Clash of the hyphens

Remember the vogue for hyphenating last names on marrying? Well, here’s some of the long-delayed aftermath: Brendan Greene-Walsh and Leila Rathert-Knowles, an engaged couple with hyphenated last names and a decision to make.

Note that each members of the engaged couple sports a rather nice-sounding name consisting of the union of two rather short ones. But still, Greene-Walsh-Rathert-Knowles would be a mouthful.

When I married, I didn’t ever consider doing this, but perhaps if my name together with my husband’s had been more euphonious, I would have considered it.

I don’t think so, though. It seemed a complication I didn’t really want to saddle my offspring with, and sounded too much like British aristocracy or a law firm.

The Spanish solved the problem long ago, with a system that is simplicity itself:

My first surname, Pérez is the first surname of my father and my second surname, Quié±ones, is the first surname of my mom (this one is usually called the mother’s maiden name in the U.S.). So, my apellidos are: Pérez Quié±ones because…

My Dad: Pérez Rodréguez
My Mom: Quié±ones Alamo
Yours truly: Pérez Quié±ones

So, what happens when you get married? Nothing changes on the husband, and the wife usually changes her name as follows. Her first surname remains the same (her father’s first), but her second surname often changes to that of her husband. Sometimes the word ‘de’ is added between the two surnames to indicate that the second surname is her husband’s. To continue the example, my wife’s surnames before we got married:

Her Dad: Padilla Rivera
Her Mom: Falto Pérez (no, she is not related to my father)
My Wife: Padilla Falto

After marriage, my wife’s surnames would have changed to: Padilla de Pérez or just Padilla Pérez.

Me: Pérez Quié±ones
My Wife: Padilla Pérez

Come to think of it, maybe it’s not such a simple solution after all.

[Hat tip Instapundit.]

You name designates your place within a family and therefore within a community. It defines a set of relationships with other members of the family. It does not assert your individuality or define you as the property of anyone else.

Historically women have, at times, been treated as property. This is not what it means for a woman to take her husband’s name. If a child receives his father’s (and his mother’s) name that does not mean that he is their property.

Of course, some women do not want to take their husband’s names because they do not want to be thought of as anyone’s wife.

They believe that being his wife entails being a possession, because, after all,some feminists believe that possessive pronouns make you someone’s possession.

Of course, this is absurd. A husband’s wife no more belongs to her husband than a wife’s husband belongs to his wife. They may belong together, but that does not mean that either one is the property of the other. Being your father’s child does not mean that he possesses you; it doesn’t even mean that you are possessed!

Since adopting the honorific Ms. and retaining one’s maiden name makes a statement, it is fair to say that changing one’s name and being called Mrs. also makes a statement.

A woman who wants to be identified publicly by her husband’s name is telling the world that she is part of a couple, that she is married, and thus, unavailable.

Since she chose freely to get married was presumably free why should she appear to be hiding the fact?

Similarly, a woman who bears her father’s name is announcing that she is unmarried, and thus, available.

and THIS is why men dont like it….

and dont like it the same way that the wife dont like them taking their wedding rings off and not mentioning them!

ie. she just got married, but like moses harmons daughter, free love and all that means she should not be part of somethig as that would prevent her liberated sexuality..

so… she advertises she is single. and hows that doing for our society?

If a woman is married, why would she want to cultivate ambiguity? And, what does the reptilian region of the male brain think about it. Why might he imagine that she refuses to declare publicly that they are married? What does it mean that she wants to be ambiguous about her marital status.

The same male brain might also imagine that if she is going to be ambiguous about her marital status, then he can be so too.

In a strange way, if you redefine the marital relationship, if you remove the fact that two married people have the same name, you might also be undermining the institution.

and i have shown that a cornerstone besides eugenics is the destruction of family…

which is the same purpose of gay marraige and that.

to use one diamond to crack another and not have to be like a diamond
[edited for length by n-n]

Comments

Clash of the hyphens — 7 Comments

Occam's Beard on July 27, 2012 at 3:54 pm said:

The whole issue is ridiiculous, and therefore like catnip to liberals. It comes down to this: at some point, some names have to go to historical Valhalla. Hyphenating names merely postpones the day of reckoning. Otherwise we’d all be Smith Jones … … … … … … … … Adam Eve.
Artfldgr on July 27, 2012 at 4:17 pm said:

I remember a feminist telling me she will never take her husbands name…

i pointed out that she is only preserving the name of the man her mother married

but the original practice was from old anti marriage free sex as love progressives!
go back to the mid 1800s and you will find them just after the period when they started hyphenating long indian names…

http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2012/07/whats-in-hyphenated-name.html

Among its many dubious achievements contemporary feminism has transformed the relationship women have to their names.

It did not have to litigate, legislate or regulate. By the force of argument it convinced large numbers of women and small numbers of men that what used to be called a woman’s “maiden name” is really “her name” to have and to keep, even in marriage.

so all she does is slap her husband in the face, while honoring her father… given the superiority of the feminist sex, they never figured or realized that.. yet sounded so smart announcing it to others that were so smart.

then, there was the matter of the honorifics. Feminism decided to banish Miss and Mrs., the better erase the invidious division between married and unmarried women. It did not want to grant a special status to a woman who was more closely attached to a man.

Since men, married or not, are always Mr., feminists decided that the same rule should apply to women. It chose the more neutral, content free, Ms. for all women, married or unmarried.

As you know, Ms. is pronounced Miz. I have it on good authority that it’s short for misery.

havent they made things a lot more miserable, and now on the border of totalitarianism?
[edited for length by n-n]
Artfldgr on July 27, 2012 at 4:24 pm said:

You name designates your place within a family and therefore within a community. It defines a set of relationships with other members of the family. It does not assert your individuality or define you as the property of anyone else.

Historically women have, at times, been treated as property. This is not what it means for a woman to take her husband’s name. If a child receives his father’s (and his mother’s) name that does not mean that he is their property.

Of course, some women do not want to take their husband’s names because they do not want to be thought of as anyone’s wife.

They believe that being his wife entails being a possession, because, after all,some feminists believe that possessive pronouns make you someone’s possession.

Of course, this is absurd. A husband’s wife no more belongs to her husband than a wife’s husband belongs to his wife. They may belong together, but that does not mean that either one is the property of the other. Being your father’s child does not mean that he possesses you; it doesn’t even mean that you are possessed!

Since adopting the honorific Ms. and retaining one’s maiden name makes a statement, it is fair to say that changing one’s name and being called Mrs. also makes a statement.

A woman who wants to be identified publicly by her husband’s name is telling the world that she is part of a couple, that she is married, and thus, unavailable.

Since she chose freely to get married was presumably free why should she appear to be hiding the fact?

Similarly, a woman who bears her father’s name is announcing that she is unmarried, and thus, available.

and THIS is why men dont like it….

and dont like it the same way that the wife dont like them taking their wedding rings off and not mentioning them!

ie. she just got married, but like moses harmons daughter, free love and all that means she should not be part of somethig as that would prevent her liberated sexuality..

so… she advertises she is single. and hows that doing for our society?

If a woman is married, why would she want to cultivate ambiguity? And, what does the reptilian region of the male brain think about it. Why might he imagine that she refuses to declare publicly that they are married? What does it mean that she wants to be ambiguous about her marital status.

The same male brain might also imagine that if she is going to be ambiguous about her marital status, then he can be so too.

In a strange way, if you redefine the marital relationship, if you remove the fact that two married people have the same name, you might also be undermining the institution.

and i have shown that a cornerstone besides eugenics is the destruction of family…

which is the same purpose of gay marraige and that.

to use one diamond to crack another and not have to be like a diamond
[edited for length by n-n]
roc scssrs on July 27, 2012 at 4:32 pm said:

Hyphenated names sound British (and snobbish) because that’s where they started, mostly in the 19th century. As commoners amassed fortunes and started to move in aristocratic circles, they would sometimes marry the last surviving female members of a noble line. No one wanted the noble family name to die out, but of course it was only proper a woman take her husband’s name. Hence the clumsy accommodation.
stumbley on July 27, 2012 at 4:33 pm said:

Why change your name when you get married? My wife kept her maiden name; it didn’t bother me in the least that she wanted to be the “same person” she was before she got married. Hyphenated couples can just remain who they are.
Sam L. on July 27, 2012 at 7:44 pm said:

Why wouldn’t a “true feminist” make up her own name, instead of going by her father’s name?
neo-neocon on July 27, 2012 at 8:40 pm said:

Sam L.: actually, plenty of feminists do reject the surname of their birth, bestowed by their father, and adopt a new one. At least, there used to be a vogue for this some years ago.

But rejection of names bestowed by men is not the only reason a woman might want to keep her maiden name. One reason is if she’s already established a professional identity under her maiden name. Another reason has to do with identity itself: some women just want to keep the name that has always been who they are, since their earliest memories. In that case, the woman has no problem keeping the name she got from her father (and mother, if her mother changed her own name on marrying).

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

Comments

Clash of the hyphens — 7 Comments

Leave a Reply