Google alerts turned up this article written by one Mary, another Aussie commenting on the Catherine Deveny column I posted about last time. In it, Mary tells us she just had a baby boy - to whom she and her husband gave her last name, instead of his.
Then on my own side porch I just picked up the latest issue of the Grand Traverse Insider, a freebie good-news-only paper that usually goes straight to the recycling. But I happened to open it up to find a story on a local woman’s goodwill work in Haiti. She, too, is matrilineally named.
So counting these two, plus my own daughter, I know now four people who’ve taken the matrilineal path. Hurrah! The ranks are growing.
On the downside, the bill making its way through Japan’s political process that would allow dual surnames has a lead lining. According to this editorial in the Asahi Shimbun, it would also require couples to choose which name their children will have in advance. All children would need to have the same surname, making my family’s decision illegal in Japan. The editorial says: “To avoid any confusion, the proposed bill requires couples to decide in advance on their children’s surname and to ensure that all siblings have the same family name.”
My responses:
1) What confusion? Why is it anyone’s but the family’s business whose name is chosen, or if there’s more than one? Why is it the family’s burden to insure others aren’t confused?
2) Decide in advance - It’s almost impossible to decide anything to do with children in advance. At my childbirth classes, the final exercise was designed to teach us how to cope when circumstances shot the plan to pieces. In retrospect, it was the most valuable lesson of the bunch for what it taught about children in general.
3) Ensure than all siblings have the same family name: This bill’s purpose is - admirably - to modernize the requirement that spouses have the same name. Why revert to the old standard for the kids?