John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2007-03-25 03:32 pm
jackofallgeeks) wrote2007-03-25 03:32 pm
Entry tags:
Tradition, marriage, and surnames
Names have always fascinated me. I can't really express how, I'm just really curious about what people call each other, what people call themselves, and why. For example, I call myself Andrew; not just when I introduce myself, but in my inner monologue and whenever I think about myself -- I'm Andrew. Some people, particularly family, call me Andy; it's what I was called as a kid, and part of my thinks that my shift to Andrew was a means for me to move away from "childish things." Not that I dislike the name Andy; sometimes it irritates me when certain people call me by it, but only because I think of it as a rather familiar name, reserved for family and particularly intimate friends. I loath the name Drew. I don't really know why. I'm decidedly not Drew, and I've actually taken offense at being called by Drew, like a knee-jerk reaction.
Because of all the above, I'm always interested in what people call themselves. Sometimes they'll say they don't have a preference, but that's not really what I'm asking: not what do you want others to call you, but what do you call yourself? Sometimes people can be almost-comically particular, like distinguishing between 'Lezlie' and 'Leslie' (I should learn the phonetic alphabet), or a pair of girls both named Jessica who are vehemently Jessi or Jesse, respectively. (No offense meant, of course, to Leslie, Jessi, or Jesse. As noted, I'm particular, too -- a name is nothing to take lightly.)
Names used to have meaning -- I say used to because generally they aren't taken for their meaning. Aside from almost-absurd names like Chastity, Charity, and Hope which are recognized more as words than as names, no one's even cognizant of what most names mean. "Andrew" allegedly comes from a word meaning "Protector" or "Manly." While I'm vague, really, on what's meant by "manly," I do like to think that 'protector' fits me pretty well, and the connection intrigues me. Kind of like how people expect a certain something from names -- given evidence by lines like, "funny, you don't strike me as a 'Kate'" or "ever Nick I've ever known was a real jerk." Or how both my friend Beth and my sister Beth both sucked their two middle fingers as babies. Coincidence? Maybe.
Anyways, I've gone off on a tangent. I meant to talk about Surnames, which now have less and once had more meaning than given names. "Portner" allegedly comes from a German word for a gate guard, or something. It was a profession, like weaver, smith, potter. I always liked northern surnames like Jacobson and O'Henry, patronymics that quite literally said who's kid you were. And then there were epithets, like The Red and Blackbeard and stuff. Really meaningful things. Surnames don't mean as much any more, or at least don't mean nearly the same thing: before, Jacob O'Henry and Stephen Jacobson could have been father and son (well, maybe not those names exactly, but you get my point). Now if you're related, odds are you share a surname, or at least one of your ancestors did. (In my family, Portner, Gigioli, Mock, and Fernandez are all related, so it's a weak link at best...)
But here I get to my point. See, I'm a traditional sort of guy, and traditionally when a guy and girl gets married, she would take his surname. Now, this all comes from a long line of patriarchal societies, where the wife would literally join her husband's family, and there were dowry and lines of succession and heirs to determine and all that. If it's your thing, you're free to rage about the injustice of it all. For me, I've always been kind of jealous of girls for having the opportunity to change their names and, in a real way, redefine themselves. As a man in our society, traditionally speaking of course, that's not an option for me. I will ever and always be Andrew Portner, for better or for worse. Not that I'm particularly looking to ditch my name -- I love the family it connects me to and, if nothing else, I have the utmost admiration for my father. I'm just saying, girls can change their names and boys can't. Traditionally.
Now, not everyone it traditional. I'd say 'particularly these days,' but I imagine there were non-traditional people in times gone by; I don't think society can survive without them, really. But these days, not only could I go through the paperwork and get my name legally changed, but a good handful of couples (I don't think they're a majority yet, or necessarily a significant portion, but I don't know numbers, either) are toying with their surnames when they get married. I've never been a fan of hyphenating surnames -- it's just not aesthetically pleasing to me -- but apparently some people have taken to mashing their surnames together Smith and Johnson become 'Smithson' or whatever), or forming their name wholecloth (presumably to signify something particularly important to the both of them). And it only stands to reason that their are men out there taking their wives' surnames.
So, I'm curious what you all think of this. At least in theory -- like I said, I don't think any of this is a particularly common practice yet. So, are people who mash their names together just being silly? Are couples who make up a new surname (or take someone else's entirely) being presumptuous? Is a man who takes his wife's name particularly weak, or she particularly hard-lined feminist? Should we all just stick to the traditional way of taking the man's name, because it makes sense? How much do you really hate hyphenated surnames?
I was going to put up a poll to make it easy on you all, but I couldn't find a tractable way to phrase the question(s). So, please tell me what you're thinking in a comment. Especially if you've made it through all my rambling, as I don't expect many will.
Because of all the above, I'm always interested in what people call themselves. Sometimes they'll say they don't have a preference, but that's not really what I'm asking: not what do you want others to call you, but what do you call yourself? Sometimes people can be almost-comically particular, like distinguishing between 'Lezlie' and 'Leslie' (I should learn the phonetic alphabet), or a pair of girls both named Jessica who are vehemently Jessi or Jesse, respectively. (No offense meant, of course, to Leslie, Jessi, or Jesse. As noted, I'm particular, too -- a name is nothing to take lightly.)
Names used to have meaning -- I say used to because generally they aren't taken for their meaning. Aside from almost-absurd names like Chastity, Charity, and Hope which are recognized more as words than as names, no one's even cognizant of what most names mean. "Andrew" allegedly comes from a word meaning "Protector" or "Manly." While I'm vague, really, on what's meant by "manly," I do like to think that 'protector' fits me pretty well, and the connection intrigues me. Kind of like how people expect a certain something from names -- given evidence by lines like, "funny, you don't strike me as a 'Kate'" or "ever Nick I've ever known was a real jerk." Or how both my friend Beth and my sister Beth both sucked their two middle fingers as babies. Coincidence? Maybe.
Anyways, I've gone off on a tangent. I meant to talk about Surnames, which now have less and once had more meaning than given names. "Portner" allegedly comes from a German word for a gate guard, or something. It was a profession, like weaver, smith, potter. I always liked northern surnames like Jacobson and O'Henry, patronymics that quite literally said who's kid you were. And then there were epithets, like The Red and Blackbeard and stuff. Really meaningful things. Surnames don't mean as much any more, or at least don't mean nearly the same thing: before, Jacob O'Henry and Stephen Jacobson could have been father and son (well, maybe not those names exactly, but you get my point). Now if you're related, odds are you share a surname, or at least one of your ancestors did. (In my family, Portner, Gigioli, Mock, and Fernandez are all related, so it's a weak link at best...)
But here I get to my point. See, I'm a traditional sort of guy, and traditionally when a guy and girl gets married, she would take his surname. Now, this all comes from a long line of patriarchal societies, where the wife would literally join her husband's family, and there were dowry and lines of succession and heirs to determine and all that. If it's your thing, you're free to rage about the injustice of it all. For me, I've always been kind of jealous of girls for having the opportunity to change their names and, in a real way, redefine themselves. As a man in our society, traditionally speaking of course, that's not an option for me. I will ever and always be Andrew Portner, for better or for worse. Not that I'm particularly looking to ditch my name -- I love the family it connects me to and, if nothing else, I have the utmost admiration for my father. I'm just saying, girls can change their names and boys can't. Traditionally.
Now, not everyone it traditional. I'd say 'particularly these days,' but I imagine there were non-traditional people in times gone by; I don't think society can survive without them, really. But these days, not only could I go through the paperwork and get my name legally changed, but a good handful of couples (I don't think they're a majority yet, or necessarily a significant portion, but I don't know numbers, either) are toying with their surnames when they get married. I've never been a fan of hyphenating surnames -- it's just not aesthetically pleasing to me -- but apparently some people have taken to mashing their surnames together Smith and Johnson become 'Smithson' or whatever), or forming their name wholecloth (presumably to signify something particularly important to the both of them). And it only stands to reason that their are men out there taking their wives' surnames.
So, I'm curious what you all think of this. At least in theory -- like I said, I don't think any of this is a particularly common practice yet. So, are people who mash their names together just being silly? Are couples who make up a new surname (or take someone else's entirely) being presumptuous? Is a man who takes his wife's name particularly weak, or she particularly hard-lined feminist? Should we all just stick to the traditional way of taking the man's name, because it makes sense? How much do you really hate hyphenated surnames?
I was going to put up a poll to make it easy on you all, but I couldn't find a tractable way to phrase the question(s). So, please tell me what you're thinking in a comment. Especially if you've made it through all my rambling, as I don't expect many will.
no subject
As noted below by my brother, our mom took her Maiden name as her middle name, and goes by Mary Gigioli Portner. I think that's a suitable choice, as you don't lose anything but your middle name. I don't like losing names, though, because of my love of them. As noted even further below, I think the optimal form would be First Middle Confirmation Maiden Last.
It actually greatly annoys me when children keep their fathers name after the divorce.
Isn't that your circumstance? Or are they not actually divorced, just separated? What about children who stay with their father, rather than their mother, after a divorce? What about children who stay in contact with both parents? I mean, not to be confrontational, but they're at least as much his biologically as hers; arguments about how much he actually invested in his children aside, since you can have a crummy father (or mother for that matter) with or without divorce.
no subject
Having a maiden name as a middle name is a good alternative. I'm not really connected to my middle name (Renee), most people don't know it. I'm actually closer to Ginger, which is something my dad used to call me when I was a child and I still perk up when I hear it, although it's always addressed to my sisters dog and never me. Burying my middle name wouldn't upset me, and keeping my maiden name present would be acceptable. I'm not fond of hyphenation, I just see it as the best alternative since I wouldn't want to keep my own last name. For some reason, I think that women who keep their last name when they marry don't expect the marriage to last so they don't want to get too involved in it. That's complete bullshit I know, but I want to be part of my husbands family instead of just a stranger with a silly grin who sits in on holidays.
I see the parent who raises the child to be the parent. With adopted children, the adoptive parents are the real parents while the biological parents are gene contributers. You have to know a parent for them to be a parent, otherwise they're just surrogates. Children who stay in contact with both parents have two parents. I lived with my mom until I was about 14 but still saw my dad 2 full days and 6 partial days a month, so I had two parents since he was still there for me. If a mother leaves her child, then the child is the fathers and the kid rightfully has his last name. What I meant to explain is that only when the father walks out on a kid should the kid not have to have his name since it just seems wrong to me. Even if the father's bad at raising the child, his presence justifies the kid having the last name. Also, if the mother leaves the father when he's a good person who likes his kids, the kids should still get his last name since it wasn't his fault he wasn't there for them.
Wow, what a long rant about a hypothetical situation. I just meant that if a father willingly leaves the family, his last name shouldn't remain since he left. If he's still there, or didn't want to leave, it's a moot point.