GUEST COLUMNIST:                                               Keya
				This column was written in response to an article posted on A&A Journal entitled "Mrs. Feminist" by Lynn Harris on the subject of name change.
		I don't mean to be the stick in the mud, but I'm not sure that I see point of defending the status quo of women changing their names upon their marriage.   The status quo, by nature of being what "is," inherently has its own line of defense.  95% of women change their name so clearly that is something that most (an overwhelming majority) want.  That still begs the question though of why 95% of women want that.  Is it because they've exercised their feminist powers to make that decision or because they're so entrenched in a patriarchal system that it seems like the best choice? Regardless, I'm not convinced that name-changing is what needs to be ardently defended.  Since when do we have to defend what's "easy" (easy being something of a euphamism for what's traditional)?  Things that are easiest are most often the things that society has made convenient, and I think it's worth asking why those things are easiest. It seems to me the question for feminists is why is it so much easier to change your name than not change it?  This "easy" name change involves a radical redefinining of one's legal and social identity--to say the least it involves the changing of credit cards, banking accounts, social security information, tax forms, Neiman Marcus charge cards, etc.  Changing one's name seems as easy as losing one's wallet: a royal pain in the ass. I will give the article its one due: it's recognition that women's names are passed through a partriarchal line. I can accept a woman's decision to deny that patriarchal lineage.  Nonetheless, the solution doesn't sit quiet well.  It's a bit like picking the lesser of two evils. And I seems an awful lot like the wedding tradition that the father gives his daughter away to the groom--while enforcing the patriarchy, there's something queasily oedipal about it all.  I think I've said enough on the subject, but I just wanted to express that the article didn't appeal to my independent sensibilities.  Perhaps my response is more one of fierce independence than it is feminist.  Maybe feminism has nothing to do with it, if we agree that feminism is about choice.  But maybe we should think about why women make the choices they do, and whether, under this scruitiny, they are in fact free and fair choices at all.