Baldwin Tshiakale lost his fight against Earl Morais for the South African cruiserweight title last month, but boxing aficionados were not the only ones interested in the bout.
For Tshiakale was previously known as Baldwin Hlongwane. According to his promoter, the boxer had recently married and decided to adopt his wife’s surname.
The thought of this elicited giggles from every male the story has been conveyed to. Comments such as, ”well we know who wears the pants in that relationship”, abounded — generally followed by laughter.
What made it even more amusing, it seemed, was that it wasn’t just any man in question, but a heavyweight boxer. Boxing is, after all, seen as one of the most macho sports around. Women are gradually moving into the ring, but it is still by and large a man’s domain, particularly in South Africa.
The choice of surname when it comes to marriage is even more a man’s domain in this country. While the occurrence of women choosing to retain their surnames or adopting a double-barrelled surname is becoming more prevalent, it is extremely rare for a man to change his surname to that of his wife.
Is this one of the remaining challenges in the battle of the sexes? By adopting a surname, does it imply ownership or symbolise dominance in a relationship?
At this point I would say yes, generally it does. Why else would Baldwin’s example elicit such hilarity?
Marriage is, after all, a merger and as in business the perceived dominant partner receives naming rights. Men are generally threatened by the idea of their spouses not adopting their surnames and many regard the idea of changing their own to that of their wives as akin to being castrated. The male ego is a fragile thing.
On closer inspection, does it really make any difference if your spouse takes your name? In general I would say no, but as a married man I must add that it is very affirming to have your wife as it were ”come over to your side”.
There is also a stronger feeling of a family unit as opposed to both parties keeping their ”maiden” names.
Western culture’s tradition of tracing a family’s heritage by focusing only on the male bloodline is indicative of the uphill battle that awaits those who wish to go against the grain.
Women have in the past been seen more as vessels for the furtherance of a line, rather than a co-contributor to it. Thus the ingrained belief that a son carries more ”value” than a daughter because he can carry on the father’s name. This is, of course, total bollocks and males who still cling to these beliefs should realise that dinosaurs have long been extinct.
In some communities — Muslim ones, for example — children take a different surname from their parents. These are formed as the first name, plus the father’s first name — ”Ali son of Saheed”, for example. Similarly, in Iceland, Gunnar’s offspring would have the surname Gunnarsson or Gunnardottir. In this manner surnames become obsolete and egos need not play a role in the name game.
But in general Western culture a name is a person’s brand, so if the wife has a more popular surname than a husband, perhaps it would motivate him to take her name above his own.
If marrying into the Mandelas, Oppenheimers or Mbekis, for example, it could be very beneficial to opt for the change of name.
While one would think adopting a different surname in a sport such as boxing — where your name is your brand — would be problematic, surnames have, in fact, proven to have a value of a different kind. It has become common practice for Asian boxers to sell their names to sponsors, products or even their training gyms. This has resulted in ”surnames” such as the likes of 33k Battery, Kratingdaenggym Dutchboygym and Katsushige Kawashima appearing in the ratings.
However, when sponsorships have changed so have the names and this has caused some confusion among those tasked with compiling ratings — as well as with international boxing writers.
While sponsors have cottoned on to buying the naming rights of soccer, rugby and cricket teams, purchasing the actual name of a player has not yet caught on.
And perhaps Baldwin will not be seen in gender relations history as a pioneer after all. It turned out after the fight that he never did adopt his wife’s surname. He is, in fact, not married at all. He merely changed his surname from that of his stepfather to that of his biological father.
But his promoter deemed there to be more value in the surname change by saying he adopted it from a woman.
The truth is, Tshiakale just wanted to fight in the name of his father.