Feminist Propaganda vs. "Choice:" The Lucy Stone League

Marian Shah

A common conservative complaint about pro-“choice” organizations such as Planned Parenthood is that they show a pro-abortion bias rather than educating pregnant women about all of their options. Radical feminism faces frequent criticism for preaching respect for all lifestyles, but then favoring the career woman over the housewife.

Another feminist organization that displays such hypocrisy is the Lucy Stone League for Name Choice Freedom. Stone was the first married American woman to retain her maiden name. After studying the League’s website, I discovered that the group is more about feminist hypocrisy and insulting tradition than it is about “freedom.”

I changed my name after marriage. To me, it indicates pride in being married and forming a new family. However, I am aware that not all women do it, for a variety of reasons that are not my business, and I respect that. The League, however, does not respect women’s name changing as a valid choice. Their strong words indicate that rather than marital equality, they seek gender neutrality and female domination. They bluntly ridicule those who choose tradition.

In their mission statement, the Lucy Stoners declare:
--“Our name is a critical part of who we are. Take away our names and we are . . . nothing. Without a name, our friends cannot find us, our employers cannot pay us, and our history is lost.”
The League then goes on to complain about “name abandonment” and “loss of identity” of American women. A five-second scan of the page reveals at least ten instances of the term “sexism.” The authors declare that when men expect their wives to change their names, they imply that “women are not important. Their identities are not worth as much.” Those words disparage those of us who changed our names, and clearly aim to guilt-trip our husbands.

This is “choice?”

To illustrate the hypocrisy, imagine a website entitled “The League for Black Voting Choice,” claiming to encourage African Americans to make educated voting decisions. Then imagine the authors declaring, “For a Black person to vote Republican is an internalization of racist practices reminiscent of slavery. Sadly, 50% of Blacks vote Republican.” Would you believe that the authors supported “voting choice?” In that case, I would think it more accurate to call them “The Black Democratic Voting League.” Why can’t the Lucy Stoners also call themselves what they are?

Browsing through the League’s site, I saw a link called, “How to Change your Name.” They had to include this section to be credible as a “choice” organization. However, their passive-aggressive tone shows me that they pay only lip service to traditional naming. Within a long list of “things to consider before changing your name,” the authors say:

--Do you feel that the sexist tradition of wives taking husbands' names is fair?
--Are you proud of the ethnic or racial tradition in your name, or do you want to move away from it?
--Do you want the administrative burden of changing your name?
--Do you want the social burden of explaining to friends and relatives a new name?
If you’ve considered this, then click here.

Once again, this does not sound like respect for all decisions. Imagine a website that champions the “choice” to move to Alaska or Florida. When considering the move to Alaska, the author says,

--Do you care about the fact that you might catch a cold or even die of pneumonia in the cold?
--Do you find your preference for an isolated, sparsely populated state instead of a warm, tourist-friendly paradise to be healthy?
If so, then click here to book your flight to Anchorage.

Reading that, I would assume that the author strongly preferred Florida to Alaska, not “location choice.”

The League’s “Name Choice Test” is the most obvious indicator that they only support feminist naming practices. The scale measures the progressiveness and “gender equality” of your chosen name. Negative 100 points represents “favoring males,” such as “Mrs. Bill Clinton.” Positive 100 indicates “favoring females,” such as “Mr. Hillary Rodham.” Zero, or “most equal,” means both parties keep their names. Would a true “freedom” organization rank people’s choices from negative to positive, declaring some to be more equal than others?

The Lucy Stoners do a poor job of masking their radical feminist agenda behind the word “choice.” Their claim that a woman changing her name loses her selfhood makes no sense once they state that a man changing his name makes the most progressive decision. If a new name indicated a loss of identity, it would do so regardless of gender. This makes it painfully obvious that the League wants women to dominate men. True supporters of freedom and equality would award 100 points to anyone making a confident choice about his or her own name. In reality, however, “best choice” is what the League, not the individual, deems best.

I felt insulted reading the website. First, I am not “nothing.” Second, my friends can find me just fine, and my employer can pay me. It really is simple: upon changing your name, you tell your employer and friends. There is absolutely no victimhood involved. Further, my husband does not treat me as less important than he is, and even though the ethnic heritage of the name is not my own, it does not mean I am rejecting my family and roots. Finally, I proudly scored -100. I enjoy getting letters addressed to “Mr. and Mrs. Nimit Shah.” I must really be archaic.

I suggest that the Lucy Stoners simply be honest and call themselves the “Matriarchal and Maiden Name Retention Advocates.” It would be a more accurate portrayal of their true intentions. I also ask that they refrain from disparaging those who make non-feminist name choices. Activism does not have to involve cutting others down to build up your agenda.