What’s in a (Last) Name?

I recently read a Big Think article by the controversial (pseudo) academic Satoshi Kanazawa, entitled Why Children Must Inherit Their Last Names from Their Father, Not Their Mother. I should have known better. Kanazawa’s reasoning was, of course, ridiculous (I mean, this is the guy who published an article supposedly explaining the “truth” about “why black women are considered less attractive than other women”. I’m paraphrasing but not much. Please. Gag me with a spoon). I should not have given that idiocy (and thinly veiled misogyny) another thought and, at first, I didn’t.

But seeing as how I’ll be a married woman in not so very long, I have been thinking about this issue a lot lately. First and foremost, with my own name. My last name, Kresowaty, is long(ish). It’s Ukrainian. The only situation in which people meeting me for the first time have ever pronounced it correctly, or read it aloud without confusion or panic, was when I lived in Poland (and then uber correctly, pronouncing the “w” as a “v”, which in Canada I don’t bother to do). But despite suffering through years of mispronunciations (or having people address me simply as “Miss” rather than attempt my surname), I like my last name. I feel my last name very strongly to the core of my being. I want every good thing I do in my life to have the name “Kresowaty” appear on it. And I don’t think that will change.

Illustration by TC's little cousin, who was 9. I like my drop earrings.

Illustration by TC’s little cousin, who was 9. I like my drop earrings and double necklaces.

I remember reading a blog post several years ago by a woman who explained why she kept her maiden name, rather than take on the last name of her husband and children. I was very surprised by the vitriolic comments her post received. People called her a “feminist c–t”. People told her she was a terrible mother, psychologically damaging her children by sending the message that she does not love or respect their father, or truly consider herself to be part of their family.

Bullshit. My mother has used her own surname, Zilans, both personally and professionally all her life. Her marriage to my father nearly thirty years ago did not change that, and I never felt for a second that she didn’t love us or didn’t want to be part of our family. Still, when I was a kid I once asked my mom why she never changed her name. She said, “Why would I?” That’s all the reason I’ll ever need.

That’s not to say that I don’t respect the choice of women who want to go the “traditional” route and take their husband’s name after their wedding. Knowing how I feel about my own name (and my mother’s) I was surprised when some of my contemporaries changed, or told me they were planning to change, their names. But when I think about it, it’s a lovely choice to make. Some people feel true to themselves when they have the name they were born with. Some people will feel more true to themselves by marking this milestone in their life by changing their last name. And it’s a choice I respect.

But the choice of whether or not to change your surname should remain just that–a choice. This means that while I support a woman who wants to take on her husband’s name, I also equally support any man who wants to take on his wife’s. Why not? A choice is a choice. In contemporary Canadian society, a woman is not the property of, nor subservient to, her husband. So if he wants her name, why the heck not? Or if they both wanted to change their last name to “von Sparkleson”, why the heck not? The argument that such arrangements are “untraditional” holds no water when you consider that Canadian law now recognizes marriages between couples of the same gender. What heteronormative “tradition” is to be honoured in these marriages, marriages which are fully sanctioned and recognized by Canadian law? How about whatever they want? And if gay couples can do whatever they want with their names, why can’t I?

And now back to the question of children. While my mother broke from Western tradition by keeping her last name, my parents still went the traditional route by making my sisters and me “Kresowaty’s”. I don’t dispute their choice–as I said, I feel so much a Kresowaty I can’t imagine being anything else. It’s worth noting, however, that in the hospital the first name I ever bore was “Baby Girl Zilans”, marked on my bassinet because my parents took their time naming me and the hospital needed to call me SOMETHING. So if I could survive those days in the hospital with my mother’s name rather than my father’s and not suffer from some non-traditional naming identity crisis, it’s entirely plausible I could have been a Zilans (yet another formidable Eastern European name) all my life and been perfectly happy.

But it feels different, doesn’t it? Keeping one’s “maiden” name after marriage is generally considered acceptable nowadays but boy oh boy, tell a person you think that your future children should bear YOUR name (since you’re the one doing all the pushing and shoving to get that baby born after all) rather than their father’s, and watch their confusion. Watch the cogs of “That’s not normal!” and “That’s just not how we do things!” turn in their head. It’s an interesting experience. And it’s not just men that seem to feel this way, it’s, well, mostly everyone it seems. Even my own parents seem to have accepted that their line of “Kresowaty’s” ends with their daughters and don’t really see why a couple would bother with the hassle of going against the grain by using the mother’s name, or, as suggested by super genius Marilyn vos Savant (IQ of 228, people) giving maternal surnames to daughters and paternal surnames to sons.

I actually don’t really care if any future sons don’t bear my name, maybe because in my mind I would identify them, by virtue of their gender, with their father. But if I have daughters, I want to have “Kresowaty girls”. I was a Kresowaty girl (now a Kresowaty woman, I suppose). My sisters were Kresowaty girls. And we were awesome girls, who grew up to be awesome people. So if it ain’t broke…..

But it’s not normal. It’s not traditional. It’s not done. And according to the aforementioned controversial Kanazawa, it would cause paternal uncertainty, and a father would be less likely to invest in his kids if they didn’t bear his name, hurting the children and society in general.

Bullshit. Kanazawa’s argument is based around the evils of cuckoldry, and it’s a bunch of bullshit. As he points out, like (good) human fathers, the fathers of many bird species invest heavily in the offspring of their mate, and unfortunately for those poor birds, they have no way of knowing if the eggs are really theirs or not, meaning they are potentially investing their energy in somebody else’s sperm. You know who doesn’t give a hoot? Me. You know who else doesn’t give a hoot? The birds. They take care of their mate and her eggs, they further the species (which was probably strengthened by the mother making some discerning choices between biological mate and social mate) and they all live to flap and crap another day. So much for the birds.

As far as humans go, if you think a name is any proof that a child is yours, you’re an idiot. Either you trust your partner or you don’t. And if you don’t, why ask a name to do what birth certificates, adoption certificates, and blood tests can do so much better? So much for names as proof of paternity (besides, this argument assumes a family to be a biological, nuclear one, completely ignoring the single parent, blended, and adoptive families that also contribute to our society’s fabric).

It’s not that I don’t like TC’s surname, or don’t think it could or should be bestowed upon our future children. It’s that I resent, with all my might, that no one thinks I should have a choice in the matter. One of the reasons I am marrying TC is because I have never in my life felt more that I am in a true partnership of equals. This equality will not end after the wedding, and it will not end when I give birth. If I thought it would, I wouldn’t be getting married (and quite frankly, if TC was not the man he is, I doubt a stubbornly independent soul like me would interest him much anyhow). And I know many equally intelligent people in many similarly equal partnerships. So why, after nine months of pukey swelly pregnancy, and hours of painful labour (or, conversely, after the months/years of bureaucratic hurdles that precede an adoption), does everyone think it’s completely normal for the agency of the female member of the partnership to be stripped in this situation?

I guess it’s normal because it’s done. But that doesn’t make it logical, or rational, or correct. It’s simply a preference. And if passing on the father’s name to the children is what the couple prefers, that’s great. But what if it’s not?

When I talk to people about my feelings on this issue, invariably I am asked, “Can’t you just use a hyphenated or double last name?”. The answer is no. I can’t. For one thing, when a person has a double or hyphenated last name, the first name (usually the mother’s) often gets treated as merely a second middle name and is dropped from normal use. So it’s not a satisfactory solution for me. Secondly, what if my hyphenated kid married another hyphenated kid, and they both wanted to keep their names, and their kid ended up with not one but FOUR last names? Ridiculous. And finally, my last name has four syllables. TC’s has three. Some people have seven-syllable last names, that’s the name they have to pass on to their kid, and it’s not their fault. But I really wouldn’t feel kind giving a seven-syllable surname to a child on purpose.

I’ve been told that giving sons one surname and daughters another would be very confusing for other people trying to identify my family. And that’s probably right. But names don’t make a family. Blood doesn’t even make a family. Love, and shared experiences, and sacrifices make a family.

Which is why, when the time comes, despite all this rantin’ and ravin’, I may sacrifice my last name after all (as far as the kids go). And I will love my family no matter what they’re called–I just wish the situation were different. I wish that TC and I could make this choice on our own, and that what society considers to be “traditional” and “expected” had nothing to do with it. Because with those huge pressures at play, how can we possibly make a choice that reflects how we really feel? How can we even identify how we really feel? We can’t. I’m not even sure if my feelings now reflect my real wishes, or are just a reaction to a structure I find outdated and unfair.

And I guess what I truly, desperately want, more than a name, is the opportunity to make a private decision with my husband about our children’s last names. But in the structure we live in, still old-fashioned in so many ways, we will never, never have that.

Galapagos Islands Day 6: Islas Santiago and Bartolome (a.k.a. the moon and Mars)

Yesterday as I was complaining about the cold that is currently mushing my brain, my co-worker mentioned to me that the last time I had a bad cold was after my trip to the Galapagos Islands. By golly, she was right! I did get a cold in the Galapagos (probably from all the snorkeling and the fact that nothing that got wet ever dried). On Day 6 of our trip I began to get a nasty nasty cold that rendered my ability to process the crazy terrain of Isla Santiago and Isla Bartolome pretty much nil. The best my observational skills could come up with was, “This looks like the moon. I want to run around on it.” or, “This looks like Mars. I want to run around on it.” But still. Recognizing that you are somewhere that looks like it belongs on a different celestial body is pretty bitchin’. No complaints here.

So now, for your viewing pleasure (because I am too sick to write well and because I don’t think I could do justice to the lava field at Sullivan Bay or the view from the top of Isla Bartolome even if I wasn’t), I give you the Islas Santiago and Bartolome! Enjoy the results of volcanic activity and pretend you are looking at a lunarscape or the best real estate on planet Mars.

I’ve always loved clambering around on rocks so the lava field at Sullivan Bay on Isla Santiago (only a hundred years old or so) allowed me to indulge this particular compulsion almost fully. (Really giving in would have meant leaping and bounding away across the lava-y horizon, likely breaking my ankle and screaming until TC managed to find me in that big black expanse, and then TC having to carry me back to shore and he wouldn’t like it, so I just stayed with the group. Phooey.)

The hike to the volcanic summit of Bartolome was a lot more contained and did not allow for reckless clambering over lava, however, it was very educational (I learned about spatter cones!), and pretty effing cool. Huge chunks of red porous rock littered the slopes of the islet. Our guide Pedro called them “lava bombs”–lumps of molten rock that had been spit out by the volcano and had, for the most part, been lying in pretty much the same place since. Basically, the entire landscape, EVERYTHING, came from inside a volcano. If that’s not enough to make a person mildly interested in geology I don’t know what is.

The view from the top of Bartolome is stunning. Pinnacle Rock looms in the distance, leaning precariously over the sea. Wanna know why that pointy shaft of rock is separated so awkwardly from the mainland like that? Before telling us, Pedro checked to make sure that none of us were Americans. We weren’t, so here’s the story: Pinnacle Rock used to just be part of a big rock hill that sloped towards the water. When the US military stationed themselves in the Galapagos during WWII, they decided to shell the hill for practice. Eventually, the structure of the rock weakened and a big chuck broke away. And so that is how the United States of America created one of the most famous land formations in the Galapagos Islands. The end.

So not natural at all. Still makes for a beautiful photo though.

But the day wasn’t all barren lava fields and geology (though that’s all I took photos of). In the morning we sat in a dinghy while a group of 15-20 dolphins jumped and played all around us. I don’t think any dolphin show in any marine park could ever compare to watching pairs and triplets of wild dolphins leaping and diving for the sheer joy of it. Some of them had fish in their mouths. Some of them had babies (BABY DOLPHINS!). A few of our ship mates were taking photos but TC and I knew that if we hid behind a lens, we’d miss something amazing, so we decided that this moment was just for us.

The other moment that was just for me came while I was snorkeling off the beach near Pinnacle Rock. I rounded a point and surfaced. There, standing on the rock just a metre or so away from me, was a Galapagos penguin. There was no dinghy or naturalist guide this time to distance the experience. Just me, and this penguin. He stood on his rock and I floated in the water and though all I wanted to do was reach out and try to somehow own this rare wild creature and my experience with him, there is nothing in this world that could have made me disturb him, or break the strange and incredible trust Galapagos wildlife has in humanity.

It’s enough to break a heart.

Project Limelight Presents “There’s No Place Like Oz”

When I was growing up in rural Saskatchewan (and partially in Europe), the opportunity to participate in theatre was one of the greatest gifts my parents and schools could have given me. Theatre gave me a way to keep playing dress-up long after my peers no longer thought it was cool. The stage was a place where I could be confident, unselfconscious, and (blissfully) anything, or anybody, I wanted to be. Being involved in productions kept me focused, gave me something to look forward to, and brought me those weird, it-all-happened-in-the-dark, we-bonded-in-cue-to-cue type friendships that only other theatre artists can understand. In my darkest hours, the responsibility of maintaining myself as a performer (body, voice, health) kept me from making some bad choices as I tried to deal with the academic and emotional hurdles life brought me.

d58e5a79e1deb00e6b78f5f9f952197dWhen I learned about the Strathcona-based Project Limelight Society, a free theatre program for East Vancouver youth, I couldn’t think of a more positive way to engage children and young people with the arts, their community, and with their own talents. According to their website, the Project Limelight Society was founded by former film industry professionals (and sisters) Maureen Webb and Donalda Weaver, as a way to support and give back to the community they were raised in. Designed for youth aged 8-15, each four-month session teaches and develops performance skills as participants prepare for a full-length production. Enthusiasm and commitment from participants seems to be the name of the game, with no previous experience required. And of course, it’s offered at no cost to the participants.

Hold on, you say, what about that full-length production you mentioned? Oh yes! The young performers of Project Limelight will be treading the boards later this month at the Djavad Mowafaghian Cinema (SFU Woodward’s) in their upcoming production, There’s No Place Like Oz, loosely based on the children’s classics by L. Frank Baum.

Project Limelight Society presents THERE’S NO PLACE LIKE OZ, featuring 18 young performers, ages 8 – 12, who have worked together to create a show for their friends, family and community. THERE’S NO PLACE LIKE OZ, in the tradition of Pantomime, combines audience interaction, music, comedy and dance, and is suitable for audiences from the very young to the young at heart.

At Project Limelight, we want to unleash the imagination, awaken curiosity and give young people the opportunity to experience the magic of applause. Our program offers youth living in Vancouver’s Eastside, a safe place to build an artistic community.

[Read the full show description on Project Limelight’s website.]

There’s No Place Like Oz will be running for ONE DAY ONLY (two performances) so make sure you know the details:

Sunday, February 24, at 2:00 pm and again at 6:00 pm

Djavad Mowafaghian Cinema in SFU Woodward’s (Goldcorp Centre for the Arts)

Tickets are $15/$10 and can be purchased online through the Project Limelight website.

If you would like to support the work of the Project Limelight Society but will not be able to attend the show, donations to the program can be made through their website.

Happy Valentine’s Day everybody (once again, it seems, East Vancouver has stolen my heart…)!

xoxo

Anne of Green Gables, NOW BLONDER AND BUSTIER!

Even if they haven’t actually read the classic book by L.M. Montgomery, people who are at all familiar with western literature or culture will know that THIS is Anne of Green Gables:

9780553609417_custom-ca4455d0c15d99fc51ea2900942fec2d9c13388c-s6-c10And that this monstrosity, on sale on Amazon.com since November 2012, is most definitely NOT:

1297373144312_ORIGINAL

[If the sexy photo moves you to indulge in some turn of the century Canadian kid’s lit, look no further than right here on Amazon.com!]

I mean, what the hell is going on here? There are two very, VERY big problems with this:

PROBLEM ONE: Anne of Green Gables is a redhead (though amazingly no one at the bookselling giant Amazon.com seems to know it).

Everybody knows that Anne Shirley has red hair. This fact is repeated over and over and OVER in the book. Anne’s redheadedness, and the way she reacts to peoples’ comments about it, is an integral part of who she is. Anne’s red hair is the reason she snaps at Rachel Lynde. It is the reason she cracks a slate over Gilbert Blythe’s head. And it’s the reason she accidentally dyes her hair green (in an attempt to turn it “a beautiful raven black.”). Though in later books Anne’s hair colour does deepen, it becomes auburn, which is really just a fancy way of saying dark brownish red.

Anne was not, is not, and never will be, a blonde.

PROBLEM TWO: Anne of Green Gables is an eleven year old girl.

Anne Shirley is a skinny, poorly dressed, redheaded little orphan girl with big eyes and incredible innocence. She’s also intelligent, studious, and extraordinarily sensitive. She has no interest in the boys in her life except as friends or academic rivals.

She’s certainly no buxom, bedroom-eyed sex kitten leaning on a hay bale.

That any publisher or purveyor of CHILDREN’S LITERATURE would be comfortable with the sexual objectification of the eleven year old heroine of a classic children’s novel is absolutely shocking. It’s like draping Wendy Darling over Skull Rock in a bikini, or letting Alice stomp all over Wonderland in fishnets and stilettos. There are times when adding sex appeal is not the way to sell a product. When the product in question is eleven years old (even fictionally), you know it’s one of those times to keep your sexy thoughts to yourself.

I don’t really have a problem with the young woman in the photo on a personal level. She’s probably just some model who ended up in a collection of stock photos of “girls on farms”. She likely had no idea that her contemporary sexy blonde farm girl photo would grace the cover of a much-loved children’s classic (first published in 1908) about an eleven-year-old girl with red hair who lives on Prince Edward Island.

I do, however, have a big problem with Amazon.com, and their publishing company “CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform“. I find it amusing that in Amazon’s free preview of the first few pages of the book, the words “Copyrighted Material” appear emblazoned all over the place. As if either Amazon or CreateSpace can claim any ownership of L.M. Montgomery’s actual words. It looks more like they just took a public domain manuscript, didn’t read a word of it, and slapped a foxy cover on it in an attempt to make a quick buck. Which seems to be exactly what has happened here.

It is obvious that Amazon.com, despite being a bookseller and controlling a publishing company, has no knowledge of or love for literature. If they did, they would have read the book they published, realized right away that Anne is very vitally a redhead and a child, and put a redheaded child on the cover (if they needed a photo at all). I had always assumed that in order to be a purveyor of books, a company would actually, you know, know/care about books. Apparently not.

Though I am among the many who feel in their bones that a great crime against literature, childhood, and authorial intent has been committed, in all probability what CreateSpace and Amazon.com have done is okey-dokey in the eyes of the law.  The book Anne of Green Gables and its sequels have been in the public domain for a long time. If a publisher wants to slap a sexy blonde on the cover of it, they probably can. And if Amazon.com wants to peddle that smut, it’s within their rights to do so.

That doesn’t mean they should. Some things are just sacred, and childhood classics are one of those things. I suppose if representing Anne Shirley as a sexy blonde woman is fine, it’s probably equally fine, in terms of legality, to display her in a Nazi SS uniform, driving an SUV and punching a kitten. I’m sure there are those who would find this hilarious or titillating, but they can find that kind of crap on 4chan or on late night television if they so choose.

They don’t need to find it on the cover of L.M. Montgomery’s beautiful childhood classic. And they don’t need to find a voluptuous blonde there either.