But Professor Benson was also a hyphenated man – he was professor Arner-Benson. Though he was “cool’ with being called on first name basis, he would be quick to rectify anyone who called him by his un-hyphenated last name. It was not immediately known why he was so adamant on this unabridged version. The mystery continued until he offered a course on “Couples and Intimacy” one spring. A significant part of psychology explores issues of identity – self versus other, individual versus group, eastern culture versus western culture, intrapersonal versus interpersonal, intra-group versus inter-group, etc. Discussions on identity were frequent in this course and at one particular point, Jim decided to exemplify his argument with a personal example. Marriage is a fusion of identities giving birth to a new one and at the same time still retaining the spirit, value, and uniqueness of each. When Jim Benson and Ruth Arner got married, they were wedded to each other. Ruth Arner became Ruth Arner-Benson and Jim Benson was Jim Arner-Benson. Their identities were welded together in their names, which are often considered one of the primary signifiers of a person’s identity. Professor Arner-Benson’s emphasis on being called by this name was an affirmation of this new identity that he obviously looked upon with love and pride.
Women themselves prefer to take on the husband’s last name, out of love – I’m told. Fine. But will a man take on his wife’s last name, out of love?
The practice of a hybrid last name is not uncommon among married Nepali women today. Earlier, a woman’s natal identity (and certainly her name) would be entirely erased post marriage – it still is in many parts of Nepal. A Sita Sharma (name invented for argument’s sake) would have to relinquish her name upon marrying Ram Prasad (fictional name) in the past. In some cases, women have had to forfeit even their first names in favor of another carefully selected one from their in-laws. Gradually, Sita Sharma would fade into the tales she would tell her grand-children of her childhood. A couple of generations later, her maiden identity would become forgotten history.
A modern (and often urban) Sita now has the option of keeping her maiden name in a hyphenated version. So it is Sita Sharma-Prasad, signifying to the world that she is married to a Prasad fellow. She is able to bring to her new, married world a brilliant dowry in the form of her name and her identity. But that is only a half won battle because Ram Prasad still remains as is. If marriage is a merger of two individuals (and families too in most cultures), then why does the man not hyphenate his name as well? If Sita Sharma is married to Ram Prasad, isn’t Ram Prasad also wedded to Sita Sharma? Or is Sita alone wedded to Ram and not the reverse? And if Sita transforms into Sita Shama-Prasad after marriage, doesn’t it seem only logical that Ram should also change to Ram Prasad-Sharma (or Sharma-Prasad for that matter)? As the saying goes, it takes two to tango and certainly two to marry. Then why does only the woman have to alter her identity post marriage (hyphen or no hyphen) and not the man?
Many will contend that an age-old tradition cannot change. Even more will argue that it is only natural for a woman to abandon all markers of her natal home when she marries. And most will simply retort: Men will be men. Response to all: Not really. Traditions do and have changed – earlier it was traditional not to send girls to school at all, but that has now changed significantly though not adequately. Women were confined to doing household chores as part of tradition, and that has changed too. Female sexuality was taboo (and taboos are also part of tradition) but girls and women now express their sexuality more openly and confidently. Not convinced? Just look at the low cut and tight fitting kurthas, the plunging necklines of t-shirts, the sari folds packed into petticoats tied below the navel, the micro-minis, the tank-tops. In rural areas, we see women with ever shrinking blouses displaying bare midriffs in the Tarai and the traditional attire of the hills – the chaubandi cholo – is anything but traditional. I recall seeing some young Nepali girls serving momos and sekuwa in a Nepali restaurant in New York wearing sleeveless chaubandi cholo. Tradition has surely changed and adapted itself.
A woman’s altered name post marriage seems “natural” to many because that is the dominant perspective perpetuated by those who enjoy the power and the privilege of being in the mainstream. For instance, to a young boy who has never had to struggle to go to school, going to school seems like a “natural” process. But to a girl whose parents need the right incentives to send their daughter to school, going to school is certainly not so “natural”. I am reminded of the recent escalation in girls’ attendance in school in Salyan following WFP’s school-feeding program for girls and cooking oil that they bring home. Another instance is a government-initiated program in India where parents were provided a nominal remuneration each time they did something positive for their girl child – got her immunized, fed her nutritious food, sent her to school. Going to school – not so natural is it?
With different forms of sexual orientations coming out of the closet, it is really imprudent to argue “men will be men”. The conventional notions of masculinity have undergone tremendous revisions and men are gradually beginning to assume or at least assist in traditionally female roles. More men help with household chores and venture into professions such as nursing that were previously relegated to women. It does not imply that they have metamorphosed into women but the narrow parameters within which masculinity was defined are ever expanding.
Women themselves prefer to take on the husband’s last name, out of love – I’m told. Fine. But will a man take on his wife’s last name, out of love? But that would be really pushing the envelope. A hyphenated name would be a giant enough leap for now – what do you say, Nepali didi-bahini, daju-bhai?
(Writer is a developmental psychologist.)
Related story
Refusing to grant citizenship in name of mother is unconstituti...
