Conference turris::womannotes-v1

        Anybody know how this stuff even got started?  Obviously,
        people wanted children's names to reflect heritage and genetic
        lines of descent.  Although in this case, tracking through
        the woman's name make much more sense... you *always* know
        who a baby's mother is, but there can be some room for doubt
        as to the father.
        
        Ancient civilizations used to track inheritance through the
        mother's line (e.g., Amerinds and I believe Romans), but
        this never seemed to have caught on widely.
        
        In really ancient times, before they knew what made babies,
        it used to be "the child of the mate of Uggh."
        
        Who picked up the habit of naming Uggh's wife "Mrs. Uggh"
        as if she had no personal identity?  How was this naming
        relevant to tracking family lineage, or what were the other
        reasons?  Even if they were determined to track lineage through
        the male line, why couldn't Jane Doe and Lord Grand High
        Muckmuck simply name their kids little Muckmucks without
        mucking with her name?  Simply to make it "obvious" who was
        married to whom?  But how do I know if Jane Foobar is Joe
        Foobar's wife, sister, mother, or daughter?  I don't see
        how it could possibly be a solution to any problem even if
        it was conceived of as such... how did it manage to catch
        on?
        
        Anyone of historical bent?

        	/dave

    When I got married, I wanted to keep my name, and my husband wanted
    us to have the same name -- he grew up in a traditional family and
    I didn't.  My response was that he could change his name if he wanted 
    to.  In the end, neither of us changed our names.
    
    I was concerned about telling my very proper grandmother. When I
    explained that "we both decided to keep our own names", her amusement
    overrode any other feelings she may have had.  My in-laws were
    confused about our decision.  They were especially concerned about 
    how to address correspondance to us.  We asked them to continue 
    addressing us the way they had before we were married. 
    
    Although I have a strong personal opinion on this subject, I try
    to be tolerant of others' decisions along these lines, even if I
    don't understand what lies behind those decisions.  When someone 
    decides what they want to be called, we should respect their wishes, 
    and address them accordingly. 

    It's also important to handle "mistakes" with grace and humor. We
    can't change everyone's behavior!
    
    Liz Augustine

    
    Let's lighten up a bit.  When I got married, I took my husband's
    last name and kept my maiden name as my middle name.  I never
    thought to keep my own because his was much easier to spell and
    pronounce! :-)  (maiden=Courtois, married=Lowe)
    
    If you want to get technical, my husband's last name is not his
    name either!  His father was adopted by his maternal grandparents
    therefore changing his name from McLoughlin (or something like
    that) to Lowe.
    
    I do not regret changing my maiden name to that of my husband's
    inherited name.  People can still tell I'm french when they speak 
    to me! (the accent is still there) :-)  I like the name Lowe and 
    I'm entitled to change my maiden name just as much as the woman 
    who decides to keep hers! 

    						Carmen

        Just to pick up on a few hints in the last few notes, I'd
        like to make it clear that I don't mean to insult anyone
        who decided to change their names... at marriage or any other
        time.  Considering that I *do* happen to have a fairly strong
        personal opinion on the subject, I s'pose I can understand
        how someone might have gotten the idea that I was hinting
        in that direction.
        
        This is just one of the (many) facets of our society which
        has always puzzled me.  No matter how much I think about
        it, it's never made the slightest bit of sense to me.
        
        I understand that some people aren't happy with their names,
        and that the way marriage is currently structured makes it
        very easy for people to change their names at that time (while
        I suspect friends and family might not easily accept the
        man changing his name at marriage, I think most marriage
        license applications now allow either or both parties to
        change their names to anything... at least ours did).  I
        suppose there's nothing really wrong with that, and nothing
        wrong with taking advantage of the opportunity thus presented.
        
        What bothers me is the fact that people so casually *assume*
        that the *woman* (and only the woman) will "of course" change
        her name at marriage, to that of the man.  To the point where
        people will assume you've made a mistake and attempt to help
        you "correct it" if you do otherwise.
        
        Even harder for me to understand, aside from the basic issue of
        changing your last name, is the "Mrs. John Doe" stuff. If Ann
        Gross is an uncomfortable or inconvenient name, I can understand
        her choosing to become Anne Butenhof; and I can understand her
        doing so at marriage, since our laws make it so easy then.  I
        can't understand why anyone would *expect* Anne Gross to
        become Ann Butenhof simply because she got married to my
        brother.  More particularly, I can't comprehend why anyone
        would expect her to give up "Ann" as well, and become "Mrs.
        Ken Butenhof"... much less why any woman would fight for
        her "right" to submerge her own identity that way (and let's
        face it, our names *are* closely tied to our personal
        identities). 
        
        Does that clarify my intent any?
        
        	/dave

    I sure can identify with .0's emotion on this issue.  I am one of
    those who endured (and am still enduring) much pressure about my
    name.  My preference was to not change my name, but the in-laws
    and my husband had *very* strong opinions on it (and still do).
    So I became 'Leslie  Turner Smith'.  You've got it, two last names,
    no middle name, and no dash.  Can you guess how many data collection
    folks can't deal with a person with two last names?!?!?  More hassle!!!
    
    So why did I want to keep Turner and not take Smith?  Well, I have
    no brothers and only one male cousin.  (If he has kids, I'll be
    very surprised.)  And I wanted the Turner name to endure just a
    little bit longer as a form of respect to my grandfather; the person
    who had a lot to do with who I am today.
    
    Believe it or not, this is very tough for my hubby to understand.
    He's from an old Yankee family, as I am, and he wanted me to have
    his name.  Well, I took it too, and he still has a hard time with
    two last names.  Oh well, such is life.
    
    So what to do about kids?  I don't have any (yet?!?).  But I guess
    they'll be named 'Smith'.  (Have to give them unique first and middle
    names so they don't get lost in the shuffle, right?)

    For those who care about this issue, we should all move to Canada.
    A friend of mine from Toronto says that its illegal to change your
    name at marriage without filling out scads of paperwork, so people
    typically don't.
    
    Cheers!!

    I recently read a book called "The Mountain of Names" (see
    DSSDEV::BOOKS, note 153, for a brief review), which, among its many
    other topics, included a discussion of this naming business. The author
    writes of the various methods that different societies have used to
    handle questions of inheritance and relationships. It's very
    interesting, and may answer some of your questions about the origins of
    this custom, but it won't help deal with the everyday problems much. 
    
    I changed my name (from Rust to Ravan), partly because I was positive
    that my husband's feelings would be hurt if I didn't, and partly
    because I didn't want to deal with the hassle of explaining to
    everybody (how's that for societal pressure?). As it happens, I'm
    not sure that the hassle of changing the name wasn't worse than
    that of simply repeating, "That's 'Rust and Ravan'" over and over.
    
    On the practical side, it's a minor disadvantage - nobody misspelled
    or mispronounced "Rust", but "Ravan" comes out as anything from
    "Raven" to "Razan", and few get it right the first time. But on
    the other hand, it's even more rare than "Rust" is, so - for what
    it's worth - I can pretty well depend on any Ravans I run into being
    related to my husband.
    
    As far as keeping family names, I felt a pang about "losing" mine; my
    sister and I are the only members of this generation on my father's
    side. But just notice that the concept of family names is sexist in
    itself, since that family name came from somebody's father - what about
    the other half of your ancestors? 
    
    -b

Well,  as Byron Glick married to Lisa Guedea, I've gone through the same
syndrome mentioned in several other replies.  I met Lisa when she was
coming out of a feminist RAGE (Anne Wilson Schafe -sp?- style) so there
wasn't much question of her changing her name.  That was fine with me, I
wanted a partner not an acquisition.  Our families didn't have much problem
adapting.  We got some of those stick-on-return-address labels that have
both our names on them, and now get most of our mail addressed to "Glick &
Guedea" like the label says (Or as one wag has done on occasion "Lisa &
Byron   Glick & Guedea" with many arrows drawn connecting the names).
Strangely enough I also have an 80 year old aunt the insists (quiet
passively) on sending all mail to "The Glicks".  
    In the public sector we've sent back several forms/credit cards/surveys
with rather pointed letters when they come addressed to "Glicks" or
whatever.  In most case people have worked with us, in the few cases they
haven't, we've taken our business elsewhere. 
    There are often explanations in new situations, but these are made simpler
by the fact my wife is Hispanic (keeps her name to keep her heritage) and
that there are no male children or ardent feminists on her side of the
family who will perpetuate the name.  Though Why there should have to be 
"excuses" at all does rankle.
    Though maintaining our maiden names (Lisa refers to the moniker "Mrs.
Glick" as her deflowered name in polite company, something else again in
more relaxed company) has been some work in this inertia bound society its
been worth it for her in terms of self identity, worth it for me as show of
respect for the person she is, worth it for us because of the bonding (pop
psychology, an incipient sickness) that has occurred in working this issue
and also because it makes us think about what it means (and doesn't mean)
to be married.
    If we have children, we will alternate last names.  While this may raise
the issue of bonding a certain child to a certain parent, as noted above
bonding is not a strictly logical thing.  Hopefully, we will create the
kind of home for our children that will communicated a connectedness beyond
the words.
    However, words, especially names, are powerful things.  What evername
choice a couple makes (would that it were always a mutual decision) this
decision can be a powerful means of bonding, communicating, and mutual
understanding(yes, that's a verb).  I wish society were more open to the
implications of this issue, that there was no default value for a married
person's last name(s).  Until we get to that point, the choice Lisa and I made
is a personal one but also a political/social one.

-B

Incidentally, we get most of our junk mail addressed to M. G. Buedea, a good
flag to throw out that piece of mail :-)

    To add to the confusion, I am in the process of my second divorce.
    "For the sake of the children" from my first marriage, I retained
    their father's last name as my middle name, and so became Estelle
    Bertram James when I married my second husband. (By the way, hubby
    #1 was very upset that I kept "his name") Now I'm stuck with two
    last names, neither one of which I want to keep; I think I'll just
    go back to Sardelis, my maiden name, when the divorce goes thru.

	    My fiancee and I finally settled on a solution.  We have
	picked a "family name" that we will adopt when we marry.  I
	will be

			James George Heart Dyer

	and she will be

			Cheryl Beth Heart Millett.

	Our children will take the Heart name.
	    We've both established our birth names professionally.  In
	the future, I will be professionally known as James George Heart
	DYER.  But if I have to go enroll a child in grade school, I'll
	go by James George HEART Dyer.  See how it works?
			<_Jym_>

        That's interesting, because years before I even met Barbara,
        when I first considered the matter of marriage, in an abstract
        sense, I decided that the best way to handle the matter of names
        would be to invent a new family name and both adopt it.
        
        When it actually came down to doing something about it, though,
        it just seemed too much trouble to change licenses, social
        security, credit cards, magazines, and everything else. Adding a
        second last name wouldn't be that much different, as far as
        hassle factor goes... with additional problem that most database
        systems can't even handle punctuated last names (foo-bar,
        o'foobar) much less two separate last names.  Then you're faced
        with deciding which one is your "real" family name for the
        benefit of these (dumb but pervasive) system(s)... and left with
        (effectively) only one or the other name in any case. 
        
        Now Barbara's been talking about having both of us change
        our names to Butenmore when we have a kid.  I'm still not
        convinced that whatever benefit that might have is worth
        the hassle factor.  I also suspect I might feel like I was
        "giving in to the system", and I'd rather not.
        
        	/dave

	    We chose "Heart" because of an incident early in our re-
	lationship.  Most proponents of the family name scheme suggest
	that the name reflect a significant part of the relationship:
	a couple who met under a willow tree might name themselves
	"Willow," for example.
	    It doesn't mean a hassle with changing all kinds of docu-
	ments.  We're keeping the names we were born with (and have
	established ourselves with) for most purposes.  The family
	name is basically something to name the kids and a reference
	for our family, which *isn't* established yet (though we've
	been living together for three years - details, details).
			<_Jym_>
	P.S.:  Another feature of this scheme is that it can accomodate
	nontraditional unions as well as the standard pair of hetero-
	sexuals.

        Ah, in that case you're doing virtually the same thing we
        are, except that we're using the combination name "Butenmore"
        instead of totally making something up.  We don't write it
        as part of our ordinary names as you seem to, but we do
        occasionally use it in correspondence (primarily to help
        track where junk mail comes from!), plan to use it for our
        kid(s), and generally accept it as a synonym for either "real"
        family name.
        
        	/dave

    To answer a previously (.4) posed question (WHY would a woman fight
    to take on a man's name, why would a woman take pride in subjecting
    herself to the total subjugation implied by throwing away one's
    own identity and taking on a new one):
    
    .  Women have long been told that the only place they should be
       is either in the kitchen, in the bedroom or in the hospital giving
       birth.                     
    .  Women have, therefore, been socialized into believing that if
       they give up their dignity and identity that they will gain something
       more important, their husband's identity.
    .  Women have, in order to survive (remember that men have almost
       always held the "purse strings"), learned not to fight for their
       rights.  Men, you see, being physically stronger and being capable
       of raping, have made it perfectly clear that women will be allowed
       to live ONLY if they play by the rules set up by men.
    .  While this is SLOWLY changing, there are still many die hards
       who believe it is proper to sabotage the progress made by women
       of courage.    
    .  Also, having been abused as a child, I am, perhaps, more aware
       of "victim mentality" i.e. just as the abused child integrates
       the parents' view of the child as bad in order to survive, so women
       have assimilated the negative views men have traditionally held
       of women in order to survive.     
    
    Mel

Since nobody has mentioned it, ... I always thought that the reason for changing
your name when you get married, was to emphasize "two become one...".

Of course this does not explain why it is the women who have to change thier
name...

Jim.

	[One Mans Opinion]

	One possible way of dealing with children's last names when
	parents have different last names (for whatever reason) would
	be to give the child the last name of the parent of the same
	(or opposite) sex.  If this became a (family) tradition, both 
	sexes could take part in carrying on the family name(s).

	Another possibility is alternating between the two last names 
	order of appearence of children (by whatever means).  One problem 
	with this method is deciding who gets the first child...
	Also, this would tend to leave identical twins with different last 
	names... (which may be a good idea!)

			-John A. Wasser

	    Of course, that would only work for heterosexual couples.
			<_Jym_>

< Note 9.16 by VAXUUM::DYER "Iceberg or volcano?" >
>	    Of course, that would only work for heterosexual couples.
>			<_Jym_>

	Sorry about that.  I didn't remember until well after I wrote
	the note that I had only addressed the case where each parent
	had a unique identifiable sex and each child had an identifiable 
	sex that matched one of the available parents.  

	In cases of indeterminate sex in either parents or children
	greatly complicates the mapping from parent name to child name.

	I did not address the case of children of single parents but
	I would expect all children to get the only available last name.

				-John A. Wasser
				Sorry for the oversight.

    Good heavens John, you make it sound as tho being gay or lesbian
    was equivalent to being hermaphroditic.

>< Note 9.18 by RAINBO::TARBET "Margaret Mairhi" >
>                          -< "indeterminate sex"???? >-
>
>    Good heavens John, you make it sound as tho (sic) being gay or lesbian
>    was equivalent to being hermaphroditic.

	Oops! Sorry again.  My wording was not clear enough.  I did not mean
	to imply in any way that a persons sexual preference (heterosexual,
	homosexual or other) could be used to assign a person a sex.

	Problem of indeterminate sex occurs when, for instance, a parental
	group includes one or more hermaphrodites.  In this case (even when
	there are only two parents in the group) there is no clear 
	association of children to parents (although a two parent group
	containing only one parent of indeterminate sex could assign the
	children matching the determinate parent to that parent and the
	other children, regardless of sex, to the hermaphroditic parent).
	The problem also occurs with children who are hermaphrodites.  
	I can't think of any case (in humans), other than hermaphrodites,
	where the sex of a person is indeterminate.

	Another problem that I may not have mentioned is the case where
	one or more parents or children change their sex.  This could
	cause quite a bit of confusion as to which name to assign to
	which children.

			-John A. Wasser

    When I got married 13 1/2 years ago it didn't occur to me not to
    take my husbands last name.  As a matter of fact, being a true victim
    of society, I was actually quite thrilled about the whole thing.
    Having my boyfriend's last name was final proof to the world that
    I had finally gotten my man.  The thought of having a child have
    my maiden name was unthinkable.  People might think it was
    illigitimate!  Such disgrace and embarrassment!
    
    In my opinion, society has always made it appear that marriage is
    the only path to true happiness for women.  In the past, women who
    didn't get married were called spinsters (what a horrible word -
    what negative connotations) and most people seemed to think that
    the only reason any woman would stay single would be because she
    couldn't "get a man".  (Of course, with men it was different as
    it usually seems to be.  Men who were single had just managed to
    evade all the women out to trap them because they wanted to live
    alone.)  Anyway, being married has always been presented as the
    most important achievement in a woman's life - with women who didn't
    ever marry being presented as the ultimate losers in life.  With
    all this in mind, why wouldn't so many women in the past be pleased
    to change their name to their husbands, forever proving to the world
    that no matter what else they achieved or didn't achieve in life,
    at least they got married.  People thought it was the way to go.
    
    As far as how or why this custom got started, I've never read anything
    about it but I'm willing to guess.  So far it's been pretty much
    a man's world with men having most of the money and most of the
    power.  The woman changing her name to the man's really did mean
    that she belonged to him.  The men were the "head of the household"
    and that phrase meant exactly what it says.  Men ran the show. 
    They had houses, cars, horses, jobs, money, kids, you name it, and
    of course, wives - with their last names.
    
    I agree that it is a custom that, in itself, is offensive to women
    and meaningless in today's world.  But, on the other hand, if somebody
    really likes the other person's name better then why not change
    it.  I was recently divorced (2 mos. ago) and was surprised when
    the judge asked me if I wanted to take my maiden name back.  I thought,
    wow, just like that after 13 1/2 years I could go back to being
    Lorna Burns instead of Lorna St.Hilaire.  But, it meant nothing
    to me.  I've changed so much since I WAS Lorna Burns that being
    her again wouldn't make sense to me.  I like Lorna St.Hilaire better
    and I think of myself as Lorna St.Hilaire.  Regardless how silly
    it was for me to eagerly take the name St.Hilaire 13 1/2 years ago,
    I feel that by now I've made it mine and have as much right to it
    as my ex-father-in-law does.
    
    Oddly enough, I realize that if my daughter ever gets married I
    hope she keeps the name St.Hilaire.  I don't want her to ever submerge
    her own identity for any reason!
    
    I find the mere fact the lineage is traced through men to be insulting.
     My mother's father traced his family name (father-to-father) back
    to 1066 and the Norman invasion and we were all impressed because
    we thought we knew all about our ancestors.  But, what about all
    the women.  They were never traced back.  It's as though they didn't
    even count.
    
    Lorna
    

	    In ancient times a matrilinear scheme (children taking their
	mothers' names) was used, probably because there's never any
	question who a child's mother is (seeing as how it's the women
	who give birth).
	    When things got male-dominated and property-oriented, folks
	started passing property from father to son and it became very
	important (at least to the lawyers at the time, assuming they
	had lawyers) to know who fathered who.
	    That's when the patrilinear scheme came in (children taking
	their fathers' names).  It's also probably where the adultery
	laws came in too!
			<_Jym_>

    You have about the same view of it that I accept, except that
    the putative fathers cared *at least* as much as the lawyers did.
    By any chance have you read _When_God_Was_a_Woman_ by (and I'm
    getting this via my subconscious, not direct from memory) Merlin
    Stone?
    							Ann B.

	    . . . but it's on my list of things to read!
			<_Jym_>

        Historically, it wasn't that the woman "changed her name", but
        that she acquired a title. The surname was not really a name.
        You will find the vestiges of this in the way names are handled
        in christenings and marriages in many churches today.
        
        As an example, the name I was christened with was James Lowell,
        and that is the name under which I was married ("Do you James
        Lowell, take Selma Lavelle to be your lawful wedded wife...").
        Burrows is just a title inherited from my father. It was not
        mentioned either at my baptism or my wedding. That handling
        of names is more in keeping with the historical use from
        feudal and aristocratic times. 
        
        Of course in the secular part of our society, Burrows is part of
        my name, and Selma did change her last name from Brown to
        Burrows. The government document signed at the wedding did list
        our surnames. The question arises, how did surnames become names
        and stop being titles? I'm not sure of the answer but I suspect
        it comes from the fall of the nobility and the rise of the
        merchant class.
        
        If we look back to the older usage, we will find that as is the
        case in the churches today, women did not change their name.
        Rather the property of both became shared (at least in those
        nations where women were allowed to have titles and other
        possessions). The tiles of both became community property. If the
        Duke of This married the Countess of That (assuming that she
        actually was the Countess in her own right and not merely an
        honorary Countess) each acquired the right (honorary at least) to
        be styled with the other's title, and in some countries actually
        acquired it. He wouldn't bother to style himself Count of
        That, and so they would typically be called the Duke and
        Duchess of This.
        
        You'll have to remember that this all got quite complicated,
        because there were both honorary and actual titles, and in
        some countries women could inherit titles and in others
        they couldn't etc. etc. But it was possible for a man to
        acquire a title by marrying a woman. In that case he would
        "change his name". Basically, the higher status title was adopted
        by the lower status individual.
        
        Well, merchants didn't have hereditary titles, excepting
        possibly the watered down "Mister". What they did have was
        surnames. Originally the word "surname" meant the same as
        "nickname". It was a name you were called by, a designation that
        distinguished you from the other people with the same Christian
        name. Thus you'd have Big John, John the Baker etc. Since a
        great many of these names were taken from things that were
        inherited, like occupation and appearance, the names surnames
        themselves became hereditary and began to be used in much the
        same way that titles were used by the nobility. 

	Given this historical background, you can do a large number
        of things and still be absolutely in keeping with tradition.
        The bourgeois thing to do is to have the wife "change her
        name". 
        
        If you feel like emulating the aristocracy, then both should
        adopt the more valuable title. Traditionally in the dominant
        aristocratic heritage in this country, women only inherited if
        they had no brothers. If you wish to follow this (and somehow I
        doubt most readers of this file would) the women should change
        her name unless she has no surviving brothers and her name is
        more "valuable" than her husband's. Adopting a new title or a
        merged one is also reasonable in this tradition. 
        
        If you want to emulate the common folk of old both should view
        your whole name as your name and not change anything. Neither of
        you brings a title to the marriage nor pretends to. Keep your
        name. 
        
        [In our household, by the way, Selma "took my name". We talked
        about it, and there didn't seem to be a good reason not to. It
        is about the most convenient thing to do in our culture. It gave
        us a common family name for our children. My last name is a good
        deal less common than hers (Brown), and my brother and I are the
        last descendants of my great-grandfather to have the name. Also
        the name hadn't been in her family long. Her grandfather was
        born "Braun". 
        
        [She thought about using Selma Brown Burrows, but we thought
        that Selma Lavelle Burrows sounded better and liked the parallel
        between Selma Lavelle and James Lowell, and after all neither
        Burrows nor Brown is really part of either of our names. Deep in
        our hearts we both feel that our Christian names are our real
        names. In the end it was James Lowell who married Selma Lavelle.
        All the other names are just small parts of our rich family
        heritages.] 
        
        JimB. 

    I changed my name when I got married because I wanted complete and
    total identification with the man I was trusting with my happiness.
    It was a minor point that Taber is easier to spell that Dahlberg
    and I no longer keep having to explain that I'm Swedish, not Jewish
    (got out of alot of tests in my school days that way tho')... oh...
    "that Dahlberg" should be "than Dahlberg"....  My father has 5 sons
    and 3 brothers, each of whom has sons, so procreation of the name
    was not an issue.   My parents were fully prepared for me to keep
    my own name and were delighted to find my mind changed.
    
    For years I had maintained that I would never marry, and should
    the madness overtake me against my better judgement, I would still
    keep my own name -- I couldn't tolerate being Mrs-Anybody.
    
    It was not Patrick who changed my mind or even any deep social
    revelations either.... I simply realized that I was changing, both
    my life and myself, by partnering with him.  He's defiantly proud
    of his Taber-hood and I get a kick out of sharing that Taber-hood
    with him.  I am now a Taber, which is a marvellous thing to be...
    When seated at a dinner table with my parents, brothers and their
    wives and their children, I mused that we were the only non-Dahlbergs
    in the room... My father sternly added,"You will *ALWAYS* be a
    Dahlberg".
    
    And for the first time since I realized that being "Daddy's little
    girl" was like playing with a loaded revolver, I felt that he was
    equating me with his sons, not equating me with a china doll.
    
    My parents are proud that they've raised a daughter who could so
    freely love and accept a new family as well as her own.  Suddenly
    the name change wasn't a feminist issue but a need to show my
    willingness to really being a part of Patrick's family....
    
    But, to get back to the real issue, I'm a stubborn, headstrong person
    and if anyone had forced it on me I'd STILL be a Dahlberg.  I am
    not my father's possession to give away and I am not Patrick's
    possession to be acquired in marriage....  We're a pair... and I
    like being a matched set!
    
    We had considered a new name (Patrick never seriously considered
    it), and we settled for naming our home in Pepperell Castle Bergentabe.
    
    *sigh* People misspell Taber as much as they ever misspelled Dahlberg,
    but at least Taber is easier to type...
    
    bugs

    re 25
    
    not for your father to give away and not for your husband to acquire
    but a matched set partnership......  i like that, bugsy!!   

	RE: .25

	Doesn't your husband feel as much a part of the Dahlberg family as 
	you do a part of the Taber family?  He didn't change his name to 
	become part of the family.  I have nothing against changing names, 
	but the logic of your argument makes me feel uneasy.

	..Karen

    What is infinitely more confusing than having a  married  couple  with 
    separate  last names is to have one that started out with one suddenly 
    switch to two.  In our case  my  wife  (Norma)  took  Giramma  when we 
    married,  primarily  because  she was afraid of hurting my feelings if 
    she didn't For my part, I had never even thought about it  -  probably 
    latent  social conditioning at work.  When we finally did discuss it - 
    three years later - we both felt more comfortable  with  the  idea  of 
    keeping  our  own  names.    So  that's what we've done.  Norma is now 
    Freitas, and I'm  still  Giramma  (quick,  which  name  is  easier  to 
    spell/pronounce?).  Of course the relatives are probably all convinced 
    that the divorce is just around the corner. (:-)
    
    We both feel alot better with this, and that, in the end, is  how  the 
    decision should be made.
    
    Dg
    
        

    re: 28
    >> "more confusing than having a married couple with separate last
    names"
    
    In an ideal world, this would not be confusing at all.  What would
    be confusing is why one person changed her (or his?) name.
    

    My assimilating Taberhood is easier for me than his assimilating
    Dahlberghood.  Sorry if it sounded anything more than a personality
    thing.  I am more outgoing, gregarious, or generally more accepting
    than he is... I found it easy to grab onto being Taber and still
    hang onto Dahlberg, while Patrick has found it a rough road... To
    me my inlaws are Mum and Dad, and to him his inlaws are "wait until
    they look at me and then I'll speak"... It's always "your folks"...
    I can understand it and I try not to push...
    
    But believe me, I have more than enough energy to be both Taber
    and Dahlberg, and I haven't given up who I was, just added to it!!
    Along with the Bugsy moniker I have two other nicknames that pre-date
    Taber that I still go by:  KAD (for Karen Ann Dahlberg) and Bergie..
    both of them (and Bugsy) awarded to me by my then-just-good-friend-
    Patrick Taber.
    
    bugsy

    Oh, and I forgot to add this...
    
    My brothers that are married have each assimilated into his inlaw
    family much easier than my respective sisters-in-law have... and
    each of the sil's took the name Dahlberg!
    
    So, I suspect it's as much a product of how we were raised.  I have
    one sister-in-law who is Dahlberg ONLY in that she signs her name
    that way....  Another sister-in-law resents it like Hell when we
    tell her that her sons "look like Dahlbergs"....
    
    Somehow I don't think it's a mere matter of names...
    
    bugs

    BTW, tho this might belong in some other note, the Hebrew word for
    'husband' is 'baal', like the ancient idol; the word also means
    (in modern Hebrew, anyway) owner.  Pretty basic...
    
    On to my 2 cents, I took my husband's name when we married mainly
    'cause I don't much care what I am named by others, beyond a certain
    point; tho I understand the power of names, I just didn't get excited
    about this issue.  And, note, with Thigpen I was letting myself
    in for some, ah, poking-of-fun.  As in a previous reply, there are
    few people with my husband's family name in New England, so if we
    ever meet any... and I once looked up the roots 'thig' and 'pen'
    in the Oxford English Dictionary, and the name seems to have meant
    something like 'that genteelly poor family at the top of the hill'.
    
    My point is that this is a legitimate issue for some, it need not
    be as serious as all that.
    
    Sara

When I got married, I changed my name.  It didn't even occur to me not to do so,
since that's the way it's always been in my family.

I didn't feel like I lost a part of myself by changing my name; I have always
considered my name to be "Jill", and anything else tacked on was secondary.  I
have never considered myself a possession, or felt it an "honor" to change my
name.

I'm willing to go with the "tradition" in order to avoid any problems people
have described here.  I also prefer the simplicity of one shared name.  I don't
really care for Mrs. <his first name> <our last name>, although I'm not
adamantly opposed to it; again, I choose to avoid problems and go with the flow.

I expect to change my name again if I remarry.  I had no problem keeping my
ex-husband's name when we divorced, as we left on friendly terms and I am fond
of the name (Corwin is a science fiction character and node name :-)), but I
want to share my future husband's name with him.

Jill

    re:.-1
    > but I want to share my future husband's name with him
    
    The thing is why does it seem there are no men who just as
    naturally say "I want to share my future wife's name with
    her" ?
    
    					Karen.
   

        Actually, before it really happened, I'd always (as long
        as I can remember, anyway) figured that when I got married
        we'd invent an entirely new name which we could share.
        
        When Barbara and I actually got to the point of getting married,
        though, it just didn't seem worth the hassle of changing
        licenses, credit cards, etc.  Anyway, we were both used to
        our existing names, and there's that old saw "if it ain't
        broke, don't fix it".
        
        And to more directly address Jill's comments (by the way, Corwin
        is my second-favorite character next to Kalkin)... your comment
        that "Jill is your real name" is very much to the point.  It
        never made any sense to me that people assumed that a women took
        her husband's last name when they got married, but that's not
        too big a deal to me (and often makes sense, as in my
        sister-in-law going from Ann Gross to Ann Butenhof); what
        *really* bugs me is "Jane Doe" totally losing her *full* name to
        become "Mrs. Fred Smith"... just a "mrs" at the front of *his*
        name.
        
        I agree... my name is David, not Butenhof. If it were
        convenient, I'd have no trouble giving up the Butenhof for
        something else (if my wife had been named Barbara Corwin, I
        might have been tempted!) But I couldn't tolerate becoming "Mr.
        Barbara", and I can't comprehend women accepting the
        equivalent... much less treating it as an honor.
        
        	/dave

    I think Karen has made a VERY valid point.  I have several close
    friends (female) who changed their last name to their new husband's
    for very good personal reasons.  BUT does anyone know of any man
    who did the same, or even CONSIDERED it????  I suppose it COULD
    be looked on as an extra option that women now have, that men don't.
    But why haven't men opted for it?
    	Mez

	    (Am I the GOP candidate for governor of Mass. yet?)

	    I thought Dave already mentioned this . . . oh well . . .
	    I remember the first time I heard about a man taking his
	wife's name.  It was in Ripley's Believe It Or Not!!!
			<_Jym_>

    One couple I know took a syllable from each name and came up with
    a new name (2 syllables) which they both use.
    
    I have met 2 couples who hyphenated both names, and both members
    of the couple used both hyphenated names.  (Note-the male member
    of one couple was often asked "Oh, are you British" --It seems that
    for a *man* to use a hyphenated name, the assumption was made that
    it was an old family name! ugh)
    
    When I taught school I had a girl in my class whom I will call Susie.
    Her parents hyphenated a 3 syllable name to a 4 syllable name, coming
    up with Susie * * *--* * * *!  She was in second grade before she
    could even fit all that on one line of her papers!  But the parents
    were absolutely insistent on this....

    I think that the main reasons for the woman always (mostly) changing
    her name and not the man are twofold.
    
    1.  Force of History/Tradition.  "That's the way it's always been
    done".  Traditionally we have been brought up to believe that the
    man's patrimony is absolute.  [I'm not saying it's right 8^)]. 
    
    2.  Most people are not aware of the possibility that either party
    may (but not must) change their name at the time of marriage.
    
    A good friend of mine named Krspek changed his name when he married
    just because his bride's name was easier to spell/pronounce (Smith).
    Katherine of Aragon retained her name even after she wed Henry VIII.
    
    As in all such matters, cultural expectations tend to hold sway.
    We expect women to be home-makers.  We expect that men will carry
    on their family name. Etc.  Preconceptions can be deadly.  (After
    all we all know that all Russians are godless baby-eaters, don't
    we? Just ask Ronald "Bonzo" Reagan.   8^(.
    

    Dirk, You note reminds me of all the static Linda got some 22 years
    ago when she told her friends the name of the guy she was dating.
    wonder if she would have kept her maiden name if it had been twenty
    years later. ;-)
    
    We have some neighbors where the wife has not only kept her last
    name from her first marriage, but has given that name to the children
    of her second marraige because she and her husband felt the name
    was easier to pronounce and spell than his.

    When I got married about 12 1/2 yrs ago I wanted to keep my maiden
    name but because of "society" I didn't want my kids labeled as 
    "illegitimate" so I took my husbands name.  It wasn't until about
    a 1 1/2 years ago when I wanted my own name back.  I had it for
    17 yrs and I wanted it back.  I felt very strongly about it and spoke
    to my husband.  At first he was in shock, but when I explained
    how I felt, he was very supportive.  I don't think that I should
    have to explain to everyone else why I changed my name, it was my
    own personal choice.....  
    
    You know who wasn't very supportive thou?? my mother for one, people who I 
    worked with & some friends. I went from Renee' Graham to Renee' Amado.
    I didn't change.  Just my name did..  I am Renee'.  People would ask
    (or whisper)"are they getting a divorce?" "Or are they having
    problems" "what about the kids" "won't they be confused"  My mother
    even said that "What's the problem you should be honored to take his
    name It's an honor"  Well whats the Big DEAL???? My husband & I
    married each other we know that we are married and that's all that
    counts.  I didn't get married to change my name because I didn't
    like my name, I changed it because of society.  Now I am back and
    want my own title.  I got married because I love my husband, not
    his name.
    
    If people would just accept other people how they are, maybe this
    world would be a better place too live in..... I am Renee' not Mrs
    Somebody, or Ms Somebody!!!!!!!
    
    
    
    
      

re: What happens to a woman's name when she gets married?

this seems like a harmless enough topic for me to get my feet wet with.
actually, not being a woman, and not being faced with this issue personally
i cannot answer.  but it seems to me that there are some flaws in the
underlying reasoning of the argument put forth in the note.

I get the strong impression that i'm being sermonized into accepting the idea
that any/all name change operations resulting from marriage are un-good. 

pourquoi?

it is obviously an un-good thing if it is regarded as

	"a means to auto-improve in a woman's situation"
        "hiding behind someone else's name"
	"a mark of slavery"

in fact all of the lights in which the situation are examined in the base
support the basic un-goodness premise but i think you may be overlooking
the fact that not all entities think alike.  Because someones mother was Mrs.
whomever, does that make her a slave?  Was she hiding behind a Mr. whomever
bearing the marks of chains and whips?  of course not.

my wife was born miss patricia farley, her mother remarried and she became
miss patricia lisewski, she married and became mrs. patricia hutton, she
got divorced and became ms. hutton, then she married me and became mrs.
patricia lambert, and god help me if i call her hutton!  she's the executive
director of a housing agency and she's nobody's slave.  i have a stepdaughter
whose last name is hutton, it's been an minor embarrassment to her ever since
she's been in school, i know she'd rather have been jennifer lambert,
especially after her mom became a "lambert".

there's a lot of "being a family" involved in being "married".  and there's
a lot of "having the same name" involved in being a family, under one roof,
belonging to one clan, all that tribal stuff.  it's built into the social
structure.  It's there to promote unity and to provide identity to the members
who share in it - and you know you're sharing in it because you've all got
the same name.

-rfl 

        Mortadella (I'd say "baloney", but I'm eating an Italian
        sub at the moment, so I just couldn't resist... :-))
        
        I didn't say it was evil for someone to change their name
        at marriage... I even mentioned several examples where woman
        friends *have* changed their names at marriage, and I can
        understand why.
        
        My objection is based on the facts that
        
        1. It is *assumed* that women will change their names at
        marriage, even to the point that people assume you've made
        a mistake if you don't (and will offer to "help" you correct
        it).
        
        2. Even in cases of people having names which may be
        uncomfortable to live with (Gross, Savage...), men rarely change
        their names at marriage.  Why not, if it's perfectly reasonable
        for women to do so?
        
        3. The tradition is for women not only to take their husband's
        last name, but his first name as well.  A married woman is
        not considered "Jane Doe", but "Mrs. John Doe".  Nothing
        remains of her original name.  Names are part of our identity:
        that practise certainly is not enhancing her individuality.
        There is no conceivable purpose for this.
        
        And having the same name has nothing to do with feeling like
        a family... unless you choose to feel that way.  I assure
        you, my wife and I are not only a real family, but an extremely
        *close* family, regardless of the fact that we have entirely
        different names.
        
        Aside from the "Mrs. John" part (which is, to me, offensive
        and inexcusable from any point of view), I have no objection
        to people changing their names... at marriage or any time.
        I object to the double standard where "women must" and "men
        shouldn't".
        
        	/dave

It is not assumed that a woman will change her name, there are evidently many
who do not assume it so, you yourself are a case in point - my very best
friends in college were another and i'm sure if we took a poll we'd find that
a whole lot of people had to make a conscious decision to go one way or
another.

True, men rarely consider, much less actually change their names when they
get married.  As far as women taking their husbands first and last name - 
it's strange - but not nearly as significant a point as the husbands first
name for is rarely used except in the most formal of occasions.

here's another strangety, in my mother's family, albanians and greeks, it is
the custom for daughters to take their father's first name as their middle name
making my mother Violet James Miller - something I never understood. 

Say what you will, i say that a group of people sharing the same name have
their inner sense of unity reinforced by an external reality, which can be
comforting, reassuring, and a source of security in insecure times.

Also, i think the previous statement of the double standard is too simplistic
and does not relflect the current reality.  i would restate it as follows:

"men do, when they feel like it, but are seldom encouraged to do so, and never
as a result of getting married" and "women do, when they feel like it, but are
seldom encouraged to do so, except when they get married, and then they may
be encouraged or discouraged depending upon who they talk to"

    re .45
>Say what you will, I say that a group of people sharing the same name have
>their inner sense of unity reinforced by an external reality, which can be
>comforting, reassuring, and a source of security in insecure times.
    
    What works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone.  I cannot
    possibly believe that my friends who are married and chose to keep
    their own names have marriages that are any *less* secure that yours
    simply because they have different *names*?!
    I truly resent that you think that what works for you should be
    that way for everyone else!  (Maybe you didn't mean that, but it
    came across that way)  *You* may need the external signs.   I think
    what's *inside* is far more important than anybody's changing her
    name.  It shouldn't have a hill of beans to do with the strength
    of the marriage.

    	-Ellen

>It is not assumed that a woman will change her name, there are evidently many
>who do not assume it so, you yourself are a case in point - my very best
        
        Ha!  In fact, it is almost universally assumed, as I thought
        several examples have strongly demonstrated.  The fact that some
        people (such as my wife and I) have survived major (and I stress
        *major*) hassles with relatives, banks, the IRS, and others in
        order to keep our own names is in no way evidence that society
        presents no obstacles. 
        
        The very best you can expect from most people is a lame "oh,
        she kept it for 'professional reasons', huh?"  No, in fact,
        she kept it for *personal* reasons... it just happens to
        be her name.  Implications---often less subtle than yours---that
        we cannot be a "family", or that our relationship is doomed
        to failure, because we have different names, are more common.
        
        Anyone who can say with a straight face that "it is not assumed
        that a woman will change her name" knows not of what he talks,
        and that's all there is to it.
        
        	/dave

    Thank you Dave. I just realized that, when I go to my home town
    (or Joe's home town) and have to make a big production to get people
    to call me Mary Ellen Zurko, I ALWAYS say "Well, I'm already know
    as that for professional reasons." What a (*%^#&*^) copout! I like
    my name, and next time I'll say so.
    	Mez
    (and Mem just wouldn't work, would it?)

    OK, I couldn't keep away...

re: .45    
"men do, when they feel like it, but are seldom encouraged to do so, and never
as a result of getting married" and "women do, when they feel like it, but are
seldom encouraged to do so, except when they get married, and then they may
be encouraged or discouraged depending upon who they talk to"

Wrong. Women are expected to by the majority of the population of the
USA, particularly by the people they often care for very much, their
immediate family. And by people they would like to impress, they're
hubby-to-be's immediate family. And the pressure doesn't stop when the
ceremony is over; it lasts a lifetime.

Take a survey, but don't limit it to the intelligent folks who work
at DEC. Include middle america, hometown USA.
	Mez

    
    
    re .43
    > seems like a harmless enough topic for me to get my feet wet
    
    Oops - think you picked a hot one!

    Got a question - why, when you got married, did you not become
    Mr. R.F.Hutton?  That would have given you and your entire immediate
    family the same name.
    
    					Karen.
    

re: the general tone of the responses to my notes...

dave, i'm not trying to convert you or anybody else, nor do i feel the need to
be converted as i would never put any pressure on anyone to either change or
not change their name.  i'm just trying to link observable phenomenon from my
own life with a logical argument that could support "why women change their
names when they get married".  the reason being that no one seemed to be
addressing the real "why", so much as supporting "yeah it's a crummy idea". 

i hadn't realized i'd said anything that could be resented, nor is it my
intention to do so, and if i've expressed offensive viewpoints, i apologize.
(i'm shifting into observer mode from this point on)

re: .50

>Got a question - why, when you got married, did you not become Mr. R.F.Hutton?
>That would have given you and your entire immediate family the same name. 

a: a) because men are seldom encouraged to change their name and never as a
result of getting married - i was not so encouraged.  b) because my wife did
not want to be mrs. hutton - all her associations with her ex-hubbie were
negative. c) the problems inherent in having a family of mixed names, in my
case, occured before we were aware that there were any, and well past the point
of considering homogenizing our names as an solution.  my daughters emotional
problems are not centered around the naming issue, they are only tangential
issues that have arisen in the therapy sessions we've attended.  there was, at
one point, some talk of having jenny, (my daughter), adopted legally, or having
her name changed, but the real mr. hutton was quite firmly aligned against the
idea.  d) lastly, i was so completely blown away by the idea of actually
getting and being married, and inheriting a daughter and three sons it just
didn't come up as an issue.

i have since discussed this with her recently as a result of the "heat" which
has been generated.  she admitted that she'd probably liked to have remained
pat farley (who knows, she may go back to being a farley again). 

parting thoughts:

i'm perplexed:  on the one hand, you're (collective) saying that there's
enormous pressure on a woman to change her name when she gets married;
and that the family, and friends are the sources of the most difficult
pressures; and that in the majority of cases women will change their name.
but there appears to be little expressed support of the idea of woman changing
their names upon getting married. 

for so many woman to actually follow the practice against their real feelings
there must be very compelling reason, i don't think it's been explained yet.
if it's so universally abhorred, why hasn't the entire idea gone the way of the
dinosaur? 

if you have to stand up to negative social peer pressure to retain your name
after getting married - will you?  if their opinion of you can be shifted into
the negative because you refuse do to something you feel is not right - what
kind of peers are they? 

if you think you're husbands in-laws are going to think less of you as a person
because you don't change you name - why?  your name is part of the definition
you in this life.  they're either going to like you or they're not - changing
your name won't make a big difference.

Lastly...

i asked the girl who sits across from me if, upon getting married, she planned
to change her name - she said "sure", i asked why, she said "i don't know,
'cause i don't like my name, of course his name would have to be better"

bon voyage,
-rfl

    When I got married, I felt there was enormous social pressure from
    all sides on this issue. Maybe that's a sign that the norm is changing
    (albeit slowly). We've met enormous resistance to the fact that
    I've kept my name. One person even said "That's not REALLY your
    name, is it?" On the other hand, I probably would have been treated
    with equal amounts of disbelief had I changed my name (to anything).
    Maybe some women just get worn down after a while.
    
    liz

re: 51 Thank you for responding. In so many ways, people who support
a woman changing her last name to her husband's on marriage are as foreign
to me, as I am to them. This is probably the best forum for me to work
some of this out.

>for so many woman to actually follow the practice against their real feelings
>there must be very compelling reason, i don't think it's been explained yet.
>if it's so universally abhorred, why hasn't the entire idea gone the way of the
>dinosaur? 

I'm not sure many women really think about it. It's just done. Which
is why I feel I get so much pressure for not changing my name. The
assumption is I must have a pretty awful reason for not doing so.

>if you think you're husbands in-laws are going to think less of you as a person
>because you don't change you name - why?  

My husband's in-law's think of a wife as a wife, not a woman married
to their son. They are kind, but they refuse to address me by my legal
name. I am married to Joseph Marconis == I am Mrs. Joseph Marconis.
A == A. It may be too threatening to think any other way, or merely
slightly insulting to their name. I'm not sure they think of me as less
of a person, they're just thinking of me as some other person entirely.

	Mez

    1.  I was pretty naive about women's rights when I was young, I thought
    we had attained equal status already.  I never thought about the fact
    that things weren't equal (I wasn't aware).  I think this happens to
    a lot of women so they never think about the fact that changing their
    name is a sexist institution (in that it's one direction, it would be
    okay if an equal # of men as women changed theirs to the spouse's).
    So since it's expected, you do it.  After all, all the books you've
    ever read had Mrs. His_last_name, your mother and all her peers did.

    2.  Even when you start questioning the name change, other people around
    you might not have, so don't understand the problem you have.  After all,
    it's traditional, less confusing (as in the comment about having one
    last name for the family).  A lot of times in a relationship you drop
    the issues that are not really *that* important.  It might be more
    important to you that your children are brought up in your religion
    for instance.  

    3.  And, if only more men changed their names to their wive's then
    it would be perfectly acceptable for women to take their husband's.
    So why should you have to be the one to make the odds better?

    4.  So a lot of people compromise; they still take the husband's name,
    but, dammit, it's their own first name.

    Karen L. Sullivan

    (no Mr., Ms., Mrs, Miss; my first name; my middle name; his last name)

        .54: point 2: It's only "less confusing" because it's
        "traditional".  There's nothing inherently more confusing about
        having different last names than about having different first
        names.  Familiar with Monty Python?  There is a sketch of a
        group of Philosophy professors all named Bruce, joined by a new
        professor whose name unfortunately is *not* Bruce... "Is your
        name not Bruce, then?  Mind if we call you 'Bruce' to avoid
        confusion?" 
        
        *Nearly* everyone, however, is actually mentally capable of
        remembering one more word (or even *several* more words), and
        using them in the proper context. If people didn't *expect* the
        same name, they'd have no trouble at all dealing with different
        names.   The "confusion" has absolutely no basis in reality.
        
        Nor, for that matter, do claims that a group of people are
        more of a "family" because they have the same name.  Or do
        you claim that a woman who changes her name at marriage is
        no longer a part of her parents' family?  Traditionally,
        of course, this was largely true.  I hope nobody now seriously
        believes this, however...
        
        	/dave

It is purely cultural. Indeed, the Icelandic tradition is that the
spouses retain their own names (I think that the names even reflect 
their heritage, eg Olaf Larson := Olaf, son of Lars) after marriage.

There have been cases (back in the 1950s) where married Icelandic
couples were given very strange treatment in hotels in the rest of
Europe because they registered not as Mr and Mrs Butenhof (-:, but as
(the Icelandic equivalent of) Mr Smith and Ms Jones.

My wife changed her name to mine for day to day operation, writes stories
(none yet published, though we're trying!) under her maiden name (Scott)
and uses both names for her pen & ink artwork (Scott-Conliffe).

		Nigel
		(not "liberated", but trying)

        .56: Blech... I wish you'd chosen a different example.  Seeing
        "Mr. and Mrs. Butenhof" in print makes me feel sick (I even
        address letters to my parents as "the Butenhofs" or "Barb
        and Ed Butenhof").
        
        However, Nigel, though it's all totally honest, this isn't
        a flame.  Actually, I'm a bit amused at how a couple of stupid
        words affect me...  <sigh>.  Just don't do it again!  :-)
        
        	/dave

    This topic is generating in me alot of confusion.
    Is the issue the fact that it is the WOMAN who is pressured to change
    HER name, or is it that a married couple should have ONE name?
    The more I think of it the more old-fashioned I think I am.
    Seems to me that a married couple should have ONE name, whether
    it is the man's, the woman's, or a totally new one. They should
    have the same name for the same reason they exchange rings, for
    the same reason they perform some ceremony of wedding.
    A marriage is supposed to be a union of two people into one. This
    is not to say each should abandon their individuality. But it is
    to say that a marriage is something more than just a partnership
    of two individuals.
    What I'm saying I think has already been discussed, I've not been
    paying too much attention to this topic, but /dave's statement that
    the sight of "Mr. & Mrs. Butenhof" made him sick caught my attention.
    Up until then I thought that the complaint was that it is the WOMAN
    who must change her name to that of the MAN. I did not realize that
    the issue was declaring that you are now a member of a family and
    no longer just an individual. Now if only men also changed their
    title from Mr. to... say, Msr. (actually, that kind of makes sense, 
    Mr + Ms -> Msr & Mrs).   
    Am I completely out in left field? Am I up too late?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

        Whether or not a family has one name is purely a matter of
        taste.  We weren't interested in changing our names.  If we had,
        *both* of us would have done it (probably to "Butenmore").  In
        any case, our first names would remain Barbara and Dave,
        and not "Mr. and Mrs.".
        
        My comment about "Mr. & Mrs." was specific to us... I was
        attempting (perhaps too subtly) to suggest that I did not wish
        to be called that.  In fact, that I *strongly* wish for us not
        to be referred to that way.  If you like to be addressed like
        that, however, that's your business. 
        
        The sexism issue here is that women are expected to change their
        names at marriage, and men are expected not to.  If you wish to
        have the same name as your spouse, fine.  You should be able
        to do it rationally instead of blindly following sexist
        tradition.
        
        The other issue is that someone interrupted the name changing
        topic to suggest that people are less of a family simply because
        they have different names.  This is not only insulting, but
        completely untrue. Hey, if you can't feel like a family without
        the same name, fine: get the same name, and your problem is
        solved.  We never had that problem... we *know* we're a family
        without having to be reminded by looking at our name tags. Final
        note: it's too bad that this side issue got tracked into the
        topic... I didn't start it, but I wasn't about to let it sit,
        either. 
        
        As for titles... I dislike them anyway.  "Mr" is pretty
        meaningless to begin with.  As Jim Rockford says, "Mr. Rockford
        is my father: I'm *Jim*".  My father doesn't mind "Mr."... but
        then, he wears and suit and tie to work, too. If I had a PhD, I
        doubt I'd like being called "Dr. Butenhof", either.  My name
        happens to be Dave, and I like it.  Barbara will accept "Ms.",
        though she prefers Barbara.  But then, she'll open mail
        addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. David Butenhof", too... I just throw
        it out.  Again, titles are a matter of taste.  I'm not saying
        you shouldn't use 'em if you like 'em.  I don't like 'em,
        and I don't want people to use 'em on me!
        
        	/dave 
                

re: 9.59

>        The other issue is that someone interrupted the name changing
>        topic to suggest that people are less of a family simply because
>        they have different names.  This is not only insulting, but
>        completely untrue. Hey, if you can't feel like a family without
>        the same name, fine: get the same name, and your problem is
>        solved.  We never had that problem... we *know* we're a family
>        without having to be reminded by looking at our name tags. Final
>        note: it's too bad that this side issue got tracked into the
>        topic... I didn't start it, but I wasn't about to let it sit,
>        either. 

"someone" thought the issue was "why do women change their name?", "someone"
also thought that they could express an honest opinion in answer to the
question.  "someone" also thought they said the following:

in 9.43...
there's a lot of "being a family" involved in being "married".  and there's
a lot of "having the same name" involved in being a family, under one roof,
belonging to one clan, all that tribal stuff.  it's built into the social
structure.  It's there to promote unity and to provide identity to the members
who share in it - and you know you're sharing in it because you've all got
the same name.

and in 9.45...
Say what you will, i say that a group of people sharing the same name have
their inner sense of unity reinforced by an external reality, which can be
comforting, reassuring, and a source of security in insecure times.

"someone" does not remember once saying anything at all about...

> people are less of a family simply because they have different names.  

or, in any way, shape or form expressing any opinions at all about any
aspect of any relationship which could be attributed to the circumstance
of the parties to the relationship having different names - such opinions,
when paraded out for all to see, were paraded out by "someone else".

"someone" would appreciate being quoted correctly.  "someone" would rather
not have "someone elses" fertilizer attributed to him.

-rfl

    
    Re -1, I think that a group of people who live together are going
    to either feel secure and good about being together or not, regardless
    of what last names they have.  Having the same last name is false
    sense of security (similar to a marriage license).
    
    My ex-husband and is entire family all have the same last name as
    I do but I can't say that it makes me feel any more secure to know
    they're all out there somewhere (in fact just the opposite when
    I think of some of them!)  But, it doesn't matter because I just
    happen to *like* their/my last name and intend to keep it.  It's
    mine now!
    
    Lorna
    

    re .61:
    
    Lorna, you are making the same assumption that /dave did. Namely
    that the "someone" (of.60) is implying that a common name is 
    *necessary and sufficient* to a feeling of family unity.
    
    I think .60's point, is that the unity of name is the outward
    affirmation of that feeling of unity, just as the marriage ceremony
    itself. Just adopting the name will not create that unity, nor will
    the lack of a common name destroy that unity.
    
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

    re: .62    Well put.  
    
    I also believe that having the same name can add to that sense of
    "unity" or "family".  However, I am still glad that there is some
    social change going on so that people don't lose their own names
    unless they make an informed choice to do so.  For many people,
    there is a subtle part of their identity tied up in their names.

               Carol    

margaret and I aren't married, so of course we don't have the same name. I
don't know if we're going to get married or not (we can't even decide if we
should replace the carpet in the living room!). I can't imagine that if
margaret changed her name (I'm certainly not going to!) either one of us
would feel any different about being a family. Familiness comes from love,
trust, wanting to be together, enjoying each others' company and maybe
marriage (but not necessarily). We have that. We also have two names.

Do it if you think that it helps, but it seems to me that there are more
important things, and that it's wrong that only women do it.  My personal
feeling is that it's like engagement rings -- "This [name change or ring] is
a mark that this woman belongs to me."

					-- hal

Granting that the same name is an external reinforcement of an internal
reality.  Granting that the same name is not necessary and sufficient to
create the internal reality.  Why does that imply that there is a benefit
in a woman taking her husbands last name?  What about the internal reality
of the connection to her own family (one of the reasons my wife kept her
name)?  In Lisa's case her Hispanic background was and is very important to
her.  And that background is part of the clan that Lisa and I formed.  I
would be bereft without my family and becoming a Guedea instead of a Glick
would be a significant psychological trauma.  Marriages don't spring full
grown from the head of Zeus (or choose your favorite goddess if you want to
adopt the metaphor).  Much of what we learn of relationships, we learn from
our families growing up.  I'd like to think that marriage is not so much a
breaking of old bonds and forming new ones as simply extending and
reforming the old ones.  It seems to me that by changing names, people
loose as much unity as they gain.  

Note that I'm all for each person/couple working this out on their own.  My
point is that the unity argument can be used on either side of this
discussion. 

	You know, I always had trouble with my father's sister's last name.
	I always called her by my father's last name and then had to
	remember that it was really something else.  To make it more
	confusing, she was married to my mother's brother so had that
	family's name.  I think I always associated her more closely
	with my father's family.  To me she was Erna Doster, and her
	husband was George Beman (although her legal name was Erna Beman).
	I never had that problem with any of my other married aunts.

	No interpretation as to reasons here, just an observation that
	seemed relevant to the discussion.

	..Karen

    
    Re .62, I guess I got the impression (intended or not) that .60
    felt that having the same last name will *help* to insure a feeling
    of unity and security to a group of people living together.  In
    fact, if he doesn't think that I would wonder why he put the note
    in, and why he seems to feel so positive about the fact that he
    and his wife have the same last name, and so negative about the
    fact that her daughter (by previous marriage) has a different name.
     
    Now, I could really care less what his family does in regard to
    names but I just wanted to express the opinion that to me having
    the same last name really wouldn't mean much of anything.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    As I mentioned before earlier in this topic, I kept my married name
    when I got divorced for 3 reasons.  1.  I like it better than my
    maiden name - St.Hilaire has more of a ring to it than Burns and
    is less common.  2.  I'm used to it.  It's been 14 yrs.  3.  My
    daughter wants us to have the same last name.
    
    But, since that time I've thought about it more.  If it weren't
    for my daughter wanting us to have the same last name,  I might
    make-up a last name for myself - whatever got my fancy - and legally
    change it to that!  After all, my maiden name is just my *father's*
    and *his father's* name - not the name of my female ancestors. 
    My mother's maiden name is just the last name of *her father* -
    not any of her female ancestors.  One thing I thought of was to
    find the earliest female ancestor I could and take her last name.
     That might be kind of fun, but then that is still just *her father's*
    last name.  So, why not just make up one?  I might, if it weren't
    for my daughter.
    
    Lorna
    

The thing I wonder about with this is genealogy (ok, so that may not be 
important to a lot of people, but I've been into it.)

Name changes  only  make  the  job  of  finding people harder -- I guess the
question  is  if  current  record keeping would help with that (or if people
care at all -- maybe they'd like to disappear).

Hmmmm. Anyway,  I'm  considering  marriage and have been thinking about name
changes,  etc.  What  do  people  "normally" do with children's names if the
mother and father have different last names? My inclination would be to give
the  middle  name  as one and the last as the other (and for light ties with
tradition -- mine as the middle).

The other  thing  I  was  thinking  about  (given that I find some help from
symbols at times) is to change my name to 
	my-first-name my-last-name his-last-name 
and ask him (talk with him about) to do the same thing (using his first name
rather  that  mine!!).  Across the whole family, this would mean first names
were the only difference.

I am  not  only  concerned  with  how  it  affects  us,  but also our fairly
traditional families. I don't think it's that big a deal for me to change my
name to something that would take on part of his.

Any opinions  (have you heard anyone doing this (or done it yourself) -- how
did  you/others  feel)? [I am asking for ideas in determining what I want to
do  in  my own case, not coming up with something acceptable to everyone for
themselves.]

- Linda

   re .68
    
    Lorna if you wanted a name that follows your female ancestors
    you could do a variation on the Scandanavian tradtion and
    call yourself Lorna Elizabethdatar using your mother's first name.
    
    There is a group in California that have been devising matrilinear
    names for themselves based on the Free Amazons - characters in 
    science fiction books by Marion Zimmer Bradley. If I can find
    my copy I'll post the way they design their names.

    Bonnie (who used to sign herself Power Reinke but now goes by
    Jeanne Reinke)

    re: 69
    I too thought that was the traditional thing to do. My mother did
    it. I don't have any middle name, because my mother wanted me to
    not have to decide whether to retain my middle name or my maiden
    name when I got married. Previous notes have indicated that she
    guessed wrong.
    
    Note that if your family took up this tradition, women's last names
    would merely take one more generation to pass away than before.
    
    One other couple I know did something close to this. Their last
    name was each of their last names (two words, no hyphen). Eventually,
    the male dropped the use of the female's last name as part of his
    last name. The female retained the double last name.
    	Mez

    
    
    Just a notes about how names (changed or not) can cause confusion.
    
    The first time I got married I took his name - had two children
    who have his last name.  Five years later we were divorced - I retained
    his last name because of the children.  Remarried but took over
    a year to finally take his name (there was a lot of pressure on
    me to take husband # 2's name).  No children by this marriage but
    my son and daughter kept their father's last name.  Eventually the
    second marriage ended - I had begun getting stuff published and
    was getting my degree and decided to use my original last name.
    No problem with it since my grandfather had made it up when he came
    to the US in the late 1800's.
    
    This morning I called my daughter's school to find out if her grades
    had been transfered - the person who answered said "Yes, we did
    it Monday after you dropped off her books."  I told her that I had
    not dropped of the books.  "You are Mrs. Camuso aren't you?"  NO
    I am her mother.  My name is Peggy Leedberg.  That was her step-
    mother who came by on Monday.  To this the resonse I got was "Well
    who are you?"  It would seem that since I am no longer the wife
    of her father I am no longer her mother!
    
    Until society accepts the concept of different last names in families,
    anyone who wants to keep their own last name will have to be the
    one that explains over and over "Yes, I am her mother, NO my name
    is not Mrs. Camuso."  I've been doing it for almost 10 years and
    it still causes me to steam a little.
    
    I would not have changed my name if I had it to do again.
    
    _peggy 
    
    Oh yes, my friends that have known me through the changes do give
    me a lot of grief about changing my name every 5 or 6 years.  But
    they are always able to find me.
    

Say you do retain your own name -- what about the names of any children?
.73 implies that their last name automatically is the name of the father --
hypenation gets long quickly, coming up with a new name is .... a break from
tradition, maybe a decent idea .....

Why don't we all just have numbers instead of names?  I'm pretty attached to 
my SSN	;-)	[but still, my number or yours?  or do we multiply them? or
....]

It would be so much easier if we went back to barefoot and pregnant days 
;-)  *really  kidding*  --- I'd be kicking and screaming the whole way (I am
not usually a violent person, but I could learn	;-)  )

I guess  what  I'm  looking  for  is  something  that  _could_ (but any kids
wouldn't have to) be used as a common sort of way for families to have names
and pass them down in a non-sexist manner. (Now where did I leave my 
rose-colored glasses?)

- Linda

    
    re .65:
    
> Granting that the same name is an external reinforcement of an internal
> reality.  Granting that the same name is not necessary and sufficient to
> create the internal reality.  Why does that imply that there is a benefit
> in a woman taking her husbands last name?
    
    It doesn't. Never said it did. All I said was, there may be a benefit
    to having the SAME name. Never said which name it should be.
    I like the idea of creating an entirely new one.
    
    re .68:
    
> As I mentioned before earlier in this topic, I kept my married name
> when I got divorced for 3 reasons.  
>     1... 
>     2...   
>     3.  My daughter wants us to have the same last name.
 
	for a feeling of unity maybe?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I kept my last name for the first year I was married but changed
    it because it became a hassle. We were in the air force and it seems
    they become confused over things like this. If I had know about
    the custom (or thought of it) I would have dropped my middle name
    and been Liesl Parker Kolbe. That feels good to me but I can't face
    the hassle of changing it now. 
    
    To this day all my school transcipts refer to me as Liesl Parker
    Kolbe. Maybe they had the right idea if only to track me down and
    see if I really went to school. I wonder why they dropped my middle
    name though. 
    
    Another interesting note - a womans original last name is always
    refered to as her maiden name - I quess losing your virginity and
    your last name are supposed to go hand in hand. Maybe our society
    thinks a married woman who does not change her name doesn't sleep
    with her husband and is still a virgin? :-) Liesl

{RE .51} - You work with "girls?"  And I thought DEC didn't have any
 day care . . .

{RE .74} - Somewhere near the beginning of this note I described the
 "family name" scheme I'll be using when I get married.  Basically,
  the couple both keep their names, but they think up a "family name."
   They use this family name as a second middle name, and their child-
    ren take that name as well.
     <_Jym_>

    
    Re .68, .75, I realize that this does appear to be a contradiction
    when I said that I don't think the same name for a family is important,
    but that one of the reasons I kept my married name after divorce
    is because my daughter wanted us to have the same last name.  The
    key words are that *my daughter* wants us to have the same last
    name.  To her it probably does represent unity that is important
    to her because she and I no longer live together.  I decided to
    let her wishes rule here, probably out of quilt that I moved out
    of the house and left her to live with her father - a person I would
    not want to have to live with any longer.  I escaped with my life
    but couldn't afford to take her with me.  If it makes her accept
    the situation any better because we have the same last name, I'll
    grant her that.
    
    Lorna
    
    

	Yet another war story. 

	I kept my maiden name for the first 5 months of my marriage. 
	Then I changed it because I thought it was easier (the vet couldn't
	find out records under either name!!).  Then I discovered I would 
	have to LEGALLY change my name because I said on the marriage 
	license I was keeping my name.  This requires something like $30 
	and (I think) permission from my spouse.  Needless to say, I'm using 
	my married name but legally still "Hosmer".  Too lazy to brave
	the bureaocracy.

	Sometimes it would have been easier to stay "Hosmer".  My old
	dental records are under my old name and the new dentist knows only 
	my new name.  I assume this will work itself out after a few more
	years.  

	I didn't feel any different as far as my marriage commitment goes.
	My husband's response to all of the name issues has been "No comment."
	I don't feel like I NEED a different name to prove to myself or
	anyone else that I'm a "person in my own right".  I don't feel like 
	"The Lemaires" (although I might in 6 weeks when I give birth to a 3rd 
	Lemaire).  I don't like being "Mrs. Thomas Lemaire" because I only 
	agreed to give up ONE of my names.  The only people who address me 
	like that are my grandmother and mother-in-law, and then only on 
	envelopes.

	I made "Hosmer" my middle name because a, I like it (after 30 years
	of hating it) and b, I had no attachment to my previous middle name
	and c, my dad's the "last of the Hosmers".  If the baby's a girl, it's 
	middle name will be "Hosmer" because I want the name to stick around 
	somewhere.  (If it's a boy, it'll be named after my late father-in-law.)

	It's been interesting, to say the least.

	SHL

re. 77  Jym  --  I  did read about the way you are handling it. It intrigued
(sp?)  me,  but  .... I had enough trouble coming up with a node name for my
GPX.

It's a good idea in my opinion, I'm just not sure that would work for me.

    RE: .79 What exactly do you mean by having to "legally" to change
    to your married name?  I can remember changing my social security
    card and then I just used the name. Isn't that enough? Can it be
    I'm not who I though I was? :-) Liesl

    To legally change your name you have to submit a request to a judge,
    who reviews the request and the reason you give for the change and
    then decides whether or not to approve it.  The judge can even order
    an "inquiry" or something like that.  Then you have to submit the
    request to a local newspaper to be posted in the classifieds for
    three days so that if anyone objects to your name change they can
    perhaps stop you from changing it.  You have to show proof to the
    judge/court that you have posted this in the paper before it can
    become official.  All of this costs about $20-30 for the official
    paperwork to the judge and about $25 for the posting in the paper
    (I hope this is cheaper at other newspapers).
    
    Then there is the pain and hassle of changing all your credit accounts
    and getting new credit cards and getting the loans and titles in
    your name, etc.  This also may cost money.  In addition, if you
    do not state that you are changing your name because of marriage
    then many companies give you a hard time.  Some of them in particular
    want to know WHY???  As if it were any of their business.
    
    The above mentioned are according to Colorado laws.  The paper mentioned
    was the Gazette-Telegraph.  Other people may have different costs
    and experiences.
    
                   Carol
    

    Incidentally, in most states if you change your name when you get
    married, you don't have to go through the courts.  What I was 
    writing about was if you do things which are not the "norm".
    As far as I know, if you are divorcing and you want to go back to
    your original name, you have to get a Court Order. 
    
    Does anyone know this for certain?
    
             Carol

    I don't know all the details, just what I heard from a friend who
    spends lots of time in Middlesex (MA) County courthouses.  When
    you fill out a marriage license, it asks what your name will be
    after your marriage.  Whatever you put there becomes your "legal"
    name.  I put down my maiden name.  Now that I've decided to change
    my name, I believe I have to go thru the courts to "legally" change
    my name to my husband's.  I think the cost is $30.  It sounded like
    a hassle so I was lazy and didn't bother.  I changed my SS# and
    all that, no problem (they did want a copy of my marriage license
    but the copy I got didn't say anything about my post-nuptial name).
    I think you're entitled to use any name you like, as long as the
    intent is not for fraud or something.  (I'm not totally sure of
    that.)  Like I said, this is all second-hand info.
    
    SHL
    

    re: .83
    
    The name change has to be written into the divorce decree in
    Massachusetts.
    
    _peggy

    re .83
    In Massachusetts, marriage provides an occasion for both the man and
    the woman to legally change their names. When we applied for our
    marriage license, I thought it was neat that after the town clerk 
    asked me what my name would be, she asked Robert the same thing.
    
    Liz

Being in the music business, I've known people to change their names for
professional reasons. Apparently it's legal to just change your name any old
time you want to. If you just go out and start using a new name, then that
becomes your name. There's nothing illegal about it, as long as you aren't
doing it to deceive your creditors or evade criminal prosecution.

The business you have to go through in the courts (I think) has more to do
with making sure you are still entitled to all the rights and benefits
you've accrued under you old name, e.g. insurance policies, credit cards
etc.

For some people (e.g. destitute musicians and actors) this is not much of an
issue.

Don.

    I was involved in a debate on this subject a couple of weeks ago and 
    one of the participants was a (New Hampshire) attorney: the  results 
    were as follows :-
    
    1)  You  have  a name by birth, you may change it by marriage, or by 
    court order. This is your 'legal' name, and is the name you must use 
    on  all contractual documents.  (Though you may sign an alias over a 
    printed version of your legal name)
    
    2) You may assume any name you wish and  use  it  freely.    It has, 
    however,  the  legal status of an alias, and you may not use such an 
    assumed name when signing a contract or when giving sworn  testimony 
    in  court (giving an alias as your name when taking an oath in court 
    constitutes perjury). You may not however adopt a name for felonious 
    purposes  (such as obtaining goods by fraud, or to hide a bad credit 
    record...) 
    
    Incidentally just as an aside the situation in  Britain  is  broadly 
    similar  except  that  you  cannot  legally change your given names. 
    (Thus I may choose to call myself "Dave Carter", and I  may  legally 
    change  my  name to "Ian Carter" but I cannot change my name legally 
    to "Dave Carter")
    
    /. Ian .\

    I think it is interesting that there are some other cultures in
    which it is not customary for a woman to take her husband's name,
    for example in Viet Nam.  We had a Vietnamese foster child for about
    18 months when we lived in Utah.  I thought it was true of other
    Oriental and perhaps also some European cultures that women
    traditionally kept their own name.  I don't know which ones, but
    maybe someone else does.  I'm surprised no one has mentioned that.
    
    I don't know if I would ever change my name again, but it was a
    real relief to me to change my name back to Nelson when I got a
    divorce.  The name change added some finality to a process which
    is very confusing and painful, and without a distinct end point.
    It also provided a means of introducing the subject of the divorce.
    I did, as predicted, get congratulated when people read of my name
    change at work, but in my social life most people took the hint.
    As I still know people who know us both, having a different name
    helps me to feel an independent person.
    
    In Massachusetts there is a provision for a change of name to be
    part of the divorce decree, but I could have instead formally applied
    for a name change separate from the divorce decree.  That would
    have cost more money and caused more time in court, but it would
    have made the name change independent of the divorce.  Under some
    circumstances I believe that a divorce case can be re-opened.  In
    my case we tried to prevent a re-opening of the case in the separation
    agreement, so I assume that I won't have to re-request that my name
    be legally Nelson.
    
    Beryl

    In California, you may change your name simply by establishing
    it thru common usage.  The only stipulation is that the change
    must not be for fraudulent purposes.  Otherwise, the name you
    commonly use is your legal name.
    
    

    This is excerpted from today's Chat column in the Boston Globe:
    
         ... Two months before the wedding my then-fiance
         and I had a bitter fight, during which he insisted
         that I had to change my name... Reluctantly I agreed,
         but I felt hurt.
         
         Recently my husband told me that his father pressured
         him into forcing me to change my last name, or else
         he would cut off his share of the funding for the
         wedding and refuse to give us the wedding trip to
         Florida that he had promised us... [My husband] felt
         that I could always change my name again after the
         wedding, and has promised that I can call myself
         anything I like.
         
         It is my father-in-law with whom I am now furious
         and part of me would like to change my name just
         to spite him, although that is probably not a valid
         reason for doing so...
         
    She goes on to ask about the technical problems, etiquette,
    etc. of changing one's name.
    
    Whew! Sounds like that marriage got off to a great start...
    
    					Val

    We got a Xmas card in the mail, postmarked from my honey's home
    town, addressed to : Mary Ellen Zurko &
                         Joseph Thomas Marconis Jr.
    I was sure it was from his sister.
    
    SURPRISE! It was from his parents (ie - his mom). Since he's heard
    me b*tch everytime something came from them addressed to Mr&Mrs,
    I made sure to thank him. We decided thanking his mom would be too
    much of a production number. I can't for the life of me figure out
    what happened. Joe has no idea. My best guess is that she'd like
    me to call her "mom" (which I'm not comfortable with yet), and this
    might be her way of coming half-way. Whatever it is, I've very pleased.
    And I wanted to share it with you.
    	Mez

    Mez,
    Having your mother-in-law recognize your own name is quite a triumph.
    I've been amused at the variations in addresses on cards this year. 
    A few people have gotten it right (why is it so hard?). Other envelopes
    have said:
    	Mr and Mrs Robert N Evans	(makes me feel like a non-entity)
    	Liz and Robert Evans		(a little better)
	Augustine/Evans Residence	
    My favorite was
    	Ms. Elizabeth Augustine and Robert

    It's interesting that the other part of this deal (being addressed
    as we wish by our in-laws) is that they can make some pretty
    uncomfortable demands, too. I KNOW (because they asked Robert to
    ask me) that my in-laws want to be called "Mom and Dad". On the one 
    hand, they have a right to be called what they like. On the other 
    hand, the name they've selected is a "reserved word"! I have a mom 
    and dad already. I address all my other relatives by their first 
    names. And more than parents, I feel like I need "older friends" 
    right now. This issue is so far unresolved. I persist in calling 
    them "Um" (or "Folks" in letters).  When I figure out how to explain 
    this to the folks, we might actually talk about it.

    Liz    
    
    

    As far as calling your in-laws Mom and Dad. I started doing it
    out of respect for my husband because these people were his parents,
    and also because he was willing to call my folks Mom and Dad, which
    they preferred. It was a little awkward at first for both of us,
    but over the years we have gotten used to it and it no longer seems
    anything but natural. 
    
    One alternate suggestion - if your inlaws are not comfortable with
    first names alone and you aren't comfortable with Mom and Dad
    try Mother Anne, or Dad George - which combines both.
    
    Bonnie

    re: 95, etc.
    
    I've started a topic on this (140, or something equally huge).

    Liz's note reminds me of a friend I used to see a lot.  She had
    not changed her name after marrying, and I kept forgetting her
    husband's name.  So when I sent a Christmas card, I sent it to Mrs.
    and Mr. Penny Hull.  She loved it; I am not sure what Chris thought
    about it.

    We've just decided ...
    
    My future husband intends to become Mr. Jon Maurer (ne' Bennison) when
    we marry later this year.
    
    (!)
    

    Congratulations, and best of luck to the both of you! Please send
    my support.
    	Mez

    After my divorce from my first husband, I changed my name back to my
    maiden name.  I kept that name when I remarried two years ago and
    intend to keep it that way permanently.  My husband didn't mind in the
    least. Infact, he said he liked the sound of Richard Matthews better
    than Richard Friese and would have changed his name if it weren't
    for his family.  He has two childre from his first marriage.
   
    I have received very little grief over that decision with the exception
    of our mothers.  Rich and I had lived together for 4 years before
    deciding to get married.  When Rich told his mother the good news
    her comment was "Good, now I'll know how to address the envelopes
    when I mail you something"  When Rich told her I was keeping my
    name she said "What's wrong with our name".  My mother didn't say
    anything for about a year and then proceeded to address everything
    "MR & MRS Friese".  She says I am a wife and should be addressed
    that way.
    
    My mother also has the opinion that "Woman should never make more money
    than a Man". (She was a working woman since I was 3 months old).  My
    comeback to that was "You are very lucky that nothing ever happened to
    Dad because we would have been eligible for Welfare on the little money
    you make".  She worked for a car dealer as a bookkeeper and made
    peanuts in salary.  But that's another subject altogether.
    
    If I remember correctly when I did decide to retain my maiden name
    after my divorce my lawyer said "Anyone can change their name anytime
    they want unless you are avoiding the law or creditors".  I have
    not run across any problems except with my husband's health insurance
    company.  They wanted a copy of our marriage certificate before
    they would carry me as a dependent. 

    Mez,
    
    thanks for your message of support for our plans.
    
    If you're interested, I'll tell you how this came about.
    
    We were discussing the issue of names after our marriage and I told
    Helen that it was absolutely no problem if she wanted to keep her
    own name. (not that I expect to have the right to impose my will
    in any case so it was not up to me to give her permission to keep
    her own name anyway!).

    She preferred that we both have the same name and neither of us
    liked the sound of 'Helen Bennison' (it doesn't scan right somehow),
    so the only logical outcome was that I take her name.
    
    I don't believe there are any serious problems involved in this
    although it may well raise some eyebrows among the less enlighted
    amongst us and cause some admin hassle with IRS, SS etc (and their
    counterparts in my country too). It may be that the easiest solution
    is for me to OFFICIALLY change my name here in the UK by a method
    called 'deed poll' (don't ask me why it's called that 'cos I don't
    know). In this way, I will be Jon Maurer before, as well as after,
    the event.
    
    Anyway, I will add this to my 'things to sort out list' and take
    it from there.
    
    Thanks again for your kind wishes and support.
    
    Jon

        .101:  Jon... it'll be *very* interesting to hear any anecdotes
        regarding the acceptance of your name change, as the plans
        (and marriage) progress!  Especially with regard to insane
        and unpredictable bureaucratic government organizations
        (actually, "insane", "bureaucratic", and "government" are
        redundant, aren't they?).
        
        I'll bet you come up with a fair number of them...
        
        	/dave :-)

    I don't know if anyone else mentioned this problem (Can't remember
    what each of the 102 replies said), but when I got married some
    15 years ago, there were restrictions on using your maiden name
    when you were married.  I don't know if this was only in NJ where
    we lived at the time or fairly wide spread.  For example, if you
    were married and female, you could not register to vote in your
    maiden name (if I remember correctly, this was even if you didn't
    change your name when you got married).
    
    My husband and I talked about names, and since I liked his (D'Addamio)
    better than mine (Jackowski) and since with either we always got
    "how do you spell that?", I decided to take his name.  But we never
    have gone by Mr. & Mrs.  We are always Jan & John, or J & J to make
    it even fairer (can't tell which name is really first).
    
    John had a good way of informing people of this without putting
    them down too much:  if anyone asked about Mrs. D'Addamio he would
    say "My mother is just fine" (you can tailor the response to the
    question).  People got a kick out of this, and also learned not
    to call me Mrs.  If anyone called me Mrs. to my face, I would inform
    them that my mother-in-law was not here at the moment, but could
    be reached at ...
                     
    
    						Jan
    

    I would guess that these "restrictions" were regional, since
    I was married 11 years ago in California and had not problems
    using my "own" name.  
    
    Well, that's not strictly correct.  I had some legal problems,
    mostly with credit reporting and filing income tax, and applying
    for loans.  Nothing major.  The social "problems" were harder to
    deal with.  I chose not to change my name simply because it did
    not even occur to me to change my last name, until someone mentioned
    it.  At which point I said "I have always been Deborah Wolbach and
    am not about to change my identity simply because I am getting mar-
    ried."  End of discussion from my point of view, but not from the
    viewpoint of many others (12 years later, I am STILL being questioned).
    My response is, "Why did you CHANGE your name?" (that seems more
    dramatic than not changing something)
    
    Things are a little trickier here in Colorado.  When my husband
    and I applied for a personal loan, I had to sign a form stating
    that we were legally married, simply because our last names were
    not the same.  Totally illogical, as he has an extremely common
    last name, and could have been applying for a loan with someone
    who happened to have the same last name but no legal connection,
    and they would not have questioned it!!  If I hadn't wanted new
    ski gear so badly, I would have told the company in no uncertain
    terms what to do with their loan!!
    
    On the issue of children.  The birth certificate for my son lists
    a total of 4 names, the last two being his fathers last name and
    my last name.  We have explained to Jamey that he may use whichever
    last name he prefers.  
    
    As a sidenote, my son (age 7) calls me "Debbie" and his father by
    his first name.  He almost never calls us mom or dad-that was simply
    his decision, and frankly, it makes a lot of sense to me.  I rarely
    call him "son"....but many people have shown disapproval (in front
    of my son, no less) and feel it is disrespectful.  One of these
    persons is my brother, who happens to be an elementary school teacher.
    Personally, I applaud my son's decision and think it's fine.  (well,
    I guess I should also mention that these same persons also disapprove
    of my son's hair style, which includes a 7 inch "tail", but what
    the heck, it's his hair, and he is a wonderful, well mannered,
    exceptionally bright little boy, so we must be doing something
    right, ) and I guess I've wondered off the subject here.
    sorry...

    In an earlier note I mentioned that I kept my name when I married
    but later changed to my husband's last name on my SS. Just recently
    we refinanced our house on my VA instead of his. No problem except
    now 4 months later we get a note from the loan compamy saying I
    have to write a note explaining I'm really the same person and I
    have to sign it with my former last name. :*) 
    
    Deb, in regard to calling your boy son, my father-in-law loves to
    introduce my husband as his SUNRAY which always gets a laugh. Liesl

    RE: .104
    
    You mention the loan company asking for a copy of your marriage
    certificate when you applied for the loan, because you and your
    husband have different last names.  The funny thing about this is
    that in Colorado, if you and your husband simply state that you
    are married, that is a legally valid marriage!
    
    Elizabeth
    

    re:.106 No, they did not ask for my marriage certificate. I had
    to sign a letter saying I (Liesl Kolbe) was also I (Liesl Parker)
    since my hubs and I now share a name. He'll be joining DEc in 2
    weeks. I'll have to get him into notes to stick up for his side
    <Liesl

    I came across an appropriate quote today:
    
    "It is all very well to say that, in a marriage, two become one,
    but the main question is, which one?" (Anon.).

    I have had a few problems with the beauracracy, but even more socially.
    My aunt has yet to send me mail in the right ("maiden") name.  I
    answer to "Mrs. Essa", but this is mostly because my mate (who 
    sometimes has a better sense of humor about these things) has been 
    answering to Mr. Munson since before we were married.
    
    Joanne

Maybe this is out of line, or out of date, but names and conventions have
a somewhat different meaning to me.  I have friends who have made new names,
kept old names, changed one name, during various forms of unions (marriage
or significant other situations).  Anyways, to me, names are a method of
uniquely identifing some person.  I do not like to be identified as
"Alice, the short person in the group" (It's happened.. short jokes don't
bother me, but I'd rather not be Identified that way).   The social, ethnic,
and community environment add's various forms of identifications so that
people can place you.  In my grandparents home town, I am frequently
identified by my grandparent's last name - Burhoe, even tho I was never
legally a "Burhoe".  However, it does frequently amaze me, that since
I married a second generation Italian, how many folks assume I am Italian.
I am second generation Irish!

Anyways, after years of various associations, I often wondered if last names
should be dropped, and we should go by something that could identify the family
unit, however it is created, by something unique, and the unique people that are
partof the unit.  Maybe our current address.  In both my husband's large family
and my large family, we are identified in the family as the DiPace's in ourtown.
In geographic areas where there are high densities of relatives, they are
frequently referred to as their some_family_identifier of address-apartment#.
Names are used to identify people. 

My only request of a few of my friends, is that their identfier not become
a moving target (I have one friend, who, for many reasons, has had 7 last names
in 3  years! I frequently send mail to Jane Current Name).
Then again, addresses(as names) wouldn't help for some of my friends either!

I see no easy answer.  Every one has different reasons for being identified
as who they by what ever names they use in the environments that they live in.
I would hate to see people become numbers with forward and back reference
pointers.  Maybe thats why I have such a wishy-washy opinion on what to do.
My friends are my friends, no matter what anyone calls them (But you can't pick
your relatives! (;-})

Alice

    When my husband and I first decided to get married, we had a five
    second conversation around changing my name.  I said, "You realize
    I'm not going to change my name when we get married," and he said,
    "yes."  
    
    When we announced our plans to both sets of parents, we explained
    that I wasn't going to change my name.  Both sets of parents wanted
    to know what their grandchildren's name would be.  We couldn't resist
    the opportunity to give a wise-crack answer, "one and two."
    
    While addressing the wedding invitations, my mother phoned to ask
    me whether all my friends are living together, as opposed to being
    married.  After all, the envelopes were being addressed to Ms. X
    and Mr. Y.  I explained that half of them were married, and that
    the women kept their names, just like I was intending.  She insisted
    that I was keeping my name just for business purposes.  I needed
    to explain that I was only going to have one name in life.  Imagine
    deciding which name to use to introduce yourself, depending on whether
    the occasion is business or social!
    
    After almost four years of marriage, only my in-laws still resist.
    This week we received our first ever correctly-addressed letter
    from them.  By the way, my husband is always the first one to correct
    them.
    
    When we moved to Scotland, we discovered that this is not an acceptable
    situation.  The use of "Ms" in not accepted, and I've had to get
    used to being called "Mrs. Paget", although I still tend to think
    that someone is talking to my mother.
    
    The best anecdote is a result of when I had to register as a foreign
    resident.  I went to the local police station to present my work
    papers.  The woman there asked all kinds of questions, to fill out
    the paperwork, and the conversation went something like this:
    
    	Clerk:		"Married or single?"
    	Me:		"Married"
    	Clerk:		"Husband's name?"
    	Me:		"Jeffrey Berg"
    	Clerk:		"Berg?  What's that?  His middle name?"
    	Me:		"No, that's his last name, you know, his surname..
    			his family name.  My husband and I have different
    			last names."
    	Clerk:		"Then you're not married!"
    
    I suggested she phone my father.  He might want a refund for the
    wedding!

    There's a lot about being a family.  Well, I'm in a merged family,
    where a widow and widower married and as a result we were one big
    happy family.  There are five children, none of whom arrived after
    the marriage.  Of the five, I am the only one who has the same last
    name as our parents.  Does it matter?  It made it confusing when
    my stepmother signed her sons' and daughter's papers for school.
    It was also confusing explaining to other children who knew my siblings
    that, yes, Ian Simon is my brother and my name is Debra Paget. 
    It does not impact the family at all or our togetherness. 
    
    The fact that I kept my name when I married has had no impact on
    our marital relationship.  In fact, as friends of mine divorce,
    I find it interesting that the only friends who have split up, all
    happen to have in common that the wife changed her name upon marriage.
    No inferences here at all, however, maybe the keeping of a name
    establishes some kind of initial understanding of eachother's needs
    going into marriage.?

    Hello,  I'm just back from a 4 day weekend.  Jon was down so we
    went on a few errands, including stopping by the townhall of the
    community I live in.  As a Swiss woman, I must declare in advance
    my intention to marry a 'foreigner'.  If I do not, I automatically
    lose my Swiss nationality.
    
    A new law comes into effect here on 1-JAN-88.  It is an improvement, 
    if you can believe it.  From 1-JAN, Swiss women will be allowed 
    either to
    
    1. Take their husband's family name upon marrying, or
    
    2. Hyphenate their two names (provided neither has a hyphenated
       name already).
    
    As the law stands today, only the first option is available.
    
    This means that when Jon changes his name and we marry, I can be
    Helen Maurer-Maurer if I want.
    
    It'll drive 'em crazy.                        
    
    BTW, the same law includes radical stuff, like the man is no longer
    the head of the family and the woman's place of origin does not
    automatically change to her husband's upon marrying.  
    
    I guess you have to remember that women only got the vote here in
    1972.  In some local elections of a certain backward canton (ie
    state), the restriction on voting remains.  It seems that the argument 
    was that you need a sword to vote (you raise your sword if you vote
    'yes'), and women, it seems, don't have swords :-)
    
    Helen

    I am a married woman who took the opportunity to change my name.
    Not through any sense of feeling honoured to accept the name of
    my husband but because I quite simply preferred his name to mine.  Just as people change their
    hairstyles, paint their finger nails, grow beards etc, changing
    your name is quite fun, practising the new signature etc. etc.
    In my case we discussed the possibility of both adopting each others
    names and double barrelling them or of my husband taking my name
    but ultimately I reached a decision without being influenced by
    friends, relatives or prospective husband.
                                                                     
    I look upon the chance to change ones name without the hassles of
    deed-polls etc as a distinct advantage.  There are cases of course
    when the husbands name is awkward or embarrassing but at least those
    women have the choice.  My sister, for example, married a chap called
    Leigh.  Not only is she now a SLEIGH but with the first name of
    Sarah she is often mistaken for a Black Forest Gateaux!
    
    Basically, it doesn't matter what your name is, or why you choose
    to change it.  In the end it all boils down to personality so whilst
    I can't understand people questioning why a woman hasn't changed
    her name, I don't believe she should feel pressurized into not changing
    it.
    
    	Rebecca Gumboil

    	My maiden name was Hollabaugh.  I married a Heffelfinger.  (Sounds
    like a 'B' movie: "I married a Teenaged Heffelfinger. ;-))  I took
    Gary's name.
    
    	We had quite a bit of discussion about this issue before we
    got married.  (In fact some OLD trivia.note followers may recall
    the discussion of the possibility of Hollabaugh-Heffelfinger. ;-) )
   
    	Gary was very supportive of me doing what ever I wanted.  My
    decision came about as follows:  I have no great ties with Hollabaugh,
    is's funny sounding and hard to spell and pronounce.  My parents
    don't expect have any little Hollabaugh's running around because
    they know good and well that I don't want any kids.  We can't really
    hyphenate it.  Too long; too silly!  We seriously discussed both
    of us changing the name to "Heff" or "Holl" or "Heffel" or "Hall".
    But Gary is one of the last 2 male Heffelfingers.  (Some might say
    that's not a bad thing! :-))  Gary's mom was having a hard time adjusting
    to the fact that a) we weren't going to have kids and b) I was the
    kind of woman I am (She's a housewife who has never worked.  I'm
    a computer person who makes half again as much as my husband, etc.)
    We were having enough problems adjusting as is.  We didn't want
    to rub her face in the fact that there would be not little
    Heffelfinger's coming from us.  Finally, I wanted Gary and I to have
    the same name.  It seems to me to be a symbol of our choice to share
    our lives just as a wedding band is.  (BTW BOTH Gary and I wear
    them.)  It's not necessary.  It doesn't in and of itself add anything
    to the marriage, it's just a symbol just as the entire marriage
    ceremony was.  It seemed a reasonable compromise at the time and I've
    never had reason to regret the decision.  Heffelfinger is no less
    funny than Hollabaugh, but it's easier to spell and pronounce. 
    So I "got" something out of the deal.  
                                                                        
    	No one that I know even attempts to call me Mrs. Heffelfinger.
    In fact, we can tell that I generally don't want to answer the phone
    when I'm addressed as Mrs or Gary is addressed as Mr.  It's someone
    trying to sell us something.  
    
    	It doesn't really bother me to have things adressed to Mr. and
    Mrs. G. Heffelfinger.  (God knows the name is long enough as is
    and adding Tracey onto the line will only making it longer!)  It's
    just a short hand.  I DO mind being called Mrs. Gary Heffelfinger.
    That's doing away with my whole person.
    
    	BTW I kept my middle name (Lynn) because, as I said, I had no
    great ties to Hollabaugh.  Also, I could keep my initials and my
    net-signature (which back then, when the net was much smaller and
    notes was a midnight hack, was actually sort of famous. (notorious?))
    
    tlh
     

    Jon is officially a Maurer now.  I'm sure he'd love to write but
    he's busy changing all his credit cards.  Poor dear ;-).
    

    I just read through every reply in this note with great interest.
    I have an idea on name changing of my own, one which I haven't seen
    yet.  (BTW, I kept my family name as my middle name when I married;
    my own mother did the same, and so it was a tradition I felt
    comfortable following--especially since I hated my middle name!)
    That was 13 years ago, and at present I'm content with my man, myself
    and my monicker.
    
    But in my own vision of the future, if any social customs ever dictate
    name changes in marriage, they would be like this:  the woman would
    take her husband's family's surname, and he would take her family's
    surname.  This (to me) would symbolise that (a) both people's
    identities are being changed by marrying and (b) the woman's family
    is gaining a son, just as the man's family is gaining a daughter.
    
    I fully agree with and respect those who resent the implications
    of a woman's name change, especially those that assume she has no
    other identity than Mrs. John Q. Public.  However, it is an emotionally
    valid fact (for me at least) that marriage changed me--and has changed
    my husband.  We are not the same people we were before this partnership
    was begun; the process of partnering has worked changes on both
    of us.  To symbolise that emotional realtiy, why not have both members
    of the couple trade their names?
    
    Another "fact of life" about marriage is that each person does sort
    of acquire another whole family.  My in-laws (who have no daughters)
    are delighted to claim me as theirs.  However, my mother (who wanted
    more children than she had) is equally delighted to claim my husband
    as another son.  So I kind of like the idea on that basis, too (I
    also like the Jewish wedding custom of _both_ sets of parents walking
    both the man and woman down the aisle.)
    
    As for children, I feel it would be neat for them to inherit the
    man's family surname--from their mother!  Under this system I'm
    dreaming up she would have taken his family's surname, which she'd
    pass on to any children.)  This is, after all, what happens
    biologically; a man can (as yet) only pass on his genetic inheritance
    through a woman.
    
    The only glitch in this that I can see (other than that it flies
    in the face of both traditional and current social conventions)
    is the possible lack of unity that children might feel.  I was touched
    by the story of the woman (the reply # escapes me at the moment)
    who kept the same last name to reassure her daughter.
    
    How 'bout it men?  Might you, if you had it to do over, be willing
    to _trade_ names with your wife?  Would women be willing to trade
    names with husbands?  If I was going to do it over again, this might
    well be my choice.
    
    Marcia

re: 118

Well, my folks would have been happy to see Joe as a Zurko, and Joe's
folks would have been happy to see me as a Marconis. Unfortunately,
the Zurko name would stop at this generation (we're all female). And
you'd have to call me Mem. :-)
	Mez

    As this topic has been revived/continued in 407, I'm locking it
    here.
    
    							=maggie