Surnaming
A while ago, following this display of progressive parenting, I wrote,
A quip that resulted in some rumblings on the topic of marriage and shared surnames, or the lack thereof. In the comments, Steve E noted,
And Ray added,
As I said at the time, I don’t have strong feelings on the subject, but it occurs to me that not taking your husband’s surname, ostensibly as some Assertion Of Progress And Enlightenment – while retaining what is presumably your father’s surname – does create complications.
For instance, having different surnames can confuse people as to whether you’re married or not, and if so, to whom. And any children with hyphenated surnames – a fashionable statement of the aforementioned Progress And Enlightenment – will then face the issue of what to do when they get married, especially if it’s to someone whose own name is also modishly hyphenated. Do they ditch some of the accumulated names – and if so, which ones? Or do they go for multiply hyphenated surnames, which would very quickly become a bit much?
Say, if Derek Williams and Sarah Anderson get married but retain their own surnames, and their children’s surnames are hyphenated as Anderson-Williams, they may enjoy a sheen of modernity, and perhaps connotations of aristocracy and status. But what happens when little Annie Anderson-Williams grows up and wants to marry James Houghton-Clompington? Do we get a brood of Anderson-Williams-Houghton-Clompingtons?
I’m exaggerating for comic effect, of course. But only slightly.
As a new, supposedly more equitable tradition – at least outside of the Spanish-speaking world – it seems scarcely less prone to complication and trade-offs. When hyphenated offspring come to name their own children – and if they follow the same rules as their hyphenated parents – the whole thing rapidly becomes unworkable, and, at risk of causing offence, names will have to be cut. Lest each child sound like a law firm.
Though I suppose one could take it as a kind of unintended symbolism, a measure of modern progressivism. In that, the problem it allegedly addresses doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for most of those it supposedly oppresses, and the solution offered is somewhat short-sighted and soon results in something close to absurdity.
In the original thread, pst314 added,
Also, among gay couples. Though gay couples tend not to result in children, thereby sidestepping the issue of escalating hyphenation and a society-wide overhaul of stationery, due to the need to enlarge the ‘print name’ and ‘signature’ boxes on every official form.
What brought to mind the above was this:
1) A family is a unit and should all share the same name, however that’s decided. You could choose the mother’s name or you could choose a random name, I guess, but they need to share a common name.
2) There’s a strong case that you really want to throw dads a bone with respect… https://t.co/xjCFIctVop
— wanye (@wanyeburkett) April 22, 2024
And subsequently, this:
Anytime I hear somebody say within earshot of a new father anything that sounds even remotely like, “he doesn’t really look like him, more takes after his mom” I’m filled with the sense that we have lost touch with some very basic and important loadbearing structures.
— wanye (@wanyeburkett) April 22, 2024
According to Finnegans Take, above, “equality requires sacrifice,” and it’s “honestly insane” that the husband and father’s surname is commonly the one taken. A convention that is, we’re told, “obviously misogynistic” and “obviously a practice to move away from.” “I’m proud to say my child will be taking her mother’s name,” he adds. Which, while aired in overheated terms, at least avoids the Looming Hyphenation Crisis.
Though I’m not sure why pride should be a factor, or why perpetuating the mother’s surname – but not the father’s – should be construed as any more equal, or somehow more fair.
Update, via the comments:
In the Atlantic article that prompted the exchange embedded above, its author, Michael Waters, notes,
This is announced almost mournfully, and the term “habitual and unconscious” is deployed, much like the claim by Finnegans Take that the matter “gets basically zero attention,” as if people getting married never, ever consider the issue at all. Rather than the possibility that many people do consider the matter, but may simply arrive at conclusions that suit themselves and their families, rather than pleasing an Atlantic columnist whose “constellation of personal obsessions” include “queer history,” and who, inevitably, lives in Brooklyn.
This is followed by the sombre news:
Failed, you hear. Failed. How disappointing you people are.
We’re also told that “the rate at which parents are choosing not to marry has risen dramatically over the past 50 years.” With one quoted sociologist adding, “I think you can say with a very high degree of confidence that unmarried parents are less likely to pass down the father’s last name.”
So there’s that, I guess.
As suggested by Wanye Burkett, above, the mother of the child is generally rather obvious. The identity of the father, however, his connection with the child, is sometimes less so. As a result, some nod of affirmation – or papering over the cracks – may be in order. And given current rates of fatherlessness, and the typically suboptimal consequences, publicly affirming a connection of child and father, or step-father, or adoptive father, doesn’t strike me as an obviously bad thing.
Or, as Mr Burkett puts it,
Again, this is not a subject on which I have strong feelings. I don’t spend my evenings being vexed by it. But it seems to me that the custom isn’t “obviously” without a function, or that it’s “obviously a practice to move away from,” or that its existence is “insane.”
As a footnote of sorts, it may also be tricky to deviate from such a tradition without the risk of that deviation being construed as rather pointed, perhaps even insulting. Not unlike the young, progressive woman, featured here recently, who, at her wedding, didn’t want her father to walk her down the aisle. Because that would look too patriarchal and old-fashioned, and insufficiently progressive. While still expecting him to pay for everything, obviously.
Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
For those of a giving nature, this blog is powered by the buttons below.
“For absolutely no reason…”
Stationery
[ Hurriedly corrects typo. ]
I was testing you, obviously. Ahem.
In the Atlantic article that prompted the exchange on X above, the author, Michael Waters, notes that,
This is announced almost mournfully, and the term habitual and unconscious is deployed, followed by the sombre news:
Failed, you hear. Failed.
We’re also told that “the rate at which parents are choosing not to marry has risen dramatically over the past 50 years.” With one quoted sociologist adding, “I think you can say with a very high degree of confidence that unmarried parents are less likely to pass down the father’s last name.”
So there’s that, I guess.
Silly boy labels anything he disapproves of as “insane”. Disingenuous.
And he refuses to admit the existence of reasons.
What deserves attention is his attitude. Harsh attention.
I’m still faintly amused by how often the parenting tag gets used here. I didn’t see that coming.
Taking the wife’s surname really means taking her father’s name. [ raises eyebrow. ]
It’s like they want to mess up their kids.
Well, let’s say some odd, and rather short-term and self-serving, choices were made.
LOL. NOBODY PANIC.
[ Engages Crisis Mode, fetches sand bags. ]
Tenner says he’s not the father.
One solution is to use the mother’s maiden name as a middle name; thus Isambard Kingdom Brunel named after father Marc Isambard Brunel and mother Sophia Kingdom. No hyphen.
First thing that crossed my mind.
Easy choice for me. I liked my husband’s last name much better than mine.
why is it the world never remembered the name of Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dangle-dongle-dungle-burstein-Von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz-ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer-spelterwasser-kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein-nürnburger-bratwurstle-gerspurten-mit-zwei-macheluber-hundsfut-gumberaber-shoenendanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm?
This old punch card era book came to mind.
What’s the old joke, call me whatever you want, just don’t call me late to dinner?
It might be added, “while real, serious, ongoing problems are ignored or downplayed.”
Unrelated to surnames but within the scope of this blog:
Chicago woman takes Eddie Murphy’s “Kill My Landlord” to heart.
Chesterton’s fence.
That.
Except every time someone gets married and they get a chance to decide. Most don’t care.
By the way, Michael Waters, author of the Atlantic article quoted upthread…
lives in Brooklyn.
Heh.
His “constellation of personal obsessions” include “queer history.”
As suggested by Wanye Burkett, quoted above, the mother of the child is generally rather obvious. The identity of the father, however, is sometimes less so. As a result, some nod of affirmation – or papering over the cracks – may be in order. And given current rates of fatherlessness, and the typically suboptimal consequences, publicly affirming a connection of child and father, or step-father, or adoptive father, doesn’t strike me as an obviously bad thing.
Or, as Mr Burkett puts it,
Again, it’s not a subject I have strong feelings about, but it seems to me that the custom isn’t “obviously” without a function, or that its existence is “insane,” or that it’s “obviously a practice to move away from.”
You should watch the news here in Philadelphia when they cover one of the three to five daily shootings. When they interview the six to eight siblings of the victim they can find you’re lucky to find two that share the same surname.
I can think of many customs that clearly should be “moved away from”. Such as tolerating leftists and criminals.
It’s like they want to mess up their kids.
Thinking your sprog is a third wheel, what could possibly go wrong?
You were testing us, yes, of course.
Hear the one about the guy who used to sell pens and paper out of the back of a van but the business did so well that now he has a station*ry shop? I’ll get my coat, as one is supposed to say at such a time.
[ Reaches under bar, presses button. Hail of barbed conkers ensues. ]
Did George say the magic word, like on “Captain Kangaroo”?
Yes, I am elderly. How did you know?
Some years ago Megan McArdle wrote a brilliant post on the reasons for and utility of various social conventions. Very relevant to this topic.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050406215537/http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
From the archives, more progressive parenting and lifestyle news.
Oh, and speaking of Brooklyn, I’d forgotten about this.
And, somehow, this.
[ Steps away from archives before full-on madness takes hold. ]
Before?
Easy choice for me. I liked my husband’s last name much better than mine.
I know several divorced women who remarried and kept their first husband’s surname for that reason.
I know, I know. I could hear the ice cracking underfoot.
Conkers? In April? That’s almost as bad as asparagus at Christmas. You disappoint me. I’m not saying I would actually enjoy being bombarded with new potatoes or something else a bit more seasonal but I would at least feel that there was a bit of breeding in the choice of projectile.
When we married I asked my wife if she preferred to keep her own name, or take mine. I was a single parent with one child with my surname. She said even though her name was easier to spell and pronounce, she preferred my surname for the sake of convenience and simplicity. Let go of your unnecessary names and enjoy the simple life.
When I married we wanted to be modern so we hyphenated our last names. Think Smith-Jones but with two ethnic names. Difficult. This caused us lots of hassle. No one could spell the thing and it took forever to spell it for them. When we moved to South Carolina I went to the driver’s facility for new plates. The lady said she could only hyphenate first names (think “bobby-Sue”). I said well, drop the hyphen and put a space. “oh no, we can’t change it”. I left. Got pulled over shortly after for out of state plates. The state trouper said it was too crazy a story not to be true, so he let me off, but said I had to fix it or get a ticket next time. I went back and told a different girl to replace the hyphen with a space, and she did. Whew. I also had trouble with financial records get mis-filed.
Passing on the mother’s name is rather asserting that the father had little to do with it, as when a baby-momma has lots of different baby-daddys but no “father” for the children.
Well, it’s tricky to deviate from such a tradition without the risk of it being construed as rather pointed. Not unlike the young, progressive woman, featured here recently, who, at her wedding, didn’t want her father to walk her down the aisle. Because that would look too patriarchal and old-fashioned, insufficiently progressive. While still expecting him to pay for everything, obviously.
I’d imagine it’s hard for a father to take that condition, the public erasure of his symbolic role, as anything other than hurtful.
Let’s start with Finnegans Take.
Johnson. “Your friend was in the right, Sir. Between a man and his Maker it is a different question: but between a man and his wife, a husband’s infidelity is nothing. They are connected by children, by fortune, by serious considerations of community. Wise married women don’t trouble themselves about infidelity in their husbands.” Boswell. “To be sure there is a great difference between the offence of infidelity in a man and that of his wife.” Johnson. “The difference is boundless. The man imposes no bastards upon his wife.”
Song title?
[ Reloads conker cannon, just in case. ]
I think a little clarity about surnames might help, based on the Boswell quote. If a wife has a child that is not from her husband, he is obliged to support that child for the rest of his life, including the usual fatherly things as well as financial. To have to do that for someone else’s child (ie not his) would be a constant poke in the eye. I would find it unbearable.
For casual parenthood (as in poor neighborhoods) where the woman may not even know who the father is, you can observe that all the potential or actual fathers stay away or have only a loose connection to the child. My children have always relied on me for support and advice, even as adults. Casual parenting takes that support away. It is not a joke. Even worse, the greatest risk of physical harm to both woman and children is from these casual boyfriends (ie NOT from married fathers).
Thus the issue of surnames is not without basis.
In the comments, Steve E noted,
A mention. More than a mention. A quote. I’m truly honoured. Must make something special for lunch.
We’re going to need to keep you grounded. All glory is fleeting.
[ Prepares Sam Yang yakisoba noodles with teriyaki beef and fried tofu ]
This has already been handled, in Heraldry. Depending on the status of families, the two (or four, or …) escutcheons would be joined on the new coat of arms, with the more important taking the primary spot on the new “achievement”. Rules here.
Of course, one does have to have _some_ status to start with, but it would seem none of the people suffering this dilemma are without it. Obviously.
“The difference is boundless. The man imposes no bastards upon his wife.”
Not entirely. One of the reasons for societal disapproval (or outlawry) of husbands’ infidelity is to protect the lawful wife and her own biological children. Should an unfaithful husband choose to recognize his bastard offspring, that’s resources being taken away from the lawful family and spread around to unrelated children. And the existence of the bastard may well convince a husband to up stakes and start over with the new family.
But as chrisfoleen notes, these are social conventions that for most of human history were confined to the elite and the aristocracy, where landholding, titles and ultimately power were tied to blood relations. The middle class, once it emerged, aped the conventions of the aristocracy as a way of boosting their own meagre status.
It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that the current-day aristocrats are preaching something other than what they practice as a means of keeping the proles from getting any ideas above their station.
I was once told of an American lady from a Southern family of some social standing called Belcher, who married a fellow from a slightly less prestigious family named Wack, and preferred to be known as Mrs. Belcher Wack. When he died, she, after a decent interval, remarried to his younger brother. And from than point on, she insisted on being called Mrs. Belcher Wack Wack. Largely, I gather, because she could.
As others already pointed out, there were social reasons for asserting the identity of the father – and the objective was to ensure that the man slogged away to make sure HIS kid was fed, clothed, housed and educated.
The phrase ” throwing a bone to the man” was incredibly accurate. It wasn’t to do him any favour. Call him the master of the house (but of course, the household decisions, spending decisions were all in the hands of the oppressed wife), name his child after him, and you could treat him as a slave, force him to die in wars, spend all his money on his family.
The problem is, feminists and modern society decided it wasn’t worth even “throwing him a bone”, that you could insult him and disparage his contributions… and nothing would change, men would continue to slog, die, hand over his money, keep on building society.
A lot of women in coming generations are going to find out, to their heavy cost, who actually benefitted from the patriarchy.
A lot of women in coming generations are going to find out, to their heavy cost, who actually benefitted from the patriarchy.
I’ve pointed out elsewhere that one of the reasons Regency romances are so popular is that deep down, women know that all those stultifying rules were to protect them from their own bad decisions. Lydia, Kitty and Mrs. Bennet herself were pretty clearly negative examples.
David, you’ve been doing this far too long to not know why avoiding the father’s surname is the equalest and fairest choice. Because people are now taught, both on a personal and a societal level: “fuck you dad.”
Tell me about it.
This is my girlish ingénue face.
[ Dims lighting, applies moisturiser. ]
If Olivia Newton-John married Elton John she would be Olivia Newton-John-John.
If she divorced Elton and married Barry John(Welsh rugby player), would she be
Olivia Newton-John-John-John?
If Olivia Newton-John married…
Would she still be dead when she did all this? If so, she’d be Olivia Newton John John John Gone.
What? Too soon?
I didn’t realize this blog had a smooth jazz soundtrack.
Let me at that conker cannon, David!
I took the name of the man I married who I planned on creating a family with. Our daughters have his name. When I divorced, I took back my birth name because, frankly, I did it to honor my dad who had no sons (and it is a fairly unusual surname). When I remarried both of us were past the age of having more kids, so I kept my name as legal name. He was fine with it.
One of my girls has used her maiden name as the middle name of her offspring.
Interesting that dad walking daughter down aisle is patriarchal and verboten, but having dad pay for the whole overpriced shebang is totes ok.
Also that’s some next level bitchiness right there to shun dad but expect him to pay. I forget how that story turned out, but I hope he didn’t pay a cent.
BTW, Happy St. George’s Day.
If Ella Fitzgerald married Darth Vader, she’d be Ella Vader.
If Ethel Merman married Ernest Borgine…. Oh wait, that one really happened.
Any of you up in Canada, plan for Ottawa this Saturday!
Any of you up in Canada, plan for Ottawa this Saturday!
My sister-in-law (L, not Liberal) lives in Ottawa with her partner of close to 40 years and she’s mortified. We visited Ottawa for the first time in about 12 years last summer. Parts of it (unfortunately parts just before the bridge to Quebec) look like the worst part of Vancouver. The walking drug Zombies outside the free drug, shoot-up palaces have nothing to offer in the way of charm. You have to understand, 15 years ago, the streets of Ottawa were cleaner than Downtown Disney.
So no, we’re not going this Saturday. Perhaps our Prime Minister will make an appearance. Seems like his kind of event.
If Ella Fitzgerald married Darth Vader, she’d be Ella Vader.
The countries Ghana and Eritrea had planned to combine as one country until they realized the resulting country would be called Ghanarea.
(and it is a fairly unusual surname)
So no relation to Jiminy then?
[ Desire for conker cannon intensifies. ]
Sugar in your tea? Let the judging commence!
I had not seen that before. OMG. The man is a genius.
Someone had to do it:
THE LONGEST multi-barrelled surname on record in England is: Major Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache-de-Orellana- Plantagenet-Tollemache-Tollemache (1884-1917).
The leader of the British military mission to Russia in 1939 was Admiral Sir Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax.
Theoretically Muslim names, for bins or bints, go on forever backwards in time but always in the male lineage and never change on marriage.
It occurred to me as I pressed post comment that there must have been an element of in-breeding in the good major’s family.
My father used to delight in introducing himself as ‘Mr Surname, and this is my wife, Patricia Different Surname’.
Not as swinging as it seemed, his father, my grandfather, was from Yorkshire and an opera singer of some renown there. When he was headhunted by the BBC for a radio show and moved south, they though his name as very ‘provincial’ and requested he change it. So he took his two middle names and broadcast under that. As you can call yourself anything you want if you get a legal letter to have official documents changed to an assumed name in the UK, my dad adopted the same surname. But when he married, the surname his wife adopted followed the original (for some arcane church reason I assume) and so she was ‘Mrs Original Surname’.
My original birth certificate has the original surname too, yet all my documentation is in the assumed surname.
All y’all fancy naming people could perhaps spare a thought for the poor genealogists of the future who have to straighten out the mess you’ve made.
Not to forget the botched merger plans of Continental Airlines and Aer Lingus.
[Sees henchlesbians reloading conker launcher, dives for cover.]
[ Post updated. ]
[ Slurps coffee. ]
We await Julia’s shocking, quite filthy, biography.
They act like only lefties have minds.
Well, it’s curious just how often, how routinely, the implication is that if you should dare to disagree with Our Betters, then by default you must be some kind of shuffling, unthinking carcass, a being without thought. “Habitual… unconscious… failed to conceive….” Because the rest of us are such a disappointment.
To which, one might reply, Go fuck yourself, sunshine.
When I write my best-selling series of erotic historical novels, that will be my pseudonym.
This is one of the main points of Charles Murray’s Coming Apart. The elite or aristocrats, whatever we choose to call them, live lives at odds with their stated liberal opinions. Where they deviate, they are at least cushioned by access to money and power so they aren’t destroyed and returned to ‘Go’ in their lives.
The other point was the lack of assortative mating so members of the middle class have lost one of the rungs on the ladder to climb the social hierarchy.
See also, Rob Henderson on luxury beliefs. Or when a person’s loudly expressed opinions are merely social jewellery.
See also,
The idea of airing opinions as social jewellery, as positional goods, would, I think, explain the competitive, self-ratcheting tendency, and why we arrive at fabricated “hate crimes” for lack of any real ones, and Guardian columns about the menace posed by heteronormative cupcakes.
Understand this issue as my wife elected to keep her surname, as she was a recognised author, not that she needed to but it seemed a good idea at the time. However we find that the “complications” referred to above rarely intrude as most people do seem to understand and seem happy to go along with it. Offspring took my name though, idea is to keep things as simple as reasonable.
However can be an issue on divorce, keep the name or revert.
There’s an element of inbreeding in most people’s families. It has become rarer in the last 100 years or so but only gradually with the increasingly inexpensive availability of travel and easier communication across vast distances.
Except in some cultures, which use inexpensive air travel to send their daughters back home to be married off to their cousins. 😉
At this point, it can’t be said often enough.
Band name.
Not one that I would think of checking out though. Like Tears for Fears. Though they did have one good song. Which has only become interesting 40 years later and only if you reverse their intent.
When we got hitched, after 27 years, the Other Half and I didn’t see a need to decide on a single surname. Though for several days we did receive cards from friends and family members addressed to a Hyphenated Us, with no agreement on which surname was supposed to come first, which was quite funny.
But – and this is rather the nub of it – we don’t have children.
[ Checks under sofa, just in case. ]
Somebody mentioned St. George’s Day, apparently there were disruptions.
Hasn’t St. George’s Cross long been used by British soccer hooligans? Long before current worries over hostile Islamic immigrants?
Not to imply any related opinion on my part regarding these current “disruptions”: It seems a perfectly reasonable symbol for civilized Brits who oppose the importation of millions of hostile foreigners. What else should they use, after all? A basket of fish and chips? A glass of ale?
OT
Somebody mentioned St. George’s Day, apparently there were disruptions.
Nobody tell the coppers their patrol vehicle looks like a clown car. Although it seems apt for police who like to make house calls for Wrongthink.
Well you did have that hamster. Though I suspect one doesn’t bother with veterinary care on rodentia. Wife and I had a hypothetical discussion regarding sending a Christmas card to new in-law relatives who are gay. Nice couple whom we see every Christmas now and sometimes exchange comments on FB. I suggested why not just keep it to “Tom and Dennis”. It’s the address that gets the card there. She thought it might be misconstrued. Or the post office (spit) might object. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. We decided to stick to FB exchanges for the time being.
Quite a few countries use Battenberg markings for emergency vehicles, and not just in the Anglosphere. They are more visible than any solid color. I think nobody would be thinking of clowns if it weren’t for the recent decline in policing.
Wasn’t there also
suspiciouslycoincidentally a mysterious blob of hair and stuff clogging the vacuum cleaner?