… Michele Hanson to the Club of Certified Fools. In a column published in The Hindu yesterday, Ms. Hanson, a columnist for the Guardian, portrays (the editor of The Sun) Rebekah Wade’s decision to adopt her new husband’s surname as an act of treachery against the women’s liberation movement.
What a shock to find that Rebekah Wade — smasher of glass ceilings, ruler of men, first woman to edit the Sun and soon to become chief executive of News International — is really a fluffy at heart. Married a fortnight ago, she has decided to take her second husband’s surname. He is racehorse trainer-turned-writer Charlie Brooks. So it’s Rebekah Brooks now, everybody.
I do not want to take sides in the argument whether a woman should adopt her husband’s last name or not. Western society has advanced enough in order to wrest such a decision with the woman. Especially a woman so powerful as the former Ms. Wade. If she decides to change her name still, one should respect it as a personal choice made by a woman who is intelligent enough not to rely on the advice of blockheads like Ms. Hanson. It could be borne out of the love she feels for her husband. To make this sound as if she was forced into making this change, or that the entire feminist movement will now come crashing down because of her decision is grossly misleading, in fact, just gross.
The question could, of course, be turned on its head. Why do men not change their names for love? (Well, they change much more than that, but still…) But no, I do not have an answer. My concern though is that we are trading common sense to make these -isms live.
No related posts.
Tags: feminist, Michele Hanson, Rebekah Wade
neetu on 
anon on 
June 26th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Guruji,
Correct me if i’m wrong…
If one follows your post, (s)he may observe the fact that you are not an MCP but a Feminist-basher
btw, what do you think of the Women reservation bill in India (i don’t think it has become an act yet as i write this comment). if you think the subject is worth a blog, please do the honors
~ak
PS: Nor am i a big fan of such feminists
PPS: All “Feminists” reading this post and wanting to bash VK, please note that I’ve used (s)he not an explicit masculine pronoun
so, be gentle on me.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Arun, I defer personal judgment on whether I am an MCP or a feminist-basher or both.
However, there is a clear difference between feminism and a left-wing hit-job — and the article alluded to is of the latter variety. Michele Hanson writes for the Guardian, and she has no reason to be charitable to Rebekah Brooks née Wade of The Sun. (Interestingly, you could turn that the other way and it would still make sense… Rebekah Wade – nay – Brooks.)
If you read Hanson’s piece again, you will find that she struggles to make sense of her own argument in the second half of her article, where she is terribly confused about whose last name the kids should take. Indeed Hanson does not have a coherent argument, but she does very well in the portions where she takes on the other woman, and tries to portray her as spineless. Indeed Hanson has nothing to lose here. Some people will nod in agreement, and those that disagree will not be able to counter her because they are shackled by the fact men do not assume their wives’ last name after marriage.
My point is very simple. In such matters, women must have the right to choose. So long as they are able to exercise their right, no one should be overly concerned. Feminism is advanced and diverse enough not to come crashing because of someone’s personal choice. It is very disturbing though that the article equates feminism to some kind of a sharia law, the comeuppance for transgressing which is excommunication.