If I'm reading this right the only question for this week is simply, why might the practice of women taking the mans name still persist today? If so there's a few things we can say about that. For starters, though still commonly practiced, its not as common as it was. Now a days a nearly equal practice among the marrying folk is the hyphenation. Instead of the wife taking the husbands name denouncing herself as properly she instead take half his and keeps half her own name ( which I guess means she is now equal parts property of her maiden family and her new husband's?). Beyond that men have come around to take the women's name, though most other males this can see this as "unmanly" (culture thing mind you, doesn't means its the right conclusion), it does …show more content…
For starters, the above property bit makes absolute sense in the wondrously twisted ways of the past, but its honestly something I've never heard or thought about in that way. The taking of a new name, to me, signified a man a women's unity (under one name regardless of whose it is or if its an entirely new name) rather then ownership. I fathomed the women taking the mans name was simply tradition, blatant patriarchal tradition admitedly, but women are the stronger half anyways, their egos can handle more then a man's.( Where men got physical strengthen thanks to biology, women being the better half, got all the other kinds of strength). Now that could be a gross rationalization of historically oppressive conditions but, the reality it doesn't matter if two people (regardless of opposing or similar sex) marry or not, marriage in and of itself is the dumb system, the name giving like any other thing to which is named, is merely a common means to explain the true idiocy at
Deborah Tannen’s essay, “There Is No Unmarked Woman”, explores the idea of “marked” and “unmarked” words, styles, titles, and how females have no ability to choose an unmarked position. She also posits that “The unmarked forms of most English words also convey ‘male’” (88). Tannen is incorrect in her premise because females are able to choose unmarked hair and clothing styles, many unmarked forms of words no longer convey “male,” and men are marked just as often as women.
A name given to a person at birth is out of his or her control. Esperanza had no choice in the name she was given. Changing her name would give her some control.
“A woman’s name is as dear to her as a man’s is to him, and custom ought, and will prevail, where each will keep their own names when they marry, and allow the children at a certain age to decide which name they will prefer.” (Great Lives in History). This was a quote that May Edwards Walker lived by, it was meant for the time when she was married and didn’t take her husbands last name. Mary Edwards Walker was born in the rural part of Oswego, New York on November 26, 1832. There is a historical marker placed at her birthplace on Bunker Hill.
In medieval history, women were mainly viewed as property. However little did men know that women had their own beliefs and desires. In Twentieth Century Interpretations of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Cecily Clark states, “Apart from the minor point concerning pronouns of address, her style bears no resemblance to her husbands” (Clark 36). Most women would agree with Clark in his saying that the only thing women have the same as their husband’s is their last name, which recently isn’t always the case.
Therefore, the idea of a woman changing her last name is truly up to her. Each women has a personal belief when it comes to last names. Some may change theirs and some may not be so willing. Filipovic may have been rather biased on the issue but she was able to provide reasonable understanding of why a change in a woman's last name can be so significant for some women in this era. There are many reasons to keep or change a last name but in the end it all boils down to a woman's belief on what she considers to be the factors of her
names are prevented from being able to reassimilate within society, they are the outcasts. It also
In the 14th century women were not allowed to own property. There was no possible way for women to receive property under their name. It would have either gone to her husband or father. Women were not even allowed to inherit property. If a woman’s husband died, the property would go to their son, not her. Even if she has enough money to buy
Gender plays an enormous role in society, it distinguishes the difference between men and women. Men and women has different role to play in society because it is what they have to do in order not to be criticized. Moreover, they have to be the head of the household and they have to provide for their family. On the other hand, women has to be the housewives and have to take care of the family. Gender roles takes place in every single era that people lived in and it always had an influence over every single individual. During the 1700-1900s, women had few rights and they never had a voice in society. They had to stay pure until marriage and men who are sexually inactive are considered less of a man. Women couldn’t divorce their husbands, or own properties. In addition, women were treated more like a property or an animal to be tamed by men. Once a baby is born, s/he has to live up to the expectation of society or
" SECTION 1. The property, both real and personal, which any married woman now owns, as her sole and separate property; that which comes to her by descent, devise, bequest, gift or grant; that which she acquires by her trade, business, labor or services, carried on or performed on her sole or separate account; that which a woman married in this State owns at the time of her marriage, and the rents, issues and proceeds of all such property, shall, notwithstanding her marriage, be and remain her sole and separate property, and may be used, collected and invested by her in her own name, and shall not be subject to the interference or control of her husband, or liable for his debts, except such debts as may have been contracted for the support of herself or her children, by her as his agent. The Married Women 's Property Act 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c.75) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly altered English law regarding the property rights of married women, which besides other matters allow...
Deborah Tannen’s essay, “There Is No Unmarked Woman”, explores the idea of “marked” and “unmarked” words, styles, titles, and how females have no ability to choose an unmarked position in life. She posits that “The unmarked forms of most English words also convey ‘male’” (88). Tannen is incorrect in her premises because females are able to choose unmarked hair and clothing styles, men are marked just as often as women, and many unmarked forms of words no longer convey “male.”
People traditionally know the women should take their husbands name and pass on the male surname to their children. Even though she is a “feminist”, “this is not a feminist issue for me. It is a family one.” (65). Breslin stated, “We decided, after thinking it through, that tradition works for us – having the same name is part of the shared identity we treasure.” (66). In addition, she wants to have the symbol of togetherness by sharing the same surname. “what make us a family are shared time, meals, songs, traditions, and customs.” (66) Breslin also wants her family united, and she thinks sharing a last name supports being
...ality and Liberty gave each other names that reminded them of each other from the books that they’ve read because, Equality says that it isn’t proper for men to not have a name. That is how they got the name Prometheus and Gaea.
In the article “The Name Is Mine” by Anna Quindlen, she explains her story about her name, why she chose to keep it, and why it has such meaning to her. As a result of keeping her maiden name, there were many positive and negative aspects that went along with it.
That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet” (Shakespeare). Aname holds so much uniqueness and so many connotations whether positive or negative. Your name is one of the big factors that makes a person an individual as well as very self confident. Unfortunately as i’ve said before women were stripped of their names which played a huge part in losing a part of who they were. A quote that displays personality is when offred gets in the car that Saturday morning in September and she says “My name isn’t Offred, I have another name, which nobody ever uses now because it is forbidden. I tell myself it doesn’t matter, your name is like your telephone number, useful only to others; but what I tell myself is wrong, it does matter” (Atwood, 84). This shows a different personality because of the role that she has in society her name was changed to represent property to Fred. This displays a different personality because she doesn't like her name and struggles with Emotional Labor, she has to subside her emotions and feelings of wanting to be addressed and use her real name but has to be obedient and follow the rules of society but referring back to Shakespeare and the quote, when Offred is called anything other than what her real name she knows that it’s not the “Real” her rather it is the person who society enforced a role upon and molded her to be society expects her to
I have read an account called " 'What's in a Name? " ", which is composed by Henry Louis Gates. This account demonstrates to us a youth experience of the creator that happened amid the mid-1950s. In the article, Gates alludes to an occurrence when a white man, Mr. Wilson, who was well disposed with his dad, called his dad "George", a name which was a prominent method for alluding to African Americans in those circumstances. In any case, Gates' dad needed to acknowledge this separation and couldn't make a move around then. By utilizing sentiment to bring out individuals' enthusiastic reaction, and utilizing suggestion, Gates effectively communicates his claim that name shapes individuals' discernments