Mrs Clooney chooses patriarchy

17 October 2014

It came as a surprise, in our apparently post–feminist world, to hear that human rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin had adopted her husband’s surname upon marriage. I discovered this snippet of information in a lead opinion piece published in the Guardian online and provocatively titled ‘Amal Alamuddin took George Clooney's name? Oh please – put your torches and pitchforks away’.

The title referred to the many, nameless feminists who were allegedly ‘losing their minds’ over the decision by Amal – née Alamuddin – to forthwith be known as Mrs Clooney. Nothing fires up feminists more, wrote columnist Eleanor Robertson, than ‘whether or not women take their husband’s name upon marriage’.

There are many things that fire up feminists more than the relatively benign patriarchal tradition of adopting one’s husband’s surname: the deeply damaging practice of female genital mutilation, for example, or gendered violence, sexual harassment, discrimination and the growing pay gap between men and women.

But that’s not to say that feminists don’t have something valuable to say – or the right to comment – on a patriarchal relic that somehow continues to endure long after the supposed ‘liberation’ of women. After all, here is a modern, highly–educated and high–performing adult in her fourth decade making the conscious decision to allow her husband’s identifying family name to subsume her own. By deleting her own birth name, Amal Clooney is buying into the Western tradition of coverture, established with the express intention of legally constituting women as possessions of their husbands.

That this once deeply sexist tradition has been retained into the 21st century and transformed into an expression of love and romance doesn’t make it right. Love and romance are quite capable of flourishing within an egalitarian marriage. And feminists – even those who keep their own names – are quite capable of inspiring devotion in men and of exuding femininity. Yet implicit in the renaming of women upon marriage is this coda: in so doing I have demonstrated my love and commitment – as only a female can do – to my husband and to the children we might one day have.

On a deeply personal level, it is not really any of our business whether Amal Clooney (or anyone else) changes her name; women, after all, should be free to make their own choices. But it’s important to consider, in the broader socio–political context, the circumstances under which such choices are made, and to

CONTRIBUTORS

Mrs Clooney chooses patriarchy

Subscriber login