When Bigots Attack
Dean
It looks like some well-known left-wing bigots are now attacking Michelle Malkin for keeping her maiden name for legal purposes, but using her married name for most other purposes.
This reminds me of when another well-known lefty blogger said that women who change their last names when they get married should be shunned and shamed because the practice was so reactionary and backward and implied that husbands own their wives.
You know, back when I was a lefty-liberal myself (which I did used to be--vehemently so) I considered the entire practice of women changing their last names to be barbaric and backward and sexist. Ditto the term "Mrs." I was married once before I married The Queen, and I actually begged my then-wife not to change her name. She never did.
But when I married Rosemary (who I consider my true wife, the first was just a mistake although I still feel fondly toward her), I was surprised to learn that she was actually anxious to take my name. She liked the idea, a lot. Partly because her maiden name (Kondraciuk) was so difficult for most people to pronounce (it's not, really: kon-DRAH-chick) but because it was fun and exciting for a girl to take a husband, build a family, and take a new name associated with that. She was proud to do it, and enjoyed telling people about her new name.
As a man I find this flattering of course. But in an important way it also gives me a sense of responsibility: this is my woman, my family, and I owe everything to her. My own happiness comes second to whatever she needs, and her changing her name to mine signals that to me. Flesh of my flesh, blood of my blood. She's my reason for being. Her wearing my name doesn't make her subordinate to me. I many ways, it makes me subordinate to her.
And that's the gist, really: we are subordinate to each other.
Would it work for me if it were the other way around? If I took her name? Of course. The point is that we are together, we are wedded, and we are a family, and family comes first. Indeed, while you could say that her changing her name is a flattery to me, the truth is, her taking my name is a reminder of my responsibility to her, and to our joint responsibility to the family we have created together.
Would it bug me if for certain legal conveniences she was still "Rosemary Kondraciuk?" Of course not. The name is merely symbolic, after all. If she were to suddenly start doing that for no apparent reason I'd wonder if I'd upset her somehow, but otherwise it wouldn't bug me a bit. Anyone who thinks of my wife as a wilting lilly who unquestioningly obeys her "master and husband" really does not know my wife at all.
I'm tired of this stuff where people give women a hard time over following an ancient tradition of changing their names--and I'm just as tired of people giving them a hard time if they choose not to, or choose to do it halfway (ala Hillary Rodham-Clinton or Marilyn Tucker-Quayle) or to keep the maiden name as a legal convenience. It's reactionary and it's mean-spirited. If they want to do it, that's fine. If they don't want to do it, that's fine too. But in my experience, most women who change their names when they marry think it's fun and are proud of it, and they see it the same way I do: as a way to help cement that all-important bond.
Rosemary Esmay is the love of my life. She really is. And I suspect that Michelle Malkin is the love of her husband's life. Who freaking cares if she still keeps the maiden name for some legally convenient reason? Really, who cares?
What more needs to be said?
Of course, the relationship fell apart. So there you are...
Why is it a bad thing for a spouse to care for home and child while the other provides for both? Isn't this the most healthy, I'd say natural, arrangement? How many studies (as if this wasn't already true before they were done) do we need to have to show this?
If she gets marred to John McAfee, then changing her name -- at least, her professional name -- would mean that, at least in the short term, she takes a hit in terms of her brand identity.
Malkin, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have as much brand equity built up in her maiden name, so using her married name vs. another is probably just a matter of preference.
--|PW|--
I was eager to take my husband's last name, though it is 10 times more difficult than mine...not really, just people refuse to even attempt the proper phonetic pronuciation of it. I was raised to believe I didn't "loose" anything by taking my husband's last name, nor did I "gain" anything. It was my choice, and mine alone.
I've never stopped having an Irish background, even thought I wear a Dutch surname. I believe it is best for children to see a united front of their parents...if that's mom taking dad's last name, dad taking mom's, or both hyphenating that's fine. I personally think it highly confusing for any children to be raised in a household with two last names. (One of the reasons...though a minor one...I'm against unwedded people raising kids.) I say this as a child of multiple divorces, and a swinging-door of surnames that I refused to take.
All it all, it comes down to someone having a choice, and the left now apparently blasting someone's choice because they don't like it. But, this isn't new or unusual where the Democratic party, and its extreme supporters are concerned.
I disagree with Pennywit having a "name brand" problem with Malkin. Unless you're in the same field she is, do you really know how big her "brand" is, or are you taking someone else's word for it? As for Edcone, Heinz-Kerry and Heinz both denote the rich, dead Republican being more important to her (or maybe its his money) than the supposed love of her life Kerry. That is where the problem lies in that example.
But what they meant was, "Make the choices NOW wants you to make." Work. Abort. Keep your name.
And when women choose the alternatives, they're vilified.
Several years ago, I was acquainted with a journalist who believed that her journalism would not be respected in the community at large if people realized the writer was a woman. So instead of using her name, she used her initials and last name.
Over time, she built up a large degree of credibility behind that byline. She continued to use it. Who knows how many of her readers knew if she was male, female, or other? When she married, however, she chose to keep using the byline professionally because of the credibility that had built up behind it.
--|PW|--
(2) What about when a hyphenated marries a hyphenated? And I know from personal observation that naming children in a marriage with multiple names is a struggle. Either the parents make the choice, associating the child with one parent more than the other, or the child makes the choice when they're older and is forced to choose between the two parents on some level.
--|PW|--
The son has his daddy's name, of course. Not just because he's the last one to carry on the family name. My side has plenty of people to hold our name, through my cousins.
If it weren't for other political correctness issues, all such feminists should change their surname to Evesdaughter.
Confusing, but politically correct!
Yours,
WInce
I don't give a fisk what Oliver Willis says about anybody, I never read him, he's not worth the waste of my time. There are way too many good blogs to read, e.g., Dean and the Queen.
Anyway....
Back in the late 1970s when I became a feminist, one thing I was most passionate about was a women's right to keep her own name. Or, as Lucy points out, her father's name. She could, if she wishes, take her mother's father's name, or go back ad infinitum. The Vikings used "daughter" as a suffix for girls, e.g., Leif Eriksen, Freydis Eriksdotter. The ancient Egyptians traced descent through the mother's line, but they didn't use the Firstname-Lastname convention that we do. The Femocrats resolved it by using a feminine first name for a last name, e.g., Bara Dorothy, Cinda Elizabeth. Femocrats vs. Transcendental Scientists? Transcendental Femocracy?
Anyway!.... I still support A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! That means, if she wants to keep her maiden name, I support and honor that. And if she wants to take her spouse's name, I support and honor that, too. IT'S HER CHOICE!
I support Michelle Malkin's right to whatever name she chooses. I support the right of a Lesbian woman to adopt her wife's name (which the so-called "American Family Association" went to court to deny to a Lesbian couple -- despicable).
E.g., Ayn Rand (nee Alyssa Rosenbaum) went by that name as a novelist and philosopher, but also went by Ayn Rand O'Connor, after her husband, Frank O'Connor. Does anybody think she was a wilting lilly....? Does anybody (other than certain feminists) think any woman in the Western world is a wilting lilly?? If they do, they don't even know their own mothers!
Anyway, I love what Dean wrote here.
I admire Dean
For marrying the Queen.
I admire the Queen
For marrying Dean.
HAIL TO THE QUEEN....!!!! AND HAIL TO THE KING!!!! The two Princes, Jake and Drake, are so lucky. Even as lucky as I was....
The correct pronunciation of Kondraciuk is Kon-dra-CHEWK. Or something closer to that. The "ciu" is pronounced like "shoe" or "chew" in Polish.
=)
Jerry
Thanks for the posting, Dean. I got quite a chuckle out of some of the Atrios commenters.
Of course, I work on the theory that you can have as many names as you like, especially if it messes with software. Probably a relic from the days when my first name would NEVER fit in the space they provided because they'd only provide, at most, nine spaces. (Why do you think I use an initial in commenting?)
I think it's a bogus argument. But I also knew a woman like Pennywit mentioned who went by her initials as a business journalist. She said she often got surprised pauses on the phone when she would call sources who had never spoken to her before. I think it's on the ethical edge, however.
Wince, Eve's daughter....Giggle giggle!
Hey Jerry, Rosemary gave me points for spelling your last name right. She was tickled because she said, "I don't think Dean can spell it right!" You are just as funny. If he can't spell it how is he to know how to pronounce it. He did get down on bended knee in front of your parents when he asked for Rosemary's hand in marriage. That should earn some points. Giggle giggle
Oh....pronounce my maiden name, CRUEA!
Ah, that won't work cause I was using my Dad's name when we met. I got it back but all the paper work, geez. But Cruea is a funny one when you hear someone trying to pronounce it.
As far as brand identity is concerned, in my line of work, your name is your brand and your reputation. Changing it can make life a lot more difficult. In science, your publications are your identity, and the name you publish under is how people identify you. I had a mentor who is stuck with the name of her first husband professionally because she took his name in the 70s when she was in grad school and began publishing articles with it. She's now on hubby #3, and can't use any of the names that still belong to her professionally (maiden name or married) because people don't recognize the name of her husband, even using a hyphenated form has been difficult. Crazy.
I appreciate it when you correct me. I do remember it really touched you and the look on your face when you shared it with me. You were quite flattered and deeply moved. I guess your parents heard about it, and that is where I got confused. I'm just glad you two are still very much in love and are there for one another. I do have a few beautiful pictures of you and see the look in both of your eyes. I still give a lil' credit that he spelled your maiden name. By the way, it is pretty like mine, Cruea.
Or maybe they should alphabetize to Arquette Bourke Cox White? Perhaps be a rebel with White Cox Bourke Arquette. Heh.
Or say "screw it," and change your name to Smith, or -worse yet- Esmay. :)
By the way, I haven't heard anyone mention the men who have pulled similar stunts, such as the talentless turd formerly known as Prince, or (my favorite) John Cougar. Er, John Cougar Mellenkamp. Or was it John Mellencamp?
If this sort of foolishness is very high on your list of concerns, you have way too much time on your hands. But then, the Atriosians won't have much to do for the next 42 months, soooo... Heh.