Robbin L. G. Long
c638414 at mizzou1.missouri.edu
Fri Apr 5 11:41:49 EST 1996
sfraser at acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Sherri Fraser) wrote:
At the time I was
>married, it wasn't very clear to me why I wanted to change my
>name other than I loved my husband, but I never got along well
>with my father. So for me, I took the name I wanted and
>discarded the one I no longer wanted. (BTW my husband didn't care
>what name I took). Later on I had a discussion with somebody in
>the lab I work in as a graduate student and she summed it up for
>me very well. What is the difference in taking your husband's
>name or keeping your father's? They are both men's names. For
>me it was easier and more pleasurable to take the name I chose.
Amen to that. I did not really change my name when I
married, I just tacked my husband's on to it. My full name
is "Robbin Lynn Gibson Long", no hyphen. I did it for a
myriad of reasons; first, I felt like it promoted family
unity; second, I was not raised by, nor am I particularly
attached to, my natural father; third, I have to admit to a
streak of rebelliousness against our anglo-saxon biased
beaurocracy which seems to insist on the use of three name
fields (hyphenating my name just seemed to feed into this).
For this reason, I insist that all four names are used and
am in a war with the Social Security Administration over
this. A pretty small thing to rebel against, I admit, but I
think the three name field thing is culturally biased.
My hypothetical children (as I am not committed to the idea
of having any, these are very hypothetical) will bear their
father's name, be they male or female. Why? Well, you have
ample physical witness to who your mother is; the paternal
surname is just a mother's way of publically declaring
(admitting?) who the father is. Not foolproof, obviously,
but tradition usually has pretty pragmatic social roots,
even if currently outdated and unnecessary.
"Women who think they are equal to men, lack ambition"
More information about the Womenbio