Feminism: Names and Society

[Content Note: Bullying, Homophobia, Transphobia]

So for everyone who isn't obsessively following me on Twitter, there was a Thing this weekend. And the Thing basically went like this:

Step 1. Jill Filipovic wrote a piece for the Guardian about women changing their names when they marry men. The title and subtitle of the piece were:

Why should married women change their names? Let men change theirs

Your name is your identity. The reasons women give for changing their names after marrying don't make much sense

Step 2. The piece was criticized online for obscuring common reasons why women make this choice, for treating women as a monolith, for failure to acknowledge the dangers some women face for being "out" as feminists, for eliding the fact that stated "reasons" for personal choices are frequently more complicated than that, for failure to recognize that demanding "sensible" reasons of marginalized populations can be an aggressive act, for focusing on womens' choices at all instead of on social pressures, for invisibling men who do try to change their name only to face legal discrimination, for centering the debate around white cis heterosexual women while obscuring large numbers of non-white cis heterosexual women, and for possibly sloppy statistics

Step 3. Jill Filipovic posted a defense of her piece, in which she linked to an article by Kate Harding in which she unilaterally declared of feminist women who marry men and take that man's name for any reason that "it is just fucking reality that they made a non-feminist choice in that particular instance."

Which: No. NO. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. So I will instead point to my tweet from last night:


Because that is what I believe. But this is not a post about that. That up there was just background. Because I want to talk about something else Kate Harding said in her post, something that I also do not believe, and it is this: 

Oh, I know, I know, Jill’s piece was judgey and shamey and insensitive ill-conceived, and it’s really important that we maintain our focus on that, until we all get sick of talking about it again.

Nope. In addition to the fact that I disagree with all of that, I submit that it doesn’t matter one bit what Jill said, specifically, the other day. Because this conversation happens, in exactly this way, every time. No matter who starts it or how they frame it, the people who want to examine the persistence of this fucking canonical anti-feminist tradition are shouted down by women who took their husband’s names and thus don’t think this conversation is fair to them.

I am a woman who took my husband's name on marriage, and I am a woman who didn't feel the conversation this weekend was fair. But I am also a woman who thinks that it is absolutely possible to address this issue in terms of social pressures and kyriarchal mandates, and I think it's possible to address those things in such a way that we don't bully, silence, or invisible people in the process. And I would like to make an attempt to do that here.

So if I had a magical kyriarchy-cancelling wand (Kyriarchy-Expulso!), here are things that I would like to see happen, and which I say here as a starting point for a larger conversation that I think we should have about this issue.

It needs to stop being socially acceptable to judge peoples' names. Many people (though not all) put a great deal of time, effort, and consideration into their own names and into the names they choose for their children. Yet it is still considered socially acceptable for strangers to pass their judgment on those names after no more than a moment's consideration -- it's not difficult to find online articles decrying the names Apple or Siri, despite the fact that both were in use before the celebrity baby and iPhone app. Name-based bullying is also rife as part of our social and political discourse, such as the proliferation of Santorum jokes as seen in the last US presidential election.

This cultural acceptance of judging people -- loudly and publicly -- based on their names and the names they chose and the names they choose for their children just reinforces a lot of tension and anxiety around a decision (What should I call myself?) which can be deeply personal and should not be up for public debate. And as long as it continues to be socially acceptable to crack jokes and pass judgment on peoples' names -- particularly womens' names -- then we cannot be surprised when a hypothetical Laura S. Cox decides that she's had enough of "Laura Sucks Cocks" jokes and sees her husband's name as a refuge from bullying. The problem here isn't the name change, but the persistent social judging that made the name change overwhelmingly attractive.

It needs to stop being socially unacceptable to change a name. It may be considered socially acceptable in some places for white cis heterosexual women to change their name when they married, but that does not mean it is widely considered socially acceptable for anyone else to change their name for other reasons. And, indeed, as the Guardian article demonstrated, even the white cis heterosexual women can face public judgment for marital name changes. Which brings me back to the point that judging people for changing their names and evaluating their stated reasons needs to stop being an acceptable social past-time.

People can wish to change their name for a variety of reasons. They might feel that their birth name misgenders them. They might feel that their birth name is linked to a history of abuse that they wish to avoid being reminded of; for some victims of abuse, their birth name can be a trigger. Perhaps they feel that their birth name does not reflect their ethnic roots, and wish to undo a marital name change or anglicizing name change made by their parents or grandparents in a previous generation. They may simply feel that their name doesn't reflect who they are, or they may have religious reasons for changing their name. Really, there are about eleventy-billion good reasons why someone might wish to change a name -- and there are relatedly a lot of good reasons why that person might not want to have to continually justify and defend their name change.

The cultural disapproval of name changes -- people wide-spread refusing to use a new name, people demanding that the name change be justified and explained to their satisfaction, and people insisting that birth names are immutably part of someone's inherent identity even over that person's objections -- makes it that much more difficult for people who want to change their names to do so. As long as it continues to be socially acceptable to aggressively hector people about their name changes, it should not be a surprise that the people to whom a socially acceptable method isn't available don't change their names in large numbers while people to whom a socially acceptable method is available (i.e., white cis heterosexual woman) do change their names in larger numbers. The problem here isn't that white cis heterosexual women are taking their husbands' names; the problem is that they and everyone else are being systematically discouraged from taking a different name at any other time, should they so choose.

It needs to stop being legally difficult to change a name. Related to the social discouragement of name changing, there are legal hurdles in place for anyone wanting to change their name but who isn't a white cis heterosexual women recently married and willing to take her husband's name as the new name. Many states in the US treat name changes as attempts at fraud, and even an attempt at changing one's name can leave someone vulnerable to a criminal charge. Trans* persons can be denied a name change, even on blatantly discriminatory grounds. Gay and lesbian couples can be denied the right to change their names. Heterosexual married men can be denied the right to take their wife's name. Over and over again, we see that legal hurdles are specifically erected in order to prevent anyone other than white cis heterosexual married women from changing their names -- and even then, the range of options available in that case are fairly limited.

As long as it remains difficult to legally change a name in all cases except a handful of kyriarchal approved exceptions, we should not be surprised that the majority of name changes continue to take place under those kyriarchal-approved exceptions. The issue here isn't that those name changes are taking place so much as that no other changes are being made easily accessible. Once accessibility is increased for all people, then we have a greater chance of achieving name-change parity.

It needs to stop being socially unacceptable to reject the kyriarchy. Because names are so publicly visible, the act of changing (or not) one's name can have serious social consequences if the choice to change (or not) "marks" one socially as something undesirable in that community. Changing a name because it misgenders the owner can mark that person as trans*. Changing a name or names so that a gay or lesbian couple will have a shared family surname can mark the owner(s) as non-heterosexual. Changing a name for religious reasons can mark the owner as non-compliant with the local religious majority group. A man changing his name at marriage or a woman choosing not to change her name at marriage can mark the owners as feminist, liberal, or otherwise politically or socially unacceptable.

As long as we live in a society where name changes are given social and political significance, and where name-changing is considered worthy of note and commentary, then large groups of people will be faced with safety concerns surrounding any potential name-change discussion. People who feel compelled to cover their gender, sexuality, religion, and/or political leanings, will feel forced to take into account the impact a name-change (or a choice to not change their name) may have on their efforts at concealment.

I think it's tempting for some people to address this problem by declaring a moratorium on name changes. This would, at least, solve the problem faced by women who don't want to change their name on marriage but don't want to be unsafely outed as a feminist. But this rule -- no name changes, ever -- just makes it that much harder for people with legitimate name-changes to acquire and defend their name change. The trans* person who changes a misgendered name is all the more noteworthy in this system; the abuse survivor who changes a triggering last name is all the more questioned about his reasons for changing; the woman trying to escape a stalker is all the more easy to find when more hurdles are placed in the way of changing her name. And a name set in stone at birth is simply not desirable for many people who have -- and should need -- no greater reason than "I just don't care for this name".

There are a lot of things that can and should be said about how our society treats names and name-changes. And I think there are a lot of conversations that need to be had about this subject. But it is my opinion that this issue will be solved not on an individual-level, with white cis heterosexual women choosing whether or not to change their names, but rather on a larger social and legal level about individual rights to carry the name one wants without widespread social disapproval or legal hurdles being erected every step of the way and without the choice to change one's name being socially linked to marginalized groups who fear for their safety.

I think this is an important issue. I also think it matters how we frame it.

63 comments:

EdinburghEye said...

I like it very much in the original form - Lucy B Stone wrote to her future husband Henry Blackwell, discussing their prospective marriage (1855): "A wife should no more take her husband's name than he should her's. My name is my identity and must not be lost."

They wrote, signed, and had read at their wedding a joint statement of disagreement with the marriage laws of the US, which begins:

"While acknowledging our mutual affection by publicly assuming the relationship of husband and wife, yet in justice to ourselves and a great principle, we deem it a duty to declare that this act on our part implies no sanction of, nor promise of voluntary obedience to such of the present laws of marriage, as refuse to recognize the wife as an independent, rational being, while they confer upon the husband an injurious and unnatural superiority, investing him with legal powers which no honorable man would exercise, and which no man should possess."

And of course Lucy B. Stone did indeed become the first woman in the US to retain her own name after marriage. She inspired a group The Lucy Stone League, to challenge all legislation that refused to recognise a woman's right to retain her own name after marriage: the founder, Ruth Hale, had been denied a passport (1921) under her own name instead of her husband's. The League's motto was "My name is my identity and must not be lost" which is why, I suppose, it has been persistently remembered.

Excuse if I am repeating everything American feminists know: I knew about Lucy B. Stone from the Stoner McTavish books, but I did not know about the League & their motto til looking it up today.

EdinburghEye said...

I like it very much in the original form - Lucy B Stone wrote to her future husband Henry Blackwell, discussing their prospective marriage (1855): "A wife should no more take her husband's name than he should her's. My name is my identity and must not be lost."

They wrote, signed, and had read at their wedding a joint statement of disagreement with the marriage laws of the US, which begins:

"While acknowledging our mutual affection by publicly assuming the relationship of husband and wife, yet in justice to ourselves and a great principle, we deem it a duty to declare that this act on our part implies no sanction of, nor promise of voluntary obedience to such of the present laws of marriage, as refuse to recognize the wife as an independent, rational being, while they confer upon the husband an injurious and unnatural superiority, investing him with legal powers which no honorable man would exercise, and which no man should possess."

And of course Lucy B. Stone did indeed become the first woman in the US to retain her own name after marriage. She inspired a group The Lucy Stone League, to challenge all legislation that refused to recognise a woman's right to retain her own name after marriage: the founder, Ruth Hale, had been denied a passport (1921) under her own name instead of her husband's. The League's motto was "My name is my identity and must not be lost" which is why, I suppose, it has been persistently remembered.

Excuse if I am repeating everything American feminists know: I knew about Lucy B. Stone from the Stoner McTavish books, but I did not know about the League & their motto til looking it up today.

Silvercat said...

I used to have a link that had information about changing your name in each state in the US, but I can't find it now.

Yeah, technically you can go by any name you want. But won't be on your ID, your credit card, your bank statements, or your pay stubs. Which, if you have a reason (any reason) for not wanting to use your birth name, makes it kind of miss the point. If it's something that's similar to your birth name, it may not be a problem. If it's not, it may be. I've heard of people sneaking around the requirements (claiming typos and such), but that was a long time ago.

In Southern California, they don't seem to care why or to what (I wasn't even asked why), but it still costs about $700 with everything. A friend of a friend changed his name to something silly and has since changed it back.

I chose to keep my original last name as a middle name, partial to placate my parents (didn't work) and partially so it doesn't look like I'm trying to get away with something. The naming system in the US is kind of screwed up - I've heard all sorts of stories of how if your name doesn't fit First Middle Last in some way it becomes a mess. My name doesn't match on all my IDs. Some have both middle names, some don't. It could be worse.

Ana Mardoll said...

WOC in the US have often had to face racist presumptions that their marriages aren't "real", and that they are 'merely' mistresses or girlfriends. This feeds into cultural attitudes about MOC being unreliable, childish, and/or unwilling to marry as well as disdain for inter-racial marriages in the case of WOC married to white men. Telling a WOC in the US that it is "unfeminist" for her to have a shared family name with her husband, therefore, ignores the fact that many people will treat a married WOC who keeps her maiden name as not genuinely married -- a presumption that many white women in the US do not have to face, or at least do not have to face for racist reasons.

The article was also white-situated in the sense that many POC communities -- both in the US and in other countries -- do not have the same name-changing conventions. Statements that "90% of women change their name" are very much in need of a citation, because there are many places on earth where that percentage (even if true, which I still cannot trace where the number is coming from) is not reflective of the situation on the ground. Many communities many have women "changing" their names, but to blended or mixed naming conventions rather than just taking the husband's last name as a replacement.

And I have also seen, in response to this article, some interesting posts about how name-changing conventions in some communities where the women historically does *not* change her name, has been used to treat her as an outsider and second-class citizen. Which points to the fact that there are larger patriarchy/kyriarchy issues at work here besides "just don't change you name, everyone".

I hope that's a good stepping point for further research. Flyover Feminism dot com is planning, I think, a series of posts on the issue from different communities, including POC.

kitewithfish said...

Yesss. Exactly this. My parents both hyphenated upon marriage, making themselves Mr. and Mrs. With-Fish, and all us kids have that name, too. We get judged weirdly sometimes- mostly just sort of curious questions that people don't realize *everyone* and their dog asks about hyphenation and oh, isn't it a challenge and aren't there identity issues involved in that, etc etc. It's mostly benign, but I don't like people getting to have opinions about my name.

My dad has said that it gets him feminist street cred, but it's been a problem a couple of times with credit checks when they don't think to ask about his 'maiden' name. And when I was getting my marriage license, and wrote down my dad's name, she looked it over and said, "Your FATHER took your MOTHER's name?" with this look that said, I do not buy this at all. And, yes, that is true, my father took my mother's name, and she took his, and while it's sometimes been cumbersome, it's ours. And clerks in the county registry offices should not be the people to determined what people's names are.

To be honest, I have no idea if I would feel this strongly if I hadn't inherited this part of the argument. My mother regrets her choice to hyphenate and would just take my dad's name now, but the damn thing would be really kind of a problem. Since she chose it, she gets to feel a however she wants, but I grew up with it being this thing that's mine. If I changed it now, I would still want my hyphen.

My spouse is facing down the other name change option, as his last name includes a spelling that makes Americans consistently mispronounce his name. The hassle of changing it legally does seem like more of a hassle than just correcting everyone he meets, ever.

kitewithfish said...

Yesss. Exactly this. My parents both hyphenated upon marriage, making themselves Mr. and Mrs. With-Fish, and all us kids have that name, too. We get judged weirdly sometimes- mostly just sort of curious questions that people don't realize *everyone* and their dog asks about hyphenation and oh, isn't it a challenge and aren't there identity issues involved in that, etc etc. It's mostly benign, but I don't like people getting to have opinions about my name.

My dad has said that it gets him feminist street cred, but it's been a problem a couple of times with credit checks when they don't think to ask about his 'maiden' name. And when I was getting my marriage license, and wrote down my dad's name, she looked it over and said, "Your FATHER took your MOTHER's name?" with this look that said, I do not buy this at all. And, yes, that is true, my father took my mother's name, and she took his, and while it's sometimes been cumbersome, it's ours. And clerks in the county registry offices should not be the people to determined what people's names are.

To be honest, I have no idea if I would feel this strongly if I hadn't inherited this part of the argument. My mother regrets her choice to hyphenate and would just take my dad's name now, but the damn thing would be really kind of a problem. Since she chose it, she gets to feel a however she wants, but I grew up with it being this thing that's mine. If I changed it now, I would still want my hyphen.

My spouse is facing down the other name change option, as his last name includes a spelling that makes Americans consistently mispronounce his name. The hassle of changing it legally does seem like more of a hassle than just correcting everyone he meets, ever.

Ana Mardoll said...

I would suggest that the reason that there's a tie between the legal system and the cultural identity that others like to impose on ourselves is because the legal system is shaped by our culture.

Currently, we have a culture that is very invested in trying to force me into an identity that others are comfortable with: I'm supposed to be owned by my father (or, failing that, a husband), and I'm supposed to identify with my assigned-at-birth gender. It's not surprising that our legal system, which was shaped by that culture, would try to enforce the same thing and would try to prevent me from deciding tomorrow that, fuck it, I'm going to take a masculine-coded first name and my maternal grandmother's maiden name as my surname.

The link between cultural kyriarchy and legal enforcement of the kyriarchy does not surprise me. But the larger point is that my identity is not (and need not) be the same as the identity that the larger culture/legal system tries to impose on me.

MamaCheshire said...

who may or may not be feminists but had seriously awful birth names and were happy to change their names upon marriage

Yes, this too. As I posted in one of the Shakesville threads, my best friend's birth last name actively caused problems when she needed to use her legal name for ANYTHING AT ALL online. (She actually lost her wedding registry because of it, even, because someone decided the name was the sign of either a really bad troll or a porn bot instead of a real person whose real last name unfortunately has taken on an obscene connotation.) And that's not counting all the harassing "jokes" offline...

Ana Mardoll said...

I once knew a primary school teacher whose last name was a US euphemism for the human posterior. That was endlessly an issue for her. :(

Kristycat said...

Partial answer: some other cultures have different naming conventions and different expectations regarding family names after marriage; framing the entire discussion around common practices in White American culture without even acknowledging this fact not only leaves women from other cultures (often WOC) out of the discussion, it effectively invisibles them and their experiences.

That's a very basic answer; I leave it to someone who knows more about the subject to fill in the details :)

Ana Mardoll said...

Also: What Kristy said. (LOL, cross-post.)

Eric said...

You talk about "white cis heterosexual women." What sort of extra barriers or disapproval do (cis heterosexual) women of color face here?

[Edit: To be clear, this is a real question because I don't know, not a challenge.]

barnestormer said...

This is a great post. Thank you for writing it.

I didn't change my name when I got married, but not because "my name is my identity;" I don't strongly identify with any name (any more than I identify strongly with my social security number, for example). It's not an issue for me of abuse or misgendering; it isn't anything but a strong persistent preference, but statements like "your name is your identity" and the increasing insistence on real and permanent names of online commenting systems still make me feel. . . kind of encroached on, like someone is trying to read over my shoulder at the bus stop.

Ana Mardoll said...

kind of encroached on, like someone is trying to read over my shoulder at the bus stop.

I just wanted to point out that Awesome Metaphor Is Awesome. :)

duckbunny said...

I am very thankful to live in a country with simple name-changing. Under British law, my name is whatever I say it is. If I am known by a name, then it is legally my name. Changing my name involved filling out a deed poll, which is nothing more than a carefully worded statement of intent. It has no force over anyone but me - what it says boils down to "I, formerly known as X, hereby declare that I will instead use the name Y, and request that everyone else update their usage accordingly. Signed, me, as X, me, as Y, and someone who can vouch that the person signing is in fact the one formerly called X."

And that wasn't necessary to change my name under the law, because the law doesn't care what I call myself. It was just very useful, because I can wave the piece of paper at bureaucracies and have them not argue about it. "Changing your name by deed poll" has cultural resonance as the real proper official way to do it.

I am very grateful that it's so easy. I found it hard enough to face the cultural awkwardness and explain to everyone with records about me as it was. Legal barriers would probably have made it impossible.

Makhno said...

It's appalling that name-changing is beset with so many legal hurdles in the US. In this country, it's very easy in practical terms, but there are still very similar social pressures. Since I've always gone by my middle name, and have a surname which people find difficult to spell, identifying myself in official situations (especially by telephone) involves constant wearisome repetition. I've stuck with it pretty much out of stubbornness, but that's one reason why I would have been quite ready to take my wife's name on marriage (another, I must admit, is that I've plenty of brothers and there's no danger of my name dying out). It was my wife who decided that the potential reactions to that would be too much to deal with; we were going to double-barrel until we realised the resulting name would be too long to fit on standard forms. In the end she took my name, but at no stage did I ask her to do so or even let her think that I felt it was my business. Her name, her decision.

I've encountered a whole range of views on this. A female in-law who'd had similar experiences to me, and leapt at the chance to take her husband's shorter name and not have to spell it all the time; a friend who kept her own name until her daughter went to primary school, then took her husband's so as to have the same name as her daughter; a co-worker who, while confident that her partner would respect a desire to use her *maiden* name if they should ever marry, worries that he'd be hurt by her wish to keep her ex-husband's name; another who identifies with her mother's family and, though currently single, has said that marriage would be a welcome opportunity to get rid of her long-absent father's name.

I don't see why any of those choices is anyone's business but theirs.

hidden_urchin said...

I was thinking just the other day how much I wish I could change my given name, first and last, because I don't identify with it at all* and I find it unappealing, both spoken and in writing.** Unfortunately, the legal hassel and expense aren't the only issues, my parents and grandparents would be horribly hurt.

I wish we recognized how personal names can be and allowed individuals to choose to keep or change them instead of assuming parents necessarily had it right. It's nice to know I'm not the only one.

*It's odd. I see the arrangement of letters but I don't think ” me.” If someone called me by a random name tomorrow then it would have the same effect.

**Nails on a chalkboard would be an apt description to how I respond.

invectiva said...

I've had two legal name changes. One stemmed from living with a family that was not my birth family, who never actually got around to adopting me but changed my middle and last name while keeping my first name. Even before I went to live with this family as a child, I went by my (previous) middle name because I never identified in any way with my first name. So the keeping of that first name was... odd.

As an adult, I finally got tired of people in official capacities calling me a name that nobody ever used (it was on the IDs but I didn't ever mention it to anyone), and I eventually got the first name lopped off entirely. Fortunately, my state made that expensive but not prohibitively so. It's been great for me, not only because I don't identify with my first name and I don't like it or its sound (or the letters in it - wtf), but because it has the added complication of sounding utterly unprofessional, which is not an additional hassle I need in the corporate world.

Of course, now that I'm in touch with my biological family, it hurts my father's feelings tremendously that I don't use ANY of the names he gave me, and I do feel some pressure to conform to his patriarchal notions. However, I don't ever actually succumb to that pressure. I am who I am, and part of what shaped me is him choosing to give me a first name that would ensure that I would be Othered by anyone who heard it.

Ana Mardoll said...

seems to be the default around here (what with the standard Texas running-of-letters-together)

INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION FTW!

I got into a convo about this yesterday, from someone in a different state who gets "Mrs." all the time from telemarketers, and I was surprised because in my corner of Texas, the callers almost always use "Ms."

My theory -- although regional accents could be a Thing, but a lot of my callers seem to be national or even international -- is that Texas calls have to take into account our large Latin@ population, which has varied name changing traditions at marriage. A woman who doesn't change her name at marriage isn't a Miss Maidenname, nor is she a Mrs. Maidenname -- Ms. Maidenname is really the most sensible way (and least potentially offensive, I think) to address her.

Apparently some other states do not have this paradigm when telemarketing, which I thought was interesting from the usual North/South Liberal/Conservative stereotype. Goes to show (once again) that things are more complicated than stereotypes allow for.

Kristycat said...

Scott P. - when you say "changing your name," what exactly are you referring to?

I mean, yes, I can introduce myself as Kristy instead of Jennifer - heck, I can introduce myself as Princess Pinkkitty if it suits my fancy - and I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking any laws. If I decide to go by Princess Pinkkitty from now on, and somehow convince my friends and family to go along with it, sure - in a certain sense, I've "changed my name" without getting the government involved.

Most people, though, consider that to be taking a nickname rather than actually changing my name. If I tried to, say, register for school, or apply for a job, or open a bank account, or file taxes, or sign a legal document under that name, I'd probably run into a few obstacles.

If your point is simply that people can use nicknames without paying a fine, ok - you're not wrong, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the larger discussion, as most people don't view a nickname as a "real" name. (Some do, but that's a different discussion altogether.)

If you're claiming something more than that, then yes, please do cite some sources to back that claim up, because it seems to run counter to several examples that have already been listed here.

Kristycat said...

Scott P. - when you say "changing your name," what exactly are you referring to?

I mean, yes, I can introduce myself as Kristy instead of Jennifer - heck, I can introduce myself as Princess Pinkkitty if it suits my fancy - and I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking any laws. If I decide to go by Princess Pinkkitty from now on, and somehow convince my friends and family to go along with it, sure - in a certain sense, I've "changed my name" without getting the government involved.

Most people, though, consider that to be taking a nickname rather than actually changing my name. If I tried to, say, register for school, or apply for a job, or open a bank account, or file taxes, or sign a legal document under that name, I'd probably run into a few obstacles.

If your point is simply that people can use nicknames without paying a fine, ok - you're not wrong, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the larger discussion, as most people don't view a nickname as a "real" name. (Some do, but that's a different discussion altogether.)

If you're claiming something more than that, then yes, please do cite some sources to back that claim up, because it seems to run counter to several examples that have already been listed here.

TyphoidMary said...

I really don't like the rhetorical device, "Your name is your identity." Isn't the whole thing about my identity.... that ::I:: get to define it?

Additional thanks to Ana for a measured but by no means toothless response.

Scott P. said...

Legally speaking, a state cannot require you to pay a fee, see a judge, or get approval before changing your name. You have the legal right to go by whatever name you wish. Now, getting the bureaucracy to recognize your change is a bit of a different matter, but from a legal standpoint if you want to say your name is Raymond Luxury-Yacht you have the right to.

AnnaLK said...

Both of my parents have undergone a surname-change in their lives. In both cases, it's been to fulfill the expectation that members of the same family should have the same surname. So those name changes should be comparable, right?

Unfortunately, they're not. My mother's name change fits the Standard Script for when, why and by whom names get changed; my father's doesn't. This was driven home to me by some recent background checks I had to go through for work. They were the kind of background checks that look at family history, and one part of the form was "list any names your parents have previously been known by, and give reasons for any name changes". To explain Mum's name change, I simply wrote the word "marriage", because I knew that would be sufficient. To explain Dad's, I kind of had to write out a whole big story, "justifying" it so the background-check-people wouldn't view it as something suspicious.

I might want to change my surname some day. It's a name that most people can't spell or pronounce. Technically it's a name I can't pronounce, since to do it properly I'd need to make sounds that don't exist in the English language. It's a name that doesn't reflect my cultural identity, and occasionally causes others to make completely incorrect assumptions about said cultural identity. But I'm aware that if I change it without an associated marriage, there's going to be a lot of awkward explanations required. So for now, I stick with it.

Elise Kumar said...

I think I am pretty lucky in my country that it is relatively easy to change your name for X reason (You go to the Births Deaths and Marriages office, you fill out a form, pay a processing fee and then a few months later you legally have a new name).

It's even easier if you get married: you can use your marriage certificate to "prove" that your new name is you even though it doesn't match your birth certificate. So my birth certificate still reads "Kendall" (because I got a new one when I changed from my birth name) but I claim that my surname is now "Kumar" and my proof of identity is simply my birth certificate plus my marriage certificate. I chose to simply take my husband's name but I could have double-barrelled with or without hyphens in either order.

Same goes for Husband had he chosen to change his name: it's not gender specific where I come from.

(It isn't "legally" any more difficult for husband to change his name than it was for me to change mine but it is socially way more difficult. And I love my husband very much and he supports me in my feminism but he is not an activist and I think that changing his name would have required more feminist activist points than he had available. I wanted to have the same name as my husband and children so... I changed my name)

But I feel like I had other reasons I wanted to change my name and it makes me sad that people just scream "patriarchy" at me. My husband is in the Navy and is away for several months of the year which means I do a lot of things alone and unless you notice my wedding ring I read as unmarried. I wanted to get as many bits of "being married" as I could since I frequently miss out on the "live with this person" one.

And it's not like mixed-race marriages are taboo or weird or whatever, although I sometimes feel like we are unusual. Simply by introducing myself I am making my marriage, and the mixed-race status of it, more visible. Am I sacrificing my feminism to win a few racist-troll-baiting points? I don't know. And it was still my choice.

Elise Kumar said...

I think I am pretty lucky in my country that it is relatively easy to change your name for X reason (You go to the Births Deaths and Marriages office, you fill out a form, pay a processing fee and then a few months later you legally have a new name).

It's even easier if you get married: you can use your marriage certificate to "prove" that your new name is you even though it doesn't match your birth certificate. So my birth certificate still reads "Kendall" (because I got a new one when I changed from my birth name) but I claim that my surname is now "Kumar" and my proof of identity is simply my birth certificate plus my marriage certificate. I chose to simply take my husband's name but I could have double-barrelled with or without hyphens in either order.

Same goes for Husband had he chosen to change his name: it's not gender specific where I come from.

(It isn't "legally" any more difficult for husband to change his name than it was for me to change mine but it is socially way more difficult. And I love my husband very much and he supports me in my feminism but he is not an activist and I think that changing his name would have required more feminist activist points than he had available. I wanted to have the same name as my husband and children so... I changed my name)

But I feel like I had other reasons I wanted to change my name and it makes me sad that people just scream "patriarchy" at me. My husband is in the Navy and is away for several months of the year which means I do a lot of things alone and unless you notice my wedding ring I read as unmarried. I wanted to get as many bits of "being married" as I could since I frequently miss out on the "live with this person" one.

And it's not like mixed-race marriages are taboo or weird or whatever, although I sometimes feel like we are unusual. Simply by introducing myself I am making my marriage, and the mixed-race status of it, more visible. Am I sacrificing my feminism to win a few racist-troll-baiting points? I don't know. And it was still my choice.

Annafel said...

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. Yes Yes Yes.

Thank you, Ana. Thank you for your very insightful and nuanced deconstruction of these issues, and also thank you for providing an example of rising above an argument rather than continuing it (for its own sake, which seems to be what people frequently choose, as far as I can tell).

I have friends and family who are trans*, who have suffered abuse from family members, who may or may not be feminists and who chose to keep their birth name, who may or may not be feminists but had seriously awful birth names and were happy to change their names upon marriage ... the list is practically endless, and that's just PEOPLE I KNOW. People I know WELL.

I'm not sure what choice I will make, as a cis woman, if I ever choose to marry a man. But I am definitely happy to be working towards a future wherein that choice (or either of those choices, actually) will not be the subject of censure and public discussion. Sheesh.

Annafel said...

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. Yes Yes Yes.

Thank you, Ana. Thank you for your very insightful and nuanced deconstruction of these issues, and also thank you for providing an example of rising above an argument rather than continuing it (for its own sake, which seems to be what people frequently choose, as far as I can tell).

I have friends and family who are trans*, who have suffered abuse from family members, who may or may not be feminists and who chose to keep their birth name, who may or may not be feminists but had seriously awful birth names and were happy to change their names upon marriage ... the list is practically endless, and that's just PEOPLE I KNOW. People I know WELL.

I'm not sure what choice I will make, as a cis woman, if I ever choose to marry a man. But I am definitely happy to be working towards a future wherein that choice (or either of those choices, actually) will not be the subject of censure and public discussion. Sheesh.

Gelliebean said...

I took my husband's name when we married, for reasons including but not limited to: I was not strongly attached to my birth name; it meant a great deal to my husband (but he didn't push me on it, which, honestly, would probably have been a deal-breaker); and in a strange sort of indefinable way, it felt right and I took to the new name very naturally.

On the other hand, I much prefer Ms. New-Last-Name to Mrs. New-Last-Name which, thankfully, seems to be the default around here (what with the standard Texas running-of-letters-together) so even Mrs. comes out like Mizz-z and I can pretend it's whatever I want. :-p

I definitely agree that it ought to be much, much easier for anyone to change their name, for whatever reason they need. The notation by which you are known to the rest of the world can be an incredibly personal, defining thing; an expression of who you are, a marker of a change in your life, a declaration of independence from previous bonds or an embracing of new ones. There really isn't any reason for it to be so complicated or expensive except for the establishment to maintain control and enforce their own standards (see the judge refusing legal succor on the basis of his own personal religious beliefs).

Gelliebean said...

I took my husband's name when we married, for reasons including but not limited to: I was not strongly attached to my birth name; it meant a great deal to my husband (but he didn't push me on it, which, honestly, would probably have been a deal-breaker); and in a strange sort of indefinable way, it felt right and I took to the new name very naturally.

On the other hand, I much prefer Ms. New-Last-Name to Mrs. New-Last-Name which, thankfully, seems to be the default around here (what with the standard Texas running-of-letters-together) so even Mrs. comes out like Mizz-z and I can pretend it's whatever I want. :-p

I definitely agree that it ought to be much, much easier for anyone to change their name, for whatever reason they need. The notation by which you are known to the rest of the world can be an incredibly personal, defining thing; an expression of who you are, a marker of a change in your life, a declaration of independence from previous bonds or an embracing of new ones. There really isn't any reason for it to be so complicated or expensive except for the establishment to maintain control and enforce their own standards (see the judge refusing legal succor on the basis of his own personal religious beliefs).

Ana Mardoll said...

There are links in the OP where men who have tried to change their names have been charged with fraud and faced prison and fines, so briefly: no.

depizan said...

I trust you are an attorney, or at least have the relevant law(s) and links thereto on hand to share with us?

depizan said...

I trust you are an attorney, or at least have the relevant law(s) and links thereto on hand to share with us?

Phoenix said...

SO MUCH ALL OF THIS.

My name is a continual source of frustration to me. I actually answer to two names, one of which (the one at the bottom of this post) is considered little more than a joke by most of my closest friends and family. I don't even take it personally anymore, and I've learned to be fine with my given name. But yes, most people consider it childish and silly to reject one's name for reasons with which they do not personally agree or understand. And that fucking sucks.

Phoenix said...

SO MUCH ALL OF THIS.

My name is a continual source of frustration to me. I actually answer to two names, one of which (the one at the bottom of this post) is considered little more than a joke by most of my closest friends and family. I don't even take it personally anymore, and I've learned to be fine with my given name. But yes, most people consider it childish and silly to reject one's name for reasons with which they do not personally agree or understand. And that fucking sucks.

Ann Unemori said...

I kept my married name even after my divorce because I like it better than my maiden name, which sounds like a broken branch. Most people know me as "Mrs X", and I feel more like an X than a Previousname. Nowadays I tend to refer to myself as "Nickname" instead of just "Name", much to my mother's displeasure. I wonder if identity tends to wander over the course of life; don't some societies have the tradition of a person's name changing over the course of life?
Legally, it is helpful to keep track of names.

Ann Unemori said...

I kept my married name even after my divorce because I like it better than my maiden name, which sounds like a broken branch. Most people know me as "Mrs X", and I feel more like an X than a Previousname. Nowadays I tend to refer to myself as "Nickname" instead of just "Name", much to my mother's displeasure. I wonder if identity tends to wander over the course of life; don't some societies have the tradition of a person's name changing over the course of life?
Legally, it is helpful to keep track of names.

depizan said...

Do you have a good resource for looking the changes in naming laws over the last decade?

Unfortunately, name changes are a state-level thing. My friends who are slogging through the hoops of this state were told that the criminal background checks and fingerprinting were added after 9/11. I'm sure there's a way to verify that - there must be some information about when laws are changed and what the changes were.

I see that the law in Iowa (where I changed my name) appears to have stayed exactly how it was in 1990.

Random state googling leaves me with the impression that I happen to currently live in one of the states with the most hoops regarding name changes. There may be worse states, but I didn't find any in the random assortment I googled.

depizan said...

Do you have a good resource for looking the changes in naming laws over the last decade?

Unfortunately, name changes are a state-level thing. My friends who are slogging through the hoops of this state were told that the criminal background checks and fingerprinting were added after 9/11. I'm sure there's a way to verify that - there must be some information about when laws are changed and what the changes were.

I see that the law in Iowa (where I changed my name) appears to have stayed exactly how it was in 1990.

Random state googling leaves me with the impression that I happen to currently live in one of the states with the most hoops regarding name changes. There may be worse states, but I didn't find any in the random assortment I googled.

Fourscythe said...

It would only be cynical were there not a large deal of evidence to its truth.

You make an excellent point about the backsliding on laws progressiveness, though I am having trouble researching it. Do you have a good resource for looking the changes in naming laws over the last decade? I would like to be more knowledgeable.

I would suggest that the reason that there's a tie between the legal system and the cultural identity that others like to impose on ourselves is because the legal system is shaped by our culture.

I think that to an extent it works both ways and that by removing restrictions on things that subvert kyriarchy it helps culture evolve to do the same. Of course, generally speaking, changing laws requires cultural support so it becomes a bit circular. There isn't a magic wand, at least not that I know of yet.

Also, I'd rather apologize unnecessarily than not apologize when needed. I tend to err on the side of caution. I'm just glad to be a part of the discussion honestly, everybody here is just really awesome.

Fourscythe said...

It would only be cynical were there not a large deal of evidence to its truth.

You make an excellent point about the backsliding on laws progressiveness, though I am having trouble researching it. Do you have a good resource for looking the changes in naming laws over the last decade? I would like to be more knowledgeable.

I would suggest that the reason that there's a tie between the legal system and the cultural identity that others like to impose on ourselves is because the legal system is shaped by our culture.

I think that to an extent it works both ways and that by removing restrictions on things that subvert kyriarchy it helps culture evolve to do the same. Of course, generally speaking, changing laws requires cultural support so it becomes a bit circular. There isn't a magic wand, at least not that I know of yet.

Also, I'd rather apologize unnecessarily than not apologize when needed. I tend to err on the side of caution. I'm just glad to be a part of the discussion honestly, everybody here is just really awesome.

Maggie Champaigne said...

Ana this is the besssssssst thing I've read on this whole crummy argument. Please picture a standing ovation.

Maggie Champaigne said...

Ana this is the besssssssst thing I've read on this whole crummy argument. Please picture a standing ovation.

depizan said...

And yet, at least in the US, it was much easier a few decades ago than it is now. So it isn't just that laws haven't caught up, they're actively going in the opposite direction. Because terrorists. Because illegal immigrants. (Because some people in power are too invested in nasty sorts of control. Also hating brown people. But that could be me being cynical again.)

depizan said...

And yet, at least in the US, it was much easier a few decades ago than it is now. So it isn't just that laws haven't caught up, they're actively going in the opposite direction. Because terrorists. Because illegal immigrants. (Because some people in power are too invested in nasty sorts of control. Also hating brown people. But that could be me being cynical again.)

Fourscythe said...

I apologize, and I'll watch my usage. Thank you for the correction.

Fourscythe said...

I apologize, and I'll watch my usage. Thank you for the correction.

Ana Mardoll said...

No apology necessary, and thank you very much for understanding. :)

Ana Mardoll said...

[FYI, we try to avoid the phrase "to be fair" here, because it tends to imply that people in the conversation aren't being fair. Since fairness is something that all the contributors here feel strongly about, it helps to only use that if we're actually failing in our fairness. If that makes sense. :)

Not a criticism, since it is a very common turn of phrase, but something I like to ask people to think about when it comes up. Thanks!]

Fourscythe said...

To be fair, I feel that name changing does have a somewhat unsavory history, particularly before fingerprint technology and modern identity politics. I think that the legal nature of changing names is a double-edged sword that the rise of identification and tracking technology have blunted somewhat. The capacity to verify that a name change is occurring for non-criminal reasons is fairly easy these days. Laws and cultural ideology just haven't quite caught up.

To paraphrase a silly old saying "If you outlaw name changing, only outlaws will change their names." After all the sort of person who needs to change their name to avoid taking responsibility for their crimes is not going to stop because it is illegal. Laws that severely restrict name changes are moribund and generally just hurt people with a legitimate reason to do so.

Of course I am just approaching it from a purely legal perspective. However, I do think that there is a strong tie between legality and cultural identity.

Fourscythe said...

To be fair, I feel that name changing does have a somewhat unsavory history, particularly before fingerprint technology and modern identity politics. I think that the legal nature of changing names is a double-edged sword that the rise of identification and tracking technology have blunted somewhat. The capacity to verify that a name change is occurring for non-criminal reasons is fairly easy these days. Laws and cultural ideology just haven't quite caught up.

To paraphrase a silly old saying "If you outlaw name changing, only outlaws will change their names." After all the sort of person who needs to change their name to avoid taking responsibility for their crimes is not going to stop because it is illegal. Laws that severely restrict name changes are moribund and generally just hurt people with a legitimate reason to do so.

Of course I am just approaching it from a purely legal perspective. However, I do think that there is a strong tie between legality and cultural identity.

depizan said...

I also can't help thinking that technology should make it possible for name changes to be both easy and inexpensive and private. Then again, most of the ways I imagine that working would cause certain people to have epic "number of the beast" freak outs. A cynical part of me wonders if that's not a coincidence.

depizan said...

I also can't help thinking that technology should make it possible for name changes to be both easy and inexpensive and private. Then again, most of the ways I imagine that working would cause certain people to have epic "number of the beast" freak outs. A cynical part of me wonders if that's not a coincidence.

Ana Mardoll said...

Thank you for saying this. It's very important to me to contribute positively to the discussion.

As strongly as I disagree with Kate Harding and Jill Filipovic on this particular issue, I respect them both and they've influenced me greatly in my own journey through feminism and fat acceptance.

duckbunny said...

"They might feel that their birth name is linked to a history of abuse that they wish to avoid being reminded of; for some victims of abuse, their birth name can be a trigger."

I thought it was just me.

duckbunny said...

"They might feel that their birth name is linked to a history of abuse that they wish to avoid being reminded of; for some victims of abuse, their birth name can be a trigger."

I thought it was just me.

Ana Mardoll said...

I've seen at least a couple people mention it this weekend, that their birth name is their trigger.

Ana Mardoll said...

I've seen at least a couple people mention it this weekend, that their birth name is their trigger.

Baby_Raptor said...

No, sir/ma'am, it's not just you. I've not gone by my "real" name since my family booted me out. Most of my friends don't even know it. And on the rare occasion it gets used, it's not fun.

mandassassin said...

I actually looked into legal name change procedures in my jurisdiction, as I would like to slightly alter my first name (to match the name I use in real life), and add my religious middle name. While it's likely I would be granted a name change in my state, the ~$600 pricetag shut that idea down right quick. Maybe someday. :/
I agree that anyone should be able to change hir name for whatever reason they so choose. With neither multiple court dates and a big old check, nor the side-eye and judgement.

mandassassin said...

I actually looked into legal name change procedures in my jurisdiction, as I would like to slightly alter my first name (to match the name I use in real life), and add my religious middle name. While it's likely I would be granted a name change in my state, the ~$600 pricetag shut that idea down right quick. Maybe someday. :/
I agree that anyone should be able to change hir name for whatever reason they so choose. With neither multiple court dates and a big old check, nor the side-eye and judgement.

Alison Rose said...

Hey, look - nuance and understanding of all points of view...imagine that!!

Great post, Ana :) Thank you for sharing your thoughts,.

Alison Rose said...

Hey, look - nuance and understanding of all points of view...imagine that!!

Great post, Ana :) Thank you for sharing your thoughts,.

Post a Comment