I was reminded of my distaste of this when I heard someone saying they're going to soon be "Mrs. so and so" recently.
Really? Why?
I'm sure it dates back to some ancient time when Feudalism ruled the world and women were regarded as property. Which, if you believe sitcoms and beer commercials, I guess that's still kind of the case.
I've always had an issue with it. A cautious disagreement when I was younger lest I reap the wrath of my (now divorced) parents, a strong disgust for it in my adult years.
I would never ask a woman to change her name for me. And what's more, to mine (though I do have a pretty cool name)! I wouldn't do that for her – why should she subvert herself like that to my name? Why is she the lesser party in the transaction?
You ever hear the term "mergers & acquisitions"? It's redundant, they're the same thing, only it depends on which side of the arrangement one is. The company getting acquired (usually by a stronger, richer, company) calls it a "merger", as though two equal entities are becoming one. They're saving face.
The stronger company of course calls it an acquisition. They're proud of their conquest.
In either case, the weaker entity usually loses their name. FedEx Kinkos is now FedEx Office. Say buh-bye to the company built by a determined dyslexic. (Enjoy your yacht.)
That's what the whole marriage / name changing thing reminds me of. Man finds woman, man woos woman – the more successful he is, the prettier she is, typically (and don't yell at me, blame Darwin) – man buys woman a friggin ridiculous hyperinflated piece of coal, woman pledges to become man's property, preacher oversees the business transaction, woman becomes "Mrs. so and so". The end.
For a few years, until the lawyers oversee the dissolusion of the entities, the messiness of which and dispersion of profits from which is determined by just how successful he is (or was) and just how pretty she is (or was).
I am probably sounding like a feminist, but it's a ridiculous cultural / societal "norm" that is messed up. "Nope sorry sweety, you are giving up your individualism to become a lesser part of my entity. And don't forget I like pancakes on weekends."
It's just a "small" issue you say, or "it's so romantic", but I say screw that. Be an individual. The basic premise of having to identify yourself as "the wife of so and so" is to draw attention to that other person, and completely omit your name, and thus, in a sense, your individual self.
All my conservative friends will be disgusted by this, but I've yet to hear a logical argument in favor of it – and there's definitely no "scriptural evidence" for it, unless it's some obscure text handed down by a pope or Joseph Smith (no wonder there's so many damn "Smith's" in the world today).
So there will never be a "Mrs. Josh Galt". At least not in connection with this Josh Galt.
Be yourself. Remain yourself. If he isn't secure enough to love you as an individual in your own right…ooooh. Good luck.
Nice to find your blog, Mr. Galt, though I disagree on the point at hand. Regardless of what name is changed, I’ve always seen it as a sign of unity, the formation of a new family– potentially a good thing, if you both agreed it didn’t have to do with obscuring anyone’s individuality.
Hm, I’ve just been reading about it on Google Books, in Cynthia Doll’s “Harmonizing Filial and Parental Rights in Names: Progress, Pitfalls, and Constitutional Problems,” and Percy Hide Reaney’s “A dictionary of English surnames,” and it sounds like it had very little to do with eradicating individuality, and instead was intended to create it. As populations grew, it seems as though the need for distinction drove the experimentation with different kinds of multiple word names: surnames based on region, trade, or family. It seems as though “patronyms” and “matronyms” were both common, until 18th century, when one– taking the father’s name– became more customary.
I’ll be in Portland in a couple weeks, and would love to hang out, if you’re there.
And I just realized that my research sort of avoided the point you were making, about why the woman takes the man’s name, and not about how the names came to be in the first place, and I … would have to research a little more to find out the pertinent answer. But I’ll leave that to you.