I think women changing their names is a terrible thing. ;)

I was married before and didn't change my name. In fact, when people called me Mrs. Ex-Husband-Last-Name, I hated it, and would correct them.

Psyche is an interesting thing. Shoulda listened to it.

The whole "The Mrs" thing started out as an inside joke--to folks who knew Kim and me, and our attitude about that sort of thing. But as more and more people took issue with it, accusing me of all sorts of things for doings so (doormat, wimp, neaderthal, abused wife, etc), I clung to it even more. Over time it lost its humor and became who I am--a rebirth, in a way, and a wonderful "do over."

One of the reasons I married Dean was because his last name only had 5 letters in it.

Oh, people think I'm bad. My mom would verbally annihilate a person that suggested she was "a simpering submissive".

I know what you mean about being flattered! It's totally cool, and Yoder is a far more distinctive name than Ellis.

I had always thought it was weird that women seemed, mostly, so eager to change their names in these days of "women's lib." Now I think I understand.

I didn't change my name because of the hassle. Also, I was already practicing law and I didn't want to have a different name than I had graduated law school with. At first the husband was upset but now he prefers it. We practice together and we can choose when to let people know we're married.

But the biggest reason I'm glad I didn't is that people who knew me long ago can locate me and relatives can figure out we're related.

Reading Yglesias' blog on the matter reminded me why once again why today's "liberals" are dangerous. Not only he but many of the commenters believe that the wife taking the husband's last name is a sign of ownership.

These people have no ablility to distinguish the relevant from the insignificant. Historically such relationships were a problem, but the names were irrelevant. The fact her property became his, to pick one of many issues, was the problem.

My opinion is that the vast majority of Americans today are classical liberals, including libertarians and most conservatives. Lefties and self-identified "liberals" are just the ones who aren't smart enough to realize liberals won. So instead of appreciating freedom they blather that a name change implies ownership.

We now live in a world where taking the name is a personal choice, but he believes we need to shame people into acting differently? Another example of how today's liberals aren't for freedom.

No mj. The truth is, it's a sign that most of today's leftists aren't liberal. "Liberal" means open-minded, tolerant, open to new ideas, not wedded to orthodoxy, finding value in all points of view. Most on the left simply do not deserve the compliment of being called "liberal" any more, because they are none of those things.

Some of them like to try to peg me as a right-winger or a conservative. Still more sign of the blinkered, reactionary world so many of them have boxed themselves into.

We simply explain that the wee wifey did not give up her maiden name when she ceased being a maiden.

Dean,

You're trying to get the word back instead of describe their evolution and position. I know that's an ongoing crusade, but that's not my goal. I suspect Yglegias and most other lefties would give very positive reviews to the ideas of Mills, for example. So in that respect at least they would still be considered liberal. We need to show how someone with those core beliefs comes to hold the specific policy views he does. Saying he's not liberal doesn't really advance the issue.

I once called Rosemary a simpering submissive. Oh, that reminds me, can I have my thumbs back, please?

Oh, I quite disagree. First off, by simply using the word "liberal" the way you do, you play into stereotypes that they love to paint you with. You talked about how "liberals" are "dangerous." You know they'll do nothing but laugh at you and stop taking you seriously as soon as they read that. "Yes, those dangerous open-minded and tolerant people must be stopped!" they'll say to themselves.

You give these reactionaries far too much power when you let them own words they don't deserve.

This isn't a crusade. It's a plea for honest use of language. Fortunately, I'm not the only one.

Oh, and I think, MJ, that countless of numbers of today's so-called "liberals" absolutely fail to live up to big swaths of Mills. My God, the very notion that you would intentionally try to use widespread social intimidation and humiliation just to get women to stop using a traditional choice of name change, to suggest that changing your name means you've submitted to ownership, is so utterly repellant and fundamentally illiberal it's nauseating. There is nothing open-minded or tolerant about that. Nothing.

I honestly don't know how this became a discussion all about liberals. Talk about putting people in a box.

I am a "liberal" but I do not support the view that a woman changing her last name is an indication of total submission. I know a lot of female attorneys who kept their maiden names as Justene did, for professional reasons, but I don't agree that makes her any stronger or better or more independent of a woman than one who decides to take her husband's name. I just think it's a ridiculous argument for anyone to even devise in the first place. Another case of the real femi-nazis of the world reeling out of control. I consider myself a feminist, but one has to apply that to their own lives in the way that they see fit and try and influence society in a positive way rather than ranting on and on about all the ways in which women are being "broken" by men. I just don't relate to the extreme outlook on the name change subject. My mother's name is the same as my father's name. She is a strongly opinioned "feminst" & "liberal," but the name Carreon is who our family is. It defines us so deeply. Maybe more so because my parents are still together after 30 years. My dad wasn't trying to force my mother into submission when he married her. They built a life together, had 3 kids together. We all share the same name. It is a part of our identity. Fuck anyone who says that's wrong.

It amazes me that anyone would perceive it as a big crusade-worthy issue when it is one that most people have to deal with on a private & personal level. To bring politics into the mix just seems rabid to me.

P.S. These people who are up in arms against women who change their last names aren't doing anyone any favors. They should focus all that energy on helping victims of domestic violence and furthering women's rights around the world.

Maria,

Dean is a self-hating liberal, that's why this about liberals.

Other than that I agree with you. I'm getting really tired of agreeing with you, you liberal!
:-)

Dowingba,

You can have your thumbs back, in return I want one of your testicles.

What?! What do you need three testicles for, Rosemary? *Zing!*

I like to play marbles with my son and I lost one the other day, so...

Hahaa! Don't worry Rosemary, there's still plenty of things left to disagree about. ;o)

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the eyes of the law (British and American) women were chattel in fact until relatively recently. Don't go wringing your hands about it, that was then.

The name-change-upon marriage issue is for the most part a meaningless diversion. The crux is what happens within the marriage (division of labor, property acquisition and the duration of the marriage).

My own little story: my fiance had been married before and had two small sons. It turned out David was worried that his mommy might have to give her name back if I took my spouse's surname.

Needless to say, I remained Ditz.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the eyes of the law (British and American) women were chattel in fact until relatively recently.

Consider yourself corrected. It's not so. Never been so, either.

The actual status of women has always been far more complex, even in the most repressive societies.

The most memorable exchange I can recall on this general subject was from Robert B. Parker's Spenser novel "Looking For Rachel Wallace." Spenser was working for Rachel Wallace--a committed feminist--as a bodyguard, and the two of them clashed frequently on basic issues. She happened to mention that she still had her father's name, and commented that no one had ever asked her if she wanted her mother's name. Spenser was non-committal in response, which annoyed Wallace--who pressed him for a reply. His response was to the effect of: "Well, if you had been given your mother's name, wouldn't it have just been a matter of your grandfather's name being forced on you instead of your father's?"

If women really want to free themselves from the "tyranny" of the patriarchal system of nomenclature, they're just going to have to change their names to something they like when they're old enough to do so--or, if they're feeling less confrontational, they could voluntarily re-affirm their current surname at the age of majority. Until something of that sort is done, any surname they end up with will have originated with some man at some point in the past, whether it be their husband's, one generation back, or several.

I think it's really nice to take your husbands name.

I started in life with Polly Collier. When I married the first time I took my husbands name at a very young age out of sweet young innocent love. I became Polly Brackenridge.

When that marriage didn't work out through no fault of my own, I must add! Still young and beautiful I remarried and became Polly Smith. That didn't work out and remarried and became Polly Sethford. Still in hopes of a better life, I remarried once again and became Polly Beckendorf. Only to have the hopes of an even better life, I remarried and became Polly Landry. Oh dear, once again I tried and became Polly Laffety. Then Polly Rosenbaum. Then Polly Vandenburg.

I had a couple of children and of course they had different names, they took on their different fathers names confusing them terribly. That was fine for me though.

Unlike the professional women that chose to keep their maiden names for the simplicity of going into business for themselves or dozens of other reasons and some so their friends and family could easily find them, I too had a real good reason to change my name taking on my different husbands name. I was a young woman wanting a wonderful career and be an outstanding proffessional and also to have children. I made my plans for my future at a very young age.

When my children reached puberty, they were just a year or so apart, I headed off to Mexico for a well deserved R&R. Yep, I took off, with Lot's of money from each husband giving me half his earnings. I had over five million dollars saved that nobody knew about especially my family and friends and those bratty kids of mine.

I...Unlike Justene, did not want my family or friends to ever locate me! Especially them teen age brats I had! I am sure you understand...family, friends, kids? Yeah, right!

Take care everyone.

What's her name in Mexico living a good life sipping on margarita's and dancing with Juan, Miguel, Hipilito, and Victor!

(of course my e-amil is a fake)

I always say with issues like this: whatever floats your boat, people. You want to take your husbands's name? Good for you. You don't want to? Good for you.

A guy at my high school reunion took his wife's name and everybody snickered at him behind his back, about being pussy-whipped, etc.

Can't stand that double-standard.

If it's not degrading for a woman to take her husband's name, then why is it degrading for a man?

red: As for your old friend, if you ever see him again tell him this old military rhetorical question for men: Do you want to live in the cathouse or the doghouse?

Juliette:

HAHAHA Good one! I grew up next door to the guy - maybe I will ask him!!

Names are very powerful. In some societies they are considered magical and kept in varying degrees of secret, or privacy. Big mojo in a name. Just try calling your friend, Jan, "Jean." Or Dean, "Dan." Don't even try calling Rosemary, "Basil."

I have always believed that one ought to name one's Self. Changing One's Name to reflect the changes wrought by important events in one's Life seems to be the way to go.

It has always irked me when, upon meeting someone they say, "Oh, I know a Claire," as if we were all out of the same box. "Well ya don't know this Claire, lady! Or ya wouldn't say such silly things out loud."

But I digress... Choosing one's name is a personal thing and, like choosing one's partner, ought to be left to the individual. The point about the relationship of husband to wife has been made and is being considered outside of the name-sharing thing.

One of the reasons I married Dean was because his last name only had 5 letters in it.

I heard that. I'm not picky about who I marry, as long as his last name is Smith. ;)

When my friends Susan and David got married, he took her name. He didn't have any attachment to his own - his father left them and his mother remarried - and it was a 27-letter job too. I can't imagine anyone calling him whipped for it, either.

Altho... we do usually call them Mr & Mrs Susan J. instead of Mr & Mrs David J.