What's in a name?

When was the last time you looked into the origins of a tradition?

Or perhaps, a better question might be, how many times have you been told you have to do something because 'it's tradition' –?even if it makes you feel uncomfortable?

Traditions are, by nature, a product of the past and for the most part, are...

“accepted without being assessed by any criterion other than its having been believed before” (Shirley Jackson).

Great if the tradition benefits you. Wonderful in fact. Not so great for everyone else.

Since I'm getting married in May, the topic of...

My surname.

My bouquet.

The length of my hair.

The colour of my dress.

Am I wearing a veil.

Who's giving a speech.

Who's walking me down the aisle.

The invite list.

When are we starting a family.

(I mean, I could go on but I think you get the point)

...have all become regular questions.

So I sat down and did some homework about the traditions I am expected to follow.

This homework inspired episode three of?The Unfairer Sex Podcast?which challenges some popular wedding traditions – looking at their origins, modern interpretations and many a 'Sorry, what did you say' moment.

The most interesting point for me was titles.

Namely, the pivotal moment a woman transitions from Miss to Mrs, and the expectation that her surname will change also. Whilst these were covered on the podcast, I wanted to do a deeper dive into why they bug me so much...

The Miss/Ms/Mrs mashup.

The more you think about, the more ridiculous and steeped in misogyny it all is.

The first point to make is that the majority of men will move through life with just one title –?Mr.

Yes, yes, some of you will try and argue that 'Master' exists as an equivalent to Miss, but who are you trying to kid? Not only has Master fallen greatly out of fashion –?unless you're Alfred from the Batman series of course. It has also always been fundamentally different for one important reason. A boy remained a Master until they came of age. A girl remains a Miss until they are married.

And that's because in a heterosexual-male-dominated world, a man's marital status wasn't important. They could just, exist. Women, on the other hand, were primarily valued as marital property to be exchanged, so publicising their martial status seemed easier than asking if they were married at a party. After all, women were just put on the planet to be someone's wife right?

Enter Ms.

Where Miss and Mrs are still used to highlight a women's relationship, or absence of relationship, to a man, Ms neatly sidesteps the question altogether.

Whilst credit has been given to American civil rights activist Sheila Michaels for accidentally inventing the title 'Ms' back in 1961, history shows that an anonymous writer first put forward the idea at the turn of the 20th century. On November 10th, 1901, tucked away at the bottom of Page 4, a challenge was set. How do we fill the void in the English language to save social embarrassment?

The writer began...

“Every one has been put in an embarrassing position by ignorance of the status of some woman. To call a maiden Mrs. is only a shade worse than to insult a matron with the inferior title Miss. Yet it is not always easy to know the facts.”

How can we possibly avoid this potential social faux pas?

Luckily, the writer offered a suggestion:

[why not] “a more comprehensive term which does homage to the sex without expressing any views as to their domestic situation,” namely, Ms. With this “simple” and “easy to write” title, a tactfully ambiguous compromise between Miss and Mrs., “the person concerned can translate it properly according to circumstances.”

Both programatic and logical, Ms seemed the best of both words. In fact, thanks to such articles and a subsequent typing error in a newsletter sent to Sheila Michael's flatmate, the term Ms gained traction with 1971 women's movements and became a go-to title for women who wished to have their autonomy central.

Despite the popularity of Ms and the martial status of women being of far less importance today (supposedly), our language remains slow to catch up. It's even caught a small case of taboo on its journey to 2022.

In the same way the word 'feminist' makes people reach for a pitch fork and a box of matches, being a Miss in your 60s or a Ms in your 20s can still make an eye or two twitch. Why? Because there remains this societal undertone that by using these terms in a more fluid way, women are defying the social constructs built for them, and rather than question the eye twitch, we've spent far too long questioning the choices of women instead.

And I find that fascinating.

In the words of?Eve Kay:

...the whole point of the word [Ms.] was to give women a title that makes their autonomy central, not to highlight their relationship or absence of relationship, to a man.. ... Choose Miss and you are condemned to childish immaturity. Choose Mrs and be condemned as some guy's chattel. Choose Ms and you become an adult woman in charge of your whole life.

Or, as one of the hosts notes on the podcast:

Men aren’t defined by their martial status in public life, women shouldn’t be either.

Amen.

Surnames

Once you've wrapped your head around where you are in life and how you're meant to present yourself to the world, next comes your surname.

A?report?from 2016 showed that 90% of women adopt their husband's surname. Only 3% of husbands return the favour.

Now I'm surprised by this.

Not by the 3%. By the 90.

Professor Simon Duncan, University of Bradford, UK, shares my surprise, describing the tradition as “entrenched” even though the concept of “owning” wives was scrapped more than a century ago in Britain, and there being no legal requirement to take a man’s name today.

It's not that taking your husband's name is the wrong thing to do. Many people jump at the opportunity of a name change and at the end of the day, you can do as you please. But I do question if it is always the right thing, or are we just blindly following an inherently patriarchal tradition, one that’s relatively easy to opt out of?

As Sabrina Beaumont, CMO of?Passion Plans, notes:

“The practice of taking your spouse's name is truly one that helps maintain the ingrown sexism we see in society. If there was any sort of reason, 50% of couples would take the woman's last name but that's not so. With no functional purpose, taking the man's name is a tradition that should be stopped in its tracks.”

When discussing surnames with my fiancé, I found it interesting that we agreed on pretty much all points when it came to wanting to keep our own surnames. All but one –?tradition.

We have both been XXX surname our whole lives.

We've both achieved academic awards and have built professional careers with XXX surname.

Our names make great segue for nicknames –?nicknames too good to pass up.

We both love our families and want to honour them by continuing the family name –?some more desperately than others!

We both love the idea of becoming one unit (I proposed a double barrel or the adoption of his mother's maiden name) but my fiancé doesn't want to compromise on his name, and I don't feel tradition is a good enough reason to compromise on mine.

In fact, I received a wedding invitation before Christmas from a Mr and Mrs John Doe. And I just felt sad. The wife had literally been written off the paper for her own daughter's wedding because it was proper etiquette, or traditional, to do so. It made me all the more determined to keep my name exactly as it is –?all 17 long characters (including spaces).

I'm certainly not the first woman to keep her surname and yet, it causes much confusion among my peers that I would choose to do such a thing.

This confusion is often followed by questions about how my unborn children might feel or wouldn't it be nice for my husband if I took his name so we could become 'The XXXXs'. I've also been asked why I'm getting married at all and if I'm just doing this to make a point –?because if I am, it would be much easier for me if I just went with the flow.

I think the thing that grates me the most is that neither my fiancé or I want to change our names. And yet, when the topic comes up, it is I (the woman) who is causing the nuisance, refusing to budge, being stubborn, and all the other lovely turn of phrases that get thrown our way. All the while, my fiancé sits there scot free because he is man, and we have been led to believe that man is status quo.

And if men do choose to take on their wife's names, they are automatically deemed heroes (or under the thumb). What is that all about?

How can men (not all men) feel?so?passionate about holding on to their name, and then in the same breath, feel completely indifferent about asking a women to sacrifice hers? And not just any woman, the woman they are meant to love more than anything in the world. My hunch is they've read up on all the admin that comes with a name change and are now putting all their energy into preserving the status quo, simply so the admin doesn't come their way...

Did you know?

Did you know, provincial law in Quebec forbids a woman from taking her husband’s surname after marriage? Greece have a similar law, requiring all women keep their maiden name, and in France, people are not allowed to use a name besides the one given on their birth certificate –?meaning married couples cannot legally change their surname to match.

The Queen also famously rejected Prince Philip's surname of Mountbatten in 1947, retaining the name Windsor for herself and her children. As did Lucy Stone, a leading suffragist and abolitionist born in 1818, who was described by fellow women’s rights activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton as...

“the first woman in the nation to protest against the marriage laws at the altar, and to manifest sufficient self respect to keep her own name, to represent her individual existence through life.”

Whilst these protests might sound ironic at this point of history –?in the sense that whether we choose to take on a new surname (my husband's), or keep the one we have (my Dad's), there's a big chance we are advocating for a man's name – it feels that keeping my full identity (or coming up with something new with my fiancé) is a step in the right direction for women, for feminism and for me.

And at the end of the day, if it's good enough for Queen Lizzie, it's good enough for little old ET!

Closing thoughts

Whilst The Queen doesn't feature in episode three of The Unfairer Sex podcast, we do cover a number of other wedding traditions. So if you found this interesting, I recommend grabbing those earphones and having a listen?here.

I'd also love to hear from you!

If you kept your surname, changed your surname, double barrelled, always been a Ms, have insisted on being a Master your whole life (good on you Batman) –?let me know in the comments. Not for any other reason than I'm interested to see if the 90% stat from 2016 is still 90% in a 2022 business context.

*****

Just in case you were wondering...

My surname –?it's exactly that, my surname and it's going nowhere

Throwing my bouquet –?do you know how expensive bridal bouquets are? Also, whilst it's 'just a bit of fun', I don't like the idea of pitting my favourite women against each other for some superstitious flowers...

The colour of my dress –?white as a daisy because I look damn good in white ;-)

The length of my hair –?why do some people have a weird obsession with women having long hair?!

Am I wearing a veil –?yes, but not over my face. My finance is well acquainted with my face and I want to look the evil spirits in the eye as I tell them to bugger off

Who's giving a speech –?the usual suspects (Dad, best-men and hubby to be), but also me and one of the bridesmaids. Whilst I'm really looking forward to the traditional trio, it felt weird just hearing stories from the male point of view.

Who's walking me down the aisle –?my Dad. Because I have a great relationship with him and want to share that moment. Although I have respectfully asked that he doesn't ask for ten cows when we reach the groom...

The invite list –?it really bugs me that people can sit on the sideline of other people's lives then feel entitled to an invitation or get grumpy when they are not invited. We followed four simple rules –?have we met them, have they played a positive role in our relationship, will they play a positive role in our marriage and would we happily buy them dinner? If the answer was yes, they made it on the list. As a good friend of mine once said, invite your friends, if they happen to be family, that's a bonus.

When are we starting a family –?committing to my best friend is starting a family, and that happened a long time ago. You don't need mini-versions of yourself to accomplish this, or even a wedding.