By Manish Nandy

It is time to question an accepted social practice that is in fact quite unacceptable， and in our time more than repellent. Why is a woman expected to change her name when she marries？

Historically， the use of a single name for most people became confusing with the growth of population， and so grew the practice of adding a last name. The last name was based on trade， such as Smith or Taylor； on location， the village or town one came from； and on lineage1， the chosen family name. In the 9th century， English common law developed the doctrine of coverture2， which became standard practice in the western world： A woman at birth is“covered” by her father and after marriage is “covered” by her husband. The latter meant her legal identity merged with her husbands. Perhaps submerged was the more appropriate term， because coverture implied that only the husband could vote， hold property or go to court.

This absurd legal fiction3 provides the basis for the widespread practice of a woman having to shed her name and take on the last name of her husband when she marries. The absurdity scales new heights now that women are marrying late and meanwhile acquiring academic degrees， professional qualifications and senior-level work experience in their own names. As the price of her wedded bliss4， a woman must undergo the painful exercise of abandoning her identity， legally change all her licenses and certificates， and notify her employer， lawyer， doctor， and all other contacts. In an age of Google and LinkedIn， this represents a huge handicap and a staggering5 professional disadvantage.

Why should she have to do this？ Forego the identity， history， and reputation she has developed over 20 or 30 years？

In many countries， there were invidious6 laws precluding women from getting a drivers permit or voting right if they did not adopt their husbands name. In the latter half of the 20th century， several such laws were repealed and married women were able to hold property in their name. Yet a small percentage of women， 20 per cent by a Google survey and a smaller one by other surveys， choose to retain their original name. Predictably， the older the brides， with higher educational and professional accomplishments， the greater the probability of their retaining their pristine7 name.

Names are important； everybody senses that. When anybody asks， “Who are you？” you respond with your name. Boys and girls get names equally when they are born， typically with their fathers surname. Boys retain theirs their entire life. Girls are expected to relinquish theirs after decades， along with their sense of identity and self-pride， the moment they get married. Given the enormous social pressure， this is falsely regarded as a matter of choice. It is even given a spurious8 romantic glow， as if the bride is somehow being magically folded into her husbands personality and family. While boys will have just names， girls will be forced to carry the dual burden of a maiden9 name and a married name.

The sexist bias of the naming convention becomes obvious when one considers the reasons why people change names. I know of people who have changed their names because they considered the names ugly or oldfashioned. I also know of two who changed their names to repudiate10 their link with abusive parents. Despite my misgiving11， my wife changed her last name， because she said few of her friends or classmates could correctly spell or pronounce her complicated Nordic surname. But I dont know of a single husband who changed his name at the time of his wedding， the sole exception being a colleague who， along with his wife， chose to get their surnames hyphenated12.

The naming convention at a wedding is plainly not a matter of free choice. It is simply a matter of power play. Hamilton， Geist and Powells 2011 study， cited in Gender and Society， shows 50 per cent of Americans think adoption of the husbands name should be mandatory for wives. In sharp contrast is a Hallet survey in Huffington Post showing 33 per cent of Americans believe husbands should not be allowed to take their wives name.

When names are not changed after marriage， it is to be expected that when people meet the bride for the first time they will address her as Mrs. X， using the husbands last name， or when they meet the husband initially may say Mr. Y， using the wifes last name. That hardly qualifies as a great social disaster， and foreseeably such errors will be less common in a short period.

Then there is the odious13 but ever-present prospect of divorce. Given its soaring rates in major cities， the idea that women must change their names every time they take a new partner is farcical14. They should retain their names instead of changing them after their rotating-door15 spouses.

The recalcitrants blowback is even easier to surmise if one broaches the theme of childrens name.16 Even where the wife has been allowed to retain her name， it would be nothing short of sacrilegious17 to suggest that the children should carry her last name instead of the husbands. The wife， who carries the baby， is its primary caregiver in its childhood and adolescence， and bears the overwhelming share of all responsibility for rearing the child， at the cost of her education， career and often health， is not permitted to pass her name to the child. In the entire family， the mother is the only person with a different last name， the goose among the swans.

As a practical matter， there are simple solutions： The children can have their parents last names hyphenated or use one as a middle name. These are not common practice now， but it will change with time. How well a familys members blend， how much they feel a part of the same entity has little to do with what last names they use.

What last name the children will have is a question that can wait. What cannot wait is a decided strike for equality， in the form of women retaining their name after marriage. A hyphenated name just doesnt hack it， especially if the husbands surname is the last item in the hyphenated name. It is time to let go of a perverse18 sexist relic of a social practice and start living in the twenty-first century.

是時候質(zhì)疑一個廣為接受的社會習俗了，事實上這種習俗是十分不可接受的，而且在我們這個時代相當令人厭惡。為什么女人要在結(jié)婚時隨夫姓？

從歷史上來說，隨著人口增長，大多數(shù)人使用單名很容易弄混，因此才有了添加姓氏的做法。姓氏曾基于職業(yè)，如史密斯（鐵匠）或泰勒（裁縫）；基于地點，比如某人出生的村莊或城鎮(zhèn)；以及基于世系，即祖先選擇的家族姓氏。9世紀時，英國普通法發(fā)展出已婚女性法律身份的從屬原則，這成了西方世界的標準做法：一位女性出生時其法律身份從屬于父親，婚后則從屬于丈夫。后者意味著她的法律身份與其丈夫合并。也許“淹沒”才是更合適的說法，因為從屬意味著只有丈夫可以投票、擁有財產(chǎn)或是出席法庭。

這種荒謬的法律擬定為女性結(jié)婚時不得不丟棄本名并冠之以丈夫姓氏的廣泛做法提供了基礎(chǔ)。由于如今女性結(jié)婚較晚，同時以本名獲得學位、專業(yè)認證和資深人士工作經(jīng)驗，這種做法的荒謬程度達到了新的高度。作為幸?；橐龅拇鷥r，女性必須經(jīng)歷放棄自我身份的痛苦，在法律上更改她所有的執(zhí)照和證書，并且告知她的雇主、律師、醫(yī)生和所有其他聯(lián)系人。在谷歌與領(lǐng)英的時代，這代表著巨大的障礙和驚人的職業(yè)阻礙。

為何她必須這樣做？放棄自己在二三十年來獲得的身份、經(jīng)歷和名譽？

在許多國家，有一些不得人心的法律禁止不隨夫姓的女性獲得駕照或者投票權(quán)。20世紀下半葉，有些這類法律被廢除，已婚女性能夠以本名持有財產(chǎn)。然而，只有一小部分女性（谷歌的一項調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示只有20%，而其他調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示還不到20%）選擇保留本名?？梢灶A見的是，新娘年紀越大，教育水平和專業(yè)成就越高，她們保留本名的可能性就越大。

名字很重要；這一點人人都知道。當有人問“你是誰？”時，你會以你的名字回應。男孩和女孩剛出生取名時是平等的，通常冠以父親的姓氏。男孩一輩子都能保留他們的名字。女孩則被期望在幾十年后結(jié)婚的那一刻放棄自己的名字，放棄自己的身份與自尊?？紤]到巨大的社會壓力，這被錯誤地視為一個選擇的問題，甚至被賦予了虛假的浪漫光輝，仿佛新娘被神奇地疊入了她丈夫的人格與家庭之中。雖然男孩的名字就只是名字，但女孩則不得不承擔婚前名和婚后名的雙重負擔。

當人們考慮改名的原因時，命名慣例的性別偏見就變得明顯了。我知道有些人改名是因為覺得自己的名字難聽或是老套。我還知道有兩個人通過改名與虐待自己的父母斷絕聯(lián)系。盡管我有些疑慮，但我妻子改了姓，因為她說沒有幾個朋友、同學可以正確地拼寫或是讀出她復雜的北歐姓氏。但我沒有聽說過有哪位丈夫在結(jié)婚時改名的，唯一的例外是有一位同事選擇與他的妻子聯(lián)姓。

結(jié)婚的命名慣例顯然不是自由選擇的問題。這只是一個權(quán)力游戲的問題?！缎詣e與社會》引用的漢密爾頓、蓋斯特與鮑威爾2011年的一項研究表明，50%的美國人認為對于妻子來說，隨夫姓應該是強制的。與此形成鮮明對比的是，《赫芬頓郵報》登載的哈利特的調(diào)查顯示，33%的美國人認為不應允許丈夫隨妻姓。

如果婚后沒有改名，可以預想當人們第一次見新娘時，他們會以丈夫的姓氏稱其X夫人，又或者當他們初次與丈夫見面時可能會以妻子的姓氏稱其Y先生。這談不上是重大的社會災難，而且可以預見，這種錯誤在一小段時間后就不會常見了。

然后是雖然可憎但永遠存在的離婚的可能性。鑒于大城市離婚率飆升，女性每次再婚必須改名簡直荒唐可笑。她們應該保留本名，而不是隨著換了一個又一個的配偶更名。

如果提起孩子的名字，不難推測那些頑固派的反擊。即使妻子被允許保留本名，但若說孩子應該隨母姓而非隨父姓則近乎褻瀆。妻子以自身的教育、職業(yè)和健康為代價，懷胎十月，是孩子童年和青春期的主要照顧者，承擔著撫養(yǎng)孩子的絕大部分責任，卻不允許將她的名字傳給孩子。在整個家庭中，母親是唯一一個姓氏不同的人，如同天鵝中的鵝。

從實際角度來說，有一些簡單的解決方案：孩子們可以同時使用父母雙方的姓氏或者使用一個作為中間名。這些做法現(xiàn)在并不常見，但隨著時間推移情況會有改變。一個家的家庭成員有多和睦，他們是否感覺是一家人，與他們使用的姓氏幾乎沒有關(guān)系。

孩子跟誰姓這個問題還可以再等等；不能等的是要堅決爭取平等，即女性婚后保留本名。雙姓并不能解決問題，特別是如果丈夫的姓氏放在雙姓的最后。是時候摒棄一個帶有性別歧視的社會陋習，開始活在21世紀了。

1. lineage： 血統(tǒng)，世系。

2. coverture： （受丈夫保護的）已婚婦女的法律身份（或狀態(tài)）。

3. legal fiction： 法律擬定，指法律事務上為權(quán)宜計在無真實依據(jù)情況下所作的假定。

4. bliss： 幸福，極樂。

5. staggering： 難以置信的，令人震驚的。

6. invidious： 招致不滿的，激起怨恨的。

7. pristine： 原始狀態(tài)的，早期的。

8. spurious： 偽造的，欺騙性的。

9. maiden： 未婚的。

10. repudiate： 與……斷絕關(guān)系。

11. misgiving： 疑慮，擔心。

12. hyphenate： 用連字符連接。

13. odious： 可憎的，令人討厭的。

14. farcical： 滑稽的，鬧劇性的。

15. rotating-door： 旋轉(zhuǎn)門。

16. recalcitrant： 頑抗者，不服從的人；broach： 開始討論，提出（尤指令人不快的話題）。

17. sacrilegious： 瀆神的，不敬的。

18. perverse： 不合常理的，有悖常情的。