Despite the inherent contradiction of 'possessive love', people are still electing to get married. Even more surprising, an overwhelming majority of women in the most economically advanced and educated nation in the world, the United States, still choose to abandon their surname upon taking marital vows..
As no male would ever consider or be asked to assume his wife's surname, why do most Western women opt to continue this archaic, obviously patriarchal practice? The answer may simply be 'tradition'. In the United States, four essential, recurrently reinforced ideas are presented to children from the ages of 2-18. By way of their parents, religious institutions and through the media and the English language itself, Americans are indoctrinated to believe that: 1) God exists (the Christian one being the most popular choice), 2) Democracy and Capitalism go hand in hand in allowing people to lead truly free lives, 3) The United States is the greatest country on earth and 4) Marriage is not only sacred but the only legitimate institution/social vehicle worthy of partnership and raising children.
.
Along with marriage, it is assumed the bride will give up her surname. Why should she? More importantly, why do few women question the validity of this tradition? For one, that is what we have been taught all our lives. The practice has attained a status of being in the 'natural order' of things. In marriage, two people are theoretically supposed to become one (that is the meaning of the circular wedding ring), and it seems to follow that both the bride and the groom would meld into one surname. It seems romantic - not enough for a man to consider assuming his wife's surname - but romantic enough for a woman to take her husband's surname as a sacrifice of utter devotion.
.
One 19th century woman, far ahead of her time, understood the larger social implications of the loss of a woman's identity.
.
Lucy Stone (1818-1893), who campaigned intrepidly against slavery and for women's suffrage, was the first woman to reject her husband's surname (after about a year of marriage) and remain 'Lucy Stone'. In her day, women had no property rights and few legal rights at all. Under the law of coverture, a woman's rights were all but subsumed by the husband - quite similar to the state of affairs for women in Saudi Arabia today. As Stone had advocated for equality between the sexes for her entire life, she could not very well have taken her husband's name and ultimately be an accomplice to her own deprivation of freedom under the law. Hence, she remained married and continued to live as 'Lucy Stone'.
.
After her symbolic defiance against 19th century American patriarchy, her supporters followed her example, and any woman who chose to marry and keep her surname was branded a 'Stoner' (a word with quite different connotations in the 1960s, 70s and today). Although a rather simple idea as a form of protest and independence, it was a decision made with logic and common sense.
.
Today, however, only 20% of American women are 'Stoners'. The other 80% basically give no thought to the patriarchal basis of the 'maiden name' tradition. Compared to parts of the rest of the world, American women cannot be said to be progressive on the marital surname issue. In fact, married women retain their original names in Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Chile, Malaysia, Korea and even Iran. Yes, Iran.
.
If American women still wish to embrace the institution of marriage, they ought to at least weigh the importance of losing their given identity. A diamond ring, a large wedding and sharing the same name do not make a marriage. Marriage is made from desire, compassion and forgiveness. When all is said and done, the only name a relationship ever truly needs to share - is 'love'.
.
(Photo: Lucy Stone)
.
J Roquen