Not in the name of marriage?
lfar:
lfar:
Though the “Mr.” title is used for both 10-yr olds and 80-yr olds, I think it’s a bit presumptuous to say that it’s always used in the same way. I never referred to myself as a Mr. when I was 10, and the only people who did were being sarcastic. When a man signs the marriage register, he assumes a new identity as well. (At least he’d better. Otherwise he has no business making that commitment.) Last names/ the “Mrs.” title aren’t being evaluated on the basis of equality in this debate: they’re being evaluated on the individualistic assumption that changing them has the power to change one’s entire identity. For some this may be true, but for the vast majority this debate does the disservice of confining one’s identity to a couple of letters. Last names, which have a lot more to do with where you come from than who you are, don’t have to be a symbol of equality - equality is about things far more important than that. So please, devote more time to things that truly matter, like equality in education, than to things that only matter to one person - you.Ah, Mr and Mrs: how homely, how familiar, how quaint. You see, I will never become a Mrs, and I will never take my husband’s name. If pushed, I choose Ms, but otherwise I will always be me. First name. Surname. It startles me that so many women of my generation never question this bizarre ritual. As soon as a woman signs the marriage register she assumes a new identity. It may be merely symbolic, but it’s that symbolism that most jars with today’s notions of equality.You’re confusing the “Miss/Mrs/Ms” conversation with the “take somebody elses last name” conversation.
1. Mr isn’t the same as Miss/Mrs. Without Ms, a female identity comes down to Miss/Mrs (that is, her maritial status). If you want to say that Mr. is age dependant, fine. But age dependant isn’t the same as martial status dependant.
2. Also not the same is a man’s “new identity” when he gets married. If you want to argue that symbolically he becomes a different person when he signs the marriage papers, fine. But the tradition of a woman taking her new husbands last name is misogynistic, and comes from the days when women were their husbands propery. You know, letters formerly addressed to “Mr. John Smith” now are addressed to “Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.” Whatever symbolism you want to apply to a man changing his identity when he marries, it is CERTAINLY NOT the same symbolism as a woman changing her name. A woman changing her last name symbolises objectification.
3. Oh? Speaking out about objectification is a poor devotion of time? Really? Such dismissal of somebody’s concerns as frivolous is certainly a good silencing technique, but come on. The only reason I would participate in the tradition of maiden/married names is for the concept of family unity. And if either husband or wife has to change last name, why not husband? All the pros of the tradition, with none of the misogynistic cons.
Bruvark, if its such not a big deal, then how about when/if you marry, you change your last name to your wife’s?
In response to your final point: when/if I marry, what my last name becomes doesn’t much matter to me. Yes, I am attached to my family’s history. We freakin’ hid Jews during the second world war, and I feel I have something to be proud of. But I certainly hope that I’ll be much more attached to whoever it is that I choose to marry than I am to the letters I sign my name with (and vice versa). So if it comes down to it, I’d be ok with giving up my last name.
To your intro and point 1: Yes and yes. I did confuse the two debates - thank you for the correction. With respect to the Miss/Mrs./Ms. conversation, I can understand why there is a movement away from titles that are tied to marital status, based on the way the terms have been used in the past. But I would argue (and this is based on my experiences, which are, no doubt, inadequate) that the terms are no longer used in the same way. To me, the term Mrs. is used as a sign of respect for someone who has children. I have never and will never use it just because someone gets married. This doesn’t mean that I have more respect for a woman who has kids, though. It’s merely an acknowledgment of a choice that someone has made.
To point 2: Since I don’t see a last name as something used to denote property, but rather to denote heritage, I don’t agree with the idea that changing one’s last name objectifies that person. To me, the choice of last names is a decision that should be made between the husband and wife, with equal input from each party. Whether it’s the woman or the man who changes their last name, it’s done out of mutual desire, not property rights.
Whatever they decide to call themselves, they are both in control of their identities - which will become very much entwined in marriage. This actually has a lot to do with what you’ve called the ‘concept of family unity’. (I hope it’s more than just a concept, but that’s just me speaking.) IF a name has to be changed, why not the husband’s indeed? But then again, why not the wife’s? So long as the decision is made between the couple, what does it matter? The only people who will notice (whether they be traditionalists or non-traditionalists) will be the people looking for something to notice.
To point 3: No, I don’t believe that speaking out about objectification is a poor devotion of time. Silencing Lfar wasn’t my intent - I actually was looking forward to your response all day. I could have phrased my arguments better, but as I think I’ve already indicated, I don’t think these particular issues are really about objectification anymore. I think that they have a lot more to do with personal choices, and I think the Miss/Mrs./Ms. conversation is happening between already quite privileged people and that it’s a bit selfish. It’s like spending our energy demanding bottled water when the tap water we drink is fine…and there are millions of people whose lives could be saved if they had access to our tap water.
So yes, let’s continue to speak out about objectification. But let’s pick some higher priorities, ones that don’t just affect our own day-to-day lives. The objectification inherent in human trafficking/prostitution, the pornography industry, and the status of women in developing countries are some of the issues that blogging time should be devoted to.
