It is time to question an accepted social practice that is in fact quite unacceptable， and in our time more than repellent. Why is a woman expected to change her name when she marries？
　　Historically， the use of a single name for most people became confusing with the growth of population， and so grew the practice of adding a last name. The last name was based on trade， such as Smith or Taylor； on location， the village or town one came from； and on lineage1， the chosen family name. In the 9th century， English common law developed the doctrine of coverture2， which became standard practice in the western world： A woman at birth is“covered” by her father and after marriage is “covered” by her husband. The latter meant her legal identity merged with her husband’s. Perhaps submerged was the more appropriate term， because coverture implied that only the husband could vote， hold property or go to court.
　　This absurd legal fiction3 provides the basis for the widespread practice of a woman having to shed her name and take on the last name of her husband when she marries. The absurdity scales new heights now that women are marrying late and meanwhile acquiring academic degrees， professional qualifications and senior-level work experience in their own names. As the price of her wedded bliss4， a woman must undergo the painful exercise of abandoning her identity， legally change all her licenses and certificates， and notify her employer， lawyer， doctor， and all other contacts. In an age of Google and LinkedIn， this represents a huge handicap and a staggering5 professional disadvantage.
　　Why should she have to do this？ Forego the identity， history， and reputation she has developed over 20 or 30 years？
　　In many countries， there were invidious6 laws precluding women from getting a driver’s permit or voting right if they did not adopt their husbands’ name. In the latter half of the 20th century， several such laws were repealed and married women were able to hold property in their name. Yet a small percentage of women， 20 per cent by a Google survey and a smaller one by other surveys， choose to retain their original name. Predictably， the older the brides， with higher educational and professional accomplishments， the greater the probability of their retaining their pristine7 name.
　　Names are important； everybody senses that. When anybody asks， “Who are you？” you respond with your name. Boys and girls get names equally when they are born， typically with their fathers’ surname. Boys retain theirs their entire life. Girls are expected to relinquish theirs after decades， along with their sense of identity and self-pride， the moment they get married. Given the enormous social pressure， this is falsely regarded as a matter of choice. It is even given a spurious8 romantic glow， as if the bride is somehow being magically folded into her husband’s personality and family. While boys will have just names， girls will be forced to carry the dual burden of a maiden9 name and a married name. 　　The sexist bias of the naming convention becomes obvious when one considers the reasons why people change names. I know of people who have changed their names because they considered the names ugly or oldfashioned. I also know of two who changed their names to repudiate10 their link with abusive parents. Despite my misgiving11， my wife changed her last name， because she said few of her friends or classmates could correctly spell or pronounce her complicated Nordic surname. But I don’t know of a single husband who changed his name at the time of his wedding， the sole exception being a colleague who， along with his wife， chose to get their surnames hyphenated12.
　　The naming convention at a wedding is plainly not a matter of free choice. It is simply a matter of power play. Hamilton， Geist and Powell’s 2011 study， cited in Gender and Society， shows 50 per cent of Americans think adoption of the husband’s name should be mandatory for wives. In sharp contrast is a Hallet survey in Huffington Post showing 33 per cent of Americans believe husbands should not be allowed to take their wives’ name.
　　When names are not changed after marriage， it is to be expected that when people meet the bride for the first time they will address her as Mrs. X， using the husband’s last name， or when they meet the husband initially may say Mr. Y， using the wife’s last name. That hardly qualifies as a great social disaster， and foreseeably such errors will be less common in a short period.
　　Then there is the odious13 but ever-present prospect of divorce. Given its soaring rates in major cities， the idea that women must change their names every time they take a new partner is farcical14. They should retain their names instead of changing them after their rotating-door15 spouses.

　　The recalcitrants’ blowback is even easier to surmise if one broaches the theme of children’s name.16 Even where the wife has been allowed to retain her name， it would be nothing short of sacrilegious17 to suggest that the children should carry her last name instead of the husband’s. The wife， who carries the baby， is its primary caregiver in its childhood and adolescence， and bears the overwhelming share of all responsibility for rearing the child， at the cost of her education， career and often health， is not permitted to pass her name to the child. In the entire family， the mother is the only person with a different last name， the goose among the swans. 　　As a practical matter， there are simple solutions： The children can have their parents’ last names hyphenated or use one as a middle name. These are not common practice now， but it will change with time. How well a family’s members blend， how much they feel a part of the same entity has little to do with what last names they use.
　　What last name the children will have is a question that can wait. What cannot wait is a decided strike for equality， in the form of women retaining their name after marriage. A hyphenated name just doesn’t hack it， especially if the husband’s surname is the last item in the hyphenated name. It is time to let go of a perverse18 sexist relic of a social practice and start living in the twenty-first century.
　　是时候质疑一个广为接受的社会习俗了，事实上这种习俗是十分不可接受的，而且在我们这个时代相当令人厌恶。为什么女人要在结婚时随夫姓？
　　从历史上来说，随着人口增长，大多数人使用单名很容易弄混，因此才有了添加姓氏的做法。姓氏曾基于职业，如史密斯（铁匠）或泰勒（裁缝）；基于地点，比如某人出生的村庄或城镇；以及基于世系，即祖先选择的家族姓氏。9世纪时，英国普通法发展出已婚女性法律身份的从属原则，这成了西方世界的标准做法：一位女性出生时其法律身份从属于父亲，婚后则从属于丈夫。后者意味着她的法律身份与其丈夫合并。也许“淹没”才是更合适的说法，因为从属意味着只有丈夫可以投票、拥有财产或是出席法庭。
　　这种荒谬的法律拟定为女性结婚时不得不丢弃本名并冠之以丈夫姓氏的广泛做法提供了基础。由于如今女性结婚较晚，同时以本名获得学位、专业认证和资深人士工作经验，这种做法的荒谬程度达到了新的高度。作为幸福婚姻的代价，女性必须经历放弃自我身份的痛苦，在法律上更改她所有的执照和证书，并且告知她的雇主、律师、医生和所有其他联系人。在谷歌与领英的时代，这代表着巨大的障碍和惊人的职业阻碍。
　　为何她必须这样做？放弃自己在二三十年来获得的身份、经历和名誉？
　　在许多国家，有一些不得人心的法律禁止不随夫姓的女性获得驾照或者投票权。20世纪下半叶，有些这类法律被废除，已婚女性能够以本名持有财产。然而，只有一小部分女性（谷歌的一项调查结果显示只有20%，而其他调查结果显示还不到20%）选择保留本名。可以预见的是，新娘年纪越大，教育水平和专业成就越高，她们保留本名的可能性就越大。
　　名字很重要；这一点人人都知道。当有人问“你是谁？”时，你会以你的名字回应。男孩和女孩刚出生取名时是平等的，通常冠以父亲的姓氏。男孩一辈子都能保留他们的名字。女孩则被期望在几十年后结婚的那一刻放弃自己的名字，放弃自己的身份与自尊。考虑到巨大的社会压力，这被错误地视为一个选择的问题，甚至被赋予了虚假的浪漫光辉，仿佛新娘被神奇地叠入了她丈夫的人格与家庭之中。虽然男孩的名字就只是名字，但女孩则不得不承担婚前名和婚后名的双重负担。

　　当人们考虑改名的原因时，命名惯例的性别偏见就变得明显了。我知道有些人改名是因为觉得自己的名字难听或是老套。我还知道有两个人通过改名与虐待自己的父母断绝联系。尽管我有些疑虑，但我妻子改了姓，因为她说没有几个朋友、同学可以正确地拼写或是读出她复杂的北欧姓氏。但我没有听说过有哪位丈夫在结婚时改名的，唯一的例外是有一位同事选择与他的妻子联姓。
　　结婚的命名惯例显然不是自由选择的问题。这只是一个权力游戏的问题。《性别与社会》引用的汉密尔顿、盖斯特与鲍威尔2011年的一项研究表明，50%的美国人认为对于妻子来说，随夫姓应该是强制的。与此形成鲜明对比的是，《赫芬顿邮报》登载的哈利特的调查显示，33%的美国人认为不应允许丈夫随妻姓。
　　如果婚后没有改名，可以预想当人们第一次见新娘时，他们会以丈夫的姓氏称其X夫人，又或者当他们初次与丈夫见面时可能会以妻子的姓氏称其Y先生。这谈不上是重大的社会灾难，而且可以预见，这种错误在一小段时间后就不会常见了。
　　然后是虽然可憎但永远存在的离婚的可能性。鉴于大城市离婚率飙升，女性每次再婚必须改名简直荒唐可笑。她们应该保留本名，而不是随着换了一个又一个的配偶更名。
　　如果提起孩子的名字，不难推测那些顽固派的反击。即使妻子被允许保留本名，但若说孩子应该随母姓而非随父姓则近乎亵渎。妻子以自身的教育、职业和健康为代价，怀胎十月，是孩子童年和青春期的主要照顾者，承担着抚养孩子的绝大部分责任，却不允许将她的名字传给孩子。在整个家庭中，母亲是唯一一个姓氏不同的人，如同天鹅中的鹅。
　　从实际角度来说，有一些简单的解决方案：孩子们可以同时使用父母双方的姓氏或者使用一个作为中间名。这些做法现在并不常见，但随着时间推移情况会有改变。一个家的家庭成员有多和睦，他们是否感觉是一家人，与他们使用的姓氏几乎没有关系。
　　孩子跟谁姓这个问题还可以再等等；不能等的是要坚决争取平等，即女性婚后保留本名。双姓并不能解决问题，特别是如果丈夫的姓氏放在雙姓的最后。是时候摒弃一个带有性别歧视的社会陋习，开始活在21世纪了。
　　1. lineage： 血统，世系。
　　2. coverture： （受丈夫保护的）已婚妇女的法律身份（或状态）。
　　3. legal fiction： 法律拟定，指法律事务上为权宜计在无真实依据情况下所作的假定。
　　4. bliss： 幸福，极乐。
　　5. staggering： 难以置信的，令人震惊的。
　　6. invidious： 招致不满的，激起怨恨的。
　　7. pristine： 原始状态的，早期的。
　　8. spurious： 伪造的，欺骗性的。
　　9. maiden： 未婚的。
　　10. repudiate： 与……断绝关系。
　　11. misgiving： 疑虑，担心。
　　12. hyphenate： 用连字符连接。
　　13. odious： 可憎的，令人讨厌的。
　　14. farcical： 滑稽的，闹剧性的。
　　15. rotating-door： 旋转门。
　　16. recalcitrant： 顽抗者，不服从的人；broach： 开始讨论，提出（尤指令人不快的话题）。
　　17. sacrilegious： 渎神的，不敬的。
　　18. perverse： 不合常理的，有悖常情的。