Surnames - is this a step forward or the state taking on the role of domineering husband?

[TouTou]

Just interested in your thoughts really. As feminists, like. ()

I moved to Quebec and have been forced (yes, literally forced) to take back my maiden name. I am not allowed to take on my DHs name (which I've had for several years,) in the interest of 'equality'.

I consider myself a feminist. It took my 10 years for me to finally marry DH and after that I kept my own name for 3 years.

When we had DCs I wanted the same name as them, (I've worked in healthcare and have seen several times problems with obtaining consent caused by family members having different names). My DH, again, felt really strongly that he wanted them to have his name as he is the only son of an only son (ie, the last of his name) and I have siblings to carry on my name. Also, he is very attached to his family and I don't really respect my Dfather, so again, not didn't feel as passionately about it as he did. It took me a while and much chin stroking, but in the end we all became 'The TouTous'.

In other words, I wasn't forced into having his name, but came about taking it through long consideration.

But, because Quebec is very much an 'equal' province, women are not allowed to do this. And because DCs still seem to take on the fathers name (just shows you can't grow equailty in a day), most of the DCs have different names to their mums.
I'm pissed off about having a different name from my DCs (again, it causes problems at border crossings with the USA etc) and the state having a paternalistic attitude that women are so put upon that government should tell them what is best for them.

What are your thoughts on this?

Although, can I say, I'm delighted, Margery, to see your post with the opposing view. It makes me try a bit harder to work out why I'm uncomfortable with being forced to change my name.

I can understand that you don't like being told what to do by the state, but as someone who had to endure hours of guilt-inducing pleading, arguing and sulking from XP because I wanted DS to have my name in his, I would have been very grateful to any law that enabled me to say "it's not me, it's the law!", instead of having to spend hours trying to justify myself.

But Messy, most DCs here end up with the same name anyway to their dad, so in the end, the mum is the odd one out in the family. iyswim?

I don't like the fact that my DCs don't have the same name as me now which is why I changed name in the first place (after much thought and no cajoling, just reasoned debate), but short of changing both of theirs, which seems a little harsh, I have no choice in the matter.
And if an ex-P is as manipulative as that, thank goodness he's an ex! You must be glad he is out of it now.

Kim, I agree, it all sound like a bit of a bunfight - name wise - for your DS! There is not easy solution to this.
But I do wonder that forcing a woman NOT to change to their DHs name (and vice versa, of course) so that the family can go under one name that won't be mammothly double-barrelled (like mine would have been - honestly, my kids would have had a horrible time trying to write their names at school!) is something the state shouldn't necessarily be allowed to interfere with.

Most of my friends have changed their names, some haven't, I never thought about it too much in the UK BTH. But now that I don't have a choice, I find it odd.

I think the problem with Quebec and this issue is that they have, historically, been incredibly behind on womens rights because the Catholic church had such a hold on everyone. They didn't get the vote until 1940!!!! - many years after the rest of Canada. So somehow, they have mixed up equality for women to dictating what women should want in their ideal world.
The problem is, I don't necessarily agree with the state changing my name without my consent.

It does seem rather bizarre that a place so intent on women keeping their names in the cause of equality should have overlooked to legislate on the issue of the children's name as that seems to be even more isolating for the mother.

What do your québécois friends think if it all toutou?

I really, really like that Icelandic thing!

I'm wondering if the Quebec rule is really about keeping people's bureaucratic identity stable and, so, traceable? Taken alongside what you said about name changes being complicated to effect, it sounds as though the city takes identity very seriously. It's quite sensible imo, especially these days.

Obviously there won't be a problem with your signing off your DCs' medical treatment there, as every family follows the same tradition. Have you also thought that, should they grow up in Quebec, their medical records will be in the same name throughout life, girls and boys? They'll have continuous medical histories. Same with police records, financial history, car ownership, everything.

The Icelandic system doesn't work like that: they use a patronymic naming system. The norm is that both the names of male and female children are derived from the father's first name (occasionally it can be the mother's, but this is unusual practice).

There are societies where women don't change their name and/or pass on the name to the children. In fact, there is no reason to have a family name at all. We are well past the stage of the name yo say is your ID, we use computer and paper ID now.

Most people know me by my first name. I don't see why we can't just have 2 or 3 names to identify us without a family all needing the same last name. So long as there's a way to ID parents or legal guardian does it matter?

Friends of ours foster kids, and they have paperwork which proves they can do things like medical and school issues. Obviously they never havethesame name as the children, and as two unmarried women they don't have the same name as each other.

Kissangel - interesting perspective! I hadn't thought about it. In many ways, here we use our Medical insurance numbers for everything, so perhaps I should just go by the name 'Tou'!

I think what I was objecting to is more having to change my name because the state dictates it so, rather than the idea of having a different name from my DCs and the minor inconvenience for us sometimes. I really was wanting the same name as the DCs and it illustrates the reason I changed, rather than because I was coerced by Dh or felt societal pressures.

Messy - I think my friends here think along the lines of Garlicbutt (fab name) reasoning, that they find keepign their own name convenient and it's safety concious and don't see why they shoudl take their DHs name (not that many people here seem to marry anyway! Fair enough).
But when I challenged them about the fact I was forced to change my name from a name I'd had for several years, they didn't seem to understand why I'd be annoyed by it. One professor proudly declared that Quebecois women were 'so liberated, they wouldn't change their names to their husbands'. When I pointed out they not only wouldn't, but couldn't even if they wanted to, they didn't seem to understand why I found this odd. The rest of Canada doesn't have this same issue.

Again, I'd rather be bossed around by my DH and societal pressures who at least I could reason with (very easily!) than to be dictated to by some random law.

Honestly, I'd love to understand the rationale behind this, so keep going with the counter arguements. I used to be thoroughy against banning full face veils, but have now changed my mind since France banned it, so I am able to
be reasoned with.

I also take a very dim view of the state interfering in our personal lives. Govt don't need to know what my friends call me. I could just be given a number or code at birth which identifies and is used for bank accounts or passports etc, and then my name is my what I choose to be called.

Quebec does (or possibly did) have a law whereby a first name can be 'questioned' when you go to register the birth, and I believe they can refuse to let you use a name (officially anyway).

Old news article, things may have moved on since then:
www.apnewsarchive.com/1998/Quebec-OKs-Ivory-as-Baby-Name/id-7d0f76b090ccff8403bafe9efb7cbcc2

I am comfortable with the idea of the state legislating in this area. I think it can be reconciled even with a minimal state view, because it's about safeguarding personal property rights and individual autonomy. I wish there had been a law to protect me from having to change my surname to that of my husband.

Having said that I also agree with SardineQueen - the law needs to go further and deal with the issue of naming any children, otherwise it just places women in exactly the position they are choosing to avoid when they agree to change their name in the first place.

TouTou how did your DC come to have your DH surname if not coercion/social pressure?

I disagree with that sort of state interference and coercion, you just know that there will be festering resentment all round.

Surely individual choice is the right way to go?

There are lots of things the state forces us to do that are for the greater good. - pay taxes, not commit crimes, pay debts, complete censuses, go on jury duty, educate our children, register their births, I could go on. 'forcing' people to not do something is hardly oppressive compared to these is it?

As for the children's names- I say they should always have the mothers. Most children will not be living with their bio father by the time they are adults so why should they have his name? Also lots of children grow up with half siblings their mothers have and I think it is a good idea for them to have the same surname- eg for school and medical appointments.

Can you imagine how hard it is going to be for genealogists in the future to trace families when children don't have the same name as their mothers?

As for the argument that some women don't want their fathers name- this only effects the first generation if everyone gives children the mother's name. If a woman hates her fathers name so much she should change it anyway maybe to her mothers or grandmothers maiden name regardless and not wait until marriage to address this issue.

That's all very well if the alternative is free choice, but is it? I didn't feel I had a free choice. Having to change my name still bothers me now - and what is worse I have to constantly announce the fact that I compromised my principles. It's ongoing and public.

Most children will not be living with their bio father by the time they are adults so why should they have his name?

That seems a bit unlikely, can you back that up?

But anyway, surely the obvious thing to do is give individuals choice rather than force it one way or the other?

Margery - not to mention compulsory maternity leave, and discrimination legislation which has forced a shift in attitudes that could have taken centuries if left to individual choice.

I can't imagine we'll ever see legislation that strips the father of the possibility of passing his name to his DC. And without that, the Quebec approach is not something I would support. It seems to make things worse for women not better.

Whatmeworry unfortunately the majority of women can't exercise individual choice about what their DC are named. How many new mothers are willing to rock the boat with a new baby on board?

That sounds a bit odd. DH and I both kept our names when we got married, didn't really consider doing otherwise, so it wouldn't have really affected us, but I don't see why people shouldn't change their names to whatever they want, if that's what they choose.

What if your husband had taken your name, would he have had to change it back? Is there not any legal process you can go through to change your name?

Is this actually about feminism/equality though? Or more that it's difficult to change your name or use a 'known as' name for any reason, not just marriage-related?

Sorry if I have missed this - is there any legislation in Quebec about what surname the children have?

Whatmeworry unfortunately the majority of women can't exercise individual choice about what their DC are named.

I don't think replacing one form of coercion by another is an answer though. Surely the equal choice is, well, choice?

Surely naming a child should normally be a joint decision, not an individual one though? Assuming a situation where both parents are involved, of course.

It does seem to be more common (in the UK certainly) for children to be given the father's name when the parents are unmarried or don't have the same surname, plenty of mothers would tell you they are quite happy with this though. I'm sure there is social pressure/expectations, but I'm not sure there's evidence that the majority of women are being coerced into a decision they're unhappy with, or to justify coercion the other way round.

It would be difficult to make it work in the UK anyway, as there's a relatively relaxed attitude towards the names you can use (you can have more than one name on your driving licence, for example, though I think passport has to match your 'legal name' as supported by birth or marriage certificate, or deed poll).

Whilst I definitely agree with the principle of individual choice I think that if you look beneath the surface there are subtle societal pressures to take your DHs surname.

It's not as simple and as visible as being forced into it by a domineering husband but small things like the fact that most people do it so to go against the norm requires explanation. Sometimes it is easier to go along with the status quo than to endure the disapproving / bemused looks of the in-laws.

Are other aspects of québécois society as egalitarian?