Québec passed this law 30 years ago, and society has moved on. It is universally accepted - just like the abolishment of public religious schools. Only progressive people on progressive forums mourn the passing of these past injustices, under the signboard of "individual freedom". Sometimes I do wonder what I'm doing here.
Jabberwock, I was sincerely trying to move the discussion beyond your personal life. Do you know why women in Canada take their husband's name? It's a serious question. How can it be a matter of "convenience"? I don't understand that.
It is not convenient to many women to have a different name from their children. It is as convenient to bear one's husband's name as one's father's name. It is convenient to people trying to address one as a couple, on for example an invitation. However, I certainly cannot presume to speak for other women, and what their reasons might be. I am merely offering anecdotal opinion based on my experience and that of my aquaintance.
And as this board is rife with the very personal filters through which Babblers strain their opinions, I resent being called out for trying to make this about my personal life. Your personal experience in labour informs your opinion about questions regarding labour. There is often a failure here, as elsewhere, to raise any discussion above the politics of the personal, so why on earth I am singled out I do not know.
It is not convenient to many women to have a different name from their children.
Why don't you read the thread. Who says the children have to have the father's name??????
It is as convenient to bear one's husband's name as one's father's name.
Who says you have to have your father's name??????
It is convenient to people trying to address you as a couple, on for example an invitation.
That's just amusing. Shall I send you the "inconvenient" invitations my wife and I have been receiving for the past 30-odd years?
And as this board is rife with the very personal filters through which Babblers strain their opinions, I resent being called out for trying to make this about my personal life.
I didn't "call you out". I invited you to make a comment about women in general. You don't have to if you don't want to.
... why on earth I am singled out I do not know.
Slight overreaction to your own misunderstanding, don't you think?
It is as convenient to bear one's husband's name as one's father's name.
I disagree: changing surnames in mid-life is definitely an inconvenience as compared to sticking with the one your parents gave you. Thought experiment: Reverse genders and brace yourself for the male outrage that would salute the move to compulsory renaming of guys upon marriage.
"tradition" = patriarchial indoctrination.Remind, you've never met my wife. You don't know my wife. So how about you hold off the armchair psycho-analysis about how she's been "indoctrinated" by the "patriarchy"?
I don't think remind was analyzing your wife. I think she was analyzing you. You have provided a lot of material in your posts to enable some conclusions to be drawn. And I must say, I agree with remind's conclusions.
Thank you, and exactly, as well as making a statement about the greater societal meaning of "traditional". We in fact do not know any "traditions" that are not patriarchial, after millenia of participating in it. Women haven't even been humans in Canada for a 100 years for pete's sake. So even being designated a human is NOT "traditional". We have only had the right to self-determine our bodies for 20 years, so that isn't a "tradition" either.
All in all, ALL traditons are patriarchial and we all have been indoctrinated into them, whether we admit it, or not.
And hey, I just realized I am a child of Joe Clark and Maureen McTeer. :D (for those who do not get this juxtaposition, I was accused of being a child of Trudeau, aka the Liberals, by a Liberal who wanted to paint a conception that we progressives are all be holden to the Liberal Party, which of course I took exception too and stated if anything I was a child of Tommy's and Dief's)
Look, I am not here as an apologist for the tradition of a woman taking her husband's name. I chose too, many other's don't, and it is a matter of individual choice. Because it has its roots in a patriarchal system does not mean that it is always an expression of that system. Marriage its self has its roots in the transfer of property from a father to a husband, but I don't choose to see my own marriage that way.
And Unionist, if you wish to advocate for overhauling the system, be my guest. In my experience, most women in my age group bear their father's names before marriage. They are not coming from a matrilineal tradition. For you to say "they don't have to" belies the fact that they do. Perhaps they are just taking what to them is the easier way-perhaps all their friends did it that way, or perhaps they want to be addressed as "the Smiths" and not Jane Doe and John Smith. If you ask a hundred women of your aquaintance who have taken their husband's name, they will not tell you "because I believe a woman belongs to her man and I want that to be clear". They will probably say "it's just easier". I am not justifying this. I am just saying. And I did say that I know of children who don't bear their dad's name, for different reasons.
Martin, certainly you would see outrage under that scenario, and I hope you would see outrage if it was compulsory for a woman to take her husband's name. Luckily, it isn't, anymore.
Do you know why women in Canada take their husband's name? It's a serious question. How can it be a matter of "convenience"? I don't understand that.It is not convenient to many women to have a different name from their children.
Nonsense, my child's name is different than mine and my granddaughter's is different than hers, and there has never been an inconvenience, ever. I do not understand why women tell themselves this. And accept the patriarchial expectation that it is up us to bear the "inconvenience", as opposed to men.
It is as convenient to bear one's husband's name as one's father's name.
Nonsense, it is more inconvenient to have to change your name on everything, and then continually list, for the rest of your life, wherever applicable, what your maiden name was, than it was to just keep it. And it really is a lot of things when you think of it.
Using "convenience" is just an excuse to accept patriarchy, in as much as using "tradition" is, and you are just selling yourself a phoney bill of goods.
It is convenient to people trying to address one as a couple, on for example an invitation. However, I certainly cannot presume to speak for other women, and what their reasons might be. I am merely offering anecdotal opinion based on my experience and that of my aquaintance.
Oh my, how patriarchial woman of you, worrying about "others" inconvenience, as opposed to your own convenience. ;)
Most invitations, greeting cards, etc.. my partner and I get, get come addressed to us in our first names, and frankly I love it, it is so much more personal than everyone else's invitations and cards. And when our daughter lived at home it was all our first names. So I could argiue it is more convenient for people than putting more written characters on the paper. Like Mr and Mrs so and so and family, is much longer than 3 short first names, and thus more inconvenient.
Though occasionally, my partner does get the od letter addressed to him with Mr my last name. on it, and that is amusing.
And as this board is rife with the very personal filters through which Babblers strain their opinions, I resent being called out for trying to make this about my personal life. Your personal experience in labour informs your opinion about questions regarding labour. There is often a failure here, as elsewhere, to raise any discussion above the politics of the personal, so why on earth I am singled out I do not know.
I do not think you were being called out on your personal life at all, I believe you were being called out on your internalized acceptance of patriarchy, as it is contained within your personal life and personal conceptions.
Well, I am glad that I live in a province where I can choose whether to keep my name or take my husband's.
And I cannot understand how one can support the right of a woman to choose to wear a patriarchal burqa, however does not allow a woman to take her husband's name. I am assuming that immigrant women to Quebec are allowed to keep their last name's when they arrive (which are their husband's name?).
Well, I am glad that I live in a province where I can choose whether to keep my name or take my husband's.
I'm happy for you.
And I cannot understand how one can support the right of a woman to choose to wear a patriarchal burqa, however does not allow a woman to take her husband's name.
I don't believe women "choose" to wear a burqa any more than they "choose" to lose their name upon marriage. I'm speaking generally, not about some individual (amazing the number of individual stories that pop up in these discussions which negate the overall trend). I just happen to believe that in the current context of France (or Canada), a ban on burqas or hijabs etc. is motivated by and feeds Islamophobia, rather than any aim of liberating women. But you obviously didn't read my posts. I was not born yesterday, and anyone who says with a straight face that women covering their face is a purely personal question of style and taste and faith, nothing to do with the status of women, is kidding themselves but not me. Likewise, I can't believe that progressive women would say anything positive about the social and cultural phenomenon whereby they and their children are known by the Man of the House's name. Give me a rather large break.
I am assuming that immigrant women to Quebec are allowed to keep their last name's when they arrive (which are their husband's name?).
Why don't you ask them? Or why don't you read the summary of the law which I posted? If you're concerned about keeping your husband's name when immigrating to Québec, maybe you should stay put and avoid all that humiliation.
Do you know why women in Canada take their husband's name? It's a serious question. How can it be a matter of "convenience"? I don't understand that.It is not convenient to many women to have a different name from their children.
Nonsense, my child's name is different than mine and my granddaughter's is different than hers, and there has never been an inconvenience, ever. I do not understand why women tell themselves this. And accept the patriarchial expectation that it is up us to bear the "inconvenience", as opposed to men.
It is as convenient to bear one's husband's name as one's father's name.Nonsense, it is more inconvenient to have to change your name on everything, and then continually list, for the rest of your life, wherever applicable, what your maiden name was, than it was to just keep it. And it really is a lot of things when you think of it.
Using "convenience" is just an excuse to accept patriarchy, in as much as using "tradition" is, and you are just selling yourself a phoney bill of goods.
It is convenient to people trying to address one as a couple, on for example an invitation. However, I certainly cannot presume to speak for other women, and what their reasons might be. I am merely offering anecdotal opinion based on my experience and that of my aquaintance.Oh my, how patriarchial woman of you, worrying about "others" inconvenience, as opposed to your own convenience. ;)
Most invitations, greeting cards, etc.. my partner and I get, get come addressed to us in our first names, and frankly I love it, it is so much more personal than everyone else's invitations and cards. And when our daughter lived at home it was all our first names. So I could argiue it is more convenient for people than putting more written characters on the paper. Like Mr and Mrs so and so and family, is much longer than 3 short first names, and thus more inconvenient.
Though occasionally, my partner does get the od letter addressed to him with Mr my last name. on it, and that is amusing.
And as this board is rife with the very personal filters through which Babblers strain their opinions, I resent being called out for trying to make this about my personal life. Your personal experience in labour informs your opinion about questions regarding labour. There is often a failure here, as elsewhere, to raise any discussion above the politics of the personal, so why on earth I am singled out I do not know.I do not think you were being called out on your personal life at all, I believe you were being called out on your internalized acceptance of patriarchy, as it is contained within your personal life and personal conceptions.
I don't have an internalized acceptance of patriarchy. I have my husband's name, period. If his last name was the cause of endless torment in childhood, he may have chosen to accept mine. You don't know me, my husband, or my circumstances.
Moreover, I was being called out on presenting personal reasons for accepting my husbands name, and not stating, on behalf of other women, why they choose to do so. When I attempted to outline why some of the MIGHT do so, the response was framed in a way that suggested I said they were RIGHT to do so, which I did not. Obviously children NEED not bear their father's name, and women NEED not bear their father's name, but in many cases they DO, and SOME BUT NOT ALL women base their decisions on these facts.
In no way am I outlining an argument for accepting your husband's name. I am merely stating why I did it. Frankly, I couldn't care less about why my cohort behaves the way it does on this matter. I am way more concerned about why they keep electing right wing governments, voting to ban gay marriage, and failing to support workers' rights. These, to me, are more dangerous expressions of patriarchy.
I wish this thread had not devolved into a debate about Canadian women and whether or not it is inconvenient to address an invitation, rather than talking about how a right wing government has managed to frame an anti-immigration, racist policy, co-opting the terms of feminism.
This is well over 100 posts, and has gone way off topic. Closing for length and thread drift. Please begin anew, on either topic, if anyone desires.
