Eliot Spitzer is making me rethink this whole name-change thing.
I'm not implying that Rick has any kind of predilection for high-priced call girls or that the future of New York state is weighing heavily on my prematrimonial conscience.
But his wife is.
I'm hardly alone in being far more interested in Silda Wall Spitzer than in Eliot and his apparent soft spot for expensive sex. Here's a smart, high-powered, accomplished woman, who gives up her career for her husband's political ambitions. Sure, she also raises three children and she has her own foundation to run. But I'm pretty sure no one wonders which of the Spitzers gave up more for the other's career.
I'm not judging her for this. I don't know her or anyone who does, and for all I know, she never really liked practicing law or being a busy working mom.
Not everyone is so restrained. Linda Hirshman writes on Slate that the "Silda Spitzer Lesson" is, simply, "Don't quit your day job." The longer version would be that she's a casualty of the "opt-out revolution." "Like all revolutionaries, the opt-out revolutionaries often wind up bleeding on the barricades," Hirshman writes.
Fair enough. But isn't that in some way saying that the root of her wrong decision was in trusting her husband?
I don't plan to give up my day job anytime soon, children or not. But at some point in most two-career couples' relationships, someone ends up sacrificing for the other. It might not be as extreme as giving up a path to managing partner in favor of political wifery, but it's usually not an easy or equitable compromise either.
This is, I suppose, basically what marriage is, giving up the primacy of yourself as a self-contained independent being in favor of some sort of joint enterprise, a whole you create with another person that means more than you. It's trusting someone else as much as - maybe more than - yourself, sacrificing for him not because it's for him but because on some level it's for you both.
That leaves you very vulnerable. But can you do it any other way? If you zealously guard your independence and self-reliance, aren't you on some level failing to make a basic commitment to the other person?
Which leads me to changing names. Sure, it sounds trivial compared to matters of feminism and trust and commitment. But it involves all of them. If I take my husband's name, I am giving up one symbol, however superficial, of me. Sure, it's not giving up a career or anywhere close. But it's still giving up something of my independent identity and taking part of his, in a way that he doesn't have to reciprocate. (Thanks to Charlin, for nailing this point...maybe the hardest part about the name-change decision is that even if it's a woman's choice, it's still a sexist assumption.)
I wouldn't be marrying Rick if I had any inkling that he could possibly let me down. But I can't imagine that Mrs. Spitzer (at least she kept the "Wall") and a long list of other wives didn't also feel that way once too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Harrison isn't that bad of a last name. Just think, it could be a lot worse if Rick's last name was:
- Stump
- Bahls
- Fullwood
- Bastardo
- Tush
- Smellie
- Glasscock
- Cox
- Dick
- Bush
- Beaver
- Zittman
- Weiner
I think "sexist" is the wrong interpretation of why men don't (or won't) change last name. More appropriate would be that this is a cultural thing, simply a tradition that has never really been challenged (until very recently it seems).
Once you throw a sexist slant on the argument, then you uncessarily create a debate that can never be resolved. Feminist-leaning women will struggle with the decision to change and be forced to yield to this "sexist" society, and may never be happy with either choice. And if they go to the extreme of wanting their husbands to hypenate it's a lose-lose proposition from the man's perspective - either refuse and hurt your relationship with your wife, or change and make a thousand everyday social interactions much harder then they ever would have been.
Which is not to say that some traditions aren't inherently sexist (or even racist) and probably should be changed - but this isn't one of them. This has more to do with practicality (one family, one name) than ANYTHING else. Yeah, theoretically you can have half the men change and half the women change, but then you hurt the practicality of the thing - e.g., now you have another choice to deal with, and another chance to cause friction between the couple and the couple's families (as if we need more friction while planning a wedding).
Two examples to illustrate my point:
- A man usually "escorts" a woman in a formal setting (i.e., SHE takes HIS arm) - does this make the modern feminist feel oppressed, enslaved, etc.? Should the man take her arm? Does it really matter? It's just tradition and culture. And it's cute and nice.
- The husband would enter the workforce while the wife would stay home. While this was tradition, it discouraged any woman from being able to pursue whatever intellectual pursuits or possible careers that might interest her. This is clearly oppressive and created an inequity in opportunity.
So, does the choice of a last name come closer to: A) taking your husband's arm as you stroll onto a dance floor; or B) creating a unequal opportunity for happiness between a man and a woman and any children that they have.
For anyone whose choice is B, you'll have to futher explain to me why you even agreed to marry a man in the first place.
Perl,
I'm not saying it's sexist for men not to change their names. My issue isn't with the guys at all. It's with the institution, which I think is undenialby rooted in a tradition based on some pretty outdated interpretations of gender.
You can call that sexist or just say it's a cultural tradition, but I think it's hard to deny that the tradition itself expects women to do things that men would not do.
There IS something about changing your name that is inherently unequal. When two people get married, they both make a commitment, both expect to make some sorts of sacrifices at some point, etc. But when it comes to changing names, only one person gives up anything.
That's probably inevitable. I don't advocate hyphenating and I think making up a new name is silly. But the point is that it's one person going out on a limb while the other isn't. Is that akin to enslavement? Of course not. But it still makes me think twice.
I don't think that name changing falls squarely into either of the situations you raised. I really don't think you can compare taking someone's arm to changing your name. I also don't think it perfectly aligns with staying home when you have children. But to a large degree, that doesn't matter. The issue I have is that there is still a cultural expectation about name-changing that expects women to do it and rejects the idea of men doing it (which is just as bad for any guy who chooses to change his name).
I once wrote a column about last names and the quandary I would face if/when I got married. I got a call from a guy who said he'd changed his name because his wife was more established professionally, and he had to go through so many more hoops than women would. He had to advertise his name-change in the paper, in case he had creditors, the way you would if you changed your name from Perl to Godzilla. I don't think women have to do that. He also faced far more scrutiny and odd looks from people wondering what he was doing.
In this case, he was affected by these sexist (or outdated, if you prefer) expectations about name changing. I'm not saying it's the fault of the guys we marry these days. It's a problem with the tradition. The weight of the history of it all, where women were expected to do one thing, doesn't change my decision to give up my last name. But it does make me feel a bit sheepish about it.
I guess my point is while the "institution" is ROOTED in sexist ideals (no argument there), the tradition as it exists TODAY has little (if anything) to do with any kind of gender bias. If you're going to get hung up on how we got here rather than focus on what it now means to be here, then we might as well get back on the Mayflower and give the country back to the native tribes.
So it sounds like you'd agree to replace "sexist" with "outdated" and "oppression" with "expectation"? If so, then you've really gotten my point.
And by the way, I think it's healthly for you to be exploring these issues with so much time to go before you actually have to make a decision.
But I was directing some of my ire at a couple of your other commenters who seem to be unnecessarily militant about this issue. So my two examples were meant to be extreme exaggerations of both ends of the spectrum, 'cause I think there are some out there who don't see any middle ground on this.
And my wife's two cents (I'm paraphrasing for her) - No matter what, you will always and forever be ALB even if legally you are known as AH. In the whole span of a marriage, you and your husband will be faced with many similar decisions along the way, and not all of them are going to be resolved with a 50/50 compromise (and in some cases such as this, it will be a 0/100 split) - such is marriage, and when you put this question in the context of the entire marriage, the answer should be easy: It makes things so much easier for the family when the woman changes her name, so why not make the change - since it will NEVER change who you really are inside.
Hello Perl. I don't really know you, but I have a feeling I am the "unnecessarily militant" commenter referred to in your post, so I'd like to post a rebuttal. (Actually I was planning to post a comment anyway, but now I think one is even more called for.) It is the attitude many people hold toward name-changing that bothers me because I think it reflects sexist attitudes, assumptions, and expectations. Why is it considered going "to the extreme" if a woman would like her husband to hyphenate his last name yet considered perfectly normal to expect a woman to take her husband's last name? The only reasonable explanation I can see for not expecting men to make the change ever is sexist attitudes toward name changing that unfortunately exist in the world. The man would be subjected to social ridicule, laughed at by many as being "whipped". I would not want that for my husband, and so I would not expect him to change his name -- but only due to the sexist views of others and how that would affect him in the world. The result is a lose-lose situation for the woman, not the man. Women continue to not challenge the institution (because there is no satisfactory way to do so), and the institution remains as strong as ever.
Calling name-changing a "cultural thing" does not change the sexist reasoning behind it. The fact that an act is tradition might explain why you do something without thinking about it -- but once you are conscious of it (as so many women are now), the fact that it was "tradition" or based on "culture" is not a good enough reason to continue to place a burden or expectation solely on one sex. What if this institution wasn't based on gender but was based on race instead? For example, say, if in mixed-race marriages, the nonwhite individual was always expected to change his/her name to the white spouse's name. I think it would be hard to argue that this is not a racist institution (in the present, not just based on its roots) -- and if indeed it came from racist roots, that would make it even more offensive and make change even more desirable, would it not?
There is also nothing impractical about having men change their names roughly as often as women do. Sure, it adds another choice to the mix, but all that means is now the couple gets to make a decision together, while right now it is women alone who face the decision-making quandary of what to do about their name. And sure, the ability to make choices may cause friction, but so what? Many choices may cause friction -- where the wedding should be, where the married couple should live, etc. To say it is better to maintain the current institution of name-changing by women alone in order to reduce potential friction would be following the type of reasoning that conservative Christians put forth for having men as the head of the household and holding all final decision-making power -- in the name of less marital friction. Come on, seriously? So women should just give it up because men would be unhappy if they actually had to think about possibly changing their name (without the excuse of overwhelming societal pressure as exists today)?
Finally, with regard to the two examples, I agree there is a whole spectrum of gender-based expectations out there, and some are worse than others. Clearly, the name changing institution is not the worst by any stretch of the imagination. But that it is not as awful as expecting women to stay pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen does not explain why the institution is okay or even good. And there are plenty of examples of middle ground that may not go as far in restricting a woman's career choices but are still unacceptably sexist. (For example, if women were expected to walk half a step behind their husbands whenever they went out together. Not as obviously oppressive as plenty of other sexist expectations, but certainly demeaning in a symbolic way.)
P.S. I married my husband because I love him. It's not his fault that the existing name-changing institution stinks.
Charlin,
Thanks for clarifying your view. I think I understand what you're saying.
I'd like to think of myself as somewhat progressive and personally I'm not against having the husband change/hypenate his last name. And conceptually there really is no reason for me to refute it as anything other than just another choice such as where to live, etc. But for every progressive male thinker out there, there are probably 10 sexist assholes who would sooner hand over their testicles in a pickle jar than relinquish their last name to "some broad". I get it - society at large still perpetuates the sexism, no matter what I personally think.
But while for many people it may reflect "sexist attitudes, assumptions, and expectations", I contend that it is much less so in today's society, and that is the key for me. I am looking at the evolution of societal norms and trying to put it into context while I feel you are merely looking at the current snapshot of society in a vacuum.
And I disagree when you state "Calling name-changing a 'cultural thing' does not change the sexist reasoning behind it.". It does if YOUR reasoning behind following the culturing thing is NOT sexist. In other words, I don't equate tradtion to "do[ing] something without thinking about it" as you suggest - in fact quite the opposite. Our friend Arielle here is a perfect example of this point!
Also, if you're not willing to concede that CURRENTLY men changing their names is infinitely more impractical than women changing their names (and I'm talking about applying for a loan, etc. things like that; not getting called "Whipped" by other men), well then we'll agree to disagree on that one.
On another note, one question my wife has brought up is for a woman who keeps her maiden name (or otherwise uses a different last name from the husband/children) - How does she react when a stranger addresses her as "Mrs. [husband's last name]" - Does she just go along with it; Does she politely attempt to correct the other person; Or does she curtly correct the other person as if she has been offended?
I think that this spectrum of responses might be a good measurement of where our views differ, without suggesting that one view is better than another.
My wife (used as my proxy here since I need a woman's view here) has stated that she would not correct the other person - she does not believe anything is to be gained by questioning the rationale behind the other person's assumption. For the woman who curtly corrects the other person, I assume she does not necessarily view the "offender" as sexist, but wants him/her to think more carefully about why he/she made such a gender-based assumption - in a sense, she's trying to change the world one person at a time. A noble cause, I guess, but I don't think the approach works.
When I look at something like the current Democratic primaries and see that about the half the country (hopefully much more than half!) will be voting for either the first Black man or the first woman to become President, I can't help but be filled with hope that eventually all race, gender, sex, religious, etc. walls will eventually fall as well.
I predict one day that men and women will be equal in every way - That day may come in 100 years, 1000 years, or more. But as I stated before, why focus so much on where we were rather than where we are, even if we still have more to go.
Perhaps I'm just too optomistic about society. But the fact that it is not unheard of for women to keep their name or for men to hypenate should give us all the hope we need (for now) that the sexist basis for the assumption is decreasing even if the assumption is still there in practice.
So even if Arielle ultimately takes her husband's last name, she should still be lauded for simply taking the time to analyze her options, since I feel her ultimate decision is less important than the path she took to get there.
I agree wholeheartedly that society has evolved a lot in a good way in terms of being less sexist – and that’s a great thing. I hope you’re right and we do reach real gender equity someday (preferably someday soon!).
I recognize the current difficulties men face in changing their names. These difficulties are the consequences of the general societal expectation that men will not change their names (but women will). In fact, one of the reasons for my general dissatisfaction with the existing name changing practice is that even if one person or one couple has no sexist assumptions going into it (which I think is pretty rare – how many guys actually seriously consider changing their names? If you know any, I greatly applaud them!), that person or couple is inevitably affected in their decision-making by the expectations of others. Because everyone else (or at least a large majority) expects the woman to change her name but does not expect the man to do so, those rare instances where men actually do change their names, they face both social pressure and practical hurdles, such as extra legal steps required or possible hiccups in loan applications, as you’d suggested. I think that is unfortunate and problematic. I certainly don’t mean to say that every man who keeps his name and every woman who changes her name is sexist. I just don’t like that they can’t help but be affected by these societal expectations and assumptions in making what I think should be a personal decision.
On the interesting issue of what to do when addressed by the wrong last name if you decide to keep your maiden name, personally, I would definitely correct the other person (unless I’m feeling particularly lazy that day) because to me, a large part of the point in keeping the maiden name is to spread greater awareness and make people think about the assumptions they are making in automatically calling someone “Mrs. X”. I don’t think just keeping the maiden name is really the ideal solution (since you still won’t share your husband’s name and probably also not the kids’ names) but if it helps to move things along (even a little bit) toward a world where men and women can make their own decisions about their last names without gender-based pressures, expectations, and assumptions, that’s better than nothing. I’m not overly optimistic about this occurring anytime soon, but I think that such gender equality is more likely to occur in a world where people know better than to automatically call you Mrs. X than one in which that assumption is never even questioned.
As for whether it should be a polite correction or a curt one -- I think the polite response probably gets the point across just as well as the curt one (though this is debatable: maybe showing some irritation would make the interaction more memorable – but it could be less effective since you’d just be labeled as angry and unreasonable). I’d prefer being polite just because I think it is generally better to be polite. At the same time, I would not necessarily frown upon women who are curt about it because I think they have a valid reason to show some displeasure. Let me try to explain my thoughts on this using another example. Let’s say you’re black and work at a law firm. But people assume you are a delivery person instead of a lawyer and try to give you packages to delivery. They might assume you’re a delivery person because they are racist, or they might not be overtly racist but may make this assumption because there are so few black lawyers in the world (such that black people seen in the office building in the past have always been delivery people). Regardless, I think the black person has a valid complaint and has the right to give a curt response rather than a polite one. Now I’m not saying that calling someone Mrs. X is as bad as assuming you’re a delivery person. But the parallel I mean to draw is that even if the other person is not overtly sexist and simply did not know any better (e.g. he called you Mrs. X because in his experience that is the way things are), the person who is experiencing the thoughtless comment has a valid complaint which she may fairly voice with a curt response.
Post a Comment