I’m Not Your Property!
In the view of many women, having your choice between Ms., Mrs. and Miss when filling out a form may seem like a minor inconvenience. Some don’t even notice at all and happily mark the box that best fits their current status. But when you look deeper at the social impact of the choices given, you see that there is so much more to these titles than society lets on. So much of this name game is steeped in tradition that women don’t stop to look at whether the tradition itself is sexist.
The history of these titles comes from a time when women were defined by their relation to men. When a young woman got married, her father “gives her away” at the wedding to her new “owner”, her husband. In order show this ownership over his new bride, the woman must not only take his last name but also take the title Mrs. So now she is just Mrs. John Smith. What happened to her identity? It is almost as if when a woman gets married, her only identity is an extension of her husbands. It’s silly to think that a woman might want to her identity, right?
Now, if you’re not convinced that the purpose of the title Mrs. is to show ownership, another good example to look at is slavery. During the times of slavery, owners forced their slaves to take their last name. If they were sold to another plantation, their name changed in order to match their new owner. Much like if a woman gets divorced, she drops the name of her first husband only to take the name of her second owner…er…husband, I mean.
So what are our other options? Well, the Miss title is normally reserved for a woman who has never been married. Newer on the scene is Ms. or Miz. This title has been historically used by women who used to be married. Thus, by using the title she is implying either being widowed or divorced. What is common with all these titles is that they all indicate the marital status of the woman. Why is that so important? Why do men get one title their entire lives, but women have three? Another question that has bothered on me for some time is why can’t men take their wife’s last name? I recall a court case early this year when a man had to sue the state of California because he was not allowed to change his last name after they were married. Does it even make sense that such a thing should be illegal?
The existence of patriarchy is undeniable in such a discussion. The question that is begged is, what can be done? Well, the author of “Why I Refuse to be Addressed as ‘Mrs.’” believes that simply keeping your own name might change the way society thinks about these things. Additionally, making the title Ms. standard for all women, married or otherwise would eliminate placing women in a societal category based on their marital status. I for one only intend to take my husband’s last name if it is easier to pronounce and spell than mine. Silly reasoning? Not really. For me it would be more of utility than societal tradition that influences my decision. Whatever your decision, the important thing to remember is to keep your identity, after all, you are only given one in this lifetime. So make it count.
Sources:
Why I refused to be called “MRS” - Eyes Wide Open
women, marriage, patriarchy, society, divorce, her daily news
June 12th, 2007 at 10:36 am
One of my personal hot buttons in life is a woman being referred to as “Mrs. Husband’s Entire Name” (ie, Mrs. John J. Smith). I know that marriage is about compromise, but is it possible that we’re compromising ourselves as individuals more than we realize?
However, I fully intend to take my husband’s last name if it’s easier than my current one. Shallow? Possibly.
What’s your thought on naming the children (say, if a woman keeps her last name for personal or professional reasons)? Do Angelinia Jolie and Brad Pitt have the right idea??
June 12th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Not shallow at all. If I met a guy with the last name Jones, its a lot easier than Gathright so I’m all for taking it. At the same time, hyphenation is such a trendy thing, that is always an option too.
As far as naming children, the tradition is for the entire family to take the father’s name. We always here talking of carrying on the family name. Sexist? I still think so. Only because who is going to carry on this family name? Well the sons of course. The daughters are going to get married and become someone else’s property. Could this be hinting toward the greater importance of male children to carry on the family name? Well, you be the judge.
I think the Jolie-Pitt’s have a very progressive idea going. Both of their names are fairly short so it should pose too many problems. I think for some, though, it could get wordy. My last last name has nine letters so if I were to hyphenate it with another five+ letters, we’re running out of room on most forms.
I think couples should come to an agreement about whose name to use, or both if they are so inclined. It shouldn’t have to always be the man. At the same time, our society has to start embracing this idea. Making it almost impossible for the husband to change his last name is, in short, discrimination based on sex. The law needs to be changed, across the board, to fit this more progressive style of thinking.