Posted on 02/24/2012 3:44:35 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
Right now in the most of the developed world, it could be argued, women are considered about as "equal" to men as they have ever been. And yet, countering any "We've come a long way, baby"-type sentiment you might cheer about (intelligence in a woman is now considered by men to be more important than being pleasant and a good housekeeper; France is doing away with the term "mademoiselle"), there are deep, abiding problems that we're still working through. Some, like birth control access, are matters of health and freedom, while others are more "semantic," though no less problematic.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Another reason is to provide privacy for the children and family. I can see why some women attorneys, famous entertainers, or those who have significant press coverage, might want to their children's names to be different from their public name.
Here's another reason.
The husband of my children's pediatrician died in his early thirties. She used his last name and the entire town knew her by her husband's name. (She likely had several thousand children in her practice). About 15 years later she remarried and again changed her name. Do you think anyone in the town accepted this new name? NO! She was always known by her dead first husband's name.
In my case, I simply did not mind if people, in private settings, called me by my husband's last name. It was not a big deal to me, but legally changing it absolutely would have been a big deal. Once a professional practice is established and a network of professional contacts is made, it is economic idiocy to change one’s name.
By the way, my children have their father's last name.
We are likely cousins. One of my ancestors arrived in Massaschusetts in 1630. :-)
I am not opposed to a woman taking her husband's name. The majority of the women I know have done just that. Then there are some I know that kept their maiden names, because for business purposes had already become established in their profession and did not want to start over with a new name.
What I have found, depending on where the census was taken, is only the head of the house full name is given. Sometimes that can be a woman. The husband certainly did not design the census form. But somebody did. AND some 'families' did indeed keep and maintain good records on all the members of their family. I have found a few in my ancestry where that was the case.
I have also run into the situation where buildings holding the records (county court houses) burned down, and unless the families kept a 'Bible' or their own records, no records exist today for that particular time frame.
I have also found on ships manifest, IF the woman traveled unmarried her full name was given. Not so if the woman was married.
I had no clue how some are so sensitive about the 'status' of history and ancestry of woman.
So true, I had forgotten about grave stone markings. I was very fortunate that my grandmother gave me an actual 'program' for her grandfather's burial service. I am thrilled when I can find new nuggets... but some of these women in my ancestry are blank slates, I have so little and keep hitting walls.
When I was doing a lot of my Genealogy, I noticed that if I couldn't trace my grandfathers or grandmothers (however many generations back) mothers last names through my own line, I'd take a step back and check all the info I could find in that last generation about brothers and sisters to my direct ancestor. A lot of times another person on Ancestry.com or in public records of say my great-great-great grandmothers family would have listed mothers name, first and last on their marriage or birth certificate, where my direct ancestor did not. I just had to make sure I hadn't veered off into a different line, making sure these people were brothers/sisters, Aunts/Uncles of my ancestor in question. Yes, I think it would have been easier to just list the females maiden last name on all documents, but I bet most of these women didn't even care— it was just the way it was done. I don't think they realized five generations later it would cause me trouble! I also have a picture of 5 generations of my families women taken in 1910. For the life of me I could not figure out the last name of the grandmother in the picture. (My great-great grandmother). I knew the rest. Finally, a great aunt still living explained that she had out lived 5 husbands and had different names all over the place! She was very Independent, ran three boarding houses that she owned to support herself but wouldn't have dreamed of not taking her new husbands name(s). Yes it was 1910 but even today, personal preference between the couple I say. And like I said I'm traditional and wanted my husbands last name, my only prerequisite was that it wasn't Hitler or something like that!
I am so sorry my words appeared to be directed to you. That is so not the case. Personally, I do not think I have any say one way or the other what a married couple decide to do about 'names'. My complaint and frustration comes about because more often than not the record keepers did not see fit to record the woman's maiden name.
When I was doing a lot of my Genealogy, I noticed that if I couldn't trace my grandfathers or grandmothers (however many generations back) mothers last names through my own line, I'd take a step back and check all the info I could find in that last generation about brothers and sisters to my direct ancestor. A lot of times another person on Ancestry.com or in public records of say my great-great-great grandmothers family would have listed mothers name, first and last on their marriage or birth certificate, where my direct ancestor did not. I just had to make sure I hadn't veered off into a different line, making sure these people were brothers/sisters, Aunts/Uncles of my ancestor in question. Yes, I think it would have been easier to just list the females maiden last name on all documents, but I bet most of these women didn't even care— it was just the way it was done. I don't think they realized five generations later it would cause me trouble! I also have a picture of 5 generations of my families women taken in 1910. For the life of me I could not figure out the last name of the grandmother in the picture. (My great-great grandmother). I knew the rest. Finally, a great aunt still living explained that she had out lived 5 husbands and had different names all over the place! She was very Independent, ran three boarding houses that she owned to support herself but wouldn't have dreamed of not taking her new husbands name(s). Yes it was 1910 but even today, personal preference between the couple I say. And like I said I'm traditional and wanted my husbands last name, my only prerequisite was that it wasn't Hitler or something like that!
On my father's side, I have the names of three sons, and all of them in their lines only have the first name of their mother. I have their father's name my gggggrandfather's birth date, and birth place. Nothing about who his parents were. I would like to know when that line came here and from where they left. The earliest date I can document is 1750 in VA, and I know they were Scottish. It is irritating to me that nobody saw fit to record her maiden name.
Yes! The little nuggets and clues are absolute treasures. The funeral program is not something many would keep for so long. You’re lucky.
My parents recently gave me a large box of what they called “stuff from the garage”. I put it away thinking it was indeed, just stuff. So recently I finally dug through it. It had my grandma’s jewelry and wallet,untouched since her death many many moons ago. It had my grandpa’s gas ration stamps from WWII, photos, cards from my father’s childhood, etc. I spent 2 days going through it all. Priceless.
Newspaper articles that use the title “Mrs. John Smith” instead of the woman’s name is another frustrating path.
She’s absolutely smart as a whip!
When Justmythoughts makes the statements she did they come across as the same Feminist mumbojumbo I’ve heard forever. She should try it over at DU just to see if it passes for it.
The mumbomumbo did not begin in your life time. As best as I can find in the record Adam began this blame game first. Or maybe you never read what Adam had to say about his behavior. Genesis 3:12 And the man said, "The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, *she* gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
Oh, I can handle your fury, so you got something to say about me say it to me.
Pulling the Bible card? Still can’t handle being responsible for your own hateful words towards men? Just go back to DU, troll!
I used NO hate filled words. I do NOT hate men. Did I accuse you of anything? Now I have never been to DU, and I am NO troll. But I sure do get your sense of superiority, loud and clear... And what is wrong with using the 'Bible' as ones standard?
“I think that women who hypenate their names are a pain in the a**.”
Where I work as an RN, we dread it when we have to admit a patient with a hyphenated last name; all sorts of drama tends to come from such folk.
Hey, not only was the pun (double entendre) fully intended, the name was also pejorative term for those men who would sleep with another man’s wife.
Hey, not only was the pun (double entendre) fully intended, the name was also a pejorative term for those men who would sleep with another man’s wife.
I wasn’t going to say that, but...
Well, trying to get records for intermarriages back then is very difficult, but I don’t think that is caused so much by women taking their husband’s last names as it is to faulty record keeping that far back and people also typically living more ‘off the grid’ and beyond the reach of those records.
When you get back to the 18th century, the tree gets increasingly difficult to flesh out. No doubt about that. Not to mention how many ancestors decided to change the spelling of the their names, which is another curve ball to watch out for.
That example is tough to follow. Imagine how hard it is for the kids who are not being taught the basics of genetics and heredity (don’t sleep with your sister/brother half-sister/half-brother!).
If you haven’t read his book yet, you may be very interested in Charles Murray’s “The Bell Curve.”
That book is a study of exactly where you and I are headed in this train of thought.
The main point of his work is that because of (for lack of a better term) better self control (and societal regulation such as forced recognition of parents, correct naming of children to track bloodlines in order to receive handouts, etc.) in the breeding in urban areas, the cities are breeding genetically inferior bloodlines and subsequent generations are going to be prone to greater and greater crime and violence and dependency on handouts. The bad are breeding with the bad and their offspring is breeding both more bad and are even inter-breeding within their own to create an inbred subclass.
Based on genetics alone, the ‘urban project’ (the lab that leftists use for their societal experiments) is not going to end well.
Srsly? Primeval? I'd suggest that there is a greater practical (and genealogical) reason ....
Imagine if Rowland-Smith ...
marries Joyner-Kersee ....
Their kids will have the surname of Rowland-Smith-Joyner-Kersee ...
And their kid's kids will have the surname of ........................................
Just my thoughts ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.