On names, marriage, family
A friend of mine is getting married, and happened to mention that she will be changing her name (same first name, middle and last names changed to husband's). Though I come from a conservative Hindu family, this struck me as particularly odd. It’s probably because every now and then, I play this little mental game of putting myself in someone else’s situation to see what I would have done.
Think about it. Go back a few hundred centuries. Assume that some spunky woman somewhere, sparked off a social revolution which led to a convention where males would change their names after marriage, so I, Mr. X Y Z, after getting married to Ms. A B C, would become Mr. X A C.
The idea makes me shiver. Not because of the implied submission to my spouse's authority. No, its probably because, to me, my full, original name is a proud reminder of my family history, a tribute to my roots. It’s a link to the ingredients that have made me what I am today.
But then again, I do have reservations about how my name works today. It has only my father’s name and his family name in it. No mention of my mother anywhere. Seems very unfair to me. The lady gave birth to me, and should at least get a mention in my name, wouldn’t you think? What if I become the President of India tomorrow? Is it only my father who will be remembered each time I sign my name?
Once I read about an interesting convention that was followed in places like Scandinavia, Wales, Iceland and Denmark. It was called the patronymic naming convention. Very simply put, a person’s last name would be the father’s name, suffixed by “son” or “datter / dotter”. Even more interestingly, Denmark has re-enacted a law that also allows a Matronymic naming convention.
It still doesn’t satisfy me though. My gripe is that only one parent is still mentioned in the complete name.
So, back to the main question. What would I have done, if I were in a matriarchal society and were to get married? Very simply, I would proudly retain my original name. Conversely, if I marry, I would happily insist that my wife retain her original name. On hearing this, another friend asked, would my children be okay with that - having a mother and father with completely different last names? I think they would. I really think they would… It would be a simple matter of getting them used to that convention. Dealing with the strange queries that would pour in from social circles would be a bigger challenge, but, to quote a famous line -- frankly, I don’t give a damn.
Finally, to wrap up: what name would our kids have? I have a simple solution in mind that probably wont hold up well in today's society - Ditch both parents' surnames; give the kids a first name, use one parent's first name as the kid's middle name, and the other parent's name as the last name. It makes logical sense, since a kid is the representation of the union of the parents. At the very least, the kids would not forget half the family tree that was responsible for their birth.
Think about it. Go back a few hundred centuries. Assume that some spunky woman somewhere, sparked off a social revolution which led to a convention where males would change their names after marriage, so I, Mr. X Y Z, after getting married to Ms. A B C, would become Mr. X A C.
The idea makes me shiver. Not because of the implied submission to my spouse's authority. No, its probably because, to me, my full, original name is a proud reminder of my family history, a tribute to my roots. It’s a link to the ingredients that have made me what I am today.
But then again, I do have reservations about how my name works today. It has only my father’s name and his family name in it. No mention of my mother anywhere. Seems very unfair to me. The lady gave birth to me, and should at least get a mention in my name, wouldn’t you think? What if I become the President of India tomorrow? Is it only my father who will be remembered each time I sign my name?
Once I read about an interesting convention that was followed in places like Scandinavia, Wales, Iceland and Denmark. It was called the patronymic naming convention. Very simply put, a person’s last name would be the father’s name, suffixed by “son” or “datter / dotter”. Even more interestingly, Denmark has re-enacted a law that also allows a Matronymic naming convention.
It still doesn’t satisfy me though. My gripe is that only one parent is still mentioned in the complete name.
So, back to the main question. What would I have done, if I were in a matriarchal society and were to get married? Very simply, I would proudly retain my original name. Conversely, if I marry, I would happily insist that my wife retain her original name. On hearing this, another friend asked, would my children be okay with that - having a mother and father with completely different last names? I think they would. I really think they would… It would be a simple matter of getting them used to that convention. Dealing with the strange queries that would pour in from social circles would be a bigger challenge, but, to quote a famous line -- frankly, I don’t give a damn.
Finally, to wrap up: what name would our kids have? I have a simple solution in mind that probably wont hold up well in today's society - Ditch both parents' surnames; give the kids a first name, use one parent's first name as the kid's middle name, and the other parent's name as the last name. It makes logical sense, since a kid is the representation of the union of the parents. At the very least, the kids would not forget half the family tree that was responsible for their birth.
posted by Dream Runner | 10:09 AM
|
7 comments
