Sophie's Choice
The tradition of married women taking on the surnames of the husbands is an archaic and chauvanistic one, and one that says much about the submissiveness expected of women. It's symbolic of a man's ownership of his wife and her lack of an identity independent of her husbands. Thankfully, however, the tradition is gradually on the wane as more and more women refuse to accept their status of second-class citizens within a relationship. Not, however, Sophie Panopolous.
Despite ten years in the public spotlight, the Member for Indi has decided to take on the surname of her new husband, Greg Mirabella after their marriage last weekend.
Sophie Mirabella, MP
That someone of Panopolous's standing would chose to sacrifice something as fundamental as her own name for the sake of her husband makes it clear that the feminist project still has a long way to go. It also says plenty about Panopolous's own brand of white-picket-fence conservatism. Note the constrast with Anna Burkeand Natasha Stott Despoja, both of whom married whilst in office and kept their own surnames.
For what it's worth, were I ever to wed (not likely, as those close to me can attest) I most certainly would not want my partner to change their surname. I would like to see a practice whereby both partners keep their own surnames and their children take on the surname of their same-gendered parent (girls take on their mother's names, whilst boy's take on that of their father). The symbolism seems far more appropriate for modern marriage than does the overwrought symbolism of ownership and submission.
Despite ten years in the public spotlight, the Member for Indi has decided to take on the surname of her new husband, Greg Mirabella after their marriage last weekend.
Sophie Mirabella, MP
That someone of Panopolous's standing would chose to sacrifice something as fundamental as her own name for the sake of her husband makes it clear that the feminist project still has a long way to go. It also says plenty about Panopolous's own brand of white-picket-fence conservatism. Note the constrast with Anna Burkeand Natasha Stott Despoja, both of whom married whilst in office and kept their own surnames.
For what it's worth, were I ever to wed (not likely, as those close to me can attest) I most certainly would not want my partner to change their surname. I would like to see a practice whereby both partners keep their own surnames and their children take on the surname of their same-gendered parent (girls take on their mother's names, whilst boy's take on that of their father). The symbolism seems far more appropriate for modern marriage than does the overwrought symbolism of ownership and submission.
Comments
Not sure if the overall reason for it is quite as archane as you describe, though. And I don't think it speaks to being second class citizens within the relationship.
But why the husband's name? rather than the woman's or some entirely new name of their joint choosing, sort of like a confirmation name. Well, you're right there, that'd be the patronistic nature of our society, for sure.
Personally, I favour the Russian style petronymics (sic?). I'm seriously tempted to give any future son the middle name Petrovich!
Also not changing my name, but you already knew that I guess.
What about gay and transgendered children. The new model would probably cause more problems than the one we have. Also its more or less reinforcing the problems prefigured in Judith Butler's "Hetrosexual matrix" (talk to jepi about it). I think if anything what both sexes are aiming for is a more "nominalistic" approach. Needs more work though-theres a long way to go...
But then what of the origins of surnames? Many of them start as designations of profession such as 'Smith'. But that can hardly work if we change careers several times in our lives.
But back to transmitting surnames to children. I have one suggestion: Surname of eldest parent is passed on. It is nice and arbitrary (like alphabetical order). What do others think?
Woops, that's probably drifted in to playing the man a bit, eh. Well, hopefully my earlier post gives me "thoughtful and decent" cred before you read this :)
There are no easy answers when it comes to the child naming unfortunately. To me it seems reasonable that the female (being the person from whose body the offspring grew) should get naming rights. People look at me as though I'm a dangerous man-hating radical when I mention this though. I guess it is only fair that both parents are 'acknowledged' (for want of a better word).
The naming after the same sex parent solution seems as good as anything else really.
Personally, I don't think I care about this anymore. Feminism has done much to advance the cause of women, but I think too many modern women are too fickle to appreciate the efforts of the fight which predates them.
"I believe marriage is a institutionalized remnant of an unjust patriarchy, but hey, wouldn't it be fun to wear a white dress and a corset? I don't believe in supporting sweat shops, but all the good fashions are made by asian children." What's the f*cking point?
Let's go shopping!
Btw, was that AMY KD from Melbourne Unit who posted above?
Personally, I don't think I care about this anymore. Feminism has done much to advance the cause of women, but I think too many modern women are too fickle to appreciate the efforts of the fight which predates them.
"I believe marriage is a institutionalized remnant of an unjust patriarchy, but hey, wouldn't it be fun to wear a white dress and a corset? I don't believe in supporting sweat shops, but all the good fashions are made by asian children." What's the f@*king point?
Let's go shopping!
Btw, was that AMY KD from Melbourne Unit who posted above?
I think you are right in identifying that this is issue is small potatoes in the context of the wider feminist agenda.