Sarah Michelle Gellar has renamed herself "Sarah Michelle Prinze" as an anniversary gift to her husband, Freddie Prinze Jr. I tend to take an extreme anti-name change line for ideological reasons, but it actually seems pretty impractical for people in the entertainment business (or entertainment's less entertaining little cousin, journalism) to do it.
« Responsibility | Main | Today's Dog Bites Man Story »
The Gift of Naming
16 Nov 2007 11:01 am
Comments (67)
Personally, I think the practice is a little creepy, but it's her name and her choice to do it. If she chooses to alter it as a gesture of love, who am I to gainsay her?
Given her dearth of current acting roles, maybe she thought it was a better name than Sarah Michelle Who?
So what is the "extreme" anti-name change line? Are you in favor of actually making it illegal for women to take their husbands' last names? Stiff sanctions?
Freddie Gellar Jr?
"Sarah Michelle Gellar" was a great name for a cute but ditzy Jewish girl. "Sarah Michelle Prinze" is a drag queen name or what Paris Hilton is going to name her next chihuahua.
I tend to take an extreme anti-name change line for ideological reasons
Where do these ideological reasons lead you on the naming of children? Once you dispense with the hidebound paternalism of taking you husband's name, any of the choices for the family name of the children seem unsatisfactory. If it's the surname of only one of the parents, where's the connection to the other parent? And if it's a hyphenate, what happens in generations to come when hyphenates marry hyphenates?
I guess hyphenating was out since she already had two first names. There's no way Sarah Michelle Geller-Prinze can be just one person.
"And if it's a hyphenate, what happens in generations to come when hyphenates marry hyphenates?"
That's a question that can easily be answered by nearly any native Spanish-speaker on Earth.
it actually seems pretty impractical
Does anyone know to what "it" refers? Changing names seems harder in the entertainment industry, but the sentence--to me--suggests the opposite.
"I guess hyphenating was out since she already had two first names. There's no way Sarah Michelle Geller-Prinze can be just one person"
Then she could divorce Prize and marry Daniel Day-Lewis and become Sarah Michelle Geller-Prinze Day-Lewis.
Also kinda sad because I had thought of her as a pretty feminist actor, given her 7 years of Buffy.
What my wife and I decided was to give our children both names, but with one as the middle name and one as the last name, rather than hyphenating. Since we plan on having two children, one will have my last name and the other will have her last name. It's really not all that difficult to come up with a reasonable solution; it's ultimately not that big a deal. And her changing her name would have been its own set of hassles.
Seriously, how is the naming of children generally handled in cases without name change? I have no idea.
What it means is they'll split up in the next year or so.
"I tend to take an extreme anti-name change line for ideological reasons..."
Maybe when naming becomes an ideological issue we've become a tad too politicized?
Just a thought.
I always find it amusing that it's considered striking a blow against patriarchy for a woman, when she marries, to keep her father's name rather than take her husband's.
I really don't know why MY insists on posting about sex and gender. It brings out the idiots and misogynists as reliably as mushrooms after rain. Just wait, Sailer's going to show up soon to explain that women don't want names of their own anyway.
Novakant-
When the mother doesn't change her name, sometimes the kids get one parent's name, sometimes the others, sometimes a mix, sometimes hyphenated. It's really not that big a problem.
On the issue at hand I'm with Bat of Moon.
I'm curious about this ideological anti-name-change line, too. I assume you mean you're against other people changing their names, as opposed to changing your own name, or having a future wife change hers to match yours. Where's the ideology in that? If you can change your name to Machmoud Abdul-Rauf (I know that's misspelled, but it's still a better reference than Ali or Kareem, don't you think?), why can't you change it to match your spouse? Why it would be any of your business what somebody else's last name is?
Seriously, how is the naming of children generally handled in cases without name change? I have no idea.
IME, the default setting for children is still the paternal surname, although I've noted my objection to this when involved with men who have names either more complex/routinely butchered than my own, or ridiculously common ones (Smith, Jones, etc.) that make choosing first & middle names painful. Sometimes parent hyphenate or make one a middle name, or alternate by birth order or gender, but most non-name-changing women I know don't want to take on the battle wrt their kids' names too.
And kudos to Matt for taking a principled position on this; I wish more men a decade older than you were as rational on the topic.
I think more women are changing names because it doesn't really matter much and having one family name is easier. I never understood why guys care.
There is also a difference between your legal name and the name you actually go by. I'm sure she will still be SMG for career purposes. My wife and I have legally different names but we go by each others names in a lot of circumstances to make things easier.
My wife never legally changed her name but she tried using two last names for the first year we were married. The people she worked with were cutting it back to just my last name, so she went back to just her name.
She still uses her name, but now that we have kids, she uses my last name at school to avoid confusion about whose mother she is.
On the flip side, I go by her name in a lot of places so that people now I'm her husband -- the local chinese food place, the pizza place, the dry cleaners all refer to me as Mr. [her name].
That you are conflating journalism with entertainment concerns me greatly. Matt, I think you're slipping, we've got to get you out of the Beltway.
to keep her father's name rather than take her husband's
this - the "it's her father's name" business - is often dragged out and lots of people seem to find it persuasive for reasons I can't quite gather. I have my father's last name (I'm a guy, btw), so I guess it's not mine, but his. But it's not his, but his dad's. But it's not his, but *his* dad's. So, uhm, actually the name is mine, first because it was the name given to me and second because it's the name with which I've chosen to live my life. For this reason I'm not going to criticize individual women for changing their names, but I think it is reasonable to criticize the general practice, particularly since almost none, if any at all, American men choose to take their wife's name.
Coming from Spanish and Portuguese speaking heritages, I'm totally comfortable with name combining, and am perfectly happy with name combining in any configuration the relevant parties find aesthetically pleasing. I happen to really like my name, so I don't anticipate dropping it for any future wife (nor would I expect or desire her to do the reverse), but I wouldn't be averse to officially changing my name to a combination of mine and my wife's (my last name is short and simple - though frequently mispronounced - and thus combines smoothly).
Matthew McArdle has a nice ring to it.
The reason for name change is obvious.
Marriage.
It makes the documents, finances, and social recognition that a couple is married vs. just dating, easier - and far better for the kids.
A couple I know has issues with this - lets call her Michelle Smith and her husband of 12 years Josh Hacklemuer. She is regularly asked by new acquaintences "when" she will finally become an honest woman, by others that note her Hacklemuer kids if she is divorced, and by schools and credit firms to establish more documentation she is married.
Still bitching about how she has no right to be saddled with such hassles just for keeping her maiden name...
The way I see it is that if you're going to play on the same baseball team, you should all wear the same uniform. And personally I don't care if it's the man's or the womans last name or a hyphenated amalgam that's taken. But a nuclear family should have the same last name.
And no I don't think it should be codified into law or anything like that. Just my opinion on the matter, FWIW.
Really, how many men here know even one guy who has dropped his own name and replaced it with his wife's? How many men here know 10 men who have done that? 20? 30? Because I'm sure you know that many women.
How many people here have ever asked an engaged male friend if he intends to change his name to his wife's? Well, why didn't you? And how many of you men have ever been told you didn't really love your wife, or that you were endangering your marriage because you weren't taking her name?
And yep, if you have a career--especially one that involves any degree of high-end networking or need for public recognition--it's a freaking nightmare to change your name halfway through your career. You think "Hey, anybody want to go see the new Arnold Shriver movie?" is gonna be good for business?
SMG doesn't get any credit for portraying Joss Whedon's feminism.
"The way I see it is that if you're going to play on the same baseball team, you should all wear the same uniform. And personally I don't care if it's the man's or the womans last name or a hyphenated amalgam that's taken. But a nuclear family should have the same last name.
And no I don't think it should be codified into law or anything like that. Just my opinion on the matter, FWIW.
Posted by CKT | November 16, 2007 12:30 PM"
Echoing someone else's earlier comment, Spaniards and Latinos have been doing pretty well for centuries without this. The Chinese have never really had a social practice of changing names. A lot of South and Southeast Asians don't even really have more than one name? To sum up, this is retarded. That's also a great way to think of marriage, like playing for the Mets.
A better choice would have been Prinzess.
In any case, Buffy rules.
She should have gone the mindfuck route and changed her name to "Sarah Michelle Junior."
It's amazing how sop It's amazing how so many who claim to champion an ideology that offers people choices, and understanding for the choices they make, see fit to judge people when they make a choice other than the one the preferred. It doesn't matter what you think is stupid or not, this is someone else's life and someone else's choice.
Not to mention the fact that framing it as a 'gift' to her husband is totally creepy.
Really, how many men here know even one guy who has dropped his own name and replaced it with his wife's? - anon
I do know a couple which, upon marriage, chose a new last name for themselves (neither his nor her last name): it was an exceptional case, though. She is the type to have been "traditionally" (but c.f. Reality Man's echo of an earlier comment) minded and taken his name. But he had no attachment to his last name which was that of his father who had abandoned his family.
Of course, it was no problem for her to change her name, but he had a heckuva time changing his name: paperwork is often geared to a woman changing her name on marriage, but not a man. Especially in a state like FL.
Personally, I knew this one girl once with a really cool last name. If I were to have married her, I would have so taken her name. OTOH, she was tired of having such a long Germanic/Ashkenazic last name and was so wanting to take the last name of whomever she married. So I imagine if she found someone of my mindset, she would be Mrs. Schuster and he would be Mr. Katzenellenboegen (not the names involved, but the same idea).
Yup, it's certainly ruined Robin Wright Penn's career.
To sum up, this is retarded.
Reality Man once again lives up to his name.
Not to mention the fact that framing it as a 'gift' to her husband is totally creepy.
Yeah, that too.
I don't see what's so creepy about doing this as a gift. My friends are urban-cosmopolitan-liberal types, and I know two who have done the same thing.
This is where I advocate for Totally Whack Naming conventions:
So here it goes: you've got your personal/given name. When you're born, you get a surname, which is your parent's married name -- so, for example, John Smith, John is the personal name, Smith is the surname.
Then, if you get married, you take a middle name which is your married name. This is a name that the married couple makes up. So, John Smith marries Jane Stark. They decide that they like the name "Monet" -- maybe they're fans of the painter. They become John Monet Smith and Jane Monet Stark.
They have a kid, decide to name him Mark. He's Mark Monet. If he gets married, he'll create his own middle name.
This scheme has the following advantages: it's not sexist -- the rules are the same for men and women (in fact, it could work without modification with gay marriages or plural marriages). There's none of the odd sense that the husband and kids have one name, and the wife has another, which has always felt exclusionary to me. It doesn't require anyone to give up a name that they've identified with throughout their lives. It seems kind of sweet for a married couple to construct a name that has to do with their marriage.
This scheme has the following disadvantages: there's no continuity past a single generation, so a child will not share a name with any of his grandparents. Also, it has an approximately 0% chance of being adopted, and anyone who used it would be looked at as a freak.
But it amuses me, so I post it.
"I tend to take an extreme anti-name change line for ideological reasons, but it actually seems pretty impractical for people in the entertainment business (or entertainment's less entertaining little cousin, journalism) to do it."
Exactly. That's why even conservative female writers often keep the name that they used when they first started writing, rather than their husband's name. There is no Midge Podhoretz, Gertrude Kristol or Danielle Frum; instead we have Midge Decter, Gertrude Himmelfarb, and Danielle Crittenden.
I myself think that Alan Greenspan should change his name to Alan Mitchell, since Andrea is the primary breadwinner.
Besides, it would help the markets if Alan said we were heading a recession and traders merely scratched their heads and said
"Who the fuck's Alan Mitchell? Who cares what he thinks?"
Besides, Alan Greenspan's first wife was also named Mitchell -- JOAN Mitchell. So it's clear he has a creepy fetish about the name.
"It's amazing how so many who claim to champion an ideology that offers people choices, and understanding for the choices they make, see fit to judge people when they make a choice other than the one the preferred."
I can see that you are on the verge of understanding modern western liberalism...
Sk
My GF wants to use my last name and was actually kind of disappointed that I didn't care one way or the other whether she took my family name (I figured, it's her name so it's her call).
As for the kids, I'm going to go with one of their grand parents first names and last names from stage names from the late '70s NY punk scene. We're planning on having 2 kids, so I'm thinking David Hell, Marie Verlaine, or Gary and Jeanne Ramone depending on how the genders work out.
Really, how many men here know even one guy who has dropped his own name and replaced it with his wife's? How many men here know 10 men who have done that? 20? 30? Because I'm sure you know that many women.
I once lived with a girl who I would have changed my name for, because her name was simply a lot cooler than my dorky one. But it wasn't mean to be.
Back in the real world, I'm completely pro-choice on this issue. Other people can do whatever the heck works for them.
Really, how many men here know even one guy who has dropped his own name and replaced it with his wife's?
My brother did. I don't think it was an especially ideological decision; I think he just liked her name and the idea of a somewhat new identity. That, and the fact that he's never been particularly swayed by convention.
I really don't know why MY insists on posting about sex and gender. It brings out the idiots and misogynists as reliably as mushrooms after rain.
Good to see the speech and thought police have arrived and staked out their stance. Any suggestion from anyone that is not "ideologically" opposed to name changes is now misandry and you hate women.
I hadn't realized she was Jewish. According to the wikipedia, both her parents were Jewish though they had a Christmas tree during the "holidays."
What the fuck is up with that?
This is one of those things that is completely and absolutely arbitrary, but some people act like it's completely and absolutely an issue of natural law. Lots of cultures handle the issue differently, obviously, so I guess at the end of the day, it's finding your place in your own culture that matters.
I, for example, didn't change my name when I got married for a couple of different reasons. We have two kids--both have Mr. JMS' last name. One has my last name as a middle name because we copped out and couldn't think of a better middle name. At the school where my kids are, I'd say (from the parent directory) that a good percentage of the kids are in the same boat--probably less than I think (I've pegged it at about 50%, but I may be biased)--so there's not even an issue of people at the school being confused--they are used to that set up. I think, because Mr. JMS and I mostly operate in circles where this set up is not at all unusual, we haven't really ever had to make any accomodations, except to my mother, who doesn't quite believe our marriage is legal without the name change. The only times this ever got awkward was when people referred to him as Mr. S--which they seem to do more often than people referring to me as Mrs. L.
But I can imagine that if you deal mostly with people who feel as my mom does, it would get a lot more awkward. Again, social expectations seem to be the big factor.
I don't know if it's fair to say that Hispanophone cultures treat both names equally. My understanding is that the name combining only lasts one generation. The wife keeps her name, adds "de __" at the end, and then the children keep both for the first generation, but the husband's surname is the 'real' last name, i.e. that's the one that gets passed down to the grandchildren generation.
It's still a better system than the Anglophone one, though, since at least no one actually has to change their own name.
According to the wikipedia, both her parents were Jewish though they had a Christmas tree during the "holidays." What the fuck is up with that?
Wards off vampires.
Hector is correct in his description of the traditional Spanish naming system, but there's no reason why those rules can't be bent and adapted to a more equitable age.
Say that I went casually by the name Garcia, but in fact had both Garcia and Silva at my disposal, and I married a lady whose last names were Smith Wollensky. We should feel free to assemble the last names of our children from any grouping we find pleasing; say Garcia Wollensky. (Normally I'm against alliteration, but I also think "Smith Silva" has a nice ring to it.) On adulthood perhaps one of our children chooses to continue using both names, and the other, desirous of being associated with a fine cut of steak, decides to run with Wollensky alone; I won't be offended.
My name is a passcode?
Wasn't Paul Revere a Silva Smith?
... and then the children keep both for the first generation, ...
Thanks for the details, Hector. It is disappointing, however, to realize that Spanish-speakers have not really found a magical way to preserve maternal and paternal names for generations without impractical exponential growth.
My wife kept her name, I kept mine, we hyphenated them for our daughter. Some people ask what will happen if she marries someone with a hyphenated last name. My reply: "That's her problem." I would guess that by that time there will be conventions about what happens in that kind of situation.
My first wife kept her name when we got married. When our son was born, I let her give him her last name. It pissed my mom off some, but it was no big deal to me. It was a much better one than mine. I did have to deal with people from my son's school calling me Mr. WifeName, but that didn't bother me .
Amusingly enough, my (now ex) wife was born out of wedlock and her parents never married. Even so, her hippie feminist mom gave her her father's last name.
My second (and current) missus has also kept her last name, but she's offered to change it if we have a child.
That being said, I don't find the "gift" aspect of SMG changing her name to be at all creepy.
A fair number of people wind up having separate professional and personal names, because of this issue.
Actually, in entertainment this may be a little less important, as there are few enough successful people, and they are well enough documented online, that their previous histories will attach to their new names fairly easily. Less-successful people don't have this advantage, but they are perhaps less concerned about maintaining an obvious connection to their searchable history. Where numbers are relatively small, people are well known, and records can easily be found conflating the two names, this is less of an issue - think of Atrios becoming Duncan Black, for example.
In my own field of biological science, on the other hand, you really cannot change your name after you've started publishing, as the very first thing anyone does is look you up in Medline, an online database of publications. Medline records are indexed by name, not attached to identifiable individuals whatever names they've used on different publications. It's likely similar in other academic fields. As a consequence, I know people who've changed their names prior to marriage, to ensure that they can use their married name professionally without sabotaging their bibliography. I also know at least one person who has been saddled for over a decade with the name of a man she now rightly despises, for just this professional reason.
People should be free to change their names, or not to do so, in accordance with their customs and inclinations, without the choice affecting their careers. One easy aid to this would be the creation of name-flexible personal identifiers for career-critical online databases.
Whatever SMG and hubby decide to do with their names is none of our business. Further, I think those who look down on others for their naming choices are just making themselves look like jackasses.
In my wife's family, there's an interesting maternal name-inheritance scheme - the firstborn daughters are always given the same first and middle name. Our eldest daughter thus is the sixth in a row on her mother's side.
People should be free to change their names, or not to do so, in accordance with their customs and inclinations, without the choice affecting their careers.
The purpose of a name is to identify you. If you change your name, you confuse people who are trying to identify you, which can't help but affect your career. It's not just vulger prejudice, it's inherent in the purpose of names.
The artist formerly known as Sarah Michelle Gellar may soon discover this . . .
I believe it was Marge Simpson (or perhaps I should say Marge Bouvier) who said of something or other that Homer was up to, "I'll get used to it, the way I got used to Courteney Cox Arquette."
Are you going to be changing your name to McYglesias or will McMatt do?
It's still a better system than the Anglophone one, though, since at least no one actually has to change their own name.
And both parents have a name connection to their own kids, even if it's only one generation. It's not perfect, but it seems like it gets 90% of the way there--the way in which the woman gets "cheated" seems fairly abstract--his family name gets to have grandchildren while hers doesn't. (And in some schemes that we could even be talking about great-grandchildren). It's families rather than individuals who get cheated, but families are inherently bi-gendered things, and last names of future generations aren't the only means a family has of remembering past generations. (My family has some of our maternal ancestors tracked back pretty far.)
It doesn't seem like it would be hard to make this fully symmetric--decide randomly who gets to give the first kid the "real" last name and switch back and forth from there. Or give little girls Mom's last name and little boys Dad's last name--parallel matrilineal and patrilineal systems. Probabilistic schemes like that could be employed in the Anglo system, but having your immediate children share your name would take some of the sting out of losing the odds.
For posting this nonsense, Matt should change his name to "McDonald" - as in "Ronald". Must be a slow news day...
As for picking names, would Matt be as interested in Natalie Hershlag as in Natalie Portman?
From the viewpoint of an established actor, changing one's name is risky, as Prince discovered. On the other hand, did she say she was changing her "stage name" or her "legal name"? She can be "Sarah Michelle Gellar" as her stage name, and "Sarah Michelle Prinze" everywhere else - like on checks from her as opposed to studio checks to her.
Those who would be confused should be considered morons, anyway.
Beyond that, the whole issue of adopting other people's names just because they're in a relationship is also brain dead, "nuclear family" or not. Everybody should keep the name they have decided to adopt for themselves - whether it's their "family" name or not - and only change it when they don't like it any more or if they're paid to. Any "nuclear family" stuff should be done through a legal entity if it has to be done at all - and generally it's the case that it shouldn't be done at all.
Really, how many men here know even one guy who has dropped his own name and replaced it with his wife's? How many men here know 10 men who have done that? 20? 30? Because I'm sure you know that many women.
I had a professor who changed his name to a hyphenated combination of his last name(X) and his wife's last name(Y). So they were the X-Ys. His name went first, presumably because it sounded better that way. So there is half a counterexample for you.
As for picking names, would Matt be as interested in Natalie Hershlag as in Natalie Portman?
I for one, would be happy to be Mr. Hershlag should the opportunity present itself.
I've actually known two men who changed their name to that of their wive's, and it both cases it was because the husband had a crappy last name.
I've been married for a year and a half now, and my wife kept her last name, and the amount of confusion that has resulted is roughly equal to zero. We're married. We have different last names. What's so confusing about that?
At the same time, I have no problem with people who change their last names. I have a lot more problems with the stupid names parents give to their kids these days.
Are Mr. Yglesias and Ms. McArdle really dating, or this is some kind of running joke? I thought he had referred to someone else as being his girlfriend.
My wife kept her name, up to the point that I had to go into the hospital for surgery. Think about it: what, other than your marriage license, do you have to prove that your spouse is really your spouse, other than his/her ID (same last name/address)? We might have later decided for her to change names when we had a kid, but there is a lot of society that keys on your common last name, and in a pinch, do you really want to have to explain why you really are who you say you are? (And will you carry your marriage license to prove it?)
Comments closed November 30, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Or maybe she was so ashamed by starring in "The Grudge" that she wanted a fresh start.
Posted by El Cid | November 16, 2007 11:07 AM