a major-league headache.

To add insult to injury, only after I had begun the name change process did my husband say that he didn’t expect me to change my name. He even said if I wanted to change my name back, he’d understand. Nice offer, but I really didn’t want to see the inside of the Social Security office again.

For all of those people who think that women should automatically change their names, I say don’t push it until you’ve done it yourself. Only after you’ve had to watch your own identity slip away, after you’ve had to straighten out a financial problem someone else made because of the name change, only after you’ve had to make all the calls and do the paperwork, then maybe you might have room to talk. Until then, leave it alone.

Comment by ShawnaRenee

September 17, 2007 @ 3:47 pm

Hi, Mary Ann. Thanks for your post. I did a both/and thing. I kept my maiden name and added my husband’s. But, my maiden name acts as a second middle name, so I don’t have to hyphenate. That’s why I’m Shawna R.B. Atteberry - Shawna Renee Bound Atteberry.

Comment by myste

September 17, 2007 @ 5:21 pm

Jadon (see comment 67742), my fiancé and I are doing something similar to your idea. We wanted to symbolize that we are both changing and so both take on new names, but our names didn’t sound right hyphenated. My fiancé was the one that came up with the idea of taking my Mom’s last name. I began using it socially about 12 years ago when my parents were divorced but never got it legally changed. I love the name and had planned to make it legal when I got married (free name change and all). So, now we are both changing, and it’s not just ‘another man’s’ (i.e. my father’s) name, but a woman’s and the only woman in our family who bears the name.

As far as children are concerned, we are committed to not having biological children, but my policy has always been, any children I give birth to get my name and any he does get his!

Alone (see comment 68001), I love your solution and I always thought the same thing about the Genesis verse! Why is it that Christian culture expects the woman to become part of the man’s family, when the only directive given is for the man to leave his family and begin one with his wife?

Comment by Donna

September 17, 2007 @ 6:56 pm

It is so true that it is primarily a Western cultural norm for a woman to take her husband’s name.

Please excuse me, but this is one of my pet peeves. What do you mean by ‘Western cultural norms?’ All over Latin America, all keep their father’s name throughout their lives. Women’s names do not change when they get married. Then, the name they take is very much their father’s name first, followed by their mother’s name. The father is first, as the head of the household, then follows the mother’s name.

For example, in South America, I was Donna Kaiyala Blair. Our daughter is Catherine Carlaw Kaiyala.

Please understand that Western culture is much broader than how you are defining it. Also, understand that Western culture has always recognized father rule. You may try to institute a new system if you wish. It is a free country. However, please don’t try to redefine Western cultural norms as if you are promoting them.

No, that does not make you wrong, and patriarchalists right, but please keep the fact straight at least.

Comment by The Happy Rock

September 18, 2007 @ 9:39 am

My wife and I went around and around on this. She ultimately didn’t change her name, although our son has my name.

I wanted for us both to hyphenate because it seemed logical, but my wife wasn’t comfortable with that idea. I respected her decision.

There are some other considerations too… I am the last male in my family, so my father’s family name would have died, and my wife is one of five sisters, so her father’s name would have been lost too.

Comment by reJoyce

September 18, 2007 @ 10:41 am

Indie (see comment 67701): I agree.

Comment by Tami

September 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pm

Lots of desire to maintain our own identity here - I admit that while I tend to lean much to the egalitarian side of things, I have never joined this one. I took my first husband’s name. I kept it until I got married again and took that husband’s name. In four years, I will have been this current version of ‘me’ longer than any other.

But let’s look at this one from a different perspective: growing up a girl. How many times did I hear my parents lament that my father’s name was ‘dying.’ He and his brother were the only ones left and both had only girls - no one to carry on the name.

I’m sure you can imagine how that affects the self-image of a daughter who grows up knowing that she can’t love her father enough to carry on his name, to be his little bit of immortality.

Can you imagine how happy I was when I had my first child - a boy, knowing that my husband’s name would continue? (And yes, I am fully aware that it was his gamete that decided the matter, not mine!)

I was also so proud to be able to present my parents with a grandson when I had failed so miserably in being the son they so wanted. (Dad had a baby brother who died at eight hours old. We all were ‘supposed’ to be boys and named after this brother. I named my son after this uncle I never knew.)

It goes much farther than what name we use as adults. For me, it was no big deal. I’d grown up with the expectation that the name I carried was only ‘on loan.’

Comment by JLP

September 18, 2007 @ 2:24 pm

Donna (see comment 68042), You said:

Please understand that Western culture is much broader than how you are defining it. Also, understand that Western culture has always recognized father rule. You may try to institute a new system if you wish. It is a free country. However, please don’t try to redefine Western cultural norms as if you are promoting them.

Was this meant to insult us, or to set us straight? Should I take offense at this, or am I reading too much into it?

Comment by Renee

September 18, 2007 @ 3:15 pm

I think she was upset that ‘Western’ included only the white English-speaking world, and not the Spanish-speaking world. Not that I can interpret anyone’s thoughts, of course.

I think ‘Western’ is one of those terms that gets bandied about a lot, so people don’t understand what it means.

This discussion is interesting. It’s funny you should have posted this; I have been thinking about this very issue.

I don’t know whether I will change my last name or not. I do think of it as my father’s name because it identifies me as my father’s daughter. It does not reflect who I am as my mother’s daughter. I think my society would frown on my passing it on. It is my name because I use it, but it does not carry with it the sense of permanence that a guy’s name does. I get the feeling that, especially at this age, people are holding their breath, waiting for my name to change. If you think about it, this is probably why parents go to such trouble and creativity with girls’ names: to make sure they have an identity marker. Boys’ names are plainer because they’ll always have the family name.

But right now I feel like taking a husband’s name would be worse because it would not be given to me because of who I was born to but because of who I was married to, as if being married or not was the most important thing about me.

To add to the diversity, I should note that I am Jamaican. Name change is assumed upon marriage. Many women are dying to change their names and be addressed as ‘Mrs.’ Still, many women hyphenate their names, adding the husband’s last, so double-barreled names are common and they are not seen as being feminist.

I know someone with a hyphenated name and she wishes she’d changed it completely because of all the problems (the mail, the filing, the bank signatures, which account was to be signed in her hyphenated name, and which was in the married name). Most of the time, she is called by her married name as most women who have double-barreled names are, since people can’t bother with the names. I guess the double name is kind of a transition period for some.

And people have told me it’s just a name. But if it’s just a name, why is it such a big deal if I don’t want to change it for all the reasons listed above? If I do change, it will probably be because of the children issue and because I can’t deal with the people at church and everybody who expects me to want to have a married name.

As for the Latin American names, that tradition is patriarchal as well. My hunch is that the names were originally kept not because of any recognition of a woman’s importance but because the father’s name and the mother’s father’s name were too important to lose.

Comment by JLP

September 18, 2007 @ 3:32 pm

I can’t understand why Donna (see comment 68042) would say I was changing Western cultural norms as if I was promoting them? Or, was she saying this to someone else and just addressing to all of us.

And, was this meant as a put down?

Comment by historyloveralways

September 18, 2007 @ 5:46 pm

Donna (see comment 68042), the next time you post a criticism here you should specify whose idea you are criticizing, and which post it’s in. Otherwise, a generic criticism like you made above appears to apply to everyone. Since no one knows exactly what you are referring to, no one knows how to respond. And, everyone thinks you are criticizing them.

When you said:

However, please don’t try to redefine Western cultural norms as if you are promoting them.

Please tell us which posts (by number) you are responding to. This gives the people you are addressing an opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding between you and them.

Comment by Sarah H

September 18, 2007 @ 7:33 pm

This has been an interesting thread!

The name-change dilemma was a hard one for me since I had for years wanted to keep my father’s name (for much the same reason as Tami (see comment 68107) - wanting to keep the ‘family name’ alive). It also was a part of who I was.

But, when the decision to make a name change came around, I found that it wasn’t as easy as I thought. I married a man with an unusual last name and considered hyphenating, but it sounded clunky in both permutations. I considered keeping my own name, but it was important to him that we have the same last name - more important than it was for me to keep mine. Also, I had the added advantage of switching out a woefully common last name (500+ Google hits of my full given name) for an unusual new last name. The added complication that made this a non-sexist issue for me is that my husband lost his father at a very young age, so his last name is a connection to his father that he would lose if he took my name or if we hyphenated or came up with a new name. That nuance made it impossible for me to make a purely feminist decision in the matter. Plus, like another Canadian who posted above, I can use both names still… my husband’s name is just an alias (but don’t tell him that!).

On a side-note: I love being Mrs.! I’m only in my late twenties and still get called Ms. from time to time. I don’t mind being Ms., but in a culture (Canada) where marriage is becoming more of a lifestyle choice than an inevitability, I like being able to declare my commitment to my husband by being Mrs. Now, if only he had a good way to make the same declaration…

Comment by PS

September 19, 2007 @ 7:40 am

Comment 68123 said:

But right now I feel like taking a husband’s name would be worse because it would not be given to me because of who I was born to but because of who I was married to, as if being married or not was the most important thing about me.

Well, you would be ‘choosing’ who you marry, but you don’t choose your father.

Comment by Lolly

September 20, 2007 @ 12:42 pm

See comment 68144.

On a side-note: I love being Mrs.! I’m only in my late twenties and still get called Ms. from time to time. I don’t mind being Ms., but in a culture (Canada) where marriage is becoming more of a lifestyle choice than an inevitability, I like being able to declare my commitment to my husband by being Mrs. Now, if only he had a good way to make the same declaration…

Same here! I always choose ‘Mrs.’ on forms. I didn’t get married until my thirties, so at first I was just expressing how happy I felt at no longer being alone. Now, however, I’m like you. In this day and age when marriage is disappearing like a tumbleweed in the wind, I want to declare that I’m ‘old-fashioned’ enough to support it.

Comment by historyloveralways

September 20, 2007 @ 5:50 pm

I can’t wait for the day when a woman finally takes the title of ‘president!’

Comment by Donna

September 20, 2007 @ 11:53 pm

See comment 68120.

Was this meant to insult us, or to set us straight?

Take it however you wish. Even so, Western culture is much broader than simply the United States. It is broader even than the English-speaking world. To say something like ‘in Western culture’ or ‘in the West’ we do thus and so, when you really mean ‘here in the United States’ or ‘in the English-speaking world’ we do this or that is, well, kind of narrow at the very least.

So, if you want to be offended by that, then please feel free. If you want to be set straight by it, then that is also your choice.

Comment by jlp

September 21, 2007 @ 2:30 am

Donna (see comment 68404), tell me specifically what provoked you to say:

Please understand that Western culture is much broader than how you are defining it. Also, understand that Western culture has always recognized father rule. You may try to institute a new system if you wish. It is a free country. However, please don’t try to redefine Western cultural norms as if you are promoting them.

Of course Western culture has always had father rule. I’ve always known that. When did I ever say anything that didn’t recognize this? Please quote me directly. How am I trying to institute a new system? Quote me directly. How I am redefining Western cultural norms? Quote me directly. Also - you didn’t set me straight on anything. And you didn’t insult me, you just irritated me.

Comment by Lolly

September 21, 2007 @ 5:47 am

Western society has also, for most of its history, declared that Jewish people were non-people who deserved to be persecuted.

Western society, for most of its history, has declared that black people had a curse put on them by God and therefore deserved slavery.

Should we try to change that?

Comment by Amy

September 21, 2007 @ 9:36 am

I married in 1992. I would have preferred for my husband and I to pick a new name to share together or to somehow combine our names. But, he wanted to retain his name. We had some intense conversations about it.

I felt that to change my name to his would be a grossly inaccurate reflection of my concept of marriage, which is that it is the union of equals. To me, it would have been demeaning and started us off on the wrong foot. I did originally agree to hyphenate my name, which would partially fulfill both our desires to have the same name. But we both quickly realized what a pain this would be, so even before we actually married we agreed that I would just keep my name. So, it wasn’t the ideal solution for either of us, but it was a good experience for us to respectfully work out a real issue until we reached consensus. It set the precedent for how we would handle future issues.

I have no regrets about keeping my name. Everyone worries that it will be so inconvenient, but actually the times of confusion or hassle have been surprisingly low. Even when we were in the military or at conservative churches, I honestly cannot even think of one person who was not polite and cooperative about it. (They may not have agreed… they might have talked behind my back… I don’t know.) Attitude is everything. If you have a positive, firm attitude about your name and expect the same from others, you will receive it most of the time.

In the first few years of our marriage, I did sometimes feel guilty about keeping my name because I knew my husband would have preferred for me to take his name so we could have the same name and wouldn’t be different from everyone else (he was more the ‘short hair conformist’ type and I was more the, ‘yes, I have a pierced nose’ type). But, then I learned that he truly was totally accepting and supportive of the decision we had agreed upon. He was not begrudging or resentful. So the guilt was something I was laying on myself and I was free to walk away from.

Now I feel very proud of my decision and that I am setting an example for other people that there are other options. I don’t worry about whether people will think we aren’t married. I wear a wedding ring; I refer to my husband as ‘my husband;’ it is very clear that we are married. Plus, now that my children are in elementary school, I see how difficult it is for those single moms; I have no desire to promote myself as superior because I’m married. I feel sympathy for them and want to come alongside and support them because parenting is so difficult - even with a spouse! I think having a different last name - as these single moms do - might actually make me more accessible, more relatable. If there are other parents who disapprove of me because they think we’re divorced or cohabiting, I really don’t care - and as I said, ten seconds of conversation would correct their misunderstanding.

We gave our children my last name as their middle name and my husband’s last name as their last name. This was no problem at all for me, because my issue is the act of changing from one name to another, not that I particularly desire my name to be passed down. (Even though my name is a very easy, pleasant sounding name and my husband’s is a long one that nobody seems to like…) It has never bothered me since I associate it with my husband.)

I respect each woman’s right to keep or change her name as she desires. I have never suggested to any woman that she ought to keep her name. However, if you have apprehensions about changing your name, I will say that I am so glad that I kept my name. It was consistent with my vision of myself and how I wanted to relate not only to my husband but with the world. I feel confident and strong having resisted cultural pressure and done what I thought was right. (I am not suggesting that women who change their names are not confident and strong!) I have a very happy marriage which is based not on one person caving in under pressure to keep things happy, but rather on two people honestly sharing what they want and need and then laboring to find the solution - which often involves compromise - that fosters the health of all members of the family. Once you have kids, this becomes all the more important because it’s so easy for the wife to devolve into the household servant.

As a side note: I believe in Iceland the tradition is that if, let’s say, ‘Ander’ and ‘Olga’ have a son named ‘Leif’ and a daughter named ‘Myrtle,’ their names would be Leif Anderson and Myrtle Olgastocker (‘daughter’).

Also, I wonder if Genesis 2:24 offers an argument for a man changing his name to his wife’s: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.’ Why does it say the man leaves his family, but says nothing reciprocal about the woman? Doesn’t a woman changing her name imply that she is leaving her family and joining his? But, isn’t that opposite of the expectation expressed in Genesis 2:24? (This did not occur to me back in 1992!)

Comment by J.J.

September 21, 2007 @ 11:09 am

I decided to keep my name because it has been my identity for my whole life, and it actually felt more like unity with my husband if I were bringing my name into the marriage with him, just like what he brought. I have been married for ten years now and am happy with the decision. However, before I married I did think over this, and I came to a very helpful conclusion, and it is this.

We all actually go by many names: first-name, Ms. (or in my case Dr.) so-and-so, mom, sis, nick-name, aunt first-name, etc. I realized that I could actually marry Mr. X, and be both Dr. so-and-so (my name) and Mrs. X; they are both accurate. So while legally (and for most of my social contacts) I am Dr. so-and-so (my original name), I am just fine if someone (with no ill-intent) calls me Mrs. X, because that’s true about me too! Just like if they had called me auntie, or sis, etc. So sometimes, for example, people (usually elderly) at church will list me as Mrs. X, or a relative will address cards, for simplicity, to my-first-name and his-first-name X, and I’ve decided to accept that as just fine, too (since these people are not doing this to make some point). It’s a decision that’s allowed me to take this all lightly.

However, I think this has been easy for my husband and myself because we live for the most part in the professional world where keeping original names in marriage is very common. I think this must be much harder for couples who live in different daily environments. What I strongly advocate is freedom of choice on this.

Comment by Donna

September 21, 2007 @ 4:11 pm

See comment 68430.

Also - you didn’t set me straight on anything. And you didn’t insult me, you just irritated me.

Thank you for your honest answer. You irritated me, too. I’m glad that we go that out of the way.

How about a woman keeping her own family name and adding her husband’s family name - which is what last names are, after all? When we marry, two individuals are joined, and so are two families. The husband’s name could be a middle name or last name - that would not matter to me, anyway, and should not matter to anyone else as far as I could see.

Then, a woman could use both last names if she wishes.

It’s just a thought, if someone wishes in a name to keep one’s individuality yet also show the oneness in marriage.

Of course, because I said it, it will be irritating…

Comment by Donna

September 21, 2007 @ 4:15 pm

See comment 68481.

What I strongly advocate is freedom of choice on this.

The laws of our state, anyway, have been set up this way for many years. You are free. Why should you care what others think on the matter? It is between you and your husband, in my opinion.

No one forced me legally to take my husband’s name. What I regret is giving up my maiden name. I could have kept it as my middle name. I did not want to give up my middle name, since it was my grandmother’s sister’s name. So, to honor her, I kept my middle name.

I should have insisted on keeping it all, actually.

Comment by Donna

September 21, 2007 @ 4:20 pm

See comment 68451.

Western society has also, for most of its history, declared that Jewish people were non-people who deserved to be persecuted.

So, then, Western society has done nothing better than persecute the Jews?

What is that logical fallacy about leaving out any middle ground?

What about Western music, art, science, literature, architecture, and flush toilets? Don’t you like any of those things?

Comment by Mary

September 21, 2007 @ 5:04 pm

Donna (see comment 68514), that was uncalled for. You know perfectly well that Lolly didn’t claim to be making an inclusive list. She merely pointed out another of the negative things that has been accepted historically in Western culture. Talk about logical fallacies! It’s a doozy of one to accuse someone of saying something she didn’t say.

How about addressing what people actually say, instead of some critical, negative thing you choose to twist it into? You’re better than this.

Comment by tiro

September 21, 2007 @ 6:35 pm

I agree, Mary (see comment 68520). This subject isn’t one that needs war flags set up.

So much of society never had last names until recently. Their references were the city they were from for a long time - Soandso of/from Tarsus, etc. And then, people were given nicknames that stuck, like Nabal (of Abigail and Nabal).

‘Now the name of the man was Nabal; and the name of his wife Abigail: and she was a woman of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance: but the man was churlish and evil in his doings; and he was of the house of Caleb.’ (1 Samuel 25:3, KJV)

In the end-all it’s only as important as we want to make it.

Comment by Donna

September 21, 2007 @ 8:46 pm

See comment 68520.

Donna (see comment 68514), that was uncalled for. You know perfectly well that Lolly didn’t claim to be making an inclusive list. She merely pointed out another of the negative things that has been accepted historically in Western culture. Talk about logical fallacies! It’s a doozy of one to accuse someone of saying something she didn’t say.

How about addressing what people actually say, instead of some critical, negative thing you choose to twist it into? You’re better than this.

Ladies, you never fail to disappoint me…

Comment by Liz

September 21, 2007 @ 10:29 pm

I haven’t anything to contribute replying to name-changing, although I would do things differently now, forty-one years on! However, I am very disappointed in the critical, sarcastic nature of some recent posts. Please let us not fall into the category of so many other forums, where people use their anonymity to be unkind to others.

CBE stands for mutual respect, among other things, so let’s keep it going!

Comment by Mary

September 22, 2007 @ 9:27 am

Holding you accountable for what you say, Donna (see comment 68538), shouldn’t be disappointing to you. In fact, it shouldn’t be necessary, because it is your responsibility as an adult Christian to speak the truth. Nobody’s persecuting you when they object to your twisting the truth. You are in control of your own truthfulness.

To deal with the substance here:

Anti-semitism and bigotry, in general, is a worldly tradition historically upheld by Western culture. Slavery is a worldly tradition historically upheld by Western culture. Patriarchy is a worldly tradition historically upheld by Western (including non-English-speaking) culture. Specific to this thread: demands for conformity to the modern English-speaking tradition of women giving up their family names and taking their husbands’ family names upon marriage, are integrally linked to patriarchal tradition.

All three abuses of power (patriarchy, anti-semitism, and slavery) are incompatible with biblical standards of human behavior, and as Christians we need to stand against them and work to end these practices.

That in no way diminishes the various good things that are also a part of historic Western culture.

Comment by Donna

September 22, 2007 @ 10:48 am

However, I don’t personally believe a woman changing her name is a biblical mandate. It’s a part of Western culture and tradition, one that has been deeply influenced by patriarchy, but it is not the equivalent to godliness.

This is the comment that I found offensive, actually. Yes, I may as well admit that.

First, it is offensive because of the very narrow definition of ‘Western culture.’ Why try to explain that not all women in all the Western world give up their names when they marry? It is part of our culture in the United States, but that is hardly all of Western culture, as much as I love my own country.

Then, of course I am offended for the way that patriarchy is maligned by you good folks. Is there nothing good about your fathers that you must take every opportunity to bash patriarchy? Of course, it is your blog, so you have the right to do that. You have the freedom of speech to do that - a freedom that was won by our forefathers, after all.

Then, the way that you treat anyone who disagrees with you is really, really deplorable. It is doubly so, since you pretend that you are somehow the innocent victims of those evil patriarchalists. How about a little self-examination there? What seems to be a total lack of self-analysis while picking out the weaknesses of everyone else is frankly one of the things that turned me off to egalitarianism.

So, while we’re being honest…

See comment 68137.

Please tell us which posts (by number) you are responding to. This gives the people you are addressing an opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding between you and them.

That is impossible. I do appreciate your different tone with me, though. It is refreshing.

Even so, there is no way to clear up misunderstanding between you folks and myself. Some responding to this post are predisposed to hatred towards me. I am one of those evil patriarchalists who must be destroyed at any cost. You couldn’t possibly learn anything from me. I couldn’t possibly have anything of value to say.

You will have to explain yourselves on that. I have no explanation for it. You good people will have to search your own hearts and come up with an answer to that one, why you are so unkind to me.

This will be my last comment on this thread and probably on this blog. Now, have at me. Rip me to shreds. Please do it in public, though. No one is invited to my blog or my inbox to continue your ‘love fest.’ I think that some of you who love to tell others to repent need to do a little repenting yourselves.

I do not mind dialogue, but I do mind some other things. There was nothing wrong with my original comment that I should get the nasty comments that I have gotten from some.

Comment by tiro

September 22, 2007 @ 11:30 am

If anyone wants to see the driving forces behind Donna’s accusations you can see years and years of vitriolic fumings toward Christian women and men who believe in biblical equality at the Yahoo public group CCC here, founded by one of the Bayly Brothers (at whose blog you can see Donna’s participation, also) whose blog can be found here, and now run by the founder of the Five Aspects Group (Mouser, who also participates on the Bayly Blog) who may be found here.

Donna, I truly pray for your peace and blessings in Christ.

Comment by Mary

September 22, 2007 @ 1:58 pm

And actually, this statement from your original comment here was highly accusatory, Donna (see comment 68042).

However, please don’t try to redefine Western cultural norms as if you are promoting them.

It was that statement that you were challenged about, especially since not until your last ad hominem-laced comment did you indicate what you actually chose to base your offense on; no one knew just what you were lashing out about.

When one chooses to make a blanket accusation, a mature, reasonable human being should expect to be questioned and challenged about that accusation.

Comment by Donna L. Carlaw

September 23, 2007 @ 12:37 am

Mary (see comment 68603), I love you.

Comment by Mary Ann

September 23, 2007 @ 12:57 am

Hi, Donna (see comment 68590). So, you were offended by this statement all along? Why didn’t you say so? I retract that part of my previous statement and replace it by saying:

‘However, I don’t personally believe a woman changing her name is a biblical mandate. It’s a part of American culture and tradition, one that has been deeply influenced by patriarchy, but it is not the equivalent to godliness.’

When I wrote my entry, I was careful not to do any ‘bashing’ of patriarchs, and just now, I re-read it to see if I did. And through some personal ‘self-examination,’ I see that I have not.

Donna, I don’t have any intentions of bashing you or any other ‘patriarchs,’ as you fear. It wasn’t that long ago that I was a complementarian, so I know how you feel about things. I am absolutely open to discussion. I’m sure you have things of value to say. I don’t wish to destroy you or ‘rip you to shreds.’ We egalitarians are not as evil and close-minded as you think! I’m sorry that this is the impression that you get from egalitarians. I hope that this image will be changed in time.

Comment by Mary

September 23, 2007 @ 3:04 am

I love you, too, Donna (see comment 68637). I’m not smiling about it or making a mockery of that statement, though, because I’m still genuinely saddened by what you’ve said here. It was untruthful and unnecessary, a willful lashing out at brothers and sisters in the Lord based on falsehoods you apparently believe or at least are attempting to spread about biblical equality. You’ve made no attempt to either retract your false accusations or at least to substantiate some reason why you made them in the first place. ‘I love you’ sounds pretty disingenuous when it follows such diatribe.

Whatever is behind your recent statements, I pray that you find peace.

Comment by Donna

September 23, 2007 @ 3:33 pm

See comment 68643.

I love you, too, Donna. I’m not smiling about it or making a mockery of that statement…

Mary, thank you for saying that. By the way, certainly you are not implying that I was mocking you in saying that I love you. The smile was a demonstration of good will. You can’t see me, or see my face. The little icons help at times, I think.

So, thank you Mary, for your expression of love.

I’m giving you a happy face, Mary, because love, even from someone we disagree with strongly, should put a smile on our faces at the very least. God bless, you, and please take care.

Comment by Donna

September 23, 2007 @ 4:15 pm

Hello, Mary Ann. How are you doing? This is how I generally begin all of my comments. It is a genuine question, too. I hope that you and your loved ones are well. Thank you for responding to my comments. I appreciate that.

This is pretty much how I respond to others online. It has been my pattern for several years, now. I am shocked at times when I have been mocked for this - and I have been. It is called being polite, and showing a genuine interest in others. It is a way of recognizing one another’s human needs, even though at times we may strongly disagree.

See comment 68639.

So, you were offended by this statement all along? Why didn’t you say so?

Mary Ann, it is impossible in a long thread to remember everything that everyone has said. However, my first words were, ‘Please excuse me, but this is one of my pet peeves.’ I think that the words ‘pet peeve’ shows that I was not happy with your statement.

I explained why, too. Western culture is much broader than what most living in America believe it to be. I spent many years living in South America. I am fluent in Spanish, our daughter was born in South America and her first language was Spanish, and I travel extensively throughout Latin America, having been in Nicaragua, Brazil - all over the country - Chile, Ecuador, and many places in Mexico just this year - plus stopovers in many other countries of Latin America. All of this counts as ‘Western culture.’ These are all Western countries, with a lot of indigenous influence mixed in. The dominant culture is very much European-based, though, in all of these places.

So, it’s like nails on a chalk-board for me to hear ‘in the West, we do this or that,’ when what is really meant is ‘in the United States, or the English-speaking world’ we do thus or so. Please excuse me for going off on you.

I retract that part of my previous statement…

Mary Ann, you don’t need to retract anything just because I may have a pet peeve.

…and replace it by saying,

‘However, I don’t personally believe a woman changing her name is a biblical mandate. It’s a part of American culture and tradition, one that has been deeply influenced by patriarchy, but it is not the equivalent to godliness.’

That is a much more accurate statement, and reflects better what you are trying to communicate, in my opinion, of course.

Of course, I don’t have a problem with biblical patriarchy at all, so I guess that patriarchy would be one of your pet peeves? Yes, the smiley face is just that. I mean that I am smiling while I say that, and teasing you just a wee bit, in order to relieve any tension that there may be between us.

You have your pet peeves. I have mine. One of our very dearly held traditions here in the United States is our freedom of speech, after all.

When I wrote my entry, I was careful not to do any ‘bashing’ of patriarchs, and just now, I re-read it to see if I did. And through some personal ‘self-examination,’ I see that I have not.

I am sure that you intended no malice. However, the feminist default position is anti-patriarchal. The patriarchal default position is anti-feminist. They are two mutually-exclusive systems. That is why we patriarchalist/complementarian/traditionalists will always conflict with feminist/egalitarian/non-traditionalists.

Of course, we don’t disagree on every jot and tittle of every issue, but we are supporting two conflicting worldviews - as I am sure you well know. I see no way of resolving that, but we can define and accept reality, maybe?

Donna, I don’t have any intentions of bashing you or any other ‘patriarchs,’ as you fear.

I am glad that you have no wrong intentions. I believe you. Do I fear being bashed? I’m not sure. Oh, it will happen, and it happened in this thread. I could make a list for you of the things that have been hurled at me - liar is probably the most obvious insinuation.

I believe you when you say that you have no malice towards me. I have received dozens of hate e-mails from feminists and their sympathizers, as well as several intimidating phone calls. I even closed down my blog for a time because of the harassment. It did start to scare me a bit, but I now realize that there were no real threats being made.

It wasn’t that long ago that I was a complementarian, so I know how you feel about things.

I am sure that you understand how I feel about some things. I doubt that you understand where I am coming from. In fact, I have never met anyone who thinks as I do about things anyway.

I am absolutely open to discussion.

Cool. I like that. I am too.

I’m sure you have things of value to say.

I agree totally!

I don’t wish to destroy you or ‘rip you to shreds.’ We egalitarians are not as evil and close-minded as you think.

Thank you, Mary Ann. I don’t think that egalitarians are more sinful than anyone else, but I do think that you are as sinful as the rest of the human race, in that we, we are equally fallen, and equally in need of our strong Savior, Jesus Christ.

It’s the pretending that I can’t stomach. You know? Egalitarians pretending that they are more spiritual than those evil patriarchalists? I run into that a lot, and since I am being honest here, it makes me want to hurl chunks!

I’m sorry that this is the impression that you get from egalitarians. I hope that this image will be changed in time.

Oh, I have a realistic view of egalitarians. I don’t think that egalitarians demonstrate a realistic view of themselves. They certainly do not have a realistic view of me or patriarchalists.

By the way, laugh if you wish. I will be involved in an evangelistic outreach to children through CEF along with some local egalitarians. I think that’s funny, myself. No, we do not talk about that. Of course, this group is mildly egalitarian, even quite traditional in many ways.

Anyway, God bless, Mary Ann, and please take care. I appreciate your time.

Comment by bliss

September 24, 2007 @ 3:03 pm

I’m glad this was made a topic. So first, thanks, Mary Ann. I recently got married to a man I’d been with for six years. Although the time we dated really has nothing to do with whether or not you keep your ‘maiden’ name, for me it was not a big decision, it came very naturally for us both to hyphenate. He changed his, and I changed mine. We grew together with our original names, and when we decided to publicly announce our dedication to one another to our family, friends, and our Lord, it made sense for us both to become a part of one another. I have many friends that have taken their husband’s name, and I don’t think that’s wrong or bad, nor particularly biblical, it just wasn’t how we wanted to be represented. And, if we have kids, they’ll just have long names. And if they marry, it’s their decision, but there’ll be no doubt where they came from.

Comment by Katrina

September 24, 2007 @ 9:11 pm

How are you going to name your children? You could use your last name as their middle name and his last name as their last, but then they will still be passing on the male last name to their children.

Comment by Lilith

September 25, 2007 @ 1:30 am

I was twenty-two years old when I got married. I decided to take on my husband’s name, because when I mentioned keeping my own, he looked rejected. I considered the hyphen, but (truthfully) just wanted to keep my identity. People knew my full name. I liked being able to remind old acquaintances about who I was ‘by my name.’ Usually, the name stuck in their head. I had to grieve the loss of recognition. It was a true grief. I felt like I was giving up my life. I thought it would be more like a family though if all our children had ‘our’ last name. His became mine.

Comment by Administrator

September 25, 2007 @ 9:23 am

CBE Scroll Bloggers, thank you all for your comments on this thread and your continued discussion of the topic at hand. I thank all of you for your willingness to take part in a conversation where you feel safe enough to hold strong beliefs and to state your opinions on this matter.

I apologize that of late I have not been patrolling the blog, and this post in particular, as closely as I could have been.

Concerning certain comments on this post, it seems that they have simply become a matter of personal argument, and not in keeping with the group discussion, nor the stated guidelines of the blog, particularly items one and two listed under ‘Comment Guidelines.’

I allowed some of the comments to enter the discussion, as they were still relevant to the topic, but at this point, I have contacted those concerned, simply asking that if they wish to resolve personal matters that they move those matters elsewhere.

Additionally, while the CBE Scroll will not be a place of censorship, I would like the bloggers here to know that I will be removing several comments that have been added to this thread. Comments removed will be those that pertain to the personal matter at hand, however, and not to the original post.

I apologize for having to do this, but believe that it is the best decision for the blog.

Once again, thank you for your ongoing participation in the CBE Scroll.

Comment by Mary

September 25, 2007 @ 11:06 am

I’ve apologized to the administrator privately, and wish to apologize publicly to Mary Ann, to Donna, to the other readers of this comment thread, and again to the administrator for my having contributed to the recent trouble here. It ended up having nothing to do with the topic at hand, and I was wrong to have repeated my objections once I had stated them. This is an important topic that didn’t deserve to be derailed once reasonable discussion crossed over into personal dispute. I am truly sorry for crossing that line and hope those affected will accept my sincere apology.

Please know that the administrator has been a model of grace to me personally concerning my involvement in the dispute; I appreciate the Christlike way he has held me accountable for my actions. Thank you, Will; I appreciate the way you care about the participants as you keep this blog going - and going very well!

Comment by Donna

September 27, 2007 @ 9:50 am

Mary (see comment 68986), I accept your apology to me.

However, I read my original comment, and find nothing wrong with it. It was not offensive. It was not disrespectful. There was no reason to react so strongly to it. I stand by it.

Then, Tiro (see comment 68592), what I do on the CCC is express my opinions and my understanding of the subject at hand. You may call it vitriol. I call it discussion. I do not apologize for any of it. I am sorry that you see it that way, but it does explain some of the reactions I have gotten in the past from egalitarians.

Yes, patriarchy and opposition to the feminist position is part of what drives me, if you will. However, I believe that what drives me most deeply is a desire to understand and submit to the revealed will of God. I really do not wish to allow you to define me. It is my right to define myself, after all. I seek to define myself as God defines me. Isn’t that what drives you, too?

If we give one another the benefit of the doubt, not trying to second-guess one another’s motives, then discussion can be productive and valuable for mutual edification.

I hope for better things this time around. So far, so good - after the initial hazing. (That is meant to be a joke, so please take it that way. It was a bit of a rough initiation, but as far as I can tell, things are going smoothly now.) Thank you for that.

As I told Will privately: if I am attacked personally and in public I will defend myself. It is my right, after all. By the way, I found Will to be a very fair-minded person. I appreciate that, and hope that all of us can enjoy a long, profitable friendship, even though we may disagree heartily on many issues.

May God bless all of us as we seek to know and live out his will.

Comment by Mary

September 27, 2007 @ 10:43 am

As I’ve read the comments here about name-changing, it seems consistent on the part of the egalitarians: there are valid reasons to either change or keep one’s birth name, and none of those reasons in any way shows disrespect for our fathers (or mothers) or negates the many good things in Western traditions. The patriarchal roots of the expectation that a woman - and only a woman - changes her name upon marriage are what a number of us question, and rightly so. There is no scriptural mandate for name-changing or not, just as there is no scriptural foundation for a man to presume to rule over his wife and family. There is plenty of scriptural support for exercising responsible freedom in the societal contexts in which we live. How a woman is identified by name is one of those freedoms, regardless of religious attempts to abridge that freedom.

Comment by tiro

September 27, 2007 @ 5:37 pm

See comment 69389.

There is no scriptural mandate for name-changing or not, just as there is no scriptural foundation for a man to presume to rule over his wife and family.

So true. Name changing or not is a cultural thing not a religious thing. In fact, it occurs more in English-speaking countries. I found it interesting to learn that even in this era, Asians often do not change their names upon marriage. It just becomes difficult when someone wants to do things different than is normally done in one’s culture. Cultures are strongholds in society.

Comment by Mark

September 28, 2007 @ 4:03 pm

There is one possible ‘spiritual’ reason for a bride to take her husband’s name which was not listed in your original post (although, I would agree, it is not mandated by Scripture).

When I became a believer in Jesus Christ, I became part of the ‘bride of Christ” (the universal church). I received a new identity, and now I bear (and will forever bear) the name of Christ.

In Ephesians 5, Paul (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) shows us that marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. The husband is commanded to love his wife ‘as Christ loved the Church and laid down his life for her.’ The husband is not necessarily any more Christ-like than his wife; however, God has said, ‘this physical and spiritual union will represent my Son and his bride’ (various New Testament references). This is not a matter of preference: God has laid the leadership burden upon the husband… not to dominate, lord it over her, or to abuse his authority; rather, like Christ he is to sacrifice himself, lead, sanctify, and make her beautiful.

Personally, I know my wife enjoys and desires this type of leadership on my part (when I’m not too selfish to practice it).

I’ve done a little research on the historical tradition of the bride taking the husband’s surname (evident primarily in Western cultures, which have at least a background in Christianity); and this is my bottom line ‘theory’: I believe the wife takes the husband’s name because the church (all believers) takes the name of Christ.

Comment by Mary

September 28, 2007 @ 4:13 pm

Mark (see comment 69492), that non-mandated explanation may make sense for those seeking to justify the practice, but it breaks down on one very important point: the husband doesn’t change his name, and he is as much a member of the body of Christ as his wife is. As with so many other aspects of all that Christ is to the church, the husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the church. He is not to be her Savior, her Redeemer, her atoning Sacrifice, her righteousness, or anything else that Christ is to both husband and wife as redeemed human beings.

In my opinion, one of the most disturbing aspects of patriarchy is the teaching that a husband is a ‘little-c’ christ to his wife. It’s not often put quite like that, but when they say things like a husband ‘washing his wife in the Word’ and ‘answering for her to God’ and so forth, it’s clear they’re going way beyond what God, through the Scriptures, expects of husbands. That’s what happens when human beings define ‘roles’ for other human beings.

Comment by Kristina

September 28, 2007 @ 6:12 pm

When my husband and I got engaged just about twenty years ago, it was hard for him to hear that I did not think it was good for me to take his name, though he had anticipated my position. I put the question to him about how he would feel to change his name. He thought about it for a week and concluded that it would be hard to change one’s name and he certainly wouldn’t want me to unless he was also willing to do it. The end of the story is that we hyphenated our names (despite the fact that they are not short names). At one of his job interviews (we’re academics) the department asked him how he had wound up with a hyphenated name. His response: ‘It was a merger, not a takeover.’ They applauded.

Now we have children and it isn’t a hardship for them to have a long name. I trust they will be creative if they marry and run into the same issue.

Comment by Sue

September 29, 2007 @ 8:00 am

Mark (see comment 69491), I was wondering if you could elaborate a little more on your comments. They raised a few questions for me, and I hope you will be patient with me and answer them.

First, could you expound on your research that shows that when the custom of a wife taking her husband’s name first began in the United States, it was correlated to the fact that when a person invites Jesus into their life and accepts him as Savior they begin calling themselves a Christian?

Secondly, can you give us an idea of how you go about carrying out your burden of responsibility? In other words, when you say your wife enjoys and desires your leadership, are you saying your wife enjoys and desires the patriarchalist’s view that you have authority over your wife, and she is to live in obedience to you?

My third question concerns your belief that you are called to sanctify your wife. The dictionary definition of ‘to sanctify’ is ‘to make sacred, holy, or free from sin.’ Can you elaborate on what you do to ‘make sacred, holy, or free from sin’ your wife? Along with that, do you believe that men can do things in the spiritual realm that women cannot do? For instance, because you are a male, you believe that you as a husband can sanctify your wife. Does your wife, who is female, have the ability to sanctify anyone, or is this something only men can do because only men become husbands?

Comment by Jon

September 29, 2007 @ 3:47 pm

The reasons given by all your friends to change your name literally made me laugh. None were rooted directly in the Scriptures, which are silent on the issue, as far as I can tell. It is a cultural convention, and as such, without any moral binding power.

I wish I’d done this when my dearling Carol Elaine Durkin and I married. I personally like the hyphenated approach, which would/should have been Durkin-Trott or Trott-Durkin (whichever one sounded better to both of us). But I never even thought of this whole issue those years ago.

Whatever you decide, in my opinion, you should do it with great joy and even a sense of play. There is no moral rule here no matter what choice you make. For me, I would think the use of both names (or a new name made from them?) is a subtle disagreement with male-centrism and affirmation of your full equality in oneness in Christ.

Just one man’s blab…

Comment by Jon

September 29, 2007 @ 3:55 pm

See comment 69491.

I believe the wife takes the husband’s name because the church (all believers) takes the name of Christ.

I hope what follows will be considered light-bringing and not merely arguing. Perhaps you have some thoughtful responses you’d like to offer. Here’s my issue(s):

Does Scripture teach this? If not, is what you believe rooted in traditions of men?

Does such a view tempt confusion between Christ and maleness in a way which deifies maleness? This is a huge topic, and frankly I believe it does do just that. We’re back to the sky god and earth woman again, him the actor and her the acted upon, him the aggressive and her the passive. Yikes.

This in part seems to me rooted in a reading of Ephesians 5 which is a dubious one. There are many good articles on Ephesians 5 from an egalitarian viewpoint, some posted on cbeinternational.org.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Comment by Anita

September 29, 2007 @ 10:12 pm

I had to grin when I read Mary Ann’s comments on not changing her name. Her statements could have been written by me. I had the same thoughts when I married for the second time. My new husband gave me the ‘gift’ of my own name. This was in 1993 when very few women in Oklahoma were keeping their own names. I told my husband then that I believed we were on the ‘cutting edge’ and that there would come a time when more and more women would opt to keep their own last names. This is one of those ‘ah-ha’ moments for me. Isn’t God grand?

Comment by Mary

October 1, 2007 @ 9:43 am

See comment 69550.

Whatever you decide, in my opinion, you should do it with great joy and even a sense of play.

Amen and amen! I’ve really appreciated everyone’s personal stories about ‘to change or not to change.’ I personally took my husband’s last name in the late seventies, but added my birth name legally as a second middle name. Professionally I went by both (‘Mary middle-initial Mary-birthname husband-birthname’). Since my husband’s birth name is a very common one, given my first name, I did this to avoid being asked if ‘Mary husband-birthname’ was my name or just an alias.

My husband also made it clear that he was supportive of whatever name I decided to use (changed or birth), so long as I kept the first name by which he knew and loved me. A remarkably egalitarian man for his time, at least on that point.

Comment by Mary Ann

October 1, 2007 @ 1:44 pm

Yes, I agree with Mary (see comment 69613)! I have been so grateful for all the kind responses, stories of personal decisions, and encouraging words. You have helped to validate my feelings regarding this issue - that I’m not crazy for not wanting to change my name and that it really isn’t a biblical mandate - and that other Christians feel the same way I do! I thought I was all alone in this thinking. It is really great that there are so many different options out there. We still haven’t decided what to do - so for now, I will remain ‘Mary Ann Nguyen.’

Also, I wanted to say that I am thankful to a previous poster who mentioned that we all have different names – ‘sister,’ ‘daughter,’ ‘friend’ - and that being ‘Mrs. Mary Ann + husband’s surname’ is just another one of my names, because it really is one of my many identities. Before, I was loathe to take on that name because I wanted to deny any patriarchal claims… but you have given me a great perspective, so thank you!

Lastly, all the comments here gave me the courage to finally write to the mentor in my life who made some of the arguments in the original post to tell him that I don’t believe it’s a biblical mandate and that it’s cultural. Unfortunately, he didn’t agree with me and wrote me a slew of reasons that he got from the Bible (mostly from Genesis) to show me that Eve was named by Adam, and so therefore, I should let my husband name me. It was discouraging to read his e-mail (full of bad hermeneutics) and realize that it would be a long journey before he would change his mind. I am so thankful, though, that I have the support of all of you, my Scroll blogging friends!

Comment by tiro

October 1, 2007 @ 2:17 pm

See comment 69633.

Unfortunately, he didn’t agree with me and wrote me a slew of reasons that he got from the Bible (mostly from Genesis) to show me that Eve was named by Adam, and so therefore, I should let my husband name me.

Yes, discouraging. Just because Eve allowed Adam to name her ‘Eve,’ ‘mother of the living,’ doesn’t mean that women have to let husbands name them. I cannot think of anyone else in the Old Testament who let their husband name or rename them. Although, in the sense of nicknames, everyone from time to time ‘renames’ someone they are fond of.

Comment by JLP

October 1, 2007 @ 7:52 pm

Mary Ann, you could go by Ms. and Mr. Mary Ann your surname!

Comment by historyloveralways

October 1, 2007 @ 9:42 pm

Mary Ann, some women like the ‘Mrs.’ title and some don’t. If you don’t like it, and people call you ‘Mrs.’ simply correct them by saying either ‘call me Mary Ann,’ or explain to them that you kept your own name when you married. You don’t have to make yourself accept a title you really don’t like. Don’t put yourself