by Jules Pierre

Created on: July 21, 2008   Last Updated: July 22, 2008

Decades have passed since women were freed from the restrictions and implications of male ownership (at least in some societies), and yet the majority of women still opt to change their surnames when marrying, more often than not because that's just the way it is'.

I recently needed to make this decision and found myself largely ambivalent. On the one hand I felt why should I change my name'. This may seem an emotional reaction at first but beneath its defensive nature is a valid question. Are there really any valid reasons why a woman should change her name where a man retains his? At present, I'm not asking whether a couple should have a single surname but whether a woman should be the one to make the change. The only argument I could think of for this question was that currently, a woman changing her name is more readily accepted. The feminist in you may have plenty to say against such a reason but it is a reason nonetheless and worth considering.

Whether one agrees with it or not most people assume that a woman would have taken her husbands surname after marriage and tend to act on this. My sister decided to keep her surname after marriage but found it more trouble than it was worth to her. As an example, her husband's company would repeatedly make bookings for flights under his surname and so she found herself having to carry her marriage certificate around with her. These small irritations can certainly tip the scales if you're not really disinclined to taking a new name. No doubt this kind of attitude perpetuates a situation in which a woman changing her name is presumed but that is another issue entirely, involving moral considerations of social or communal responsibilities which I won't go into here, although I will touch on this again. For now one must admit that a woman not changing her name, given societies current outlook, whether one agrees with it or not, may require more irritating admin than not. Each individual must decide whether this is worth keeping one's identity.

Which brings me to my on the other hand'. What is identity? Am I defined by my name? Changing my name in no way implies that I am no longer part of my original family no matter what the historical significance. I wouldn't be changing my identity, just my name. Is it, therefore, shallow to protest? Keeping one's surname may have as much to do with the superficial preference of one name over another as with the proactive feminist aspect. Does that make it any less valid? One needs

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>