Originally a comment by sambarge on Only when it is nothing more than a personal choice.
When the practice of hijab becomes nothing more than a personal choice, only then may it be considered a feminist statement.
I would argue, even then, that the choice to wear a hijab would be feminist neutral. There is nothing inherently feminist in the choice to wear a hijab and its history (whatever it may develop into in the future) is rooted in oppression.
A choice by a feminist is not necessarily a feminist choice. Allow me to give a non-veiling example:
25 yrs ago, I was an under-grad, thinking about grad school and my unwieldy last name. My parents were Italian immigrants and our family name included the dreaded “gigli” combination that English speakers find almost impossible to pronounce. Tired of the mispronunciations, I looked into the cost and process of changing my name. Initially, I chose my mother’s birth name. No feminist reasons, only that it was a family name I felt an ownership to, I had cousins with that name and it was easier for Anglos to say. But the cost was prohibitive and I didn’t like the idea of a new a birth certificate, as if SamBarge had never lived. It was weird. Also, my parents were uncomfortable with me changing my name. It seemed like a rejection, which is certainly wasn’t but all the same, what would they tell their friends? I didn’t hate my birth name, I just didn’t want to lug it through my whole life. I wanted life in my Anglo country of birth to be a little easier.
While I considered my options, my then boyfriend (now spouse) and I decided to get married. Suddenly, I was offered the opportunity to change my name to a lovely Anglicized German name for the low price of $26 (the cost of a new driver’s licence). My family’s protests about me changing my name disappeared. They were thrilled that they wouldn’t have to explain to their friends why I changed my name. All their friends completely understood this sort of name change. No one wondered why, my birth certificate stayed the same. This name change was easy, peasey, lemon-squeezy. It was as if society had been set up to make this choice easy.
And, of course, society was set up to make this choice easy. And it was my choice. My spouse would never have forced me to change my name and was a little surprised when I chose to do it. I had a lot of good personal reasons to make the change but he knew that I was a feminist who didn’t view marriage as an erasure of my previous existence for a rebirth as Mrs. Husband’s Name.
So I made a choice to which I had the privilege as a heterosexual woman to access. I made that choice as a feminist but it was not a feminist choice. It was a choice that was expedient and useful to me but it was a choice that upheld a patriarchal tradition.
That point was driven home a few years later when our friends were getting married. At the reception, the groom insisted that I tell the bride to change her name after marriage. Apparently, she wanted to hold on to her easy to pronounce and spell (and frankly preferable to her new spouse’s) name. Why would I tell her to do that, I asked? Because I had done it and I was a feminist so she should do it too, was his reasoning.
And so, every act by a feminist is not necessarily a feminist act AND sometimes our actions help to keep our sisters who would choose otherwise oppressed.
Bravo. Could not possibly agree more.
All true, but the post you’re responding to said “only then MAY it be considered a feminist choice.” Meaning only then is there even a possibility of giving it that meaning. Saad did not say it then would become any specific kind of act. Quite the contrary. He says that only when it doesn’t already have a hundred pounds of ready-made social meaning can you add no meaning or your own meaning on top of it.
Yes. But I’m saying that not even then would it be a feminist choice. If the hijab is completely neutral on the question of the oppression of women, then choosing to wear it would be neutral, from a feminist perspective. That is, you may choose it but choosing it would not (or may not, if you prefer) make a feminist statement, anymore than, say, wearing socks is a feminist statement.
So I get was Saad was saying and I’m saying, not even then.
sambarge, #3
I really should have elaborated more after that sentence.
I’m not saying wearing the hijab whenever you go out would be a feminist symbol. Quite plainly that would just be surrendering to what the misogynists want. I meant only once the hijab requirement has gone the way of segregated classrooms, can a woman USE the hijab as a feminist statement. For example, if during the Ferguson protests a few black people walked down the street in chains, the chains would be sending a statement for black rights and against white oppression. That’s what I meant. If in the future the hijab is regarded by the general Muslim populations as an antiquated oppressive thing (like the chains of slavery), then a Muslim woman advocating for women’s rights while wearing the hijab would be a feminist act.
Ah, I see what you mean by a feminist statement now. Sorry. I got one interpretation in my head and couldn’t shake it but I see how you meant it now.
Thanks for the clarification!
I agree with you almost completely. Not every act need be evaluated according to some political agenda. But what do mean when you say sometimes our actions help to keep our sisters who would choose otherwise oppressed.
How did your decision to change your name oppress anyone else? How does one woman’s decision to wear a nijab oppress another?
I also decided to change my name after my marriage. I did not consider it either a feminist or anti-feminist choice. The name I had prior to marriage was one I also received from a man – my father – so I wasn’t sure I saw a feminist argument to keeping that name, either, since it was still a representation of ownership.
I changed my name for a couple of reasons, one of which most people can understand, and one which they can’t. I had not been happy during much of my childhood; I was an abused child. So I wanted a chance to have a ‘happy’ name – one not associated wth miserable assocations.
The one most people have trouble understanding is that I also wanted to be earlier in the alphabet. Most people see that as silly, but I was tired of always being at the back of the line when things went alphabetically. I figured after 40 years, I’d earned my turn to be at the front of the line!
See? Not feminist. But not anti-feminist, either. Totally neutral, based in things that have nothing to do with feminism, even though it was a choice made by a feminist.
#7: “it was my father’s name” is not the same thing at all. Both boys and girls are (almost always) given their father’s name at birth. So if both men and women kept their father’s name throughout life, that would be indicative of gender equality.
However, choosing to take a husband’s name is something only women do, and therefore is not indicative of gender equality, and therefore by definition is not feminist.
@ 6 Beth
Obviously, I’m not sambarge, but surely the answer is by reinforcing androcentric cultural norms. It’s spelled out in the penultimate paragraph:
@ 8 Cressida
Eh? If the father’s and mother’s name are different, how is taking the father’s, rather than the mother’s, name indicative of gender equality. And if they’re the same, that’s presumably because she took his name, which is the same thing.
It is not ‘my father’s name’. It is *my* name. The important point for me was that whatever achievements I had, however people knew me were all continued after my marriage.
@10: “Both men and women keep name given at birth” = “both men and women doing the same thing” = “gender equality.”
That it’s the father’s name is unfortunate but irrelevant to my point.
@11: Right on. It’s *your* name.
Anecdotally, my brother has two children with his partner. The eldest took his mother’s name, the youngest took her father’s name. Confusing, I suppose, to have two siblings with the same parents and different family names. But, I thought, a nice nod towards equality.
Beth @ #6:
As SilentBob has explained in #9, by participating in a patriarchal tradition (regardless of my reasons for doing so) I reinforced that patriarchal tradition. When I got married, 25 yrs ago, it was not common for women to keep their names on marriage. It was still a “thing” to say that you would keep your name. Perhaps it still is a “thing” but I don’t travel in marrying circles right now. Last year, my husband’s co-worker got married and his wife changed her name to his.
The same is true about wearing a veil. By participating in a tradition that is patriarchal, sexist and enforced on others against their will, you are reinforcing it or casting it in a neutral or even empowering light. It puts a safe, respectable and acceptable face on a form of oppression that forces women to veil themselves regardless of their personal choice.
inklast @ #7 – The idea that a family takes its identity from the male head of household is part of the patriarchy. In addition, the idea that a man keeps his identity (good, bad or indifferent) but that a woman’s identity fundamentally changes on marriage is sexist. That’s why keeping your birth name, regardless of the associations you might have with it, is considered a feminist choice.
I hear what you’re saying though. People have a lot of reasons for changing their names, however men do not have the social freedom to change their names on marriage, no matter what their relationship with their father/father’s name has been.
Actually, in a related note to the idea of losing your identity upon marriage, the unexpected outcome of changing my name was that it “de-ethnicized” me. That’s not a word but what I mean is that, when I introduced myself with my “gigli” name, I was marked as Italian immediately. The first thing out of people’s mouths was generally something along the lines of: “You’re Italian? You don’t look it.” However, my behaviour (opinionated, extroverted and, let’s admit it, given to emotional outbursts) was always pointed to when I was young as “proof” of my innate Italianness.
But, once I changed my name to an Anglicized German name, I suddenly was not obviously Italian to the people I met/meet. I have blonde hair and blue eyes, my first name is Anglicized and I don’t live near my extended family anymore so obviously those external clues aren’t there but what about the opinions, extroversion and emotional outbursts? They are all still there. I am unchanged in my behaviour but suddenly it’s not so obviously Italian anymore. I love telling people I’m Italian now but I usually time it for right after a joke or disparaging remark about Italian people.
Cressida @8
Actually I know of a case where the husband took the wife’s name. The husband’s birth surname was Pickelheimer and he hated it. When he married a woman surnamed Cunningham he became Mr. Cunningham.
We wanted to do that, Al Dente, but were told that here in South Africa, men are not allowed to take their wives’ name. A general WTFery and lack of sense, but there it was. Eventually my husband changed his surname, which was his father’s surname to his mother’s maiden name, and that was just fine and peachy, just a bureaucratic rompslomp.
The world is a weird place.
After Spouse and I got married, over 30 years ago, we decided to take advantage of the opportunity. We both disliked our names, which were a hassle for different reasons — mine was a super-common, boring, Americanized Nordic sort of name; Spouse’s was a mangled southern European name nobody could spell. It was already very usual at that time and place (California, 1980) for the couple to hyphenate, or for the woman to keep her name and to hyphenate the kids. We planned to have kids, and thought it would be nice for everyone in the family to have the same name (and we were appalled by some of the really complicated hyphenated names some folks were saddling innocent babies with). So, we went through all our family names and picked one we liked, went down to the DMV and changed our licenses “due to marriage”. Some of our friends thought that was an odd way of doing things, but we’ve never regretted it, and our families didn’t mind. My father, of the boring common name, said he wished he’d thought of it — and of course, the reason we did was because lots of people were already messing with the notion of pre-destined patronymics. Like sambarge, our choice was practical, not a feminist statement, but growing feminist consciousness made it possible. Thank you, feminism!
Cressida – most surnames came about as a statement of who you “belonged to”. Thus, Robinson is from Robin’s son. Etc. My father’s name has been passed down through the men in his family, and is an indicator that I “belonged” to my father. This is one reason why fathers are so desperate for sons – because traditionally daughters have changed their name on marriage to indicate the change in the status of “belonging”. Sons, on the other hand, “inherit” the family name, thus making sure the father’s name does not die out. Mother’s names can die out. If my maternal grandfather had no sons, and no male siblings to have sons (in other words, he was the last of his line), and my mother took my father’s name (she did), it would not matter how many sons she had, her name would die out. The father’s name has always been an important thing (to the father), and the passing down of the name has always been considered important to families.
My family was in a state of perpetual horror because the daughters were reproducing but the sons were not. Hence, none of the grandkids had my father’s name. They had the name of someone from a different “tribe”. In spite of the fact that they already had 22 grandchildren, the birth of my younger brother’s son was celebrated as though it was the most important event that would occur in the 21st century. If he and his wife had a daughter, it would have been incredibly disappointing, even devastating for my family.
Therefore, I continue to consider my birth name as my father’s name. My mother did not have that name before marriage. My brothers were expected to pass that name down. That name was a statement of who I “belonged” to until I was married.
@20, you seem to be trying to argue that taking your husband’s last name and keeping your father’s last name are equally antifeminist, and therefore taking your husband’s name isn’t actually antifeminist because by doing so you’re also rejecting the antifeminist decision to keep your father’s name. I do not buy this.
When you take your husband’s name, you are making an active choice to perpetuate gender inequality. In order to argue that keeping your father’s name is somehow equal to taking your husband’s name on a feminist scale, you’d have to have as a premise that all women should be expected to jettison their father’s name on reaching adulthood and that to do otherwise is an antifeminist decision. But that would obviously be a ridiculous and unreasonable expectation of women. It would, in fact, be an antifeminist expectation because it’s expected of women and not men, and therefore perpetuates gender inequality.
Keeping your birth name, whether married or not, is just working with the hand you were dealt. It’s not actively antifeminist. It’s nothing like the decision to take a husband’s name. That is an antifeminist decision, and one that even feminists can make. Which is the entire point of the post.
Cressida #21
I don’t think you’re getting the point, it seems you’re arguing against a position I haven’t seen anyone take.
What, I think, is being said is that the tradition of a child being assigned the father’s name is a symptom of a patriarchal system. Full stop.
Nobody has argued that every woman must change their last name to “X” or said woman is an antifeminist.
Actually, Cressida, I was making the point that I consider it feminist neutral. There is, to me, no magic in keeping a name. This is a choice that a feminist can make, in my opinion, without being anti-feminist.
You miss my point. I am making the point that the woman should be able to take whatever name she wants. If she wants to make up a whole new name, that's dandy. None of these are feminist or anti-feminist choices, unless they are done from an anti-feminist standpoint, in which a woman (like my mother) takes her husband's name because she believes she belongs to him.
In other words, I am sick of people telling me that I have some sort of obligation to NOT take my husband's name. He was also willing to take my name. I didn't want my last name, so i took his. This is a choice that is NOT anti-feminist, because I made a decision based on my desire to no longer be associated with people who had hurt me. His last name was handy, he was willing to share it with me, so I used it. If that is anti-feminist, than perhaps I would rather not be feminist. But I do not believe that is anti-feminist. I believe can be neutral.
@22:
You did not understand my argument.
If that were what was being said, I wouldn’t be arguing with it.
I’m aware of that and I said as much.
@24, I don’t miss your point at all. I think your point is wrong.
Cressida #25
Apparently not. But it seems I am not alone. I think it’s even further that not understanding your argument though – I’m not even clear on who you are arguing against or what point you are refuting.
Perhaps you could clarify for me.
@27, iknklast rejects the argument made in the original post and I was trying to point out to her that she is incorrect. She’s not having it, though, and I’m not interested in pursuing it further.
Cressida – I do not reject the argument in the original post. I am not arguing that all choices made by a feminist are feminist. I am simply tired of people telling me that by making the choice of taking whatever name I wish to take I have been anti-feminist. I have not. I support fully the right of every woman to keep her own name, take her husband’s name, have her husband take her name, or make up whatever the hell name she wants.
Yes, taking the husband’s last name is a symbol of the patriarchy. But if a woman who has been extremely unhappy in her family, who wishes to distance herself from her family, and a name she was assigned at birth by an equally patriarchal system, if that cannot be done and still be a feminist,, if the only way to do that is to make an anti-feminist statement, then in this matter, I am proud to be anti-feminist!!!! But I am not anti-feminist. I merely made the choice that was right for me. And I am sick to death of having to explain to people why I chose to change my name!
Since you are the arbiter of female names, tell me, please, which name I am allowed to have and still be feminist.
You don’t have to explain to anyone why you made your choice. You made it. But by participating in the tradition (regardless of the reasons you personally had for doing so) you are upholding the tradition. That was the point of my original post (I had good reasons too) and that’s what Cressida is saying.
No one is saying that you are anti-feminist. Just like, a woman wearing a hijab can be a feminist. She may support other women not wearing a hijab. But that doesn’t change the fact that she is participating in an oppressive tradition because it suits her personal views/rationale.
Exactly. There’s a difference between being a feminist and making a feminist choice. I do most of the household work in my family because my spouse isn’t interested in doing it. Is that a feminist choice by me? No way. I present as “feminine”: I have long hair and wear skirts and heels and sometimes makeup. Is that a feminist choice by me? Not really. And I own that. I am absolutely a feminist, and I freely admit to doing some things that are not feminist. Ideally I wouldn’t do those things, but I still do them.
Useful discussion of the development of surnames in Europe in this book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State
It wasn’t patriarchy per se, but more about taxation and conscription.
I know a few men who have taken their wives’ names on marriage (though I don’t know them well so I don’t know how much hassle it was compared to doing it the other way around–interesting that some people here have pointed out that it’s way more hassle). Historical example of a man changing his name for a woman (though not his wife):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Austen_Knight
The whole situation confused the hell out of me when I was being introduced to the Austen family.
Oh and yes, this is a worthwhile thing to remember. I can BE a feminist (or a whatever), but that doesn’t make everything I do (for whatever reason I choose to do it) feminist (or whatever)–or vice versa, if talking about being a racist. Someone on another blog pointed out that this confusion between who you are/how you identify and specific actions you take might arise at least in part from some of those Christian sects that insist that if they’re Christian everything they do must be Christian–listen to Christian music, read Christian books, go to Christian parties, etc. I guess some other religious sects are like that, though I don’t know enough about them to say for sure.
And you don’t think that the fact that men owned property and wealth to be taxed but women didn’t isn’t part of the patriarchy.
OK, so what you all are saying is that for the rest of my life I will be looked down on as making an anti-feminist choice because I chose not to carry around the name of the man who raped me? Other women will continue to demand that I explain myself, because I am supporting the patriarchy? Got it.
The good news about name change via marriage, is that it is mostly neutral in terms of feminism too. I (the male half of our straight marriage) changed my last name to hers when we got married. It was, as noted in this post, simply a matter of being easier to pronounce and spell.
The only grief we got actually came from the electric company, but by the time we got to that, I already had a DL, passport, and SS card with my new name, so they buckled pretty quickly. I do admit, I get a bit of a kick out of telling people I have a maiden name, though. 😀
All women are the same, obviously
That is not what I’m saying at all, nor is it what anyone else on this comment thread is saying.
What I said originally (and stand by) is that a woman who identifies as a feminist can make a choice that is not in itself feminist. You changed your name for reasons that were valid and important to you but the mechanism that you used to change your name is rooted in patriarchy. No one is judging you as right or wrong but, obviously, choices aren’t made in a vacuum. That was the point.
sambarge – I agree it is not a feminist choice. I have never said it was feminist. I was saying it is feminist-neutral – in other words, not anti-feminist, either. But Cressida was insisting that the decision must be anti-feminist. I disagree.
And you’re wrong that no one is judging me as right or wrong. When someone refers to my action as anti-feminist, and that person is a feminist, they are judging me as wrong. You are not judging me as wrong, perhaps. But others are.
Forgive me for getting so angry, but this is a conversation that has been around for a long time, and I am getting sick of being told that this is a choice that is hostile to feminism. My choice was not about the patriarchy (and I stick by the fact that carrying around your father’s name, assigned to you at birth by a patriarchal society, is equally not a feminist choice), it was about an all too real situation that afflicts many women and my argument is with the tactless people who continually insist that I accept guilt for my decision.
I’m sorry that you feel judged by your choice. That certainly was not my intention behind the first comment.
Also, I hope you’re like me and refuse to feel an ounce of guilt for making a choice that was right for you. In the immortal words of Roxanne Gay, we are all bad feminists and that’s okay.
“accept guilt for” != “acknowledge to be anti-feminist”
Sorry, this is flat garbage. We have no control over the name we’re given at birth. We are not obligated to change it. Period.