• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The answer is that there shouldn’t be. And a woman changing her name to match her husband’s is archaic patriarchal bullshit. I’m glad my wife decided not to do that.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mine did, but that’s mostly because she didn’t change it back after the divorce from her ex was finalized because she figured we were headed in that general direction and it would save her some paperwork.

      I made a point of telling her it was up to her, and that things like both of us hyphenating her maiden name and my name were on the table if she wanted, but she wanted to take my name and I’m fine with that.

      I figured the odds are that it started as patriarchal bullshit in the most literal sense. Less claiming ownership of the woman like you are thinking and more claiming ownership of the children.

      But I suspect that a lot of cultural institutions that are considered patriarchal bullshit had their origins in trying to square the circle of wanting men to be materially responsible for their offspring and also paternity being non-certain with no obvious solution using bronze age technology. So you legally and culturally tie man and woman together, make any of their offspring legally his and bear his name, and leave it to him to make sure no other man is fathering children with her.

      Compare to groups like the Mosuo where there are no permanent pair bonds, but also men aren’t materially responsible for their offspring or raising them - children belong to their mother’s family, only. Women are still supposed to know who fathered their children, but I suspect you’ll never get away from that as a norm just to avoid half siblings breeding.