The tradition of the wife taking the husband's last name

Patriarchal origins of the tradition

The tradition of the wife taking the husband's last name upon marriage stems mainly from long-standing patriarchal family values, where families' surnames reflected the male head of the family, and men were encouraged to marry and reproduce in order to carry the family name forward through the generations.  Girls were considered the property of their fathers until they got married, and then when they got married, they became the property of their husbands, and so took their last names to reflect this.

Legitimate reasons for following the tradition

I regard the patriarchal arguments to be somewhat dubious arguments for preserving and following this tradition and I hope that most readers will agree.  However, the wife taking the husband's last name is one of many legitimate ways of resolving the "family name" problem, where groups of close relatives (especially the traditional nuclear family) become known by a family name and have to choose what the family name is.  A wife can consider taking her husband's last name as a positive way of reflecting the fact that she is now part of a new nuclear family, and she may prefer his last name to her birth name.  Or, we can just say, if it's traditional, it's one of many legitimate options, and all parties are happy with it, why not?

Legitimate alternatives

However, note "one of many legitimate ways".  The husband can take the wife's name, they can agree to use a hyphenated/combined family name, or take on a different family name altogether which is not associated with the birth names of the husband or wife.  Another option is for the husband and wife to both keep their birth names and remain socially known by their birth names, but also have a family name which may be named after the husband, wife, both, or neither- this procedure is commonly used by homosexual couples and cohabiting unmarried heterosexual partners for example.

So what's my problem with the tradition?

In short, it is the way that society enforces it.  There are many women out there who would rather not take their husband's surnames upon marriage, but feel obliged to because "that's just the way it's done".  It is an example of where creative thought and individuality is suppressed on the basis that "rules are rules"- married couples are pressured into doing things in a narrow, traditional way, rather than in the way that works best for them.

Also, although we don't like to admit it, for many of us the patriarchal origins of the tradition still linger in our subconscious.  The wife taking her husband's surname is seen as a mark of respect for his authority and the fact that she is now married to him, so if she doesn't take his name, it can be perceived that she isn't fully honouring her marriage.  Men who do not mandate that their wives take their surnames, and especially those who take their wives' surnames, can be labelled with all the usual macho, homophobic slurs- queer, gay, cissy, etc- and told that they need to stop "trying to be too politically correct", "toughen up", and "just accept that traditions should be followed because they should be followed".

I would never argue that the tradition should be outlawed, for as I established earlier, it is one of many legitimate ways of resolving the "family name" problem, and as far as I'm concerned, if it has widespread legitimate uses, its legitimate uses should not be banned.  What we need to do, as a society, is be more questioning of why we expect everybody to follow it, especially as many of the reasons are, in reality, dubious.  There is no need for traditions to be imposed on everybody- there are many examples of traditions where groups of people happily follow them, but also happily tolerate others who choose to do things in a different but equally legitimate way.  The tradition of the wife taking the husband's surname should be applied on that sort of basis.

"Normative" bullying - Part 1 - Basics

Definition of "bullying"

There is no formally-agreed definition for the term "bullying", and it is important not to define "bullying" too widely, for if the problem is over-diagnosed, it trivializes the problem and makes it appear that bullying is "normal", where the traditional line of thinking goes, "It's normal, therefore it's OK".  Thus, I am opting for one of the narrower definitions of bullying:

Taking advantage of a perceived imbalance of power to repeatedly hurt/intimidate others, using force, threat or coercion.

"Normative" bullying

In many cases of bullying, the bullies are violating social norms.  But in "normative" bullying, the bullies actually see themselves as enforcing social norms.  A group within society sets up norms (unwritten, socially-enforced rules) that mandate compliance with conventional/traditional ways of doing, being and thinking, and rejects those who fail to comply.  When these norms are typically based on, "Because we said so", rather than wider moral considerations, it results in suppression of individuality and creative, independent thinking, and, worse still, marginalisation of vulnerable/minority individuals or groups purely because they are considered to be different.  But when, say, a group of native whites ostracise a black person because of his or her skin colour, often, they don't see it as discrimination, they see it as punishing the black person for failing to comply with their rules, by analogy with how the police punish criminals for failing to comply with the laws of the land.

In those cases, the bullying does become "normal" as far as the given social groups are concerned, and so they argue, "It's normal, therefore it's OK".  What is then needed is for society as a whole to turn around on them and argue either, "Just because something is normal, it doesn't make it right", or, "It's not normal as far as we're concerned".  But in practice we often get a problem where it becomes "normal" because too many bystanders stand there saying "That's life" instead of being pro-active in trying to address the problem, particularly if the social group has a lot of power.

In my experience this argument can be remarkably persuasive.  For example, I, as a very moderate drinker, had experiences at university of being rejected by social groups because their rules were, you got drunk regularly and partied until 3-4am in your halls of residence, or you faced rejection for being different.  Many bystanders, and even some authorities, took the line, "Well, it's your fault for being different.  You know what the rules are, so if you don't keep to their rules, that's your problem.  Keep to the rules and you won't be rejected by the group.  The rules are the rules, and there isn't a problem with the rules, because if everybody obeyed them, there wouldn't be a problem."  It is the same sort of response as motorists get when they complain about being fined for speeding.  

In this case, using a simplistic "social norms"-based approach to tackling such bullying is unlikely to prove effective, because the bullies are actually the ones who are claiming to be enforcing social norms.  Moral considerations have to take precedence over the need to have rules and enforce them, otherwise we leave the door wide open for people with comparative power to perpetuate this kind of bullying.

Why all of this is important

The above form of bullying is a major factor behind most issues relating to discrimination (racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia etc- it crops up in every case of it).  For instance, a group of white people may consider it acceptable to ostracize a black person because the black person's skin colour and/or ethnic background makes him or her stand out somewhat from the rest of the group, arguing, "Well, it's his/her fault for not fitting in."  Groups may develop prejudices against those that they consider to be different in some way, and then accept those prejudices/stereotypes without question, with the idea being, once such behaviour becomes "normal", it must therefore be OK.

As a society, instead of targeting this type of bullying, we generally try to legislate for it, and focus anti-bullying/discrimination efforts primarily against activities that, in terms of harm caused to the recipient(s), are actually relatively minor.  We try to clamp down against use of language that can reinforce stereotypes, and make a big thing of high-profile "one person's words against another" cases, like in the infamous English Premier League row between John Terry and Rio Ferdinand where, as part of a foul-mouthed exchange of abuse between the two players, John Terry made an inappropriate one-off reference to Ferdinand's skin colour.  While Terry's behaviour was unacceptable, it was hardly likely to be as damaging as cases where black people are routinely marginalized by social groups because of their skin colour, and yet it got far more attention.  As a result, the general public become in danger of being branded racists for making one-off misjudgements when they lose self-control in an argument, while groups that continue to marginalize ethnic groups for being different continue to get away with it because they argue that their behaviour is enforcing social norms (whereas in the above case John Terry was clearly violating social norms) and take in bystanders by arguing that "that's life" and "rules are rules".

All of this creates a public dislike of "political correctness" and related policies, which in turn damages public support for efforts to make headway against this type of bullying.

"Rules are rules"

Article updated on 08 June 2014

The problems with the "rules are rules" approach

As established in the post establishing the fundamentals of freedom and responsibility, we do need rules and regulations to help us to filter out irresponsible behaviour, and up to a point, we need to enforce them, using a combination of punishment (to give a deterrent) and rehabilitation (to reduce the incidence of re-offending).

Rules should reflect wider moral considerations and should be followed out of respect for those moral considerations, not purely because they exist.  But as a society, we often lose sight of this, and many people just accept that rules should be accepted and followed because "rules are rules"- there is no need for reasons and understanding, that's just the way it is, because some authority set up rules that say so.  This gives authorities a lot of excess power, where they can potentially set up wholly unreasonable rules and justify them on the basis, "Because we said so."

Dangers of accepting that "rules are justified because rules are rules"

When we accept that rules should be followed because "rules are rules", we often end up justifying them using circular reasoning.  Many of us consider what is morally right and wrong to be defined by what the some authority's rules do and don't say, and since the rules are supposed to reflect what is morally right and wrong, we get an argument along the lines of, "X is wrong because it's against the rules, and it's against the rules because it's wrong".

Setting up unreasonably restrictive rules isn't the only way in which authorities can take advantage of the blind acceptance that "rules are always justified because rules are rules".  They can also be enforced disproportionately, and made unclear in the hope of catching out ordinarily law-abiding citizens.

Enforcement of conformity to traditional ways of doing and thinking

Individual authorities are not the only people who are capable of setting up and enforcing rules.  Social groups and societies set up social norms, traditions and etiquettes, dictating what range of behaviours are and aren't considered acceptable by the group, and these suffer from the same problem.  As long as these norms/traditions/etiquettes are based on wider moral considerations, and/or the group tolerates individuality and allows individuals to follow legitimate alternative ways of doing and thinking without being rejected, this isn't a problem.  

But all too often, groups set up rules along the lines of, "Do and think 'our' way, or be rejected", where social norms, traditions and etiquettes are justified purely on the basis, "Because we said so", and all those who deviate are rejected for being different, and the group sees it as like authorities punishing someone for stealing loaves of bread from a shop- rules are rules, no matter how good or bad they are.  This is a common cause of suppression of individuality and creative thought, and discrimination against vulnerable/minority groups.

Discretion vs. absolute enforcement

Many rules are reasonable for 90-95% of the time but can be daft if applied absolutely in the other 5-10% of situations, so we can enable authorities to apply discretion and refrain from enforcing the rules absolutely in the other 5-10% of cases.  The danger with this is that it means that the rules can be less clear, and if some people are allowed to get away with breaking rules in certain situations, then it can encourage others to try to push boundaries and see if they can similarly get away with it.  

But enforcing rules absolutely in all cases can backfire.  One example that I used to get into heated arguments about when I was younger is the road traffic law saying that responsibility for an accident should always lie with the driver of the vehicle behind, due to the need to keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front.  Yes, I'd say that this law is a reasonable generalisation that works in at least 90% of cases.  But when applied absolutely in all cases, it leads to some major problems when we get scammers pulling in front of motorists, slamming on the brakes and claiming on their insurance, trying to take advantage of the shortcomings of this law.  Thus, in this particular case it is desirable for authorities to apply some discretion.

I tend to think that we need a balance (as is so often the case).  Apply discretion sometimes, but make it clear what sort of situations the discretion does and doesn't apply to, so that the rules and their enforcement is still reasonably clear to the general population.

Civil disobedience is never ideal but is sometimes necessary

In an ideal world, rules would always reflect wider moral considerations, and people would always obey them, but we don't live in an ideal world and abuse of power and authority is widespread.  It is easy to say, "If you don't like an authority's rules, campaign for them to be changed", but in my experience, campaigning for them to be changed often isn't enough on its own.  A particularly common circular argument, for example, is, "X is illegal.  People shouldn't break the law.  Therefore people shouldn't do X.  And that's why X is illegal!"  Or, just the defence of the status quo - "It's right, because that's just the way it is."

So, sometimes, one of the most effective ways of getting unjust rules changed can be civil disobedience, taking the risk of being caught and punished, but at least taking a personal stand against them, and hoping that if enough people take part in the civil disobedience, authorities might take notice.  As I say, it's not ideal, because when we behave outside of the rules, often, we have little or nothing left to guide us regarding what is and isn't responsible behaviour, and we can end up inadvertently making serious errors.  But sometimes it can be necessary in order to prevent authorities from accumulating too much power.