Adoption of surname by married women

Name

Institution
1. Why are women still very likely to change their surname after getting married?

Historically, Why do social pressures on name changing after marriage differ between women

and men?

Western women tend to have more pressure to adopt the surname when they are married and

the practice has a deep historical origin and has been adopted worldwide. In the recent years,

feminist have been attracted towards the practice and has become important for The scholars to

understand the reason why the practice continues to be endorsed despite the fight against female

gender discrimination. According to Robnett, Wertheimer & Tenenbaum (2018), there is the

likelihood of people holding certain characteristics on women who do not adopt their husband’s

surname when they get married. Another reason for this is also that there is a stereotype for

husbands who also have their wives adopt their surnames. An example given by Robnett,

Wertheimer & Tenenbaum (2018) was that of Hillary Clinton, her failure to adopt her husband’s

first name was negatively affecting her husband’s political career due to the stereotypes towards the

men who have their spouses adopt their Surname. The action of Hillary Clinton is a testimony of

the way adopting surname by wife affects the social perception of the husband.

Traditionally, and historically, heterosexual unions have continued the practice of adopting

their husband’s surname, however, many publications have found out that most of the traditions are

influenced by the fact that men need to influence their women. The tradition of women adopting

their husbands' names started at the fundamental rights at the same time were seen as their

husband’s property. The practice continued rill today, legally married couples are allowed to adopt

their husbands' names. The adoption of a surname is strongly preferred by women in relationships,

the practice has however received criticism for making women lose their identity and the

professional ramification of losing identity.

 Women are also likely to change their surnames due to the expectations of society, as a

result, women tend to take their husbands' names due to their husband’s preferences. For example

in the UK, women changed their surnames as a result of their husband’s wishes. Most women are

therefore likely to change their surnames in response to their husband’s preference that is

communicated implicitly or explicitly.

The pressure on name changing is different between men and women after marriage, the

ladies that retain their original names after marriage, their men are perceived negatively by the

society, this means that their husbands are perceived negatively as lacking masculine attributes

associated with men. This is also because men are required to be masculine and are more required

to conform to social pressure, men’s insistence on the alignment to these pressures makes them

persuade their women to change their surname. The pressure is also more on women since parents

need to stop confusing kids when they grow up. Children could be asking why they cannot adopt

their mother’s surname when they have been named after the father, even when children adopt keep

woman’s surname, it gets lost in the later generations, this may be a motivation for women to give

in to the surnames. Surnames are also important to society especially in determining if the husband

is playing roles in the way women make choices. This means that women cannot make these

decisions in a vacuum, their men have roles to play when it comes to adopting surnames. Women

who do not adopt surnames face a lot of scrutiny when they make their decisions than the women

who adopt their husband’s surnames. This is important for the woman’s standing in society.
2. People often incorrectly attribute differences in female and male â typical behaviour as

being entirely: nature (biological influences like hormones) or nurture (socialization,

parenting, education). According to Eagly and Wood (2013), why does the "interactionist"

approach (that nature and nurture both have an impact) receive less media attention?

Compare this perspective with what your textbook states on the matter.

The interactionist approach gets less attention in the debate of nature and nature as they

impact the behavior of both men and women, nature versus nurture is one of the oldest debates.

Nature is used to refer to the hereditary and genetic factors that have affected who we are as

individuals, from the individual’s personality traits to physical appearance. Nurture means the

surrounding variables that have an impact on whom we are, and this includes our childhood

experiences, the way men and women are raised, nurture also includes the surrounding culture and

social expectations. Different branches of psychology have taken different perspectives, biological

psychology stresses the contribution of nature such as biological influence and genetics, at the same

time, behaviorism stresses the contribution of someone’s environment on his behavior.

The past debates were always in the relative contribution of nature versus nature, with one

side of the debate being pro-nature while on the other side arguing that nature played the most

important role. Today, the experts have identified that both play an important role, the two also

interact in important ways in shaping human traits (Eagly & Wood, 2013). The nature debate was

supported by Plato who was the first person to suggest that human traits are inborn and they occur

regardless of the environmental factors. The advocates of this belief that most traits in humans are

inborn and are handed down from parents, and this makes every individual unique, this school of

thought was very popular during the philosophical era. John Locke opposed this approach by

stating that human life begins in a blank state and every knowledge is determined by experience.

The two schools of thought are popular because they have been debated since medieval times,
interactionist has been around for a lesser time when compared to the two, making it a less popular

approach to understanding human behavior.

The interactionist believes that there is an interaction between hereditary and environment.

An example was given by Blazer & Hernandez (2006) showed that the ability to detect pitch run in

some families and they tended to be associated with a given gene. On the other hand, the author

explained having the gene does not amount to developing the ability to detect pitch, there is a need

for early training, which is necessary for an individual to fully inherit the ability and for the ability

to manifest itself (Blazer & Hernandez, 2006). The fact that interactionists are new to the debate

makes them less exposed to the media.

Works Cited

Blazer, D. G., & Hernandez, L. M. (Eds.). (2006). Genes, behavior, and the social environment:
Moving beyond the nature/nurture debate.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature-nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in
understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 340-
357.

Robnett, R. D., Wertheimer, M., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2018). Does a woman’s marital surname
choice influence perceptions of her husband? An analysis focusing on gender-typed traits
and relationship power dynamics. Sex Roles, 79(1), 59-71.