Moving away from ‘a truly paternalistic tradition’

As a feminist, I believe the law must enhance the ability of each woman to decide for herself how she wants to lead her life. When it comes to the debate surrounding the Quebec surname law limiting the ability to change her surname to match their partner’s (typically women taking on their husband’s names), however, women find themselves as hostages of either social convention, or a law that forces them to avoid that convention. In either case, it is utopian to assume life in this society — Quebecois or Canadian — can be completely free of constraints.

Yet Quebec’s law is not “paternalistic,” as Tom Kott recently wrote in t hese pages (’ Get Quebec out of my married name,’ Jan. 8). It merely serves to eliminate a patriarchal custom that historically deprived married women of their legal right to use their own surnames. Thirty-five years after the law was first passed, there is no sign of social unrest in Quebec, because the law says that married spouses keep their birth names.

This i s an example of Quebec values differing from those in the Rest of Canada. There seems to be a large consensus outside of Quebec in favour of married women taking their husbands’ names, whereas the issue doesn’t seem to be bothering most Quebecers.

In the case of Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau, wife of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, she told La Presse that her legal surname is Grégoire. Media then started to use “Grégoire-Trudeau,” which has now become commonplace. She did not object to “Trudeau” being added to her name, as long as “Grégoire” was retained. However, most commentary on the subject is based on the misguided assumption that she is rebelling against Quebec’s surname law.

The culture clash on the i ssue of married names should not serve to alienate Quebec from the Rest of Canada, but simply to illustrate that Quebec’s Civil Code exists as part of a federal compromise that respects this province’s unique character.

From the perspective of a family attorney who’s been practicing for almost 25 years, it’s safe to say that for most Quebecers, marriage is still an important institution, but will only survive in Quebec if it adapts to society’s core values. Rejection of patriarchy is now a core value for Quebecers.

From the perspective of a woman raised in a society where married women keep their names and mothers have the option of giving theirs to their children, but do it less and less, it is safe to say that social pressures are still at play and can affect choices.

Tom Kott’ stak eon surname regulations lacks nuance and uses emotive traditionalism that can be difficult to counter with rational arguments. Some men — and some women — feel good about their wives taking their names. That will never change. What the Quebec law can and should do, however, is foster a climate that removes pressure from ( mostly) women to conform to what is a truly paternalistic tradition.

CONTRARY TO WHAT MANY THINK, SOPHIE GRÉGOIRE-TRUDEAU IS NOT REBELLING AGAINST QUEBEC’S SURNAME LAW.