Quote:
Originally posted by Bentley Little
I still believe God intended it to be this way not as a sexist thing, but as a His will.
|
ah see that's the source of the issue IMO. on one hand you believe that, and on the other hand I believe that God does not "intend" for superficial and meaningless things such as what one's name should be and who should inheret it. Personally, I believe God is above simplistic human matters such as that.
Nonetheless, that's exactly where resistance for change is rooted. If one believes that such a tradition has a root in something greater than arbitrary action and historical patriarchal sexism, then it is no longer tradition for that person and it becomes an indoctrinated example of the "right way" to do things and the "less right" or "wrong" way. Hence, arguments such as "what's wrong with the tradition the way it is?" and "it just makes sense that way" and so forth. The truth is, superficial complications such as problems with genealogy due to ever-changing surnames are irrelevant in my mind. Good records are an easy remedy. Not to mention that if changing names were such a huge detriment to tracing ancestry, then the matriarchal path would be almost always impossible to trace. Just like there are "maiden names" now, there would be the equivalent were people to both change names entirely upon marriage. As far as other family members go, I don't see how it would lead to confusion. If someone needs a last name to recognize they're related to someone, that's the least of their problems with their family members. By a quick count, I can think of 6 different surnames in my extended family. I recognize all my relatives despite the different names. If couples have trouble agreeing on a name to change to, again, that can be indicative of a greater problem. Couples choose names for their children together all the time, I don't see how choosing a mutual surname is much different. Confusion over identity would be little more than it is now. Plus, if one's surname is so linked to identity you've just pointed out exactly how sexist and denying of the individuality of woman the curernt tradition is. As it stands, the woman is expected to give up her last name (which you've linked to identity) despite the (according to you) potential consequences and confusion over identity in government, business, etc. However, the male keeps his identity and avoids this supposed confusion. Really though, I think that a person chooses their own identity over the course of their life and marriage is a convenient and fitting time for one to assume control of yet another aspect of his or her identity - the surname. I don't buy that the confusion is all that significant either, and even if it is I see no reason why a woman should be expected to go through that confusion but not a man.
Addressing the sexism in this tradition is not a matter of asserting that men and women are equal in "EVERY WAY," or of attempting to androgynize society. I simply fail to see how a female is different in a way that dictates she should change her surname and the male should not, other than the fact it is a pre-existing tradition. Last I checked, surnames are not biological traits - they did not always exist and one cannot determine another person's surname by scanning DNA. So, this is completely unrelated to something such as the fact women are different from men since one can give birth and the other can't. Some biological differences exist, of course. But cutting through "tradition" to find what is rooted in truth and what is simply a created difference is not androgynization, it is equality. It is the same thing that moved us, as a society, towards realizing blacks are more than 1/3 human and women are intelligent and concerned enough to vote. Without seeking the abolition of unnecessary differentiation there can be no progress as a race or as a culture.