nykola.com | bothering people since 1981

Maria Shriver did it. So did Hillary Clinton. Sort of. There was once a time when a woman wouldn't dare go by her maiden name once she married. Unfortunately, along its path of destruction, "women's rights" managed to snag last name identity. I think the issue of "names" goes beyond women just deciding to take or not take their husband's last name. Many people would like to make this a surface issue by saying, "It really doesn't matter what name I have". However, I don't dismiss it as that so easily. I happen to be of the firm belief that when a woman is married, she is leaving her father's covering and taking on a husband and therefore should reflect her husband's family name. These days people have thought up all kinds of nonsense to combat perhaps one of the most traditional institutions we still have around. I know a married couple who both took on each other's names and hyphenated them. (That's right, the husband took the wife's maiden name too). This completely defeats the purpose of family names.

In an msn slate article, Katie Rophie noted,

"It was an interesting moment in the history of nomenclature when Hillary's 'Rodham' slipped into the position of a middle name after her husband lost his bid for re-election as governor in 1980. In the decades that followed, political wives have been pressured to tack their husband's names onto their own (n.b. Judith Steinberg Dean and Teresa Heinz Kerry).

Funny how that happened again after Clinton won the presidency. Coincidence? I think not. Let's not play dumb here folks. Hillary very well knew what she was doing. And what is this "forced" language, as though the expectation of a woman to take on the last name of someone she's in COVENANT WITH is too much to ask? Liberalism really has infilitrated our way of thinking. Although retaining maiden names has been a rising trend since women's lib, according to a San Diego Union-Tribue article, a Harvard economics professor has done research to find that fewer women are keeping their maiden names these days. Well that's something I'd get excited about if I felt the research was credible. It seems this professor found her data using New York Times wedding announcements, Harvard alumni records, and Massachusetts birth records. Well I certainly can't think of a better snapshot of American trends country-wide than one that would come from the New York Times and Harvard alumni records. Please.

Perhaps this is a lost concept in our modern day, but I recall a time when a person's last name was essentially their calling card. While growing up, my parents would constantly remind me that people with our last name didn't do things other people did. This was never done in an "elite way" however it helped me to recognize that my family had set standards some of my friends families hadn't. I am certain everyone has had one of those moments as a child where you pulled that "everybody's doing it" line on your mom and she quickly retorted, "Well you're a member of the 'Smith' family and Smith's don't what your friends do". I heard this phrase all too often and probably rolled my eyes every time I heard it, yet it is such a statement of truth. As individuals, we are direct representations of our familiy name and lineage. So many years ago, having the family name smeared was one of the worst offenses in a society based on integrity. Nowadays, most people don't even care. In fact, they'll go on national television and completely ruin their family name. A few names ring a bell like Lewinsky or Buttafuco. I could go on.

The idea of women keeping their maiden names is rooted in Liberalism. When a woman doesn't take her husband's last name, she disassociates herself with the lineage of her husband. By getting married, a woman should want to leave the "house" of her father. Marriage is not about individual rights or even individualism. It's about becoming "one" and being "one" should not be two separate names. This "false independence" is actually hurting the concept of marriage in America because it's deeper than just a name. We need to understand the true significance of names before we can even begin to have a proper dialogue on this issue. It is a risky thing to take on someone else's last name. It's not something that should be taken lightly and it amazes me that people can be so cavalier towards this subject. For this reason, women had better make sure it's the right name we're marrying into. Just ask Carolyn Bessette Kennedy. Nevermind, we can't because she became a part of a long legacy of tragic death when she married into the Kennedy family.

Over the years I have found great interest in the signifance of names in the Bible. In regards to family names, there were always both generational blessings and curses tied to family names. Certain families were known for certain skills such as carpentry or growing grain. Have you ever noticed a large majority of people in your family have a common talent or ability? Every family does. You just need to have eyes to see it. The truth is, we do ourselves a disservice when we skip through the first part of the scripture that reads "So and so begat Jerohim and Abraham begat Isaac". God has always been intentional about the family lineage. The Bible also makes reference to first names always being the indentifer of a person. Even when God revealed himself in much of the Old Testament, it was according to His names like Jehovah Jireh (The Lord Who provides). Every name in the Bible has a meaning or signifiance. So is the same for our names.

For this reason I have become increasingly disturbed at the number of people who are legally changing their first names. I'm not talking going from Sarah Lynn Heller to S. Lynn Heller either. I'm referring to people going from Sarah Lynn Heller to Rainbow Brite Jones. As a parent, I would think it a slap in the face for my child to change the name I gave them. Now I can understand assuming a different name because you'd rather not have people call you "Cleophus" or "Venellda" (I actually know people by these names). But I do have a problem with people who legally change their names for no other reason than they "don't like it".

Names speak to identity and that's what this all ultimately comes down to. I am currently single and therefore choose to identify with my father's last name because although I am out of my parent's house, I remain under my father's covering until I get married. This concept probably sounds rustic and old-fashioned to many. Good. It should. I have also chosen to learn to like my first name (something that took me awhile) because it is the name my parent's gave me and I don't believe they made a mistake when they called me "Ambra". But for the love of all things pure, please don't name your child something stupid like apple.