Women who change their names describe a preference, not a concession

The argument

Proponents of this explanation argue that the simplest account of why women change their surnames is the one women themselves give. On this view most describe the decision in terms of wanting a single family name, liking the sound of the new one, or regarding the practice as a pleasant marker of a change in their lives, and very few describe it as a response to pressure, fear of a label, or the unwillingness of their husbands. Advocates hold that an explanation which contradicts the accounts of nearly everyone it describes is carrying a heavy burden it rarely discharges. Supporters argue that the competing explanations share a structure that should invite caution. Each identifies a pressure that women are said to be responding to without recognising it, which means the women's own testimony cannot count against the explanation, since denial is predicted by it. Proponents hold that this makes those accounts difficult to assess and easy to maintain regardless of the evidence, and that a straightforward preference explanation at least has the virtue of being contradicted if women begin reporting something different. Advocates also argue that the question contains a false premise. Asking why women still change their names implies that the practice requires special explanation, which presupposes that its natural fate is to disappear. On this account the practice is a convention, conventions persist by default rather than by being renewed, and the persistence of one that most participants find agreeable and nobody is compelled to follow is not a puzzle calling for a hidden cause.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics argue that preferences are formed inside the conventions being explained, so reporting a preference does not establish that the convention is not doing the work. They also note that the asymmetry needs accounting for: if the preference were simply for a shared family name, the sex of the person who changes should be close to random, and it is not. A further objection is that calling a practice harmless settles by assertion the question of whether it has effects on, for instance, professional identity or how couples are perceived.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Stated reasons describe what a decision felt like rather than what shaped it, which is what the question asks about. [Rejecting P2] The competing accounts also make testable claims about administrative friction and about reactions to men, so testimony is not their only evidence. [Rejecting P3] An explanation can be hard to test and still be correct, and the alternative is not made true by being easier to check. [Rejecting C] A preference for a shared surname does not explain why it is predictably the wife who changes, which is the part needing explanation.