Equality Begins with a Name Choice

Sometimes, when I don’t feel well, I think. So maybe this is a symptom of my delusional brain which believes equality between the sexes is possible: To achieve equality, marriage partners must accept name changes on either side.

By our accepting the male’s last name in marriage, we are in effect giving up our right to equality. If we choose to keep our last names, we’re saying that we are equal in the relationship; that is, two individuals have agreed to form an alliance.

When, however, will men change their last names to ours? In other words, why should we be the only ones obligated (and pressured) to change our last names? If the concept of a marriage recognizes equality, why is only one sex required to change for the other?

What if, say, Jones and Johnson decided to marry? Couldn’t we consider these two following possibilities: Johnson and Jones; Jones-Johnson and Johnson-Jones? Our generations, too, should reflect these terms: Johnson-Jones or Jones-Johnson. After all, babies require both sperm and egg to hatch themselves onto the world.

I think this may be our greatest detriment: This insistence on our giving in to men by giving up our names; by choosing feminism, we refuse to because we don’t wish to compromise our identities. I’m proposing the radical concept of making name changes obligatory to each sex.

That is, no marriage should privilege the male over the female. More specifically, no woman (in societies where women have the choice) should feel the expectation of compromising for the men in their lives by taking on the men’s last names.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying: By exchanging our last names with our married partners (and I’m making no comment about gay marriages; as far as I know, no name changes happen in those circumstances), we’re allowing the men more power over us.

After all, if we give up our identities for men, what else are we going to give up? For example, wouldn’t it be natural for us to agree to stay at home with our kids (and I’m not making a judgment about stay-at-homers)? If you’re like me, why feel pressured at all into wanting kids?

No, I’m not married; but this is partly choice, and largely the knowledge that I’m not the kind of woman with the right vibes. Yes, men avoid me for the most part; I don’t compromise, and this must be apparent in the things I say and do.

Of course, women like me get the reputation for being overcritical, bitchy and irrational. Men want to control us: how we act and what we say. They want us to be pretty for them so they can show off the arm candy at their sides. Many men prance around, too, of course.

If it weren’t about the image, then why do lovers, etc. feel the need to show off in public? One answer: They want other people to know they’re having sex. So when do we as women take a stand and say, Enough! I’m more than eye candy and a body to be played around with?

So I say: Either refuse to change your name or, if you decide to change your name, make sure your mate changes his name. If there’s real love between the two of you, he won’t have a problem with it any more than you will.

But if only you change your name, don’t complain when he treats you like a doormat. By giving up your identity for his, you’re telling him he’s worth more than you. I have nothing against marriage. What I’m saying is: Let’s be sure enough of ourselves to claim equality.

And while equality begins before marriage, marriage contributes to the direction of our future lives. Some women are the money-makers, so they have the power to make some of the rules. (If they didn’t tell you, making more money than men gives you more power than them.)

For the rest of us who don’t hold the power in the relationship, choose to hold on to that part of us that makes us us: womanhood. Embrace womanhood so that when you make the commitment, you demand of him what society demands of you. Only then can we be equals.