insurgent49
  updated weekly
 home - contribute - donate -  message board - events - links - contact us - archive
August 4, 2006
Rank and File
by Nova Stubbs, insurgent49

“What’s in a Name?”

     Women have been giving up their surnames in marriage since the dawn of marriage itself. Today, despite the social evolution of gender equality, many women continue to assimilate to this patriarchal construction.

     Shakespeare asked, “What’s in a name?” Although he intended to highlight the uselessness and insignificance of labels, a name is ultimately a symbol of one’s own individual identity. It is ironic that women who decide to keep their last name are keeping their fathers surname, still a man’s name. The point of doing so, however, is not to reject or crush the name of a man, but for women to keep identities of their own.

     In essence, this issue is symbolic of a world where women revolve around men, where men are the stars and women are the satellites. The truth is that equality is lost in this patriarchal construction of names, a tradition that signifies that men are ultimately more significant than women.

    Why is a man’s name more important?

     In the U.S. today, 90% of women who wed are willing to give up their surname. Sometimes couples believe that this change of a name brings unity between husband and wife, which illustrates the value of the sanctity of marriage. Most often, though, women “give it up” purely because of tradition, and generally with little thought on the matter.

     The history of the feminist phenomenon of keeping one’s “maiden” name began in the early industrial era, when a woman by the name of Lucy Stone refused to surrender her surname. About seventy years later, in 1921, the Lucy Stone League was formed in order to continue to dispel the patriarchal name tradition.

     By the mid 1970’s, a great resurgence of this quiet protest began to gain momentum, as a record number of women clung to their identity. The movement spread and reached its peak by 1985, when 20% of women maintained their surname.

     By 1990, however, the numbers began to fall, and continue this trend today.

     If you are asking why, you are not alone. For the answer, it is necessary to keep tabs on the overall changing social, economic and political climates. Some believe that women are “more free” and able to make the decision to be traditional and change their name, rather than giving in to the so-called feminist peer pressure of the 1980’s.

     It is also important to note that the late 80’s and early 90’s marked the beginning of the postindustrial era. This is of great significance in terms of gender equality. Through the lens of history, eras have been branded based on economic foundations. In other words, the change of the moneymaking cornerstone within an economy will inherently bring about social changes as well.

     In sum, gender inequality was at its lowest during hunter/gatherer societies, but steadily increased throughout the Pastoral, Agrarian, and into the Industrial era. Yet, by the time of the advanced industrial era (1970’s-1980’s) America finally saw a decrease in gender inequality. This happens to parallel the “I kept my surname” phenomena.

     We are currently in a new era, and must again ask ourselves “what’s in a name?” Is it the symbolic decline of gender equality that comes with the post-industrialization age? Or is it an apathy that happens to prefer tradition as opposed to progression?

     Women’s birth names are symbols of equality. If we destroy the symbols, the fight is less furious and the chances of complete gender equality are diminished. 


     





      Nova Stubbs is a freelance writer and activist, and is co-founder of Insurgent49. Nova resides in an undisclosed location in downtown Anchorage and may be contacted at nova@insurgent49.com.
- Columnists -

Editor's Desk
by Aaron Selbig

Rank and File
by Nova Stubbs

Red Alert
by Soren Wuerth

Alaskan In Exile
by Neil Zawicki

The
Bramble Bush
by Kevin Morford






Copyright 2005 Insurgent Media. All Rights Reserved.
in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership.