The CBE Scroll

Comment by PS(anafter-thought)

July 1, 2009 @ 8:43 am

Much of the world uses a different system than we do in the US, even in those countries where there is a very large Christian component. I recently asked a person I know why his brothers and sisters had different family names, but it turns out that these were not family names in the sense we know them, but an entirely different system. Some countries have the girls carry the mother’s family name, but there is a generational name in there too.

My husband told me I didn’t have to take his name, (36 years ago!)because it is unusual. I said he could take my name, but it is very common, so he didn’t want that either. I wanted the family to have only one family name, so I chose to change my name. I did feel it was a choice. And I’ve learn to live with the double looks when somebody hears the unusual name. Oh well. Good thing our family has community respect.

Comment by LKH

July 1, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

Great story, thanks for sharing it together! We have a similar experience (see http://www.thisordinaryday.com/2009/01/25/whats-in-a-name/)

Comment by JLP

July 3, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

That’s so cool, Mary Ann and Sam!

Comment by Lori

July 3, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

While my husband and I pretty much have an egalitarian marriage, there are some areas where I tend to remain a traditionalist. Names in marriage is one area. I never even considered not changing my name to my husband’s. I consider doing otherwise to be simply a modern feminist invention in order to undermine marriage. I realize that you can make the same argument for egalitarian beliefs (and most patriarchs do), but like I said, that’s just one of my quirks. I was willing to give up my beleifs about roles within marriage, but there are some traditional things that I still cling to.

Comment by Alice

July 4, 2009 @ 3:26 am

Great article.

We considered combining our names on marriage, but it would have been very long, so we each decided to keep our own.

I wouldn’t have married my husband if he’d expected me to change my name to his.

Comment by Becca

July 6, 2009 @ 7:00 pm

I did not change my name when I got married. I felt so strongly about it that if the guy I was dating had an issue with it then I knew he was “not the one”. My husband thought about changing his but he is in the Army and we knew the Army would never understand. Now we have one son and he has both our last names.

Lori I find your statement, “a modern feminist invention in order to undermine marriage” insulting and baseless in fact. I have a very strong marriage and so do all the women I know who have not changed their names. It’s about identity, not degrading marriage.

Comment by leigh

July 8, 2009 @ 11:52 am

I relate with comment 89517. There is, as Lucy Stone (1818-1893) said (I think, and according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Stone), no more reason for a wife to take her husband’s name than for a husband to take his wife’s name. I don’t take issue with what couples decide together to do, although I’ve heard or read a few times now of a woman who wanted to keep her own name (not “maiden”, as that *defines* a woman by whether she is married or unmarried), but the man whom she was marrying did not care for the idea. If it were more of a free choice to replace one’s family name with someone else’s, I would be more comfortable with it.

The culture seems to oppose a woman’s keeping her name, also. It’s taken years for me to get our church to get my name right, and even outside of the church, people have sometimes had odd reactions.

The friend of a relative who attended our wedding used to remark to my relative, “Women who don’t take their husband’s last name don’t really love them.” She hasn’t made that statement since attending our wedding, a few years ago. And as she’s not PC or a remarkably sensitive friend, I’m *hoping* its because she saw something at the wedding that challenged her view… ;-)

And I will observe something that someone observed in the last thread on this topic. There does seem to be scriptural support for the man taking the family name of the woman he is marrying. See Genesis 2:24.

Comment by Mary Ann

July 10, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

In regard to Comment 89512, I was surprised to read, “I consider doing otherwise to be simply a modern feminist invention in order to undermine marriage” when in reality, the taking on of the man’s name is a Western ideal — not a Biblical one. Why is it a modern feminist invention (see Neh 7:63)? Women in Asian countries don’t change their names to their husband’s and that has been true from ancient days. Some cultures don’t even have last names. And why does it undermine marriage? Many marriages flourish in Christ with both retaining their birth names. As long as Christ is the head and cornerstone, I’m not sure how a woman’s NOT dropping her name would undermine marriage.

Comment by Sonnet

July 11, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

What I find to be extremely non-inclusive and hurtful is the tradition of addressing mail to

Mr. & Mrs. (insert husband’s *first* name) last name

It makes me feel like a nameless extension of my husband. I wish that US society would drop the use of unnecessary titles like Mr., Mrs., Ms. or Miss. The elimination of titles would leave more room to include the wife’s first name along with her husbands. Isn’t it enough that most women in this country change their last name to their husbands and that it is customary for the man’s first name to be listed first when they are both included. Why do so many people still omit the woman’s name altogether? I think the omission should be branded as poor manners. It certainly doesn’t make me feel welcomed and included in their correspondence.

Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers

July 11, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

I considered all of the “equality” options on the name-change thing when I got married, but I didn’t like any of them. The problem with hyphenation is that it’s a one-generation solution. Your kids will probably hate it, and what happens when your kids get married? Do they add another name so that they have a three-name hyphenation? What if your children marry people with hyphenated names? It just gets messy fast. There was a great article about this at National Review a few years ago: “Goin’ to Take a Hyphenated Journey” by Frederica Mathewes-Green. Of course, if the hyphenated thing works for you, don’t let me know it; I’m just saying why I rejected it.

There’s the “let’s combine parts of our names to make a new last name,” such as Bradford and Janson become Bradson, but not everyone’s last names combine so well.

The couple can each keep their old last name, but then what do you call the children? There’s that hyphen problem again. And if the kids are taking one name or the other, it’s not really an equality option.

In the end, I decided it had to be his name or mine for both of us, and his name wasn’t so bad, so I just bowed to the altar of patriarchy on that one. I do kind of miss my old last name sometimes though.

Comment by Christopher

July 12, 2009 @ 12:27 pm

I gave this some thought a couple years ago. As the last living male in my branch of my family, there’s some personal baggage tied up in the question for me. However, I’ve always been uncomfortable with the way changing one’s name seems to be connected with ideas of women as property. And, of course, once you’re approaching the question from that angle, simply having the man change his name isn’t really an option, either.

My current preference would be for each party to keep his or her family name. As for the children, I’m actually an advocate of matrilineality. I know that raises the specter of matriarchy for some, but I think it’s a reasonable accommodation to the fact that birth is not really egalitarian. While there are homologues to much of the reproductive process (sperm v. eggs, etc.), there really is no male equivalent to the bearing of a child after conception. And, of course, the identity of the mother is generally certain in a way that that of the father is not.

Another option, that a friend of mine used, was to give the children the option of choosing which name they wanted (they used their father’s name until they were old enough to choose).

Comment by Gloria

July 13, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

Our marriage is very egalitarian, but I did change my name when we got married – mainly because my maiden name was absurdly long… hyphenating would have just made it worse!

At one point my husband did consider changing his last name to something else entirely, so that we could both have the same last name without either of us having to take the other’s name, but that didn’t work out either.

Oh well!

Comment by John

July 13, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

So your husband took your father’s name… take that, patriarchy!

Comment by leigh

July 14, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

Re: Comment 89538

At what point does one’s name become her own? That topic has been covered here:

http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2007/09/i-didnt-change-my-name/#comment-67808

Thank you.

Comment by LMcC

July 14, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

Re 89530:

I hate that too. I get mail from my alma mater that way. Never mind that my husband never attended the school and that his only appearance on campus was a brief one nearly a decade after my graduation. All of a sudden, the graduate is gone and replaced by someone else.

But there’s one thing worse.

Hubby and I have been church-hunting for a few months. I was invited to do camera work for a church’s Christmas concert. The music minister knew me and my work from a previous church, and he specifically asked for my help. Hubby decided to tag along. It was one of those hip young churches meeting in a non-church setting. I filled out the visitor card with both names when we visited that morning. I worked that night while Hubby kicked back and watched the show. When we got mail from that church later that week, it was addressed to him alone. No “Mr. and Mrs.” It was Mr. SMcC, period. The church hunt continued.

Comment by Mary Ann

July 15, 2009 @ 2:07 pm

89540 – eesh! That’s the worse, LMCC. I’m sorry you had that experience! Glad you moved on from that church!

I, too, get irked when addressed with “Mrs. Sam”. I got wedding invitations from some good friends from youth group that were addressed to him and not me… I thought that was the weirdest thing, since I’ve been friends with them for years and they didn’t even know him. When addressed like that, it always made me ask, “Don’t they know what my name is?” and in that case, I felt like they ‘forgot’ me.

I agree with 89530, it should be considered poor manners to omit the woman’s name! I certainly find it rude and offensive. I laugh now wondering how this traditional way of addressing will work now that we have a hyphenated name. Will they address it to Mr & Mrs Sam Hyphenated-Name?

Comment by Liz

July 16, 2009 @ 12:09 am

An interesting exercise for me over the last few years has been to sign the end of communications “Liz & Trevor” instead of the other way around which I had done for years. Apart from wanting to mention the other person’s name first out of politeness, it was always assumed that the guy’s name ’should’ be first…but why??

I know that some of our friends would consider this one of our worrying ‘feminine traits’ but it’s one small thing we can do.

Comment by Issachar

July 16, 2009 @ 5:14 am

Dang. Skunked again. Barzillai was called this since he took the name of his father-in-law.

Patriarchy is not thereby nullified.

You really ought to honestly note that this is a single exception to the pattern in the OT, and even here, it’s the father’s name that is remembered and passed down, not the mother’s, and not the wife’s name.

Wasn’t even going to comment because the biblical ice is so precariously thin in your arguments, but then I saw the comments, and thought, “Man, these folks need to get over it!” Lots of resentment, personal offense and “hurt” in the comments. Such are the luxuries of a therapeutic culture.

Truly oppressed women (or men) in Kurdistan generally don’t moan over trivialities. They’re glad to be alive.

Comment by LMcC

July 16, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

re 89543:

Tacky argument.

I don’t think a single person here would put the name change battles anywhere near as high on the distress scale as the physical violence experienced in other countries. Many of us have spoken out against violence in other countries and our own.

That said, we do believe in the Law of Stink: Just because A stinks worse than B does not mean that B does not stink.

Tell you what… I don’t know if you’re married or not. But do this for us: Work hard, earn your degree, buy your own home and car, get a reputation in a field. Then surrender your name and take on your wife’s, or your mother’s maiden name, or even some random name you weren’t born with. You go stand in the Social Security line and all the other places we’ve had to go when we’ve changed our names. You go around correcting errors when the bank changes not only your name, but everything else about your account without telling you. You get the runaround from some organizations that make name change almost impossible. You try changing your name on a mortgage without refinancing. (Some companies won’t let that happen.) Since you are a man, you won’t experience the disappearance of your personhood in the eyes of others as many women have; but still, get back to us and tell us how great and wonderful name changes are, hmmm?

Comment by Issachar

July 17, 2009 @ 10:01 am

I don’t think a single person here would put the name change battles anywhere near as high on the distress scale as the physical violence experienced in other countries.

All I said was that they don’t moan over trivialities. We have luxury and comfort in comparison, so we do moan.

And in response to your “tell you what…”

I’m married. Been married 31 years. Am a man. Have five daughters. One married.

I have worked hard. Have a couple of degrees. Have owned several homes and cars. Have a reputation in a field.

Surrendering my name and changing it and doing all the paperwork–all trivialities. Part of living in a bureaucratic society.

I’ve even lived outside the US for the last decade. Have to go through a lot of bureaucratic crap. Stand in lots of lines. Even with my own name. Haven’t moaned or whined once. Neither have my daughters nor my wife. You do what it takes.

And you know what? Where I live they think my wife’s name is a man’s name. So the banks, the catalogs, the stores, the junk mail–all send mail to “Mr. _____” and we chuckle. She gets it at the stores when she buys groceries: they think she’s using someone else’s debit card. We chuckle.

The bank concluded that we were a homosexual couple with five daughters. We chuckled.

Didn’t moan once.

Amazed that your personhood disappeared. Mine’s not wrapped up in my name, nor is anyone else I know.

Guess we’re not moaners, are we?

I’m chuckling. Having a good time interacting with you. My guess is you’re pretty steamed by now, but I’m not taking the rap for that.

Comment by LMcC

July 17, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

Not steamed at all, more like semi-amused and semi-feeling very sorry for you. I’m used to condescending people coming on here with no real intention of dialogue, just coming in to sneer and cause trouble. You’re really saying nothing new, although you probably consider yourself quite clever and quite pleased to put those women in their places (wrong on both counts). I also feel deeply sorry for those who need to do that instead of add any really decent dialogue. I mean, why bother when there are so many better things to do?

If you don’t consider the issues many women face with name changes a problem, then go on your merry way and don’t worry about it.

Comment by hollie baker-lutz

July 17, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

Great article; thanks for sharing. This really hit home for me because my husband and I hyphenated both our last names. We, too, wanted a oneness but also wanted to acknowledge the familial ties that made us who we are. For me it was about identity and equality. I don’t think that this is necessarily right for everone but there must be a better system than the unjust one we have now.

What surprises me most is how many people – mostly women – approach me and say, “how’d you get him to do THAT?”. I just have to be polite and let that roll off my back, but truly the implication that I would be so manipulative and he such a push-over can be offensive. It disappoints me that people assume it was all my doing. It is mostly younger women (like myself) who approach me to tell us we’ve done a cool thing.

The other question I get all the time is what to do about kids’ names if this caught on. I just sort of shrug and say, the system won’t really change until it gets to the crisis point, will it? :)

And to Mary Ann: get ready – we receive bills, receipts, and junk mail addressed to every possible form of our first names, previous names, and hyphenation! :) The combinations can be funny. God bless you!

Comment by Trevor

July 18, 2009 @ 9:19 am

As one of the administrators of this blog I was troubled by the tone that has crept in to the recent comments by Issachar and LMCC in reaction to what they hear the other as saying over this issue. My first response was to simply delete the offending replies but I decided to sleep on the matter and see how I felt about it in the morning. OK, so having slept on it and ruminated on it during the early morning hours these are my thoughts.

Firstly Issachar, welcome to the site. We do have some comment rules here, among them that we are careful to engage in peaceful dialogue and that we don’t speak derisively of other people thereby misjudging their motives.

Unfortunately you did get a reaction from LMCC but I don’t think you can deny that you potentially set her up with your closing line, “my guess is that you’re pretty steamed up by now, but I’m not taking the rap for that.” You really threw down the gauntlet there and I really would have preferred that LMCC ignore it.

However, in defense of her, and all of my christian sisters, it does appear that your attitude is one of condescension, or could easily be construed as being so. I would like to suggest that It is impossible for us as males to fully appreciate what it can mean to our personhood to experience the sense of loss and disempowerment attested to by the various female responders to this post.

Granted you, Issachar, have fulfilled all of the criteria that LMCC proferred but one, you are a male. Despite the experiences that you share of numerous misunderstandings, of which you were able to see the funny side, none of them will have devalued you as a person in the same way that a woman feels devalued in our churches and culture. Why, because your religious and culturally accepted rights as a male remain unchallenged.

Secular society has gone a long way in attempting to address this inequality but the church is way behind, hich is rather sad for two reasons. One, because early attempts at righting these societal injustices were begun by theologically conservative christian women two centuries ago. The other being that Jesus clearly demonstrated, in his earthly ministry, that he was prepared to override the cultural and religious taboos or limitations placed on women.

It may seem to be a trivial matter to us (men) that women appear to be ‘moaning’ about these injustices, especially when compared to the obvious intensity of suffering being experienced by Christians in other parts of the world. But it is never trivial to be marginalised. As christians in the free world we too can experience the derision of the unchurched but it is sad when christian women feel that same derisive and condescending attitude within the church. We should rather be seen as listening to these whisperings of discontent. Jesus would have listened.

God would have us be honest in expressing our feelings and disappointments. At least then they are out in the open and we, and He, can deal with them. The church should be a safe place where women can feel comfortable that they can express these feelings of marginalisation on the basis of gender. The christian community should welcome expressions of concern with understanding and compassion, not with legalistic rules, roles and regulations. The church is meant to be a reconciling agent, a dispenser of mercy and grace.

Finally Issachar, your point about Barzillai is taken. While it did not overturn patriachy, as such, the one thing that it did do was show that context could be taken into consideration and an adjustment could be made to attempt to right an obvious wrong. The danger with hard and fast rules and roles is that context and culture are ignored inviting a legal solution rather than a grace filled one.

Comment by LMcC

July 18, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

Trevor: Condemn me if you must, but someone had to call him out.

Comment by Sonnet

July 20, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

Trevor,
You wrote: “The church should be a safe place where women can feel comfortable that they can express these feelings of marginalisation on the basis of gender.”

Thank you for understanding.

Comment by Mary Ann

July 21, 2009 @ 12:14 am

In response to Comment 89543: It may be true that Barzillai had taken on his wife’s father’s name, but I think the point is that he still took on his WIFE’s family name and not the other way around. And more importantly, the point is that there is no biblical injunction or command that says, “Thou shalt take thy husband’s surname when thou takest him as thy husband.” There is no such command. It is not more biblical, not more godly, and not more Christian for a woman to take on her husband’s name. And it’s certainly not a sin if she does not. And if she doesn’t take on his name, it doesn’t mean she loves her husband any less nor does it imply an undermining of marriage. It’s really a decision between the husband and wife how they want to represent their new family together as one.

Comment by JLP

July 21, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

In Asia women keep their own names after they get married. It’s always been that way there. Women taking their husbands last names is a European tradition.

Comment by David Silverkors

July 22, 2009 @ 5:25 am

Hi!

Me and my wife (try to) live in a egalitarian marriage, when we got married she changed her last name to my family name, but that was only until we did what has become more common here in Sweden. Namely to “invent” your own new last name and take that instead. So we both changed last name now 3.5 into our marriage when we had the money and time to come up with a good last name.

Is this a common practice in other countries as well?

To adress a woman as mrs NN is thankfully not common in Sweden. And here it is considered strange to most people if you would write your wedding invitation to me and my wife with my name first if you know her better.

Sorry for my english :-)

Comment by Morna

October 30, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

My choice to take my husband’s name was based primarily on preference. By birth surname (aka maiden name) is based on a French word that means “traitor” or “treacherous.” My husband’s surname is Greenwood. I wanted that name, because that is what I wanted our marriage to be: a green wood, a place of vibrant life.

However, I asked our pastor to introduce us as Mr and Mrs Shane Greenwood as a symbol of my willingness to join my identity with his, to live one life together.