I
read The Wrap for entertainment news, Hollywood movies and TV stuff. Read and
forget – that’s my usual routine. But this Wrap rap http://bit.ly/Z6qPXa did catch my eye
instantly. There, we had Sharon Waxman, a former New York Times columnist,
waxing eloquently and flinging a provocative challenge at The New York Times: “Hey,
New York Times ‘Vows’ Section: Who Cares If ‘The Bride is Keeping Her Name'?” (For a moment, it made me think of the good ol’
“Hark, who goes there?” routine.) Her bone of contention is the venerable
newspaper making it a point to mention without fail in its Vows coverage that
all the brides were keeping their respective maiden surnames.
At
the height of the Feminist Movement, brides wore their maiden surnames as a
badge of honour, you’ll recall. Later on, it became a matter of unstated
routine, also a matter of convenience. Women started marrying later and later
in life. By then they had kind of got accustomed to their original moniker. Also,
career reasons as well as the long legal rigmarole involved in acquiring a new
name may prompt the refusal to disturb the status quo.
Waxman’s
target, though, seems to be the paper she worked for earlier. She points a finger
at their boast about being the first to report same-sex nuptials. She would
have preferred if her former employer had included significant details such as
a Caucasian woman marrying an Afro-American or human interest tidbits such as
the bride having lost 50 pounds of weight on her way to the church podium. And,
so forth.
This
is 2014. And, in the US of A, this issue is still being discussed. Will wonders
never cease to pop up?
