Tradition is the only reason why American women have taken their spouses' surnames, since there have never been any laws in the United States dictating which surname must be taken upon marriage. Until very recently, though, some women have had to go to court in order to keep their maiden name or to change back to it after divorce or widowhood. Since the 1970s, it has been established that people may legally use whichever surname they wish. While the courts have frowned upon the use of a different name than what is on the marriage certificate in other legal documents, they have pointed out that since the marriage surname is purely a matter of tradition a woman may choose to keep, hyphenate, or change her surname upon marriage, as may a man. So, although in America we can call ourselves whatever we want, women who do change their surnames upon marriage need to realize that in legal documents they will be expected and perhaps even required to use the name on their marriage license. This is good both socially and legally since using several different names causes confusion and more paperwork, and therefore uses more time and money. But from talking to different women I don't think they understand the legal force that marriage licenses and certificates have, since they seem to think they've legally kept both names. They have not, although they can legally use the maiden name, especially in business, the courts say, if they were in that business before marriage and if the change would cause confusion. Frankly, I just don't understand why someone would legally change surnames if they already have a career or college degree. If you don't like your name, legally change it before you start college or a career; it just takes a jaunt down to the courthouse and a little money and time.

With children, however, things are not so clear-cut legally. Beginning in the 1970s a few states have legislated what surname the child must take, generally in the father's favor. These cases have gone to court, and right now it appears that the courts are split in their opinion. Happily, though, most states do not have laws dictating the child's surname. But we live in a patriarchy which has supported the dominance of the male surname not just in legislation. For example, when states are figuring out how many unwed births occur, some of them, including New York and California, simply look at the parent's surnames--if they are different, the birth is considered out-of-wedlock.

Also, have you ever noticed that even on science fiction shows where women supposedly have equality, such as the Star Trek shows or Babylon 5, a woman is routinely referred to by her husband's surname? On the few soap operas I watch, I am glad to report that at least one woman has kept her maiden surname through two marriages. But the assumption is still there, and it is promoted in all of our minds through these shows and the attitudes of government agencies and officials, not to mention our neighbors' and families' reactions to those of us who have decided to buck tradition.

I'm afraid that women who change their names are blindly promoting women as second-class persons, though I suspect that they themselves don't think they are doing this. In fact, a few of my girlfriends have told me they'd taken their husband's name to distance themselves from childhood abuse, and for these women I have both sympathy and understanding. To me the difference is whether the woman thought about the choice--just blindly doing anything is not acceptable.

I feel my spirituality and religious training had little effect on my opinions except for one thing. In the second creation story of the Bible (Genesis 2:24), which has been quoted over and over again to deny women equal rights, I have found a sentence that tells me that the woman does not enter the man's family upon marriage but instead the man merges with the woman's family. The passage reads, "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh." This has been cited as saying that the woman is the man's property and that she must take his surname because the one flesh is the man. This is not at all what the passage says. It is the man who leaves his family. Thus, if the "one flesh" represents a new family and therefore a single surname, it is more likely to mean that the man should take the woman's surname. It seems to me that this section of the Bible can be used to support my opinions just as well as traditional ones.

As for hyphenation, I think it is sexist and also promotes women as second-class people if both parties don't hyphenate. Further, I just do not understand why most children born to women with hyphenated names take the father's surname. I am also perplexed as to why most people think the father's surname should be used for children when parents have different surnames.

My views on children's surnames is influenced by biology. Genetics aside, the female of the species invests far more time, energy, and personal decisions in the production of the offspring than does the male. Indeed, in places where breastfeeding is the only option, the mother is the source of the child's survival in the most basic sense. Furthermore, while there have been a few tests showing that a father's experiences may have an effect on his sperm, we know that what the mother does and feels during pregnancy can have a profound effect on the fetus.

Furthermore, psychological testing on newborns has shown that babies recognize and desire the birth mother's presence immediately but need about two weeks to show the same responses to all the other people they have regular contact with. Likewise, birth mothers can tell their infant's scent from that of other infants immediately after birth. It makes sense that this close relationship would exist between birth mother and child, because they have spent forty weeks together in a way no one else can experience. The father-child relationship seems to have far more socio-political origins, one sign of which seems to be the surname.

Therefore it is illogical for the child to be called by the father's surname. The practice of taking the father's surname seems to relate to the patriarchy's need to claim ownership over something they have little involvement with out of fear of having no value at all. This is silly. Females need males in order to reproduce, but the offspring relies much more heavily on the female for its very life. Or perhaps by claiming the child by the father's surname the male can lessen other people's suspicions that he has somehow not completely controlled his mate's sexual life--a big necessity in maintaining women as second-class status (Controlling the sexual life of a person has also been a tool of slavery and racist policies, so it should not be surprising that throughout history, women have been the largest portion of all enslaved populations. See Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982.). As opposed to birth mothers, without blood or genetic tests it is impossible to establish fatherhood with certainty. Quite frankly I cannot see what importance there is in knowing who the genetic father is unless a medical emergency arrives.

Because I hold the radical notion that males and females differ only in their biology and therefore should be treated equally, I think that neither partner should change her or his surname upon marriage, or at the very most both should hyphenate their names. For one to change surname seems to imply that one mate is purchasing the other. If both partners contribute equally to raising a child, then the child should share both their surnames. However, according to surveys the amount of time parents spend on children, childcare, and housework is not equally shared.

Considering all my opinions, then, I come back to the choices my husband and I have made for ourselves. We each kept our original surnames because we did not want to force the other to dissociate from our families or to give up our individuality. In Iowa, where we were married, the license my husband and I filled out had two places for names: the one you were born under, and then the one you would be legally using after marriage. No one in the courthouse blinked an eye when they saw that my name was the same. My family was another matter: my father was thrilled but my mother and sisters seemed upset and surprised, while my brother, who is a lawyer, didn't realize it was legal to keep the birth surname.

We have no children yet, but we have talked about surnames. If I give birth to them after forty weeks of growing them in my body, my children will take my surname as theirs. However, my husband will be their genetic father and plans on being heavily involved in their raising, so his surname will be given to them as a middle name. We considered naming children according to their sex by different surnames but feel this may cause confusion for both the children and the society that has to deal with them.

You may be wondering how organized feminism responded to the question of married surnames. There is very little discussion about this issue within feminism today, suggesting that it is either seen as unimportant or thought to have been decided correctly in the courts. Feminism was involved in the surname controversies that shook the courts in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1950 a group calling itself "The Elizabeth Cady Stanton Society," after the women's suffrage leader, called publicly for women to have the right to use their maiden names after marriage and even urged women to do so. This movement and the presence of a feminist organization during the decade of the "cult of domesticity" shows that the so-called modern women's movement is just a continuation of a very long fight, one which moves closer to equality with each woman who refuses to bow to tradition and publicly reclaims her own personhood.

Feminism should be more concerned with surnames because names are very important. In many ancient and less industrial cultures names were thought of as having great power. Names may change through an individual lifetime to reflect a person's changes in status, experiences, and skills. Often a person has more than one name which they use in different situations.

Just as first names greatly affect how others feel about us and what we feel about ourselves, surnames establish important relationships that can cause negative or positive impressions. Once partners changes their surnames they are distancing themselves from their original family ties and from the lives they had before marriage. This is why many women who take their husband's surname continue to use their maiden name to conduct business. This is also the reason people mention the maiden name when talking about women, for not doing so would leave her without ties beyond her marriage and leave her with fewer relationships to people the speaker and listener know (An example is the way people identify a woman as "she was Jones and then she married Smith." An entire list of surnames is used when a woman has been married more than once. I've always found this very confusing to list these names, myself.). For some people, changing surnames is an important way to distance themselves from their past or even a way to further show their relationship to their new family. However, the expectation is that only the woman will do this and by this token cannot be seen as anything but societal sexism. As feminists or women who support feminist ideals we need to start demanding equal treatment in the area of names.

I try not to judge people who have done things differently from myself, but I do try to provide an alternative role model for people. I hope that more folks will think and talk before making decisions about surnames and I hope that this essay has encouraged you to think about your decisions before you blindly follow tradition.