On names and paternal responsibility

I've been musing this afternoon about my local political hero, Los Angeles City Councilman and former state Assembly speaker Antonio Villaraigosa. The musing began in Trader Joe's where I was behind a man in the checkout line who looked exactly like him. I've been a huge fan of Antonio's for a decade, and I contributed to his unsuccessful mayoral campaign in 2001. But I am not thinking of Villaraigosa's politics today. I'm thinking about his name. He was born Antonio Villar; his name is a mix of his birth name and that of his wife, Connie Raigosa. He is the highest ranking American male politician to have created a "new name" in this fashion. It is one of many things which Villaraigosa has done that have established his first-rate feminist credentials.

It is axiomatic in women's studies courses that women and children taking the last name of their husbands and fathers is one of the ugliest legacies of patriarchy. (Of course, last names haven't been around that long, but that's another story). Most feminist history courses (including my own) make much of the marriage of Lucy Stone to Henry Blackwell in 1855, and their decision to have each keep his or her own surname. But while we feminists make much of the importance of women keeping their own names, we often fail to note a far more positive historical rational for women and children taking the surname of husband and father.

Two of my heroes (and just naming them as such disqualifies me from being a liberal, I think) are Amy and Leon Kass, noted professors at the University of Chicago and husband and wife. In this famous First Things article from 1995, they wrote:

Although we know from modern biology the equal contributions both parents make to the genetic identity of a child, it is still true to say that the mother is the "more natural" parent, that is, the parent by birth. A woman can give up a child for adoption or, thanks to modern reproductive technologies, can even bear a child not genetically her own. But there is no way to deny out of whose body the new life sprung, whose substance it fed on, who labored to produce it, who wondrously bore it forth. The father's role in all this is minuscule and invisible; in contrast to the mother, there is no naturally manifest way to demonstrate his responsibility.

The father is thus a parent more by choice and agreement than by nature (and not only because he cannot know with absolute certainty that the woman's child is indeed his own). One can thus explain the giving of the paternal surname in the following way: the father symbolically announces "his choice" that the child is his, fully and freely accepting responsibility for its conception and, more importantly, for its protection and support...
The husband who gives his name to his bride in marriage is thus not just keeping his own; he is owning up to what it means to have been given a family and a family name by his own father-he is living out his destiny to be a father by saying yes to it in advance. And the wife does not so much surrender her name as she accepts the gift of his, given and received as a pledge of (among other things) loyal and responsible fatherhood for her children.

Patrilineal surnames are, in truth, less a sign of paternal prerogative than of paternal duty and professed commitment, reinforced psychologically by gratifying the father's vanity in the perpetuation of his name and by offering this nominal incentive to do his duty both to mother and child. Such human speech and naming enables the father explicitly to choose to become the parent-by-choice that he, more than the mother, must necessarily be. (bold emphasis is Hugo's).

I don't have kids. I note, however, that none of my former wives took my surname. Perhaps they knew something going in, agreeing with the Kass':

A woman who refuses this gift (the husband's name) is, whether she knows it or not, tacitly refusing the promised devotion or, worse, expressing her suspicions about her groom's trustworthiness as a husband and prospective father.

What my gal and I will do when and if we get married is yet to be decided. But Amy and Leon make good sense to me.

Comments

[Xrlq]

The only time I ever lied to Mrs. Xrlq was before we married, when I told her I had no preference whether she took my name or not. I'm glad she did.

[Lawrence Krubner]

But if a man promises God to stay with one woman forever, then that promise is one that exists soley between him and God, yes? You sound approving when you quote: "A woman who refuses this gift... is... tacitly refusing the promised devotion". But if the groom strays then it's between him and God to work out why the promise was broken, yes? In another recent post you took a strong stand against that line of reasoning that blames women for men's bad behavior. I'm not sure why this situation is different. Perhaps you could clarify.

[Hugo]

I temper my approval of the Kass statement with humility, knowing my own woeful failures in this regard.

The trust and intimacy of marriage, ideally is a shared responsibility between husband and wife. More accurately (Ephesians 5:21) it is best seen as a triangle, with the husband and wife occupying two points and God occupying the third. Each partner has his or her own accountability to God and to each other. The husband has the responsibility to be trustworthy; the wife has the responsibility to trust. Each must take the lead in this, neither can wait for the other.

[obeah]

I didn't take my husband's last name when we married, and I frankly don't care for strangers like the Kasses telling me what I was really thinking when I made that decision, even if I was too stupid to know it.

That said, I plan to suggest that when we have children, they should be given their father's last name. My reasoning for this is somewhat similar to theirs: as the children's mother, I will have borne them in my body and have the most intimate connection possible with them. My husband can't have that connection with them; at least he can give them his name.

[John Sloas]

My wife took my name. I felt weird about it. She had had her name all her life. In one swoop, part of her identity was gone. We talked about, I suggested the she keep her name. She felt that we were starting something new together. Seven years into this marriage thing we have 3 little ones and we all have the same last name--that is kind of nice. More importantly is the mutual commitment that my wife and I have to one another. What are our last names are has little to do with that. That her name is changed is a reflection of her choice to be committed to me. I have profound respect for her and want to live up to my end of a relationship that she gave something up for.

[Hugo]

While I honor the fact that your wife's name change is not critical to your commitment, I note affectionately, John, that in your last sentence you seem to connect your desire to live up to your end of the relationship to your wife's acceptance of your name. I think there is an almost primal link between the two.

[John Sloas]

As usual, you cause me to think deeper and in new ways.

[Smurfet]

I would definitely not take my husbands name! I love my own and I wont change it for anyone! My children (if I am blessed with having any!) will have my name and my husband-to-be knows that and understands my thinking! If I am to go through nine months of what I imagine will be tremendous hardship and alot of compromising and the agony of labour, those children will take my name. Anyway, its all patriarchal dominance and has come down through the years with nobody I know, even questioning it! So much acceptance without question is ignorance! I do accept some of the points made above though and it has me thinking!

[Smurfet]

I would definitely not take my husbands name! I love my own and I wont change it for anyone! My children (if I am blessed with having any!) will have my name and my husband-to-be knows that and understands my thinking! If I am to go through nine months of what I imagine will be tremendous hardship and alot of compromising and the agony of labour, those children will take my name. Anyway, its all patriarchal dominance and has come down through the years with nobody I know, even questioning it! So much acceptance without question is ignorance! I do accept some of the points made above though and it has me thinking!

[ChssAddct]

It seems to me that a lot of the feeling in this regard (and in regard to feminism in general), is a feeling of 'men actions (and societal norms) indicate men think they are more important than women, and that their contribution is more important and thus deserving of recognition and deference'. And, in large part this feeling is correct, and this attitude of men being of greater importance does need to be changed. However, feminism sometime in its aims goes beyond obtaining a just equality of recognition of importance, and tries to now place the importance of women and womanhood above that of men. Smurfet seems to be doing this when she says if she's going to make those sacrifices to birth children, the children will have her name. In other words, her contribution to bringing life is more than and more important than her husband's, thus they should get her name not his in recognition of this, and as a representation to the world of this 'fact'. However, this attitude seems to me however just as bad as the arrogance of (some) men.

I suggested to my wife that she might want to keep both her name and take mine in addition (she is Colombian, and Hispanic surnaming allows for this). She chose to discard her last name and take only mine, due to a desire to not honor the name of her father who denied she was his. Our children, however, we have given both my last name, and her former last name. This is a clear indication we both consider each other as equal and equally important partners in the creation of life, as well as in raising our children, together. We have different roles, but both contribute willingly and selflessly to the family, and when one needs help in her or his role, the other chips in willingly.

One last thought on Smurfet's comment -- the name she loves and won't change for anyone. I'm just wondering if that was her father's surname or her mother's. In other words, given an attitude that the Mother's contribution is more important than the Father's, shouldn't she first change her last name to be that of her Mother (her mother's maiden name, that is) and then pass it on to her children, all in order to be consistent with her attitude of who is more important? But then, her mother's maiden name was probably her grandfather's name, not her grandmother's maiden name. So, better change it. But then, before you can do any of it, better do all of your matrilinear geneology in order to ensure you're using the name of the most important party in each generation -- the mother.

[Laura Chinchilla]

I'm not changing my surname for two reasons:
1. It Rocks!
2. There are very few female professors of Latin American descent working in the US. I want to be recognized as one of them.

~L