Q&A Forum - December 2011

Screen 3 of 55

When a woman's husband takes her name, it not only reinforces her rightful position as head of the family, it also makes sense on biological grounds: As we all know, during heterosexual intercourse a man leaves a part of his body, i.e. his sperm, with a woman. In order to procreate, he has to entrust his DNA to her; in a sense, he must relinquish his very essence to her. All men are born of women, and no man can reproduce unless some woman, somewhere, agrees explicitly or implicitly to give birth to his child. Obviously, the reverse is not true -- sperm is cheap.

Of course a child has an equal number of chromosomes from each parent, but it is the woman's body which carries the child, feeds her, provides her with oxygen, eliminates her waste, and finally gives birth to her. The mother is then able to lactate, providing nourishment for the first months or years of the child's life. Furthermore, the identity of the mother is obvious, but it takes a medical test to establish paternity beyond all doubt. Unquestionably, then, the female is the primary parent and truly the "better half."

In addition, family unity would be enhanced when all members, including the husband, share the woman's surname. It symbolizes that this is her family, born of her body, and that her husband is her beloved helpmate. She has chosen him to share her love and happiness, but she is the creator, unifier, and leader of the family. It is only logical that her husband and children share her name.