A hundred years ago it was quite simple. When a woman walked down the aisle she shed her maiden name and took that of her husband. Her new title of "Mrs" went with the ring she wore on the fourth finger of her left hand and children of that union were automatically registered under the husbands surname - because that had become the "family name "!
A hundred years ago the marriage act was only just emerging from a previous ruling that saw marriage as a form of social slavery. In the eyes of the law, a married woman became her husband's property and even in the enlightened west - a husband took control of any money she might have in her own name and clearly made all the decisions on where they would live. A wife was entirely under her husband's control and he could demand sex or beat her with impunity from the law.
Australia was one of the first countries to give women the vote and the affect of two world wars saw women emerge and enter the work force as a necessity. The feminist movement fought for equality and while women generally still earn less than men they have achieved equality before the law - and today many reject that name change and continue to be known by their former maiden name after marriage. In particular, those who achieve sporting fame in their youth are reluctant to step away from a name that receives wide recognition.
Slowly, this name retention is easing the preference some father's have for a son to carry on the family name. The genetics of both sons and daughters are an equal mix of both their parents and a daughter who is successful in the business or sporting world can be a source of pride, but it is now adding a new dimension in what a child will be called when they first register for school.
What happens in a family where the wife retains her maiden name and the husband his - and the question of which will be fixed to the progeny arises ? We are actually seeing instances where the husband adopts his wife's maiden name as the family name, but settling that matter can be a point of friction. In some cases, a hyphenated mix links both names as a reasonable alternative.
We now live in a society where divorce is common and the division of property can be very divisive. It seems that one of the areas of combat is the family name attached to children of that marriage. A case has gone before the Family Court of Australia to decide on the wish of a divorced mother to name her eight year old son by a hyphenated version of her family name and her former husbands. The court handed down a rejection on the grounds "that it was not in the boy's interests " to change what he had been known by since birth.
This seems to set a precedent. It can be confusing for a child to have to cope with a name change and that can be disorienting. It certainly raises the issue of how to deal with the matter of a common family name applied to the children of marriages where both parents retain their former names and single identities in both the social and work areas.
The family court seems to be saying that whatever is chosen should be unchanged even if the parents union is split by divorce and it will not countenance a name change to that of whichever parent is awarded custody of the child. That seems to be a warning to get it right - when the initial name decision is made.
It also heralds a distinctly new form of nomenclature. The practice of retaining former identities is becoming so ingrained that a hyphenated form to provide an agreed identity for children of such unions seems inevitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment