Search the Community

A Tradition Going Strong: Brides Who Take Their Husbands’ Names
The women least likely to do so tend to be liberal or highly educated or Hispanic, new data shows.

By Claire Cain Miller
Sept. 12, 2023

When Irene Evran, formerly Irene Yuan, married Colin Evran three years ago — in a civil ceremony on Zoom during the depths of the pandemic — the decision to take his name felt like a natural one.

Her mother had kept her maiden name, as is traditional in China, where they are from. But Ms. Evran thought it would be easier to share a name with her husband and their future children. It was important to him, she said, and she liked how his name sounded with hers.

“It wasn’t a difficult decision,” said Ms. Evran, 35, of San Francisco. “There may be deep-rooted traditional influence, but it felt pretty simple and straightforward.”

The bridal tradition of taking a husband’s last name remains strong. Among women in opposite-sex marriages in the United States, four in five changed their names, according to a new survey by Pew Research Center.

Fourteen percent kept their last names, the survey found. The youngest women were most likely to have done so: A quarter of respondents who were 18 to 34 kept their names.

Hyphenated last names were less common — about 5 percent of couples across age groups took that approach — and less than 1 percent said they did something different, like creating a new last name. Among men in opposite-sex marriages, 5 percent took their wife’s name.

Marital naming has become yet another way in which Americans’ lives diverge along lines of politics and education. Among conservative Republican women, 90 percent took their husbands’ name, compared with 66 percent of liberal Democrats, Pew found. Eighty-three percent of women without a college degree changed their names, while 68 percent of those with a postgraduate degree did.

The women who keep their names are likely to be older when they marry, research shows, and to have established careers and high incomes. They have invested in “making their name” professionally, said Claudia Goldin, an economist studying gender at Harvard who co-wrote a paper with that title with Maria Shim.

People are marrying later than in previous generations, and highly educated people are more likely to marry. That would suggest that more women would be keeping their names, said Sharon Sassler, a sociologist at Cornell who studies young people’s transitions into adulthood.

“However, we adjust to the gender norms of our time, which, ‘Barbie’ notwithstanding, is not a very pro-feminist time period,” she said.

Also, she said, weddings are a time of highly gendered traditions: “I don’t think a lot of women want to talk about, ‘How is marriage a patriarchal institution?’ especially as they’re making the decision to enter into marriage.”

Some younger women say the decision has become more practical than political — they find it easier to have the same name as their future children, and to simplify dinner reservations or utility bills.

Immigrants to the United States and Black and Hispanic women are less likely to take a spouse’s name. Eighty-six percent of white women did, Pew found, compared with 73 percent of Black women and 60 percent of Hispanic women. (It is customary to keep one’s name in many Spanish-speaking countries.) There were not enough Asian American women in the sample to analyze.

When Olivia Castor, 28, a corporate lawyer in Chicago, married three weeks ago, she decided to take both routes. She is in the process of legally changing her last name to that of her husband, Austin McNair, but she will continue to use Castor professionally.

Left- Austin McNair and Olivia Castor at their August wedding in Chicago. She is changing her name to his, but will continue to use Castor professionally.Credit...Candace Sims Photography

Right-Her parents, Aliette and Osner Castor, at their 1990 wedding, after they immigrated from Haiti. She took his name, as is traditional in both Haiti and the United States.Credit...via Olivia Castor

She is the daughter of Haitian immigrants, and wanted to keep her Haitian last name and honor her family’s role in her education and career success.

“It meant a lot to me to have that family name, a legacy of accomplishment in the U.S., and I didn’t want to let go of that,” she said. “But I also wanted to embrace the new life and family I’m starting with my husband.”

Pew’s findings, from a poll of 2,740 married people, conducted in April, are consistent with other data showing that roughly 20 percent of women have kept their names since the practice took hold in the 1970s. But it’s hard to know how it’s changed over time because there has been so little research on it. (It’s seen as a “women’s issue,” and thus “not seen as valuable by people who fund research,” said Laurie Scheuble, a professor emeritus at Penn State who co-wrote a paper on name changing in 2012.)

Pew’s survey did not include enough same-sex couples to draw conclusions. Some said that because of the lack of a tradition, same-sex couples felt freer in their choice.

For Rosemary and Christena Kalonaros-Pyle — who work in marketing in New York and celebrated their July marriage with 115 family members and friends in Mexico — the solution was to hyphenate.

“We wanted to both have the same last name as our children would have, just because legally it’s a lot more prudent, especially as a same-sex couple, where in certain states and certain countries things are recognized differently,” Rosemary Kalonaros-Pyle said.

They also wanted to keep her Greek last name — and honor the last name of Christena Kalonaros-Pyle’s father, who died before her wife could meet him.

“It was a little bit of legal logistics,” she said, “and a little bit of emotions.”

URL
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/12/upshot/maiden-names-change.html

What last name did you give your children? Some families break with tradition when it comes to their children’s last names. Please share your story. (The Times won’t quote you or refer to your submission in a story before talking to you first.) Email the reporter on this story, Claire Cain Miller.
mailto:ccm@nytimes.com?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

MY THOUGHTS

Well, beyond the limited scope of the statistical graphic, it displays with the small count of women, heterosexual women, a simple truth. Three ways: Black women are the highest in sharing a last name. Mestizo+mulatto women are highest in keeping their own name. White women are highest in changing to thier husbands name. That shows three different approaches to males. They are all women but they are not the same. In AALBC forums, many have suggested that black men are being emasculated but based on this simple graphic i argue it is mestizo or mulatto men who are being emasculated. But said people in AALBC or media folk who chime  a similar tool say nothing. To me the answer is far simpler, couples need to talk to each other and know each other's honest opinions. The problem is many people don't communicate in the relationships they are in. they perform sexual or financial acts or perform public displays but rarely talk to each other in the way a relationship needs. 

I admit, I don't know how she will do in government for she has no experience in government. But I wish her well as vice president of Colombia. Government is complicated and all too often nasty absent the media's view. but I am happy for Francia Márquez, but especially the larger Black community in South America. The reality is, even though Black people from the usa dominate the identity of Black Americans the truth is, from Ecuador to Bahia, is a much larger population of black people than in North America or the Caribbean. My only concern for Black people in South America is their dangerous mirroring of Black North Americans in government affairs. I realize Francia Marquez is in that line but I hope she learns the lessons of Black people in the Caribbean the center of the american continent or Black people in North America... don't be silly. Take this opportunity to lead Black people in colombia and greater south america with wisdom with focus with efficiency with community with collectivity, even while peaceful or nonviolent. Don't mirror the likes of Kamala Harris, the likes of Barrack Obama, the likes of John Lewis, the likes of maxine waters, the likes of corey booker , the likes of eric adams, the likes adrienne adams, the likes of Clarence Thomas, the likes of Colin Powell, the likes of condoleeza rice, please don't mirror the likes of all the Black charlatans in government in North America or elsewhere like Nelson Mandela in South Africa.  Think on Black people , plan for Black people, like Winnie Mandela, like Malcolm X, like Jean Jacques Dessalines, like Adam Clayton Powell jr, like Shirley Chisholm. 

Gustavo Petro is Colombia's first leftist leader
Gustavo Petro, a former rebel and a longtime legislator, won Colombia's presidential election Sunday, galvanizing voters frustrated by decades of poverty and inequality under conservative leaders
 
BY JULIE TURKEWITZ

BOGOTÁ, Colombia — For the first time, Colombia will have a leftist president. Gustavo Petro, a former rebel and a longtime legislator, won Colombia’s presidential election Sunday, galvanizing voters frustrated by decades of poverty and inequality under conservative leaders, with promises to expand social programs, tax the wealthy and move away from an economy he has called overly reliant on fossil fuels.

His victory sets the third-largest nation in Latin America on a sharply uncertain path, just as it faces rising poverty and violence that have sent record numbers of Colombians to the United States border; high levels of deforestation in the Colombian am*zon, a key buffer against climate change; and a growing distrust of key democratic institutions, which has become a trend in the region.

Petro, 62, received more than 50% of the vote, with more than 99% counted Sunday evening. His opponent, Rodolfo Hernández, a construction magnate who had energized the country with a scorched-earth anti-corruption platform, won just over 47%.

Shortly after the vote, Hernández conceded to Petro.

“Colombians, today the majority of citizens have chosen the other candidate,” Hernández said. “As I said during the campaign, I accept the results of this election.”

Petro took the stage Sunday night flanked by his vice-presidential pick, Francia Márquez, and three of Petro’s children. The packed stadium went wild, with people standing on chairs and holding phones aloft.

“This story that we are writing today is a new story for Colombia, for Latin America, for the world,” Petro said. “We are not going to betray this electorate.”

He pledged to govern with what he has called “the politics of love,” based on hope, dialogue and understanding.

Just over 58% of Colombia’s 39 million voters turned out to cast a ballot, according to official figures.

The victory means that Márquez, an environmental activist who rose from poverty to become a prominent advocate for social justice, will become the country’s first Black vice president.

Petro and Márquez’s victory reflects an anti-establishment fervor that has spread across Latin America, exacerbated by the pandemic and other long-standing issues, including a lack of opportunity.

“The entire country is begging for change,” said Fernando Posada, a Colombian political scientist, “and that is absolutely clear.”

In April, Costa Ricans elected to the presidency of Rodrigo Chaves, a former World Bank official and political outsider, who took advantage of widespread discontent with the incumbent party. Last year, Chile, Peru and Honduras voted for leftist leaders running against candidates on the right, extending a significant, multiyear shift across Latin America.

As a candidate, Petro had energized a generation that is the most educated in Colombian history, but is also dealing with 10% annual inflation, a 20% youth unemployment rate and a 40% poverty rate. His rallies were often full of young people, many of whom said they feel betrayed by decades of leaders who had made grand promises but delivered little.

“We’re not satisfied with the mediocrity of past generations,” said Larry Rico, 23, a Petro voter at a polling station in Ciudad Bolívar, a poor neighborhood in Bogotá, the capital.

Petro’s win is all the more significant because of the country’s history. For decades, the government fought a brutal leftist insurgency known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, with the stigma from the conflict making it difficult for a legitimate left to flourish.

But the FARC signed a peace deal with the government in 2016, laying down their arms and opening space for a broader political discourse.

Petro had been part of a different rebel group, called the M-19, which demobilized in 1990 and became a political party that helped rewrite the country’s constitution. Eventually, Petro became a forceful leader in the country’s opposition, known for denouncing human rights abuses and corruption.

On Sunday, in a wealthy part of Bogotá, Francisco Ortiz, 67, a television director, said he had also voted for Petro.

“It’s been a long time since we had an opportunity like this for change,” he said. “If things will get better, I don’t know. But if we stick with the same, we already know what we’re going to get.”

The win could also test the United States’ relationship with its strongest ally in Latin America. Traditionally, Colombia has formed the cornerstone of Washington’s policy in the region.

But Petro has criticized what he calls the United  States’ failed approach to the drug war, saying it has focused too much on eradication of the coca crop, the base product in cocaine, and not enough on rural development and other measures.

Petro has said that he embraces some form of drug legalization, that he will renegotiate an existing trade deal with the United States to better benefit Colombians and that he will restore relations with the authoritarian government of president Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, all of which could create conflict with the United States.

About 2 million Venezuelan migrants have fled to Colombia in recent years amid an economic, political and humanitarian crisis.

Petro believes the economic system is broken, overly reliant on oil export and a flourishing and illegal cocaine business that he said has made the rich richer and poor poorer. He is calling for a halt to all new oil exploration, and a shift to developing other industries.

He has also said he will introduce guaranteed work with a basic income, move the country to a publicly controlled health system and increase access to higher education, in part by raising taxes on the rich.

“What we have today is the result of what I call ‘the depletion of the model,’ ” Petro said in the interview this year, referring to the current economic system. “The end result is a brutal poverty.”

His ambitious economic plan has, however, raised concerns. One former finance minister called his energy plan “economic suicide.”

Petro's critics, including former allies, have accused him of arrogance that leads him to ignore advisers and struggle to build consensus. When he takes office in August, he will face a deeply polarized society where polls show growing distrust in almost all major institutions.

He has vowed to serve as the president of all Colombians, not just those who voted for him.

On Sunday, at a high school-turned-polling station in Bogotá, Ingrid Forrero, 31, said she saw a generational divide in her community, with young people supporting Petro and older generations in favor of Hernández.

Her own family calls her the “little rebel” because of her support for Petro, whom she said she favors because of his policies on education and income inequality.

“The youth is more inclined toward revolution,” she said, “toward the left, toward a change.”

©2019 New York Times News Service

https://www.forbesindia.com/article/news/gustavo-petro-is-colombias-first-leftist-leader/77421/1

IN AMENDMENT
Odd how I read this in the new york times, but the exact article is elsewhere online. why is the times online article user blocked. I guess they are making money off of subscribing and the delay from their website to the larger web
 

A Guest asked the following, I placed my reply  in this same post postfix. 

GRAPHIC LINK

LINK

What Did We Really Gain? - Culture, Race & Economy - AALBC.com’s Discussion Forums

He asked two questions

1) what did we really gain?

2) what influence to other black people is the intimate relations of Black people who are fiscally wealthy or in potent/heavily viewed places in government AND why are black people in said categories not regaled or desiring black only relations?

I will start with the first.

I don't know who the we is he refered to specifically. But, if by we, he meant the Black community in the USA, I present the following answer to his question.

As I define the Black community in the usa, which is not analagous to every black person on earth, let alone the usa, We gained nothing. 

But comprehend it isn't a phenotypical speciality.

Individual achievements are not collective achievements. For example, one white man didn't enslave black people. The White community in humanity enslaved the Black community in humanity.  In parallel, former mayor bloomberg of NYC is jewish. But, the same jewish women in NYC who complained about being abused by jewish men before his mayorlty, complained during his mayorlty and after. 

Individual achievements are individual. The only thing communal from individual achievements is inspirations. 

Other Black individuals have been inspired by Barack Obama who became president/Colin Powell who became head of the joint chiefs/condoleeza rice who became secretary of state/Clarence Thomas who became a supreme court judge and yes, if appointed <which i think she will be>or not <merely for being the first black female candidate>,  Ketanji Brown Jackson.  But, gain is not inspiration. 

When a person says, I was inspired by a forebears activities that isn't gain. When a person says, i inherited from said forebears, that is gain.

To the second... 

his posts details is not related to the title. 

I will break up the second question into three questions. 

A)What influence do intimate relations have to others in a village?

B)What had or is hindering Black on Black relationships , making people not good enough to each other?

C)What is the philosophical disconnect between black people in government to the black community, in the usa? 

Answers

A) Human beings have the right to desire whatever philosophy comes to mind, sequentially, any relationship that is in opposition to that philosophy is negative. If a black man or woman feels Black people need to only be with other Black people, then a marriage between a black person side a white person is in opposition. The greater question is, what does the black person who is opposed to miscegenation do? Murder is against the law. Assault is against the law. Now, the philosophy is not against the law. An idea is to make it into law, or go somewhere where it can be made into law, as the usa has a legal system that naturally opposes opposing individual activities that are not inherently criminal. So, people can dislike the pairing of two individuals, this is very human. I have personally seen many negative reactions to miscegenation in various racial context in NYC: religious<jew/muslim>, phenotype <black/white>, geographic<dominican/puerto rican> and if it can happen in NYC, then many other places well, I arrest my case. But, the question isn't whether you feel impotent by a relationship you don't want to see, but what are you going to do about it.

B> Nothing is the answer.  one of the great lies in modern humanity is the threat of miscegenation taking over any group. The truth is, most villages: black/white/muslim/asian/latino/ango/african/european/christian/atheis/vegan tend to marry in themselves by a clear majority. Anita told Maria to stick with your own kind, but in truth, most people do in the entirety of human history. And even though the usa offers a protection, a legal protection, or a cultural destigmatization through its media apparatus to miscegenation, it was, is , and never will be a common thing. Now do elected or appointed officials, deemed Black, at certain locals in the USA federal government have common ways that are uncommon among black people? yes. But, is that a problem or is that a reality? If you accept that the usa is a white country, then it isn't a problem. A white country will not allow Black individuals who don't fit accepted philosophies to ascend into certain offices.

C) Humanity has a problem, it is very old, very common, and is based on the lack of organization in communities or villages in general. I will explain.

The average person in the USA will say they are american, a proper label being statian. Americans are from canada to argentina. Now, the question is simple, if the over 300 million people in the usa is a village, is their one tribe. A tribe isn't a village. The STatian village has the black tribe, the white tribe, the native tribe , the female tribe, the christian, most are part of multiple tribes, but each tribe has its houses. the black tribe has the financial black elite house, the fiscal poor house, the black soldiers house , the black christian house, the black female house, and et cetera. and in each house are rooms. 

but what is the problem. When a person is in a position of power what will their actions reflect? Will they reflect the combined erratic philosophy of the village or the complex philosophy of their tribe or thelattice of the house or the rigid of their room or the simplistic of self? 

Sometimes a person's philosophy fits that of a house, like Hitler in germany. No his philosophy did not fit all germany. But it fit the working class plus poor christian tribes in Germany. Yes, majority exists in villages/tribes/houses. The USA was founded by enslavers, but the legal code stated the legal system defends the identity or safety of the individual over house/tribe/village. Now what does this have to do with black people in the usa. When the war between the states ended, as in all other times, many Black leaders existed. The Black leaders who prevailed were all financed by whites, all had a philosophy that was nonviolent in nature or individual in function. 

Frederick Douglass side the black religious groups were the biggest leaders in the Black community in the usa at the end of the war between the states. The Black Churches nor Douglass wanted a Black state in the usa or some segregatory standing to whites in the usa /a black exodus to somewhere else/a black war against whites for revenge. this doesn't mean millions of black people were opposed to that. Nat Turner was a real person, lived at the same time as Frederick Douglass. But, the most well financed Black leaders, were those who believe in Black Individualism. What is Black Individualism? It is very simple, it says, the Black community in the USA, or the world, grows when each or every individual in it grows. TO restate, if every Black person starts a business or starts another business till they succeed with a solid firm, then the black community is doing great. And it didn't require a specific organizational model or strict adherence by each individual to a code or creed. 

What are the advantages of Black individualism? it needs no central organization or leader or judgement board. A Black woman can marry a white man or a Black man can marry a white woman and succeed in Black individualism by being a supreme court judge regardless of their legal opinions or standings. A Mulatto can deem himself Black and marry a Black woman and succeed in Black Individualism by becoming president of the USA with the purpose of helping all in the USA. Black individualism doesn't concern with how the individual relates to the community, it concerns with how the individual relates to self. A Black woman can be unmarried and a billionaire and succeed in Black Individualism regardless of her activities in the Black community, ala Oprah Winfrey. 

Now, Frederick Douglass who had white female mistresses, was a huge believer in Black Individualism. As a subset of Individualsim, Black Individualism suggests, regardless of a communities/villages/tribes situation, the individualism is still valid. So, even though Black children were being burned alive, black women were being hung while pregnant, Black towns were being annihilated and looted by whites, black elected officials in the USA led by the guidance of Black churches or Black leaders like Frederick DOuglass didn't say, war of revenge/segregate or other philosophies, I mentioned. They said, Black Individualism and support the legal system of the USA which defends individualism at its core. Thus, the Black community in the usa for over 150 years has been led by Black Individualists. Sometimes you get communalists like Malcolm or Garvey or Nat Turner but the majority of Black people in the USA are individualists, not communalists. Remember, it isn't that Black Individualists don't want betterment for all Black people. But, they plan that betterment through each individual life supported by a legal code, not activities requiring the combined village or parts of the village in circled about its own code. Is it wrong or right? good or bad? neither in either question. The only valuable question is, is it functional? To reword, is it working?

If you are honests and look at the Black community in the USA, the answer is yes based on the philosophy. This is why it is important to view things from the angle of a  tribe. A Black Nationalists will say it isn't working. But why? Black Nationalists demands things to be created by Black people. Sequentially, using a white created legal system/being in positions in a white made government, go against the nature of Black Nationalists. As all Nationalists are looking to to be part of things, their particular race creates. But Black Individuals don't plan through communal action. It isn't the Nation of Islam which is a group led through a leader, or Back to Africa which is a segregatory agreement by all in it. Black Individualism, like all individualism,  goes against the individual acting as leader for any group. Black Individualism goes against accepting any creed or code as a collective standard to any group. Black Individualism supports the individual's gain. The only relationship to others is inspiration. even if it is dislike. So for example, if a Black person left the USA after BArack Obama became president to a Black country, Black country defined as a country where most humans are in the phenotypical range commonly called Black, Black Individualism accepts the act cause that is the individuals wish/activity, even if the person left cause they are a Black Militant and want Black people to have an offensive , violent, abusive, or militaristically potent stance towards non Blacks. Barrack Obama's presidency to a Black Militant is sinful, against their being. But, even if the Black Militant acts from their philosophy, Black Individualists support their actions as individuals while opposing their communal mantra. 

Finally, the elected leaders in the USA are usually/mostly, Black Individualists. They don't see their legal impotency to Black communal growth as not helping the Black community cause they don't see Black communal action as the way to help the Black community. It isn't Black man starts business to help black people. It is Black man starts business to own a great business. All other Black Individuals can thus do the same, regardless of restrictions/boundaries/limitations or any other negative. 

Again, is it right or wrong? neither. Is it good or bad? neither. 

All have to choose their tribe in the village. The only true question is what will you do to hold true to your tribe.