Married names

[JustKate]

Does anybody have an idea, or at least a workable theory, as to why married women in Trek nearly always take their husband's name? There are exceptions, I'm sure, but not very many, and none involving a major character, at least not that I can think of. Anyway, even if there are exceptions that I haven't thought of, they are...well exceptional.

I am not really interested in an in-universe explanation because...because...because I don't think there is one that really works. And besides, I think that's been discussed before, as recently as a few months back. And of course I know precisely why married women in TOS always took their husband's name - virtually all married women in the USA did in those days.

But I would like to know if anybody can think of a reason why even in the shows made in the 1980s and 1990s, a time when people really started experimenting with other naming schemes, TPTB still had no apparent second thoughts about Beverly changing her name to Crusher and then (in "All Good Things") to Picard; Jennifer changing her name to Sisko, Luwaxanna changing her name to Troi (unless it was Deanna's dad who changed his name?), etc.

I'm not upset about it or anything - out here in real life, I think what a woman decides to call herself is the business of the woman and her husband and nobody else. I myself use both my married and birth names for different things. But it just seems a bit odd to me that Trek seemed to give so little thought to this, and it seemed odd then, too. Most women in the 1980s and 1990s continued to use some version of the traditional Mrs. Hisname form, but I know quite a few women who tried something less traditional. Yet you don't see any of this reflected in Trek, which strikes me as a bit odd in a show so dedicated to equality and such.

Was it a deliberate choice? And if so, what would be the factors? Was it done unthinkingly? Or what? Any ideas?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

My understanding is that Ian Troi did in fact change HIS name in deference to Betazoid custom; he seems to have made the choice to be deferential to Betazoid custom in most things.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Ian_Andrew_Troi

Just my two bits.

 

[Vulcan Princess]

Does anybody have an idea, or at least a workable theory, as to why married women in Trek nearly always take their husband's name? There are exceptions, I'm sure, but not very many, and none involving a major character, at least not that I can think of.

B'Elanna Torres didn't change her name when she married Tom Paris.

 

[JustKate]

Ooh, good one, VP. And thanks for the clarification, Nerys.

But still...Beverly Howard Crusher sorta Picard, Jennifer Sisko, Keiko O'Brien...I'd still call that a fairly consistent pattern.

 

[DevilEyes]

Was it a deliberate choice? And if so, what would be the factors? Was it done unthinkingly? Or what? Any ideas?

I'm pretty sure they just weren't thinking about it. And yes, it is silly. But sadly, too often Trek writers do not seem to really think a lot about the way they portray alien cultures or even the Earth culture of the 22nd/23rd/24th century, making too many things the same as they were at the time when the show was made.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Do you think maybe the writers thought changing the last names was just something useful for the fans, to easily remind people who was married to who? I doubt there was anything sinister behind it.

 

[DevilEyes]

Do you think maybe the writers thought changing the last names was just something useful for the fans, to easily remind people who was married to who? I doubt there was anything sinister behind it.

Bingo.

As I said... they often don't give things that much thought as some of the fans do. And they tend to underestimate the audience's intelligence.

 

[Thor Damar]

^ I think that's it. The basic premise that one should not confuse the viewers led to most married couples keeping the surname of the husband.

I wonder if the same would be true on Cardassia, given the supposed gender equality in the Union?

 

[JustKate]

^ & ^^ & ^^^ Yeah, I thought about that, too. I think most viewers could have coped with, for example, Jennifer Whatever having been the wife of Benjamin Sisko - this isn't that hard, after all - but this wouldn't be the first time that an TV show decided that viewers are just...kinda stupid.

 

[Thor Damar]

^ Indeed, still at least they aren't half as bad as the marketing/advertising sectors for that BS.

Not to mention the reality TV shows...

 

[DevilEyes]

^ I think that's it. The basic premise that one should not confuse the viewers led to most married couples keeping the surname of the husband.

I wonder if the same would be true on Cardassia, given the supposed gender equality in the Union?

Also, if appears that married couples on Bajor have the same last name, but I don't think it was ever established if the wife takes husband's name or the other way round.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

^ I think that's it. The basic premise that one should not confuse the viewers led to most married couples keeping the surname of the husband.

I wonder if the same would be true on Cardassia, given the supposed gender equality in the Union?

Well...the novels don't seem to make it look like Cardassian gender equality is quite all it's cracked up to be.

Still, whether or not you agree with THAT take, I would say that Cardassians are probably more likely to be traditional even WITH gender equality, and whatever's done with names is likely to continue both as a legal requirement and just "the way things are done."

 

[Timo]

Luwaxanna changing her name to Troi (unless it was Deanna's dad who changed his name?)

...Will Riker changing his name to Troi?

I mean, Picard's "Mr Troi" in ST:NEM may have been a friendly jab aimed at the suddenly wussified man, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be factually true, too.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Chaos Descending]

Maybe they just figured that just because something happens two, three, or four hundred years in the future, it doesn't mean that everything needs to be different.

Some traditions we have today are already hundreds of years old. Why is it so hard to believe that they'd be around hundreds of years from now as well?

Besides, you could just as easily ask, "Why do the writers of Star Trek still show people getting married in the 24th Century?"

 

[JustKate]

^ Well, sure, Chaos - I could understand some women taking their husbands' names even far into the future. I just think it's odd that in Trek, almost all of them seem to. That's all I meant.

Because it is odd. I think so, anyway. I thought it a little odd in the 1980s and 1990s, too. Women don't all now - particularly when you consider not only the U.S. but also Europe. Even in the U.S., which is (I think) more traditional in this matter than Europe is, around 10 percent of women don't take the fully traditional route, so why would such an apparently large number do so several hundred years in the future? That just doesn't make a ton of sense.

Edit: Which is why I think that the theory that TPTB just didn't think about it very much is probably the correct one. If they had, I can't but think we would have seen a little more variety.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Also, if appears that married couples on Bajor have the same last name, but I don't think it was ever established if the wife takes husband's name or the other way round.

Or just make up a new surname when married. Just an idle thought, but I don't think we ever knew the surname of one of her grandparents, right?

I should also mention that Bajoran last names are actually proper names, not family names.

 

[DevilEyes]

Also, if appears that married couples on Bajor have the same last name, but I don't think it was ever established if the wife takes husband's name or the other way round.

Or just make up a new surname when married. Just an idle thought, but I don't think we ever knew the surname of one of her grandparents, right?

I should also mention that Bajoran last names are actually proper names, not family names.

Sorry, I just used the term without thinking

Surname and... given name?

 

[ipirate65]

^ Well, sure, Chaos - I could understand some women taking their husbands' names even far into the future. I just think it's odd that in Trek, almost all of them seem to. That's all I meant.

Because it is odd. I think so, anyway. I thought it a little odd in the 1980s and 1990s, too. Women don't all now - particularly when you consider not only the U.S. but also Europe. Even in the U.S., which is (I think) more traditional in this matter than Europe is, around 10 percent of women don't take the fully traditional route, so why would such an apparently large number do so several hundred years in the future? That just doesn't make a ton of sense.

Edit: Which is why I think that the theory that TPTB just didn't think about it very much is probably the correct one. If they had, I can't but think we would have seen a little more variety.

I'm having trouble following your arguement... you state that 10 % of women don't take the traditional route so you can't understand why so many would do it in the future...

when you look at the number of women who get married, 10% is an extremely small amount. That means that most women DO take the traditional route. So if the majority of women take the traditional route, why wouldn't they do it in the future?

 

[JustKate]

^ Well, sure, Chaos - I could understand some women taking their husbands' names even far into the future. I just think it's odd that in Trek, almost all of them seem to. That's all I meant.

Because it is odd. I think so, anyway. I thought it a little odd in the 1980s and 1990s, too. Women don't all now - particularly when you consider not only the U.S. but also Europe. Even in the U.S., which is (I think) more traditional in this matter than Europe is, around 10 percent of women don't take the fully traditional route, so why would such an apparently large number do so several hundred years in the future? That just doesn't make a ton of sense.

Edit: Which is why I think that the theory that TPTB just didn't think about it very much is probably the correct one. If they had, I can't but think we would have seen a little more variety.

I'm having trouble following your arguement... you state that 10 % of women don't take the traditional route so you can't understand why so many would do it in the future...

when you look at the number of women who get married, 10% is an extremely small amount. That means that most women DO take the traditional route. So if the majority of women take the traditional route, why wouldn't they do it in the future?

I'm not actually trying to argue about anything - my apologies if it seemed as though I were. I'm really just looking for a real-life explanation as to why Trek had so few of its female characters take an option, an option which is freely available today and was also freely available when TNG, DS9 and VOY were being made, of keeping their birth name.

Yeah, I do think - but this is purely my opinion - that "It's traditional" doesn't really work very well as an explanation. At least it doesn't for me, though I suspect it worked just fine for TPTB. It's traditional to have babies and it's traditional for women to be blocked out of some jobs, too, but Trek doesn't seem to mind challenging those traditions. So why go so traditional with married names?

I don't have a problem with many women - or maybe even most - in the future taking their husbands' names, or doing whatever is traditional for their culture. I don't have a problem with them doing so now. I use my husband's family name for lots of things, for example, and I don't consider myself the least bit downtrodden.

But in Trek, almost all (human) women do, and that's what seems odd to me. In other words, it seems to be far less than 10 percent who don't follow the tradition, and that just doesn't make sense to me.

BTW, the 10 percent figure is for the U.S. I don't know the figures for Europe, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the percentage of Mrs. Hisnames to be somewhat lower there. I've heard anecdotally that it is, but I haven't had time to research it.

 

[DevilEyes]

^ Well, sure, Chaos - I could understand some women taking their husbands' names even far into the future. I just think it's odd that in Trek, almost all of them seem to. That's all I meant.

Because it is odd. I think so, anyway. I thought it a little odd in the 1980s and 1990s, too. Women don't all now - particularly when you consider not only the U.S. but also Europe. Even in the U.S., which is (I think) more traditional in this matter than Europe is, around 10 percent of women don't take the fully traditional route, so why would such an apparently large number do so several hundred years in the future? That just doesn't make a ton of sense.

Edit: Which is why I think that the theory that TPTB just didn't think about it very much is probably the correct one. If they had, I can't but think we would have seen a little more variety.

I'm having trouble following your arguement... you state that 10 % of women don't take the traditional route so you can't understand why so many would do it in the future...

when you look at the number of women who get married, 10% is an extremely small amount. That means that most women DO take the traditional route. So if the majority of women take the traditional route, why wouldn't they do it in the future?

Because it's not supposed to take place in the 20th century, it's supposed to happen in the 24th century, in the idealistic future in which there is, presumably, gender equality, at least to a greater extent than there is today?

What do you think is more plausible and easier to imagine/believe - an advanced society with no currency, or an advanced society where women don't as a rule take their husband's names? The latter has already started to happen decades ago, while OTOH the former...