8 ms·

I don’t get why people still take it for granted that a woman should change her name on getting married and use the husband’s name. People should have the names

by wtmt 6y ago

I don’t get why people still take it for granted that a woman should change her name on getting married and use the husband’s name. People should have the names assigned to them at birth or whatever they’ve changed it to as per their wish. I personally find the changing of names on marriage as an erasure of identity, even if the person is ok with it because of internalization or cultural conditioning.

Uberphallus 6y ago
I find it actually demeaning, but people often couldn't care less. There are laws in France from revolution times [0] that basically set your name in stone because anyone using whatever name they liked without need for any paper trail basically cause administrative and bureaucratic hell. But nowadays even the administration works around that to comply with the tradition with things like "nom d'usage" (you can see it as "lastname nickname"), which is basically allowing you to use another name for non-legal purposes, but people still think it's legal and shove it in every form as regular "nom". I repeatedly heard from people working in HR that a significant amount of the questions they get the first few months of employees are just (married) women complaining about their last name "being wrong" on their payslips simply because they think that's no longer their legal name though it is. [0] Loi du 6 fructidor an II (August 23rd 1794), liberal translation of article 1: no citizen will carry any other name than that of the birth certificate.
- mgbmtl 6y ago
  In Quebec, changing your last name is not permitted since the 70s. So when non-English-speaking people use the same family name, we tend to assume they are siblings.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
inopinatus 6y ago
The comment you're responding comes from someone who in another thread demanded that global names for other things conform to their own culturally-specific and creatively exsanguinated expectations. Earlier in their comment history you can find them complaining about "South Asians" and justifying casual racism by claiming they "optimise for efficiency". Another page or two back, and they're describing sex as an obligation of marriage. The point being, reactionary bigots tend to out themselves, and that's the obnoxious worldview driving by here. Erasure of someone's identity in conformance to external expectations is something that - remarkably - remains a thriving and actively promoted idea. This makes it all the more important to confront and openly, firmly reject.

by wtmt 6y ago

Uberphallus 6y ago

I find it actually demeaning, but people often couldn't care less. There are laws in France from revolution times [0] that basically set your name in stone because anyone using whatever name they liked without need for any paper trail basically cause administrative and bureaucratic hell. But nowadays even the administration works around that to comply with the tradition with things like "nom d'usage" (you can see it as "lastname nickname"), which is basically allowing you to use another name for non-legal purposes, but people still think it's legal and shove it in every form as regular "nom". I repeatedly heard from people working in HR that a significant amount of the questions they get the first few months of employees are just (married) women complaining about their last name "being wrong" on their payslips simply because they think that's no longer their legal name though it is. [0] Loi du 6 fructidor an II (August 23rd 1794), liberal translation of article 1: no citizen will carry any other name than that of the birth certificate.

mgbmtl 6y ago
In Quebec, changing your last name is not permitted since the 70s. So when non-English-speaking people use the same family name, we tend to assume they are siblings.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

inopinatus 6y ago

The comment you're responding comes from someone who in another thread demanded that global names for other things conform to their own culturally-specific and creatively exsanguinated expectations. Earlier in their comment history you can find them complaining about "South Asians" and justifying casual racism by claiming they "optimise for efficiency". Another page or two back, and they're describing sex as an obligation of marriage. The point being, reactionary bigots tend to out themselves, and that's the obnoxious worldview driving by here. Erasure of someone's identity in conformance to external expectations is something that - remarkably - remains a thriving and actively promoted idea. This makes it all the more important to confront and openly, firmly reject.