As a man, there’s little that I anticipate changing in my identity throughout my life. Regardless of my marital status, my title will remain as ‘Mr’ and my surname will remain unchanged (unless I choose to change it by deed poll). Although, for women, both identifiers are typically subject to change for those who subscribe to the tradition of doing so once married.
For some women, not changing their surname once married is unthinkable given their connection, willing or otherwise, to tradition or indeed their respective culture. On the other hand, there are an increasing number of women who retain their maiden name and not doing so is non-negotiable. But the majority of married women do decide to change their surname almost as a matter of course. Moreover, some women even relish changing their surname as a hollow (and foolish) badge of ‘success’ in being married.
The issue of a woman changing her surname is a relevant one for me as my partner falls into the group of women who feel an unease with the social expectation of adopting their partner’s surname once married. And initially, I was in agreement with her. In fact, I probably articulated my opposition to her changing her surname to mine more than she did.
It's tradition within my partner’s culture that when a child is born their middle name is that of their father’s first name. For example, if their father’s name is Joe Bloggs, their full name is X Joe Bloggs. For women though, that changes once they’re married when their middle name (being their father’s first name) is replaced with their husband’s first name. And as with western culture, their surname is also replaced so that it’s shared with their husband. Given the historical context of marriage and gender relations within my partner’s culture, I perceived this as hugely patriarchal.
While some may argue this is reading too much into a tradition, it can be perceived that where a woman (once ‘owned’ and labelled with the name of her father) is married, her ‘ownership’ is transferred from her father to her new husband. She consequently becomes the property of, and is accordingly labelled with the name of, her husband.
Conversely, it has to be recognised that there is an aspect of the tradition reflecting the woman being welcomed into and embraced by her husband’s family by assuming his surname. Although, with my awareness of my partner’s culture and its often still antiquated and misogynistic perception of women, it didn’t sit well with me. Hence I was nonchalant when it came to the idea of her taking my surname once married.
However, my stance eventually had a fairly sharp change. When my partner was questioned by a relative of hers who asked if she’d change her surname when married, her response was a firm “no”. She elaborated on this by explaining that she was “a [her current surname] and not a [my surname]” and her identity was that of a [her surname]. She also returned with her own question of “why should a woman have to change her surname when a man doesn’t?”. On the latter, I agreed with her. Yet on the former, my stance on the matter went from indifference to a burgeoning feeling of rejection toward the idea of a shared identity via my surname. I didn’t perceive it as a rejection of my family per se, but a rejection of the notion of establishing a unit with me that would, by default, share my surname.
As we spoke about this further, she explained that particularly in an interracial relationship, preserving her cultural identify both for herself and within our relationship, was hugely important. To lose her surname, which bears cultural significance for her, would be to relinquish some of that identity and she felt it was important that her surname reflected who she was. And in spite of any resentment I held toward her stance, I had to acknowledge that she made a valid point with regard to her identity; one that as a man I could not fully empathise with. Being a man, my surname, and the reflection of my identity within it, would remain intact in marriage. Furthermore, tradition and society suggests that any assumption of culture and identity in marriage would by default be her assuming mine. While it wasn’t by my design, the status quo was certainly in my favour for who would need to make any cultural compromises.
From my androcentric perspective, I argued that her culture was already visible within our relationship as both of us valued and immersed ourselves in our own and each other’s culture. I also felt that as I had integrated myself into her family to an extent that no claim could be made of me stifling or even diluting her culture within our relationship. But regardless of this, her most personal identifier, her name, wouldn’t reflect that and this was an experience that I would never be able to fully appreciate.
So should women have to change their surnames once married? It’s a tradition within marriage that has broadly endured along with women receiving a diamond engagement ring to signal their impending marriage. The latter isn’t rejected by many women – but it isn’t one that reflects their identity or lack of. The undertones of patriarchy behind women changing their surnames is also undeniable. Society preserves this in many relationships where a woman assuming her husband’s surname is merely a subtle indicator of the subservience and unequal status she may be subject to.
For a woman to change her surname can be a relinquishing of her identity and the trappings of said identity such as her culture or apparent ties to her family and community. Being known as Miss or Ms X, particularly in a professional context, and to suddenly be known as Ms or Mrs Y is also a shift of varying degrees depending on the change in surname. Nor is it a change men are subject to. Despite her rationale, it further explains the indignation of my partner on the matter.
In a modern context, the tradition of a woman taking her husband’s surname as her own needn’t be seen as patriarchal. Rather, it can be seen as the husband welcoming her to his family. Or, as I see it, creating a new entity comprising the couple that share a surname as their shared identity. Many would counter that by saying why not instead take the woman’s surname, a double-barrelled surname comprising both those of the man and woman or even a completely new name? To that, I can only offer the illogicality of tradition as explanation.
Despite my jesting with her, I have returned to my earlier nonchalance on my partner changing her surname. I continue to acknowledge the patriarchal roots of the tradition and how unwittingly or otherwise, these have undoubtedly been used as a vehicle for misogyny throughout the ages. In addition, the relinquishing and dilution of identify in changing one’s surname is one that I can appreciate if not fully empathise with as a man. Where a surname has cultural significance, the loss of identity is even more prevalent when the new surname erodes that. This therefore has further connotations that probably can’t be appreciated when changing a Greene for a Brown or a Clarke for a Jones compared to changing a Yeboah or an Ibrahim for a Williams or an Edwards. As a result, it’s arguably more of an issue for some women than others.
There is an unfairness that must be admitted in the status quo where society has not only expected women to change their surnames but social conditioning has also made it a default position. Though regardless of one’s stance on the matter, there should be a social and cultural debate on the validity and fairness of such an enduring tradition.
For some women, not changing their surname once married is unthinkable given their connection, willing or otherwise, to tradition or indeed their respective culture. On the other hand, there are an increasing number of women who retain their maiden name and not doing so is non-negotiable. But the majority of married women do decide to change their surname almost as a matter of course. Moreover, some women even relish changing their surname as a hollow (and foolish) badge of ‘success’ in being married.
The issue of a woman changing her surname is a relevant one for me as my partner falls into the group of women who feel an unease with the social expectation of adopting their partner’s surname once married. And initially, I was in agreement with her. In fact, I probably articulated my opposition to her changing her surname to mine more than she did.
 |
It's tradition within my partner’s culture that when a child is born their middle name is that of their father’s first name. For example, if their father’s name is Joe Bloggs, their full name is X Joe Bloggs. For women though, that changes once they’re married when their middle name (being their father’s first name) is replaced with their husband’s first name. And as with western culture, their surname is also replaced so that it’s shared with their husband. Given the historical context of marriage and gender relations within my partner’s culture, I perceived this as hugely patriarchal.
While some may argue this is reading too much into a tradition, it can be perceived that where a woman (once ‘owned’ and labelled with the name of her father) is married, her ‘ownership’ is transferred from her father to her new husband. She consequently becomes the property of, and is accordingly labelled with the name of, her husband.
Conversely, it has to be recognised that there is an aspect of the tradition reflecting the woman being welcomed into and embraced by her husband’s family by assuming his surname. Although, with my awareness of my partner’s culture and its often still antiquated and misogynistic perception of women, it didn’t sit well with me. Hence I was nonchalant when it came to the idea of her taking my surname once married.
However, my stance eventually had a fairly sharp change. When my partner was questioned by a relative of hers who asked if she’d change her surname when married, her response was a firm “no”. She elaborated on this by explaining that she was “a [her current surname] and not a [my surname]” and her identity was that of a [her surname]. She also returned with her own question of “why should a woman have to change her surname when a man doesn’t?”. On the latter, I agreed with her. Yet on the former, my stance on the matter went from indifference to a burgeoning feeling of rejection toward the idea of a shared identity via my surname. I didn’t perceive it as a rejection of my family per se, but a rejection of the notion of establishing a unit with me that would, by default, share my surname.
As we spoke about this further, she explained that particularly in an interracial relationship, preserving her cultural identify both for herself and within our relationship, was hugely important. To lose her surname, which bears cultural significance for her, would be to relinquish some of that identity and she felt it was important that her surname reflected who she was. And in spite of any resentment I held toward her stance, I had to acknowledge that she made a valid point with regard to her identity; one that as a man I could not fully empathise with. Being a man, my surname, and the reflection of my identity within it, would remain intact in marriage. Furthermore, tradition and society suggests that any assumption of culture and identity in marriage would by default be her assuming mine. While it wasn’t by my design, the status quo was certainly in my favour for who would need to make any cultural compromises.
From my androcentric perspective, I argued that her culture was already visible within our relationship as both of us valued and immersed ourselves in our own and each other’s culture. I also felt that as I had integrated myself into her family to an extent that no claim could be made of me stifling or even diluting her culture within our relationship. But regardless of this, her most personal identifier, her name, wouldn’t reflect that and this was an experience that I would never be able to fully appreciate.
So should women have to change their surnames once married? It’s a tradition within marriage that has broadly endured along with women receiving a diamond engagement ring to signal their impending marriage. The latter isn’t rejected by many women – but it isn’t one that reflects their identity or lack of. The undertones of patriarchy behind women changing their surnames is also undeniable. Society preserves this in many relationships where a woman assuming her husband’s surname is merely a subtle indicator of the subservience and unequal status she may be subject to.
For a woman to change her surname can be a relinquishing of her identity and the trappings of said identity such as her culture or apparent ties to her family and community. Being known as Miss or Ms X, particularly in a professional context, and to suddenly be known as Ms or Mrs Y is also a shift of varying degrees depending on the change in surname. Nor is it a change men are subject to. Despite her rationale, it further explains the indignation of my partner on the matter.
In a modern context, the tradition of a woman taking her husband’s surname as her own needn’t be seen as patriarchal. Rather, it can be seen as the husband welcoming her to his family. Or, as I see it, creating a new entity comprising the couple that share a surname as their shared identity. Many would counter that by saying why not instead take the woman’s surname, a double-barrelled surname comprising both those of the man and woman or even a completely new name? To that, I can only offer the illogicality of tradition as explanation.
Despite my jesting with her, I have returned to my earlier nonchalance on my partner changing her surname. I continue to acknowledge the patriarchal roots of the tradition and how unwittingly or otherwise, these have undoubtedly been used as a vehicle for misogyny throughout the ages. In addition, the relinquishing and dilution of identify in changing one’s surname is one that I can appreciate if not fully empathise with as a man. Where a surname has cultural significance, the loss of identity is even more prevalent when the new surname erodes that. This therefore has further connotations that probably can’t be appreciated when changing a Greene for a Brown or a Clarke for a Jones compared to changing a Yeboah or an Ibrahim for a Williams or an Edwards. As a result, it’s arguably more of an issue for some women than others.
There is an unfairness that must be admitted in the status quo where society has not only expected women to change their surnames but social conditioning has also made it a default position. Though regardless of one’s stance on the matter, there should be a social and cultural debate on the validity and fairness of such an enduring tradition.
