Suffering more suffrage? A York University case study

This week York University unveiled a rather disturbing controversy on its campus that has had news channels buzzing and people like us wondering the degree to which society can actually claim it has made any kind of progress. The controversy surrounds a first-generation immigrant student who informed a professor that he was unable to participate in his group project because his religion did not allow him to work alongside women. The professor's initial response was to tell the student that he could not grant his request, seeing as York is a co-ed institution and so working with members of the opposite sex is inevitable. However, York's Centre for Human Rights sided against Professor Grayson, stating that he was required to accommodate the special needs of the student.

It's an extremely precarious debate and taking sides is essentially impossible without offending someone. The question can be easily simplified to what society ranks higher among its priorities: women's rights or religious rights? The federal government has stated its support of Professor Grayson's decision to deny the student's request, and I have to say that I agree with its choice of sides.

This may sound harsh, but Canada's legislation is one that recognizes and respects the rights of women in a way that cannot be equaled to the freedom of religion, simply because we are not a monotheologic nation. That means that although we promote the freedom of religion, there are so many caveats to each of the religions that thrive in Canada, it would be impossible to adhere to them all without somewhere overstepping the bounds of secular legalities. At the end of the day, Canada's legislation is not concrete on the degree of its tolerance of certain religions, but it is completely clear on its support of women as equals: deserving equal rights and respects to their male counterpart. And the fact that this is occurring in Canada is enough to make national legislation quite literally the law on the issue, so Professor Grayson's decision really just supports the rules of this country.

And anyways, isn't a freedom only a freedom until it usurps or harms the freedoms of another? In refusing to co-exist with his female peers, this student denies his female colleagues the respect they deserve as equals in the academic environment. In choosing to attend a co-ed institution like York University, the student chose Canada's social laws over his own religious affiliation from the get go; the idea that he would have to interact daily with women should have been assumed.

I was rather surprised but ultimately pleased to see that a member of the university's executive board also supported Grayson's decision during an interview with Global TV. The reason this surprised me was the member in question was himself an immigrant; my thought was that he would advocate for foreign religious freedom, being able to relate to the student's uneasy dilemma. However, this member of the board was in full support of Grayson's decision to deny the student's religious request, stating that without a doubt this student must recognize and adhere to the laws of the country he chooses to inhabit, and compromises must be made between religious beliefs and national laws.

The fact that anything less was ever considered by York University's Centre for Human Rights is highly disappointing, especially considering that at the end of the day, their decision to grant the rights of one student would tarnish the respect alloted to so many others. There has to be a line to tolerance somewhere. Some religions and cultures believe in suicide bombing as a way of offering sacrifice and dedication to a political mission, but I don't see the government of Canada rushing to legalize that as a way to appease its immigrant citizens. While the harm is less direct than my above example, telling a student that it is okay to refuse to work and co-operate with women is a digression in both the rights of women and the progress of society overall.

By no means am I dismissing the religious rights due to all of the immigrants who sought and continue to seek a safe home in Canada. What I'm saying is that, as with everything in life, there must be a hierarchy in situations like these, where several difficult issues are at stake. Ultimately, I believe that the rights of women--who make up a significant portion of our national population--should trump individual religious rights shared by a few. As for York University's Centre of Human Rights, they should probably reassess their own hierarchy and acknowledge that the sign on the office door says "Human" rights: a title which applies equally to all citizens, male and female, Muslim and Catholic, foreign and domestic.

Naturally, there are many opinions surrounding this matter, and we'd love to hear yours. Tweet or comment your thoughts on the issue--I do love a good debate.

Gotta book it,

JEM

What's in a Name?: To Change or Not to Change your Last name in the Twenty First Century

Will you take your S/O’s (significant other's) last name when you get married? Even if you’re not even remotely close to getting engaged today is a good day to think about your position on the issue because you definitely don’t want to be taken off guard when the day comes for you to decide. It’s a sensitive issue; it can a heated debate for some couples and a total non-issue for others.  If you’re smart you’ll make your stance clear or at least drop vague but meaningful hints before you get engaged:  “she kept her last name? I think that’s very cool!” or “hmmm.. I wouldn’t be doing that!”. I realize I'm giving you some seriously passive aggressive advice but let's face it; it's hard to talk about getting married in the early days of dating. Even if you don't talk to your S/O about it you need to at least make your stance clear with yourself so that when the time comes to decide you can do what's best for you.

In Undergrad my roommate and I were talking one afternoon (as we did many, many wonderfully lazy afternoons) and realized we had no idea how our parents got engaged. We called them to find out. To our great disappointment both of our parents had very unexciting stories. Her parents were watching TV and “decided” to get engaged. My parents were on a walk. They both made very gender equal, seriously mutual decisions and they both picked out their own rings. As members of generation-Notebook we were horrified.

Luckily, my own engagement was exactly what I wanted. Quiet, cute and a total surprise. The fact that we are getting married isn’t a surprise to me, I’ve always known that he’s the one, but the timing was. I had NO clue we were “there” yet or that he had any kind of plan percolating. Now, despite being a self-coined member of "generation-Notebook" (and I'm quite sure Allie took Noah's last name) I am pretty adamant about the name change debate. I am not going to take his last name.  I'm not going to hyphenate. I'm not even going to think about it. My mom didn’t take my dad’s last name and its been something I've always honoured and respected. My mom’s best friend’s kids even took HER last name instead of her common-law husband’s. I was raised by feminists and I am a feminist. I have never considered taking someone else’s name. I certainly never doodled Mrs. Timberlake or Mrs. Hanson in my notebook as a young girl. It's always been a non-issue for me. Even my younger brother asked me tentatively "are you going to take his last name?" with hope that I wouldn't in order to remain true to myself and they way that we were raised.

When my boyfriend’s brother got married two years ago we discussed how his sister-in-law took their last name. My boyfriend said something offhand like: “I’m pretty traditional about that”. In a fleeting moment of attempted male dominance he reverted back into a caveman before my very eyes. I looked him in the eye and simply said “well, you’ll have to marry someone else then”. I was serious. I know; I am a cold hearted bitch sometimes. I kind of love it. And obviously, so does he. He proposed knowing that the last name issue is a deal breaker for me and is something that he has decided he can live with. He even said it somewhat proudly to his friends the other night. I realize I'm making him sound like a bit of an old fashioned ass here and he's not. He's kind and loving and very accepting. However, it's a reality that many men still think we should take their last name. Whether it's their romantic side coming out, an attachment to old traditions or simple=y their neanderthal brains coming into play; it's something many women will have to deal with when they say they want to keep their last name. But here's the thing: if I said I'll take his last name I’d be changing me and I wouldn’t want to be that woman or wife.

All that said; it’s still a personal choice. And yes, while I judged the girls on facebook that got married straight out of high school and changed their last names on social media faster than they could get out of their wedding dresses, I can accept that changing their last name is a choice many women make and one that many women would adamantly defend! I realize that not everyone's mother is a feminist. And just like I'm not willing to change my stance I don't expect other women to change theirs. I actually recently saw a cute wedding picture on Pinterest that said : “he stole my heart so I stole his last name”. I can understand the logic; you love this person so much and want to be able to have a mailbox that says "The Bakers". You don't want to have two last names that are so long they don't even fit on your passport like me (I have mom & dad's last names). You want your last name to be the same as your kid's. You don't want to constantly have to correct people at the bank or the airport. I get it.

Source: Pinterest

Buuuut, if you need more information to make your decision you've come to the right place! I've scoured the internet for interesting tidbits on the subject. For example, I found Lucy Stone. I credit my not knowing who she is to the fact that in Canada we have many of our own badass early feminists (Nelly McClung, Charlotte Whitton etc.).

Lucy Stone
Source: Pinterest

Lucy Stone, born in 1818, dedicated her life to improving life for American women through a dedication to the Women's National Loyal League, American Equal Rights Association and as President of the New Jersey Woman Suffrage Association. She was also an abolitionist who fought against slavery with her parents from a young age and worked with the American Anti-Slavery Society later in life.  She pursued higher education against her parent's wishes and after a lot of a hard work and dedication (in a very unequal Academic arena) became the first woman from Massachusetts to earn a bachelor's degree. In 1850, she organized the first national Women's Rights Convention. When she married Henry Blackwell in 1855, Stone was the first woman to keep her maiden name after marriage and proclaimed their wedding: "a wife should no more take her husband's name than he should hers, my name is my identity and must not be lost". They had a daughter in 1857 named her Alice Stone Blackwell. Biography.com sums of her life powerfully by stating: "while Stone did live to see the end of slavery, she died 30 years before women were finally permitted to vote (August 1920), on October 18, 1893, in Dorchester, Massachusetts". (Biography) Heartbreaking, inspiring and a very powerful argument for keeping your maiden name.

What else did I find on the internet about women keeping their own last name? I'll tell you! I found a bunch of conflicting statistics, some idiot men's comments on the subject and all in all no conclusive answer about the current trends in keeping/changing last names.

PS Mag has an article on the subject (written by a man) with some interesting statistics from around the world. Interestingly, the author doesn't associate women keeping their last name with a resurgence of feminism in the twenty first century:

"but while some 35 percent of American women in their 20s and 30s are now choosing to keep their own names, that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a “resurgence of feminism,” interesting as that would be. While retaining one’s maiden name upon marriage has historically been pretty closely affiliated with feminism, it’s also a sign that, for a lot of women, adult identity is now already established well before getting wed" - PS Mag

I find it interesting how Daniel Luzer separates having an "adult identity" from feminism, when to me women having an identity whether it be sexual, physical, spiritual, financial or otherwise, is directly correlated to the roots of feminism. Isn't having an identity exactly what Lucy Stone was talking about when she said "my name is my identity and must not be lost"? He also uses the term "low-level feminists" which I find problematic but I also know the "F"-word has a bad rap with a lot of women. The article surmises that overall the older the bride and the better her job the more likely she is to keep her last name.

Apparently keeping your last name raises a whole bunch of issues after the wedding. Banks, insurance and relatives all start automatically changing your last name for you. Yikes. There's even a wikihow about how to tell people you're keeping your name.

Interestingly, Womens Health Magazine has stats that say "more than one in four brides want to keep or at least hyphenate their last names, according to a new survey from WeddingDays.co.uk, a UK wedding directory." The magazine then did some research from an American standpoint that said "just 8 percent of married women have decided to keep their last names (while about 6 percent either hyphenate or modify their last names in some other way), according to a 2011 survey from The Knot". The actual statistics have gone from 23% in the 90s to 18% in 2000.

 Mens Health Magazine did their own poll and found that 63.3 percent of Men’s Health followers said they would be upset if their wives kept their maiden names. I've selected some of the quotations that they published in the article for your reading pleasure:

“Hyphenation is a direct “f*ck you” to a man’s masculinity… it elevates his father-in-law’s manhood over his own.” —Anonymous respondent, via a SurveyMonkey poll

“It sounds like she’s trying to hang onto her “single person” identity and not identify with the fact that she’s married now.” —Anonymous respondent, via a SurveyMonkey poll

Oh, but it gets better: 96.3 percent of Men’s Health followers said they wouldn’t take a woman’s last name if she asked them to. 

“My name is part of who I am.” —Anonymous respondent, via a SurveyMonkey poll

COUGH, COUGH. Um hello? Just a LITTLE bit hypocritical.

Obviously, in this day and age if you read any comments section under any article you see a broad spectrum of opinions ranging from right to left and I've strategically selected the most idiotic and offensive ones I could find for the sake of this blog post. But still.

The Daily Mail found that "the proportion of women who opt to hold on to their maiden name is highest among those in their 20s" and that "Rachel Thwaites from the University of York, said that the statistics showed younger women were increasingly identifying themselves as feminists".

But it's not just about being a feminist. It's about education, employment and careers too. I want the name on my Master's degree to be my current last name. I worked hard for that piece of paper! When I publish my first book I want it to have that same name on it.

The Globe & Mail writer Wendy Leung quotes research from The Netherlands that found "women who take their partner's name are regarded as more caring but less intelligent, less competent and less ambitious, researchers from the Netherlands discovered". Leung also found that "in a four-part study titled "What's in a Name?", social psychologists at Tilburg University found that Dutch women who adopted their partner's name actually possessed different characteristics than those who kept their own, supporting previous U.S. research".

The last snippit of information/findings I will share with you comes from Facebook, a questionable source in terms of reliability, but interesting nonetheless. The Huffinton Post states "in partnership with The Daily Beast, Facebook looked at the names of 14 million married females, ranging in age from 20 to 79 who are currently active on Facebook and married in the United States, according to a report on The Daily Beast Thursday. Facebook determined that of that group, 65 percent of women in their 20s and 30s changed their names". 

Well, that's all I've got. Think about it. Comment. Tweet us. What do you think? If you changed your last name we want to hear from you too!

Gotta book it; JEM.