July
23rd
  6:58:20 AM

Judged by her name?

With the summer season well under way, I’ve had the joy of celebrating with friends as they embark on married life together. Since I am looking forward as well to my own wedding a question that has inevitably come up is, “Will you take your husband’s last name?”

A recent study by social psychologists at Tilburg University in the Netherlands suggests that this is not a good idea. The study finds that women who took their husband’s last names are judged as more caring, more dependent, less intelligent, less competent and less ambitious than those women who kept their own name.

“Finally, a job applicant who took her partner's name, in comparison with one with her own name, was less likely to be hired for a job and her monthly salary was estimated €861,21 lower (calculated to a working life, €361.708,20).”

Women may choose to hold onto their maiden names for many reasons, including family history, cultural heritage, sense of identity and professional continuity. One popular option is for women to hold onto their maiden names as their “professional” name and legally adopt their husband’s name for official documents. For example, American Idol’s Carrie Underwood, who recently wed Ottawa Senator Mike Fisher, will be taking her husband’s name legally but keeping her maiden name as her stage name.

But does that mean that those who choose to take their husbands’ names are making a poor career choice, as the study suggests?

Interestingly enough, the study also cites previous research that shows employment decisions are influenced by implicit discrimination; for example, a person with an African-American sounding name is less likely to get a call back for a job interview than a person with a Caucasian sounding name. I find it hard to believe that the recommendation of such research would be for the African-American to change his/her name to something Caucasian. Isn’t hiring (or not hiring) someone based on their ethnic background, martial status or choice in taking their husband’s name discrimination nonetheless? Yet the researchers seem to put the onus of change on married women, rather than on those who discriminate against them:

“If women knew how they would be judged, would they still change their name? Suppose the differences in salary became reality?... Calculated to a working life: 361.708,20 euros. That is more than a million ice creams, a large family home in the middle of the Netherlands, or four luxury BMW’s.”

When I get married next May, I’ve decided that I will be taking the last name of my husband-to-be. I’ve made this choice because it publicly signifies the unity of our marriage and the new family that we are forming together. I like the idea that we will become the “Leungs” and not “Li and Leung” because marriage is about joining our lives together permanently to become a “we”, not “you and I”.

People deserve to make this personal choice free from stigma, discrimination and societal pressure to conform.

Peggy Li writes from Toronto, Canada.



 
about this blog | Bookmark and Share

Search this blog

 Subscribe to FamilyEdge
rss RSS feed of posts

 Recent Posts
How men contribute to Australian happiness
24 May 2012
Truth or lies: a parenting challenge
23 May 2012
Girl violence and the parent gap
21 May 2012
Ottawa exhibition modified after complaints
17 May 2012
Self-control is the only magic bullet
16 May 2012

 MercatorNet blogs
Style and culture: Tiger Print
US political scene: Sheila Liaugminas
News about bioethics: BioEdge
From the editors: Conniptions

 Archive
May 2012 | Apr 2012 | Mar 2012 | more >>

 From MercatorNet's home page

Sensing the sacred
25 May 2012
Is there a sense of the sacred that even the non-religious can share?

Could geoengineering save the planet?
25 May 2012
And who is thinking about the ethics of a technological quick fix?

A thought experiment about marriage
24 May 2012
A world in which sexual intimacy could not produce children would never have come up with the idea of marriage.

Australia’s lifeline: its precarious sea lanes
23 May 2012
Large, isolated and rich, Australia needs to cultivate a friendship with the US to survive in an dangerous world.

It’s only natural
22 May 2012
The bitterest debates today in the public square often turn on what is "natural". The Chinese sages had a lot…


 Tags
adoption, same-sex marriage, girls, Africa, research, young adult, adolescence, books, ageing, smacking, recession, gender, contraception, character education, children, large families, work, self-control, morality, Hollywood, education, women, child wellbeing, brain, Canada, internet, homosexuality, HIVAIDS, fatherhood, abortion, one-child policy, children's health, child development, obesity, United States, Spain, emerging adults, family, television, childcare, gender equality, divorce, suicide, family meals, China, prostitution, fashion, parenting, single motherhood, unemployment, abstinence, technology, marriage, sexual behaviour, child welfare, sexualisation of children, psychology, media, sex education, video games, celebrities, character, AIDS, anger, schools, family policy, child obesity, motherhood, happiness, European Union, youth, family structure, working mothers, birth control, immigration, poverty, Obama, social media, family relationships, family breakdown, work-life balance, child behaviour, fathers, commitment, family economics, Sweden, education of children, child abuse, violence, United Nations, economics, religion, men, baby boomers, Australia, parental rights, New Zealand, mental health, dating, demography, teenagers, family values, UK, teen pregnancy, media ethics, South Africa, feminism, pornography, gendercide, health, child safety, friendship, trafficking, polygamy, social networking, fertility, cohabitation, France,