Surnames - male domination the subtler way

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
- Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet: Act II, Scene ii

Surnames have been around for a long time now. Though still construed to be a kind of identification, surnames in their own subtle way, actually end up destroying a woman's identity. In fact a lot other stuff also contribute to this, but not so powerfully. For example, take the way a woman is addressed. It seems the honorific used to address a woman always depends on her relationship with a man. An unmarried woman is Miss, a married woman is Mrs. and a divorced or widowed woman is Mz (thankfully this honorific is almost extinct these days). Though the neutral Ms. has become popular, many suppose it should only be used for unmarried women. Though it seems to be a rather trivial issue, its implications are serious. The honorifics subtly imply that a Miss is her Father's property, a Mrs. is her husbands property, whereas a Mz. is yet to find her owner. Yet a man is always a Mr., no matter his marital status. What nonsense!

Maybe Shakespeare got it wrong. Its true of course that there's a lot in a name, certainly not in the context of Shakespeare's play. Surnames define an individual's identity. Yet they are almost universally based on the Father's name - either the child's father or the mother's father. I'm yet to meet someone with a mother's name for a surname. Still worse is the logic of most governmental institutions that almost by default ask for a father's/husband's name as if a mother had no role to play in the child's development. The story goes on with the society expecting and often compelling a newly married woman to adopt her husbands surname. Its ironically funny that when Miss A marries Mr. B, Miss A becomes Mrs. B overnight. Miss A suddenly ceased to exist. Family and friends never care to ask her if she had adopted her husband's surname. Whether she likes it or not, everyone start addressing her as Mrs. B.

The worst starts when a child is born. It is no secret as to how much pain the woman goes through to give birth to a child. Yet, every child is assumed to have the father's name suffixed. In the most feminist case the mother's father's name is suffixed, usually in a double-barrel-ed way - that leaves the child in a rather difficult position to fill application forms. I still wonder why a child cannot have a mother's name for a surname?! Why can't governmental organizations ask for father's name and mother's name instead of father's/husband's name? Why can't society have a neutral honorific for women? Will our male-dominated patriarchal society ever change?

Well, only time can tell. But for now, I can only reiterate that
If you are female, if you are feminist, you are FREE!