And for wedding invites? Mr. Michael-Turlinton and Mrs. Turlington-Michael? Clunky. Still, it's the best attempt I've seen.
We'd probably evolve new conventions for such situations. For example, "Mrs. Turlington-Michael and Mr. s/s", with s/s, reminiscent of the m.m. of "mutatis mutandis", standing for "spousally symmetric".
"mutatis mutandis" bugs me, because obviously if you change everything that has to be changed, any two things are alike.
All that trouble with the last names and still we'd use Mrs.?
Yes, but we'd introduce a new salutation for unmarried men. "Master" is beyond rehabilitation, I think.
What about moving back to the older Miss/Mrs. distinction, where it marks adulthood rather than marriage? (Check out 18thC novels -- an unmarried but employed servant will be referred to as something like 'Mrs Betty'. We could bring Master back for underage boys, and look at people's ring fingers to figure out if they're married.
I like Kostko's system (roughly what I've done, except that we're both hyphenated in the same order), except for the elaborate fix for same sex adoptive parents. I think the value of a name from each adoptive parent sould override the gender of that parent.
LB, I understand the reasoning, but one of my goal was to give people absolutely no discretion over names -- that's what's gotten us into our current morass.
So we could use the same formula for adopted children as we do for artificially inseminated children, using some arbitrary standard to determine who contributes the male name and who contributes the female (the one with a higher IQ contributes the female name, for instance). The reason I want there to be a male and a female name is to make it clear what the order of names should be, and which name the person keeps and hands down in the case of marriage.
Also, Michael's objection about clunkiness is well-placed; hopefully the elimination of middle names would help to alleviate that.
My objection's a bit different: I'm kind of attached to brothers and sisters having the same names, and it seems to me to reinforce an artificial gender division by naming them differently.
(Plus, the value of a middle name for reprimanding a misbehaving child sternly should not be overlooked.)
the elimination of middle names
Going straight up the patrilineal line, I'm the fourth generation to go by my middle name. Didn't do it for either of my sons, though.
I've proposed a system where the male child takes the female parent's last name, and the female child takes the male parent's last name. Alternation of generations and all that.
Of course, same-sex marriages would require some modification, but so would other non-standard marriages (polyandry, group marriage and so on). And when you start to get totally in vitro full-term births from anonymous egg-donor and somatic-cell transfer, whaddaya gonna do? Bernard Marx, Mustafa Mond...?
Also, Michael's objection about clunkiness is well-placed; hopefully the elimination of middle names would help to alleviate that.
No no no! Longer names are better. Would you rather be Adam Kotso, or Adam Stuart James Kotsko-Wehrli?
Errmmm. Why do we care? What utility is gained by enforcing a naming system, and how is it more important than allowing people to name their own children whatever the hell they want (and later, allow those children to take another name if the one their parents gave them was too egregiously bad)?
Where's my audio file script, Ben?
Actually, come to think of it... I think, growing up, that no woman I knew did not take her husband's name. To this day, a married couple with different last names still strikes me as odd; not wrong, but noticeable.
Was this just a peculiarity of my Red hometown?
Chopper,
I care a little when I have to look someone up in a phone book, but that is more a first name/last name thing.
For example, Hun Shin, after about a year of correspondence, turned out to be Shin Hun in the company phone book.
It was like looking for Daniel Webster, or looking for the word "perogative" in the dictionary. The hispanic three name thing really throws things for a loop too.
We should all get numbers and get over it. It would be a lot simpler.
I like it. I'd use it. You need an easier summary to pitch it more broadly, though.
One aspect of the old system that I didn't think about until my lesbian stepsister had a baby was that it addressed the potential uselessness and drift of fathers. Mothers are intimately connected to their children's lives from the beginning--the babies want Mama and pretty much only Mama for the first year or so. Dad might be feeling jealous. The name gives him more of a connection than he might otherwise have.
My sister was in the non-carrying role, and she gave the child her last name. And it seemed to resolve some anxiety for her, or balance things out.
Not that this trumps putting an end to patriarchy, but it was interesting to note, free of gender issues.
This sounds like a pretty good system, but the problem is that it would need to be universally accepted to ensure continuity, and that seems pretty near impossible.
What is needed is a system couples can choose that satisfies all the conditions of:
1. Acting as a symbol of family unity.
2. Not reinforcing either patriarchal or matriarchal norms, and
3. Continuity over multiple generations.
So far I've never heard of any system that does better than two out of three.