I started my internship today at the Margaret Sanger Papers Project (MSPP) in NYC and it got me thinking about identity. I will be researching footnote material for the fourth edition of the collected papers of Margaret Sanger. A huge part of my research will be tracking down various people (mostly women and fairly obscure) that Margaret Sanger had contact with and referenced in her letters. My intern supervisor was explaining how we should go about finding these women. She casually said that we should check under her ( the person in question) husband's name because a lot of sources (newspaper articles, lists etc) will list the woman as "Mrs. John Smith." Now, I have always had a problem with women being directly called by their husband's name, but today, it occurred to me that being called "Mrs. John Smith" basically wipes women from the historical record because it removes their name from primary source material. (very successfully I might add, given that historians of women's history have spent the past 30 years trying to "put women back in "). For example, if I am in the newspaper (a little blub) in high school, but then I get married and appear in the paper again for something else, how would someone know that was me? That person would have to check if I got married and then track down my maiden name. Whereas, men always stay the same throughout their lives.
As a history major, I have a tendency to think about stuff from a historical perspective. How will people 50 years from now interpret this event? What's missing when I try to understand something that happened in the past? Here's an example: Most people will tell you that the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria started World War I. However, how many of them know that his wife, Sophia, was also assassinated alongside him? Now, I agree that it's a woman's choice to change her last name or not, and I won't even argue that tons of women define themselves through their last name today. But, I still want to ponder the effects on society ('cause it's what I do now that I'm not at school).
Lots of love,
Lady Lola
Good point! My mom did a bunch of genealogy research through the mother's line, and had to stop after about five generations because she couldn't find anything on her female ancestors prior to that generation. This was based solely on the predicament of the women of our family taking their husbands names.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit, I have always planned (looked forward to, even) to take my husband's last name, but the only reason is that I hate my last name, as in, the word itself. I know it's fun the first time you figure out it's spelled No-Yes, or point out me being Noyes-y, but I promise you after 20 years of hearing about it it gets old. The fact that women traditionally take their husbands' names is just, for me, a lucky coinsidence (I would totally support my brothers taking their wives names if they so chose, but I REALLY don't see that happening.) Obviously, though, I am thrilled that more and more women nowadays are keeping their names, or couples are hyphonating both names, or whatever they CHOOSE to do.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am very strongly opposed to ever being refered to by my husbands first name. Having the same last name indicates that we are a family, but I totally agree that being called Mrs. John Smith indicates that Mrs. Smith is little more than a shadow of Mr. John Smith. I am even planning on telling the pastor/DJ at my wedding that when they announce us, they sure as hell better say "Mr. and Mrs. Blank AND TARA Blank." Or maybe even, "Mrs. and Mr. Tara and Blank Blank." :)