Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Magically Ridiculous ([info]staroverthebay) wrote in [info]unfunnybusiness,
@ 2009-11-04 18:05:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:sure we don't need no feminism

more marriage-tradition fail
(was pointed to this by a member of my f-list on my LJ.)


So, a "study" says that 70% of Americans think a woman should take her husband's name after marriage, and of those 70%, half of them think it should be required by law. If that's not bad enough, their reasons are even more *headdesk*-inducing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2009/08/12/2009-08-12_70_percent_of_americans_.html

(emphasis mine)


What women's lib? 70 percent of Americans think women should take spouse's name after marriage

BY Rosemary Black
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, August 11th 2009, 4:33 PM


Newly minted brides should do more than vow to love their hubbies for a lifetime, say the majority of Americans. Some 70 percent of the respondents in a new study feel they should also take their spouse’s surname - and 50 percent say that it should be a legal requirement for a woman to take her spouse’s last name.

The study, presented Tuesday at the American Sociological Association’s annual meeting, was done by the Center for Survey Research at Indiana University, as reported by USA Today.

Some 815 people were asked multiple choice and open-ended questions about a variety of family and gender issues. On the issue of marital name change, the majority of respondents weighed in with a fairly conservative answer, says Laura Hamilton, Indiana University associate professor and lead study author.

“The results were surprisingly conservative,” she says. “Even though there is a general movement toward neutral language, like saying chairperson instead of chairwoman, people seemed to feel it was better for a woman to change her last name to her husband’s.”

She said that the fact that half of American thought this should be a legal requirement was also surprising.

“Americans don’t want much government intervention in family life, so for 50 percent of Americans to feel this way was interesting,” she said.

Only 5 to 10 percent of women keep the name they were born with when they marry, Hamilton says. She notes that some studies show that younger women are more likely or as likely to change their name as baby boom brides. “It’s not a straight age trend,” she said, according to USA Today.

When the respondents were asked why they felt women should change their name after the wedding, Hamilton says, “They told us that women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family. This was a reason given by many.”

Other respondents said they felt the marital name change was essential for religious reasons or as a practical matter.

They said the mailman would get confused and that society wouldn’t function as well if women did not change their name,” Hamilton says.

Americans who feel that women should take their husband’s last name also tend to be conservative in other areas, according to Hamilton.

“Asked if they thought of a lesbian couple as a family, those who believe that women should take their husband’s name are less likely to say yes,” she says. “If you’re more liberal about the name change issue, you tend to include a larger population in the definition of family.”


(nb: since when did 815 people come to represent the entire country? How is a survey with 815 people surveyed reflective of "all Americans"?)



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]the__ivorytower
2009-11-05 02:22 am UTC (link)
Wow.

Wow.

That's just... wow.

(Reply to this)


[info]spacelogic
2009-11-05 02:33 am UTC (link)
I call "bad reporting." It's like they took something they thought was sensational enough, slapped it together into an article, and failed to ask any questions about, say, demographics -- did they try to make this a representative sample? We don't know! Did they control for anything? We don't know! All we know is the bit likely to cause outrage and get attention (and, incidentally, sell papers/pageviews!)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2009-11-05 03:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]julia, 2009-11-05 04:30 am UTC

[info]frenzy
2009-11-05 02:50 am UTC (link)
Won't somebody think of the mailmen?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ladyvyola, 2009-11-05 03:24 pm UTC

[info]faultypremise
2009-11-05 03:05 am UTC (link)
Two words:

FUCK THAT.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]tez, 2009-11-05 03:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 03:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]adevyish, 2009-11-05 05:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 12:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2009-11-05 01:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ahiru, 2009-11-05 01:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bitca, 2009-11-05 04:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mummimamma, 2009-11-05 03:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bolboreta, 2009-11-05 07:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adevyish, 2009-11-05 09:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bolboreta, 2009-11-05 09:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 11:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bolboreta, 2009-11-06 01:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-06 02:48 am UTC

[info]ianthefira
2009-11-05 03:14 am UTC (link)
Uh, nice survey spread?

(Reply to this)


[info]silmaril
2009-11-05 03:25 am UTC (link)
Do we need a "you fail mathematics/statistics forever" tag? How about a "science reporting for the lose" one? Because those both crop up repeatedly in incidents that fit very well in this community...

(Reply to this)


[info]vorpal_blade
2009-11-05 03:39 am UTC (link)
women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family

When I got married I became my husband's spleen. I wanted to be his appendix, but I was afraid I'd get inflamed and have to be removed.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cyndra_falin, 2009-11-05 03:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2009-11-05 03:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 03:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2009-11-05 03:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 03:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2009-11-05 04:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-11-05 05:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ianthefira, 2009-11-05 05:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]adevyish, 2009-11-05 09:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 12:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-11-05 02:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarracenia, 2009-11-05 04:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]blankverses, 2009-11-05 04:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 04:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]blankverses, 2009-11-05 04:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]catmoran, 2009-11-05 11:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2009-11-06 12:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hallidae, 2009-11-05 03:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]finchbird, 2009-11-05 04:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]queencallipygos, 2009-11-05 04:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ianthefira, 2009-11-05 05:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]talec, 2009-11-05 08:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]adevyish, 2009-11-05 09:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]persona, 2009-11-05 04:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2009-11-05 06:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-11-05 02:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 03:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cygnia, 2009-11-05 04:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tez, 2009-11-05 04:57 am UTC

[info]kittikattie
2009-11-05 03:42 am UTC (link)
since when did 815 people come to represent the entire country?

Were they white dudes? Most of the time white dudes speak for the entire country.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]amadi, 2009-11-05 07:46 am UTC

[info]snarkhunter
2009-11-05 03:43 am UTC (link)
society wouldn’t function as well if women did not change their name

Pfft. What kind of weak-ass language is that? A friend of mine, clearly much manlier and more conservative than these [insert obligatory homophobic and misogynistic plural slur here], told me that if I didn't change my name when I married, I would bring down Western Civiliation.

Now THAT's a Real American.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2009-11-05 03:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 03:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 03:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-11-05 04:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-11-05 05:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ianthefira, 2009-11-05 05:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 12:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-11-05 02:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-11-05 02:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tetradecimal, 2009-11-05 04:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 04:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kalypsi_cat, 2009-11-05 06:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adevyish, 2009-11-05 09:16 pm UTC

[info]sandglass
2009-11-05 03:44 am UTC (link)
I've heard quite a few people say that their feminist friends started hating them for not having their husbands' names, so. . .

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2009-11-05 03:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-11-05 04:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]notjo, 2009-11-05 01:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bigbigtruck, 2009-11-05 02:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]breecita, 2009-11-07 05:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]maev_connacht, 2009-11-05 02:42 pm UTC

[info]cyndra_falin
2009-11-05 03:49 am UTC (link)
Uh...

I took my husbands last name and though I have yet to make some changes to my license and other things like that, no mailmen have become confused or disoriented when delivering my mail.

Weak argument. Next!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ealusaid, 2009-11-05 04:08 am UTC

[info]julia
2009-11-05 03:54 am UTC (link)
This is the best I could dig up. Not quite as rage inducing.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/11558.html#7

Majority of Americans say wife should change her name. Today's couples continue to struggle over whether the woman should change her name upon marriage, despite the gains women have made in the workplace and other aspects of American society since the 1970s. In a national survey, 71 percent of respondents agreed it is better for women to change their name upon marriage, with only 29 percent disagreeing. Surprisingly, respondents even split fairly evenly in their support of government regulation requiring name change. Researchers from Indiana University and University of Utah say these findings come despite a clear shift to more gender-neutral language. "The figures were a bit sobering for us because there seems to be change in so many areas. If names are a core aspect of our identity, this is important," said Brian Powell, professor of sociology at IU Bloomington. "There are all these reports and indicators that families are changing, that men are contributing more, that we're moving toward a more equal family, yet there's no indication that we're seeing a similar move to equality when it comes to names." Co-author Laura Hamilton, a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at IU Bloomington, presented findings from the study, "Mapping Gender Ideology with Views toward Marital Name Change," on Tuesday at the American Sociological Association's annual meeting. The survey, a nationally representative sample, tapped 815 people and asked both multiple choice and open-ended questions. It was part of a larger survey probing public opinion of a range of gender- and family-related topics. Somewhat contradictory, almost half the people surveyed said it would be "OK" for a man to change his name to that of his wife. But for respondents, male name change was so implausible that they off-handedly or hesitantly agreed it would be OK. For example, Powell said, one man laughed as he responded: "Sure, why not. Hey in America, anything goes!" Others said that it was OK because: "Sure, a man should be able to do it because he's a man." Advocates of women changing their names emphasize a family and marital identity for women, indicating one family name makes more sense from a family and societal point of view. They rely on religion and tradition as the authority in this area. Name change critics focus on the importance of women's independent identities and to the ways they benefit individually, such as professionally, by keeping their own name. They also think the decision should be left up to the women.

Hamilton can be reached at lauhamil@indiana.edu. Powell can be reached at powell@indiana.edu. Co-authors include Claudia Geist, professor at the University of Utah.

(Reply to this)


[info]twinno
2009-11-05 04:19 am UTC (link)
Pffft. It's the Daily News. They're just one step above the NYPost in terms of serious journalism.

(For the sake of reference, the NYPost is just above Weekly World News).

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]undomielregina, 2009-11-05 05:35 am UTC

[info]rimrunner
2009-11-05 04:20 am UTC (link)
I kept my husband's name after I married. I notice civilization hasn't ended.

I'm a bit disappointed, really. Who knew I had such power?

(Reply to this)


[info]finchbird
2009-11-05 04:32 am UTC (link)
I doubt I will change my last name the day I get married because I really like it.

I guess that means I will help destroy civilization!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]the__ivorytower, 2009-11-05 05:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]finchbird, 2009-11-05 05:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yoritomo_reiko, 2009-11-05 11:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rodo, 2009-11-05 09:35 am UTC

[info]sneer
2009-11-05 04:43 am UTC (link)
women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family

Oh HELL no.

They said the mailman would get confused and that society wouldn’t function as well if women did not change their name

and what is this I don't even I can't oh fuck it

(Reply to this)


[info]tez
2009-11-05 05:02 am UTC (link)
I legally took my (ex)husband's name when I got married -- but kept my maiden name as well. I'm not sure what that means; maybe I'm a double agent? Secretly out to destroy civilization?

I do cop to using only my married name professionally, mostly since it's short and fits on business cards very neatly.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mockygogo, 2009-11-05 06:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tez, 2009-11-05 07:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cyndra_falin, 2009-11-05 07:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tez, 2009-11-05 07:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cyndra_falin, 2009-11-05 10:17 pm UTC

[info]shadow_puppy
2009-11-05 05:13 am UTC (link)
Wow. Suddenly even more glad than I already am to be Canadian.

Where I've been married for eleven years, kept my own name, and where my husband and I agreed to let my kids have my name, because my sister and I were the last people in our entire family to carry that name. Now my son will, even if my daughter chooses to change her name.

See that? Choice. Stupid people.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]finchbird, 2009-11-05 05:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]shadow_puppy, 2009-11-05 06:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2009-11-05 09:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hallidae, 2009-11-05 05:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2009-11-05 06:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adevyish, 2009-11-05 05:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]shadow_puppy, 2009-11-05 06:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anarchicq, 2009-11-05 06:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]shadow_puppy, 2009-11-05 06:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]vorpal_blade, 2009-11-05 01:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pariforma, 2009-11-05 02:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vorpal_blade, 2009-11-05 02:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]seasleepy, 2009-11-05 03:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mummimamma, 2009-11-05 04:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pariforma, 2009-11-05 02:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]shadow_puppy, 2009-11-06 01:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladyvyola, 2009-11-05 03:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]shadow_puppy, 2009-11-06 01:33 am UTC

[info]xero_sky
2009-11-05 05:17 am UTC (link)
I changed my name after I got married, to a name neither of us had any relation to. I didn't like his name, my name sucked, a combination would have been HORRIBLE, and so I did quite a bit of reading and found something I liked.

If this pushed us all closer to the fall of Western civilization, well, I'm happy to have done my part.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2009-11-05 09:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lil_miss_stfu, 2009-11-05 01:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2009-11-05 06:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]xero_sky, 2009-11-05 03:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2009-11-05 06:49 pm UTC

[info]blue_penguin
2009-11-05 05:24 am UTC (link)
So mailmen can't handle people with different surnames living at the same address? Crap, I guess I'd better change my name to that of the guy I (platonically) share an apartment with.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]adevyish, 2009-11-05 05:44 am UTC

[info]undomielregina
2009-11-05 05:56 am UTC (link)
I changed my name because people had trouble spelling and pronouncing my name and I was tired of it -- my husband's name is a common English word. I also figured that it would mean less hassle for when we have kids, since I'll probably be the one picking them up from school and the like.

Unfortunately, this does mean that I no longer have the same name as the trickster character in folk tales where my father's family was from.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bigbigtruck, 2009-11-05 02:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-11-05 03:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]selene_avis, 2009-11-05 05:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-11-05 06:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]selene_avis, 2009-11-05 07:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-11-05 09:20 pm UTC
How To Lie with Statistics
[info]platedlizard
2009-11-05 06:30 am UTC (link)
Methinks someone read this book.

No way do 70% percent of all women think that we should change our names.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: How To Lie with Statistics - [info]issendai, 2009-11-05 03:00 pm UTC

[info]chikane
2009-11-05 07:40 am UTC (link)
(nb: since when did 815 people come to represent the entire country? How is a survey with 815 people surveyed reflective of "all Americans"?)

Err, actually, they're almost at the number reached to be able to indeed make claims like that. That is how statistics actually work. Add a few hundred people, and it'd be pretty much watertight.

Of course, if they asked, say, only 800 white males from the republican party, they'll get skewed results, but if they made even a basic attempt at randomizing, it's really sound.


The result isn't surprising, really, and sounds pretty much like what you'd expect even from a representative study. There is a huge number of the population really clinging to tradition. See, oh, gay marriage and the resistance against it. A lot of people suck.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]aaron_agonistes, 2009-11-05 08:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-11-05 11:01 am UTC

[info]inappropriate
2009-11-05 08:04 am UTC (link)
I'm kind of shocked that they think it should be a legal requirement. Although I was equally shocked that women supposedly felt they should LOSE THEIR OWN IDENTITY when they marry. Frankly, I think that sounds UNBELIEVABLY fucked up and disturbing. Why would you want to do that!?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cyndra_falin, 2009-11-05 07:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]inappropriate, 2009-11-06 07:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mary_mac, 2009-11-05 11:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]inappropriate, 2009-11-06 07:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mary_mac, 2009-11-06 07:08 am UTC

[info]bobafeis
2009-11-05 08:57 am UTC (link)
I'm withholding judgment until I actually see something describing their sample and methods. Did they not even bother to ask about hyphenated or otherwise double-barreled last names, or did the faily article just fail to mention those results? What language did they use when asking these multiple choice questions, and what were the possible selections? Was the survey internet- or phone- or mailer-based? How were those comments about confusing mailmen and women's identities being subsumed actually solicited? Were they further multiple choice questions, or were they write-ins? Was this a survey that the writers themselves ran (seems like it from the article), or was this a study of data that was generated previously for something else (some journalists don't seem to realize they should even ask this question, so you can never be sure)? Have I now asked more questions about this paper than the article writer did?

The fact that the article doesn't include any information about the methods other than 815 people and multiple-choice questions makes it seem like something hinky is going on, even for the Faily News. And 815 is a small number to generalize from unless you're renowned for your sampling techniques.

(Reply to this)



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map