On Marriage, continued

Something just struck me. I wrote in an earlier post about my objections to women taking their husbands' names upon marriage. Well, in one way this connects with my problems with societal homophobia. I believe that people are capable of remembering two or even more family names in connection with a single family unit, but many of them just aren't familiar with the concept and therefore bridle at it, or would rather be mentally lazy and slap the same label on both spouses and their kids. And many, whether consciously or subconsciously, subscribe to the idea that a woman should "be subsumed into" her husband upon marriage, as is the will of patriarchy.

Now, gay and lesbian couples are (blessedly, in my opinion -- they're a breath of fresh air within the New York Times Sunday Styles wedding announcements, see earlier post) very likely to include two or more names in their family unit. So maybe gay and lesbian couples are in somewhat of the same boat with heterosexual couples who retain two names instead of shoehorning both partners in under one name. Many folks claim they "can't handle it" when the truth often is, they don't want to handle it. They're using nomenclature as a means of social compulsion, to make straight women who want to maintain their independence, and gays and lesbians, disappear.

Of course it's not as simple as that. Homophobia is still far more socially acceptable than misogyny. Though misogyny remains too socially acceptable on its own account, if a straight woman, and her male partner, are willing to take on the extra work needful to make the world at large recognize the fact that they each have their own surname even though they're married, they can usually get pretty much everyone to go along with it. Some people may be obnoxious about it, and even attack you personally if they feel threatened enough, but if you don't cede ground, all but a handful will back down. Unfortunately, the same is not true for gays and lesbians seeking the plain old right to marry, much less recognition as a married couple. A straight woman who insists on her own name may get guff, but she won't get beaten up or killed. Gays and lesbians who refuse to pretend to be who they're not may actually get beaten up or killed, or lose their jobs, or be denied housing, or lose custody of their children... and a lot of other unpleasant, wrong and dangerous things. Not to mention that they run a very good chance of being abandoned, rejected and/or abused by their very own family members.

This is a strange time. We've managed to go a little ways toward getting past sexism and racism in our political choices, but at the same time, there's this "renaissance" (I would say recidivist slide) of women ostentatiously "taking their husband's names," and, far worse, a spate of benighted anti-gay legislation which has gone so far as to re-write state constitutions to deny the right of marriage to a specific group (on the basis of sexual orientation or preference), and also to deny the option of domestic partnership to heterosexuals who don't want to legally marry. The effect on my state, Florida, is catastrophic. First there's the despicable homophobia and anti-American tenor of the constitutional amendment passed here. And then there are the disastrous consequences for our senior-citizen-heavy population. Many single seniors live together without marriage because marrying means losing a significant part of their already pathetic Social Security benefits. Now they face not being able to register as domestic partners, which means they have no rights if a partner gets sick, no access to a partner's health benefits, etc. etc. Sickening.

Let me be clear on one point. If a woman desperately wants to change her name upon marriage, it's a free country. But the overwhelming trend of women "taking their husbands' names" is an ongoing expression of a pretty clearly discernible, long-standing patriarchal sentiment, which is that women are here to support and enable men (and children), and not to lead lives of their own or have goals of their own. This system has not redounded to the psychological or economic benefit of homemakers, whose vital work I think should be explicitly part of the Gross Domestic Product. Full-time homemakers of either gender should be awarded Social Security in their own right, not as derivatives of their spouses, and ideally, they should be officially allotted a given share of the annual family income, so they never have to beg, cajole or manipulate in order to get their hands on spending money. And don't get me going on so-called "no-fault" divorce, which seems to assume that someone who hasn't held a paid job for years can somehow jump right back into paid work! What very few people realize is that only about 15% of women who divorce are awarded ANY alimony at all, and as for child support, the frequency with which men skip out on paying it is disgusting.

But I digress. Which I do tend to do. To get back to the resistance of the larger society to both "two-name" heterosexual marriage and, far more aggravatedly, gay/lesbian marriage: of course, what both these options do is to undermine the paradigm of patriarchal marriage. They offer models of marriage that go against gender-role assumptions and assume equal partnerships instead of complementarity. A large percentage of our fellow citizens don't want to see, and don't want their children to see, that there are quite a few different ways to do coupledom, including ones which don't necessarily involve hierarchy, dominance/submission, procreation, or the "disappearing" of one partner into another. They want to force everyone into "one-size-fits-all" (it never does) gender roles and marriage molds, ones they find familiar and comforting, ones that don't require individual thought and don't necessitate the taking of individual responsibility or individual stands.

This is intimately connected to our culture's love of dualism, the idea that there are only two answers to any given question, one labeled "right" and one labeled "wrong." Every situation is reduced to an "either-or" choice, with no option labeled "both-and." More on this next time.

On Marriage

Since marriage is dwelling on my mind since the, to me, incomprehensible passage of Proposition 8 in California -- I still don't get that here in America, a coalition of religious and other bigots managed to write something into a state constitution to take a specific group of people's rights away -- here are some musings. After I say that, if you can amend a constitution to take one group of people's rights away, no-one's rights are safe. Of course, we in the U.S.A. do have a long and not very lovely tradition of founding documents with mythologized reputations that began by limiting rights to a very few (propertied white males), and a constant need on the part of marginalized folks to fight to be included in the category "fully human."

Which leads me to one of my pet peeves: reading the Sunday Styles section of the New York Times on a weekly basis and encountering the widespread phrase "The bride is taking her husband's name." Even women in their 50s and 60s are becoming "Mrs. His Name." Now, I understand this if it's a means of getting rid of a former husband's name, but still! The whole phenomenon is like a retro DEvolution. I've gotten to the point where I cheer whenever the announcement says "The bride is keeping her name" or its equivalent!

It's not a coincidence that there's a convention that all but demands that women who marry (and any children of that marriage) take their husbands' last names. It all harks back to thoroughly patriarchal law, as expressed by a famous 18th-century English jurist (William Blackstone) who said, centuries ago, "In marriage, two become one, and that one is the husband." The idea is that women's only claim to social significance (and still, quite often, to economic survival) is as the "helpmeets" (to use biblical language) of their husbands. Every woman's first duty is to create a nurturing cocoon for "her" man, in other words, to serve as his support system, taking care of pretty much every trivial, repetitive chore so that he can shine, at whatever cost to her own individual career (if she aspires to one) or creative work or simply time and room to breathe and be as herself.

Of course, the women are stuck in a bind. If they keep their "maiden" names (wince), they're almost certainly hanging on to another patronymic (father-derived moniker). If they opt for their mother's "maiden" name, they're pretty sure to be choosing her father's handle. Some like to make fun of the '70s feminists who renamed themselves "Sarachild" or "Mariedaughter," but nearly the only way to claim a female-derived name in the dominant U.S. culture is to create one. Something not true of every culture, by a long chalk. For example, Iceland's citizens generally add a suffix meaning "daughter" or "son" to the first name of one of their parents. It used to be standard practice to use the father's name, but it's not necessarily that any more!
I like to think that if I'd been a more evolved life-form when I got hitched, more than two decades ago, my partner and I might have considered choosing a mutual last name we both identified with and which had nothing to do with our family trees. Instead, each of us just kept our own last name, which works very well in our immediate circle of friends and didn't cause any major ructions among our family members.

But living in the Southland, it's amazing how much energy a woman has to devote to getting people to call her by her own last name rather than her husband's! It's a none-too-subtle attempt at social policing that reminds me of a visit to the Bahamas we made about ten years ago. On our return journey, a U.S. customs agent claimed he couldn't give us the family allowance for duty-free purchases. Since we had two separate last names, how could we prove we were married? In that particular situation, I ripped my wedding ring off my finger to show him my partner's name inside -- since then, I've carried a copy of our marriage license just in case anyone else decides to try to make us cry "uncle!"

And I do mean "uncle." Because human beings are really more than flexible enough to commit more than one name per social unit to memory. No, the idea is that women, once married, are supposed to be subsumed, to disappear as independent beings, while men are not. It's just like being labeled "Mrs." No-one expects men to be defined by whether or not they're married. It's "Mr." whether single, wed, straight, gay -- because men are seen as individuals under any circumstances. This is why "Ms." is so useful, and why we should fight to maintain its use. It serves the same purpose for women. (Although one could argue it might be interesting to find a universal honorific or title that doesn't immediately point to gender at all...)

Why "Mrs." or "Miss"? Actually, "Miss" is something that gets awkward if used for any female above the age of about 12. Let's compare our situation with that in Germany, where the titles are really interesting. Men are referred to as "Herr," which means "Gentleman" ("Mann" would be "man.") Women used to be called "Fraeulein" for "Miss" and "Frau," which just means "woman," for "Mrs." In the last two generations, the use of "Fraeulein" has all but ceased (except for little girls), and all women (above the age of say 14) are usually called "Frau." But isn't it interesting that men are ranked as "gentlemen," while all women are just the generic "female"? But at least, with current usage, women aren't automatically classified as derivatives of their male partners, if they have such. (Although it does give one pause to consider that well into the 20th century, a German woman would only be called "woman" if she was married, while she'd remain a "little woman" (Fraeulein) into her 90s if she stayed single!)

OK, must quit while I'm behind. I have to be somewhere in twenty minutes. But these surely won't be my last ruminations on this subject!