Australian columnist Catherine Deveny has a great piece this week taking on the lemming-like behavior of parents that masquerades as tradition and results in 99 percent of kids having their fathers’ names. She writes:

“Why are so many people still clinging to this convention in this day and age of divorce and DNA? A convention that insidiously

reinforces power, control and ownership.

“It’s a patriarchal minefield we deny even exists. Despite so much social change, this is a rusty nut that will not budge. And don’t be fooled by being fobbed off with ”it’s not important”. It is.”

Elsewhere around the world: Thanks to Google alerts, I’ve discovered lately that this patriarchal tradition is even more pernicious than I thought. In Turkey, married women are required to take their husbands’ last names after marriage. The good news: A European court decision on ID card information has brought about an opportunity to revisit this provision of Turkish Civil Code.

In Japan, married couples are required to choose one name after marriage. Theoretically it could be the woman’s, but realistically, tradition prevails. The good news: A (female) legislator says she’s ready to introduce a bill that would allow husband and wife to retain separate names, and it has the prime minister’s support.

On the other hand, I learned that since 1981 in Quebec, women are prohibited from taking their husbands’ last names. Since freedom of choice is the underpinning of my passion for maternal last names, I technically should have a beef with the Quebecers. But making a truly free choice is a lot harder when 98 percent of the world is doing it one way. So for the virtue in their contrasting example - so tiny in the worldwide picture - I say Vous allez, filles! to the Canadian province.

Coincidental to this week’s death date of Lucy Stone, prominent suffragist and the first American woman recorded as keeping her name after marriage, Time magazine ran an essay by Nancy Gibbs about the title conundrum “Mrs.,  Ms., or Miss: Addressing Moden Women.”

Gibbs herself is a hybrid, using her maiden name professionally and her married name personally. As a non-hybrid, one line struck me.

“I never understood why, from the perspective of fighting the patriarchy, it was somehow more liberated to bear your father’s name than your husband’s, especially since you choose your husband and inherit your father,” she writes. “In my case, each had an efficient, pronounceable name. How to choose?”

This was an argument I’d never heard, one which spun my definition of choice 180 degrees. I’d always considered the Mrs. route to be a negative choice - giving up your name to succumb to the tide of tradition. More like a tidal wave, really, considering only about 10 percent of women retain their maiden names after the altar. The few who chose to do so were indeed the only ones making a positive choice.

But after mulling it a few days now, I think I’ve hit on the note of discord I couldn’t initially suss out of Gibbs’ essay. For me, the question is not so much how to choose, but why, and also for whom I choose.

Let’s take hers first, though. Implicit in “how to choose” is that one can, in fact, choose. That may be true here in the U.S. But don’t take it for granted. Monday I wrote about an Indiana University-University of Utah study*, “Mapping Gender Attitudes with Views Toward Marital Name Change,” in which 70 percent of respondents said it’s better for a married woman to take her husband’s name and half said the government should mandate such a change.

And of course, for many women around the world, such choice is unheard of, as I wrote here in August.

As to why and for whom I choose to keep my name — and not let others forget it, either — it’s for a 20-pound redhead whose emerging personality indicates she’s got a mind of her own, too.  One of the most satisfying about keeping my name and passing it on to my daughter is that I’ve given her the opportunity to make a different choice. She’s the one that will make the truly matrilineal decision, when and if she has a family herself.

I don’t think women have allowed themselves to imagine what it would be like to be the lineal family member. In a word, it’s empowering. In my family’s case, since my son has my husband’s last name, it also feels eminently fair and just. All three are values I want to pass on to both kids.

To pose another question: Do I want to fight the patriarchy? Nope. But I sure as hell want to fight until matriarchy is right up on par with it.

* While co-author Laura Hamilton of Indiana University did share the study with me, I am unable to post it due to copyright restrictions.

One hundred sixteen years ago today, a woman most of you have likely never heard of, died.

Her name was Lucy Stone. Though she was also known for her advocacy of abolition and women’s suffrage, her name remains her dominant legacy.

Lucy Stone, the first recorded American woman to use her maiden name after marriage. Image: Wikipedia

Lucy Stone was the first recorded American woman to choose to use her maiden name after marriage.

On the occasion of her death anniversary, I thought I’d revisit the name change study I wrote about in August that received some press when it was presented at the American Sociological Association’s annual meeting. To refresh you, this was the study that revealed 71 percent of respondents thought it was better for women to change their names after marriage, and half - Half! I still can’t believe it — thought the government should mandate name changes.

I spoke with study co-author Laura Hamilton, a PhD. candidate at Indiana University, and found out one other question was right up my alley:

If a woman keeps her maiden name when she marries, what should the last name of the children be?

Given the other results, the responses were actually more liberal than I expected. More than half (53 percent) said the kids should get the husband’s name. A grand total of 1 percent (12 people) said the wife’s last name. But one third - way more than I’d have guessed - said a combination of the two. (Another 12 percent gave some other response, said they didn’t know or refused to answer.)

What was most intriguing was Hamilton’s contention that opinions on name change open a window into broader gender attitudes. The study’s titled, “Mapping Gender Attitudes with Views Toward Marital Name Change.” Hamilton says that since the subject of name change isn’t a political hot button, a person is more likely to answer honestly. For instance, responses to a direct question on gender attitudes like “Is it better for women to stay home and men to work?” would be filtered though a politically correct lens.

“People are very careful to be PC. They know the ‘right’ answer, so they answer really carefully,” Hamilton said. But since name change isn’t as politically charged, responses are more reliably genuine.

“It taps really well into people’s views on gender without raising a flag,” said Hamilton.

Given the aforementioned results, however, I see a flag - a big one. Not with the study, but with what it portends. More on that tomorrow.