From: goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: re: last names
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:55:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

awinters@hamp.hampshire.edu writes...
AW> yes.  i agree with you that the concept of a woman changing her last name
AW> at marriage is hideous.  i am still shocked at how common the practice
AW> really is.

What would you say, *if* for some reason, when society chose whose name to
use, they picked the woman's...?


AW> i agree again that it is a disgusting practice primarily because it
AW> reflects the passing down of (exclusive) male privilege and power.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not necessarily... Indeed, suppose that I were to marry a rich woman, (Oh, to
dream... Mind you, my wife is probably *also* wishing that *I* were rich...),
the "system" would give her *my* name, even though my children would be passed
down *her* power and privilege.

Your statement only perpetuates the stereotype that the husband is the one who
is expected to be the rich and powerful partner in a marriage.


AW> at the same time, it erases the female heritage.  (i couldnt tell
AW> you who my foremothers were if my life depended on it)

Granted, I *do* agree with this...


AW> my suggestion  =  lets get rid of a patriarchal structure and get
AW> on with it already.   then we wouldnt need to change anybody's name
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You seem to imply that it is "the patriarchal structure" that changes names,
rather than the *necessity for simplicity*.  (Remember: "Necessity is the *MOTHE
of invention" <-: ...emphasis added for slight sarcastic counterpoint of certain
*matriarchal* structures...  <-: )

Naturally, from your premise, it would logically follow that if we booted the
buggers out (and replaced them with whom???  I always wondered who would fill
the power vacuum created by the "overthrow of the patriarchy"), we wouldn't
have any need for changing names.  Of course, then what name would the children
have?  The names of both parents?  The name of the parent of the child's
corresponding gender?  In any of these cases, there would be a great deal of
confusion caused.  And this is only *half* the problem - what happens when these
people marry?  Indeed, if we used the first system, we'd soon have names like
James Smith-Jones-Rodrigues-Martinez after only a few generations!  This is why
we have the system we currently have, in the first place.  I don't necessarily
think that it's the right system, or even a fair system, but to suggest that
"removing the patriarchy" would somehow remove the need for a logical (and
admittedly arbitrary!) method of simplifying names after marriage, is somewhat
akin to personally blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * He's dead, Jim.  Kick him if you don't believe me.


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.