Things I Think About...

At the height of the feminist revolution in the 1970s and '80s, many women shunned the traditional practice of taking their husband's names when getting married, or as an alternative, hyphenating their own surnames with their husband's. Today, their seems to be a little bit of a return to the tradition of brides taking their husbands' names, but not completely so, particularly among more prominent and/or highly educated women.

And I suppose that's understandable. I mean, today's women are successful, driven, and independent; why would they want to give up a big part of their identities to make a change to indicate that they "belong" to someone else? Women should no longer be seen as the "property" of their husbands, or as the extension of them, but as their own people capable of achieving all sorts of things. Therefore, it's time for women to free themselves from the paternalistic, sexist, archaic tradition of taking their husbands' names. Right?

Except...

How many of those women who reject the practice of taking their husband's names on the basis of it being archaic and paternalistic would also reject that other archaic, paternalistic practice of receiving an engagement ring? I mean doesn't that ring carry the same stigma? You're being marked as "belonging" to someone else - someone else who, by the way, isn't wearing a similar piece of jewelry signifying HIS being "off the market". Seems like to me if  you're a woman who wants to get married but doesn't want to take her future husband's name, then you also wouldn't want to parade around with a ring signifying his ownership of you (or least signifying he's made a "down payment" towards ownership of you).

But I guess archaic, sexist, paternalistic practices are cool when they come with something shiny and pretty to display...