I heard on BBC Radio 4 this morning that France is planning on referring to all married women by their maiden names in all official documents unless otherwise requested, in order to promote gender equality.
Now, there could be a number of viewpoints for and against this. The two guest speakers on the topic, Dr Rachel Thwaites from the Centre for Women's Studies at the University of York, and journalist Daisy McAndrew, made some very good points – Daisy is married, and has taken her husband’s name, and Dr Thwaites is as yet unmarried (not that this should matter either way). Daisy made the point that her changing her name was a deeply personal decision and the state should not be allowed to take that away from her just so it can be seen to promote gender equality. Dr Thwaites, however, said that it was a positive step in the right direction and would hopefully encourage other countries to do something about the growing divide in gender equality (in quite a number of industries women are still paid less than men in equal positions).
Dr Thwaites also made an interesting point – she has found from her research that a lot of women feel coerced, even if it is subconsciously, to change their surnames once they are married, to their partners’. They feel that if they don’t, perhaps their commitment to the relationship will be questioned or they will be seen to be making the ‘wrong’ choice (isn't that an oxymoron anyway?? How can we openly promote free choice when we are then telling people their choices are ‘wrong’?!).
My question is this. If we were really a free choice society, why would it be the ‘norm’ for anyone to change their name anyway? The choice is within social boundaries, which immediately takes away from it being a free one. I should be able to, if I want to, keep my maiden name, or hyphenate it, or do whatever else I choose to with it. I should not be ostracised or looked down upon, because I choose not to take my husband’s surname upon marriage.
From my understanding, the Spanish have a rule – if a woman has a child and the baby is a girl, she automatically follows the mother’s lineage. If the child is a boy, it’s the father’s and when the children grow up, they can choose the lineage they want to follow. I’m sure there are issues with this way of thinking too, but to me, it makes perfect sense, since both the mother and father’s lineages are then effectively followed. Of course, the argument that a woman normally takes her father’s surname anyway so it would still effectively be a ‘man’s’ line does come into play, but I suppose if we were to go way back when, I’m sure we would find surnames purely related to women. I would hope so anyway!
Daisy was of the opinion that she should be able to, by free choice, choose whether she would like to take her husband’s surname or not. She said she liked the idea of creating a new clan of sorts with her husband and children and so, for this reason, wanted to have the same surname as all of them. Again, her point came back to the fact that women should be able to choose, without prejudice, what the want to do with their names once married (or even when not married). After all, men aren't expected to change their surnames, or even titles, when they get married if they don’t want to (of course, they can if they want to. Very few choose to), and so women should be given that choice too. If she then wants to, she should also not be ostracised or looked down upon as being 'old fashioned' because she did.
Two very valid viewpoints and both essentially saying the same thing: that women should be allowed to choose without any prejudice or judgement, what they would like to do. In my opinion, gender equality will only truly come into practice when the prejudices associated with such things are removed completely from the minds of our society. In a world where we STILL, in this century, hear of female infanticide and female genital mutilation, in a society where the mother's name does not appear anywhere on marriage certificates (so the 'deal' is effectively between the bride's father and groom's father) the question remains – are we truly a ‘free choice’ society or is the choice actually marred by society’s prejudices and generations of behaviours which are considered ‘the norm’, together with opposing views of them?
A very good friend of mine, Vinay (www.vinaytrivedi22.blogspot.co.uk), also made a very valid point, in extension to mine, which I wanted to add:
"'Choice' is only relevant when opinions regarding a choice are reserved to opinions only, and not factors that influence others to modify their behaviour to ensure that their ‘free choice’ fits in with that of those around them, whether it be pro-change or not."
Now, there could be a number of viewpoints for and against this. The two guest speakers on the topic, Dr Rachel Thwaites from the Centre for Women's Studies at the University of York, and journalist Daisy McAndrew, made some very good points – Daisy is married, and has taken her husband’s name, and Dr Thwaites is as yet unmarried (not that this should matter either way). Daisy made the point that her changing her name was a deeply personal decision and the state should not be allowed to take that away from her just so it can be seen to promote gender equality. Dr Thwaites, however, said that it was a positive step in the right direction and would hopefully encourage other countries to do something about the growing divide in gender equality (in quite a number of industries women are still paid less than men in equal positions).
Dr Thwaites also made an interesting point – she has found from her research that a lot of women feel coerced, even if it is subconsciously, to change their surnames once they are married, to their partners’. They feel that if they don’t, perhaps their commitment to the relationship will be questioned or they will be seen to be making the ‘wrong’ choice (isn't that an oxymoron anyway?? How can we openly promote free choice when we are then telling people their choices are ‘wrong’?!).
My question is this. If we were really a free choice society, why would it be the ‘norm’ for anyone to change their name anyway? The choice is within social boundaries, which immediately takes away from it being a free one. I should be able to, if I want to, keep my maiden name, or hyphenate it, or do whatever else I choose to with it. I should not be ostracised or looked down upon, because I choose not to take my husband’s surname upon marriage.
From my understanding, the Spanish have a rule – if a woman has a child and the baby is a girl, she automatically follows the mother’s lineage. If the child is a boy, it’s the father’s and when the children grow up, they can choose the lineage they want to follow. I’m sure there are issues with this way of thinking too, but to me, it makes perfect sense, since both the mother and father’s lineages are then effectively followed. Of course, the argument that a woman normally takes her father’s surname anyway so it would still effectively be a ‘man’s’ line does come into play, but I suppose if we were to go way back when, I’m sure we would find surnames purely related to women. I would hope so anyway!
Daisy was of the opinion that she should be able to, by free choice, choose whether she would like to take her husband’s surname or not. She said she liked the idea of creating a new clan of sorts with her husband and children and so, for this reason, wanted to have the same surname as all of them. Again, her point came back to the fact that women should be able to choose, without prejudice, what the want to do with their names once married (or even when not married). After all, men aren't expected to change their surnames, or even titles, when they get married if they don’t want to (of course, they can if they want to. Very few choose to), and so women should be given that choice too. If she then wants to, she should also not be ostracised or looked down upon as being 'old fashioned' because she did.
Two very valid viewpoints and both essentially saying the same thing: that women should be allowed to choose without any prejudice or judgement, what they would like to do. In my opinion, gender equality will only truly come into practice when the prejudices associated with such things are removed completely from the minds of our society. In a world where we STILL, in this century, hear of female infanticide and female genital mutilation, in a society where the mother's name does not appear anywhere on marriage certificates (so the 'deal' is effectively between the bride's father and groom's father) the question remains – are we truly a ‘free choice’ society or is the choice actually marred by society’s prejudices and generations of behaviours which are considered ‘the norm’, together with opposing views of them?
A very good friend of mine, Vinay (www.vinaytrivedi22.blogspot.co.uk), also made a very valid point, in extension to mine, which I wanted to add:
"'Choice' is only relevant when opinions regarding a choice are reserved to opinions only, and not factors that influence others to modify their behaviour to ensure that their ‘free choice’ fits in with that of those around them, whether it be pro-change or not."
No comments:
Post a Comment