… 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.