Dalhousie assistant professor of economics Marina Adshade is probably making some future brides wonder if they should take their husband's surname.
Adshade, who teaches a course called "Sex and Love", suggested that women may be paying a financial price for doing this.
In a recent blog post, she wrote:
Taking her husband’s name at marriage suggests to potential employers that a woman is less intelligent, less ambitious, inclined to work fewer hours and more focused on family. Recent evidence suggests that women who make that choice can expect lower wages and fewer job offers as a result.
This is despite a rising percentage of U.S. brides taking their husbands' surnames, she writes. Apparently, this is because some women believe that if they don't do this, it suggests a lack of commitment. (Tell that to former prime minister Joe Clark's wife Maureen McTeer, or former president Bill Clinton's wife, long known as Hillary Rodham, who stuck with their spouses through everything.)
Adshade reports that women who don't take their husband's name are far more likely to be better educated. In case you're wondering, McTeer and Rodham Clinton are lawyers.
Here are some of the stats that Adshade cited:
For example, a US woman with a master’s degree is 2.8 times more likely to choose a non-traditional name after marriage than a woman who is educated at a lower level. A woman with a professional degree is 5 times more likely and a woman with a doctorate is 9.8 times more likely not to change her name than a woman with less than a bachelor degree.
For these numbers, she relied on a study called "Women’s Marital Naming Choices in a Nationally Representative Sample", which appeared in the Journal of Family Issues last year.
Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.