Comments on: Two Steps Back

By: starryrift

starryrift — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:32:51 +0000

You might well wonder what they say behind your backs…my husband’s family publicly claims to acknowledge and respect my decision, but I strongly suspect them of feeling slighted by it (hence the persistently misaddressed packages).

By: Brandon

Brandon — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 07:09:55 +0000

Very interesting post. This is something I’ve never understood; my wife and i both agreed that she would keep her name, so I really don’t have any firsthand experience when it comes to arguing about this issue. It seems, though, that the burden of proof is usually on the woman to explain what her position is on the issue. Revealingly, my wife and I never talked about whether I would take HER name. Funny how the neutral position of each partner keeping their own name is considered as a victory for women.

Interestingly, though, despite the fact that I come from an UBER conservative, Christian fundamentalist family, nobody has ever given us trouble about this issue in front of us. Who knows what they say about us behind their backs!

By: starryrift

starryrift — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:44:39 +0000

Absolutely, Mike, you could read the MIL in question as having a problem with people who have a problem with a woman’s taking her husband’s name, and you might be right. The implication, though, which is detailed in an earlier post, is more that “in order not to take my husband’s name, I would have to have a problem.”

Jonolan, my question is this: if the Times is counseling prudence, why not counsel refraining from marring the event by referring to the husband by his first name, as well? There are men who change their names — isn’t it also “politically incorrect” to assume they didn’t?

Thanks for reading.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:37:50 +0000

The problem with the headline is the same as the problem with my mother-in-law saying that she didn’t “have a problem” taking her husband’s name: it implies that people who keep their names do have a problem, and it tells you that it’s not “safe,”

Interesting POV. In isolation (and naturally you know the woman in question and I don’t, so please don’t take this as criticism or an attempt to argue), one could read that as against people who would have a problem with the woman’s taking her husband’s name.

My own POV? Do what makes you happy, and hang all the rest. My fiancee will be taking my name when we marry, but that’s her choice rather than mine, and I’ve always said it should be so.

By: jonolan

jonolan — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:30:52 +0000

It is politically incorrect to assume the bride took her husband’s name these days. It is also rude to assume she didn’t do so. The NYT is just counseling prudence – especially at a wedding reception where you don’t want to mar the event.

It’s actually only an issue because Friedanite feminists made the whole name change at marriage it so.