There is an interesting debate happening in my social media network about the old act of name swapping after a couple has tied the knot.

It started when news began to circulate that after Zoe Saldana had married hot ass Italian artist (seriously that is one delicious-looking pancetta) Marco Perego two years ago, he opted to take her surname. As reported by the Huffington Post, Saldana told InStyle she was nervous about his decision:

“I tried to talk him out of it. I told him, ‘If you use my name, you’re going to be emasculated by your community of artists, by your Latin community of men, by the world’,” the star told InStyle. “But Marco looks up at me and says [she puts on a cute Italian accent], ‘Ah, Zoe, I don’t give a shit.’”

Imagine if more men didn’t give a shit (and were as hot as Perego). How peaceful and overpopulated with beautiful babies would this world be?

But seriously, this news has sent shockwaves through some in my social media network. They feel that part of Perego is either chucking away his masculinity or setting the young starlet up for some crazy alimony scheme. Either way, their personal decision (and really, it’s no one else’s business) does raise a wonderful question: Why in a culture that has grown more progressive, with women taking more control over their personal lives and careers, are we still engaging in the archaic practice of taking on his surname and not the other way around?

Although many people believe that the act of taking on a man’s name is biblical, the custom is actually rooted in Eurocentric values about ownership (i.e. women as property to be transferred from her family to her husband) and is not universally practiced. For instance, in Italy, it is very common for couples to each maintain their surnames, although the children take on the father’s name.

And although most Americans believe that women should take on their husband’s name, some couples are opting to forgo the practice. Instead, they’re going for more gender-neutral relationship identities including hyphenated names, name blending or even keeping their own names. And as writer Jill Filipovic once wrote in a piece for The Guardian UK:

That is fundamentally why I oppose changing your name (and why I look forward to the wider legalization of same-sex marriage, which in addition to just being good and right, will challenge the idea that there are naturally different roles for men and women within the marital unit). Identities matter, and the words we put on things are part of how we make them real. There’s a power in naming that feminists and social justice activists have long highlighted. Putting a word to the most obvious social dynamics is the first step toward ending inequality. Words like “sexism” and “racism” make clear that different treatment based on sex or race is something other than the natural state of things; the invention of the term “Ms” shed light on the fact that men simply existed in the world while women were identified based on their marital status.

And as writer William Macaskill said about his decision to take on his partner’s last name in an article for The Atlantic entitled, “Men Should Consider Changing Their Last Name When They Get Married“:

We’ve made progress on these issues (though some remarkably late). But the tradition of taking the man’s name remains and, given its background, it seems to me it’s simply bad taste to carry on with it, in the same way that it would be bad taste to put on a minstrel show, no matter how pure the intentions. You might say that we need some rule, and that taking the man’s name is as good as any other. But is this true? Why not go with whichever name sounds better? Or which name is associated with the coolest people? (MacAskill clearly beats my birth surname “Crouch” on both counts, having a better ring and being the name of both Giant MacAskill—a forebear of my fiancée’s who has a claim to be the world’s strongest ever man—and Danny MacAskill, a trial-biking legend who, also being descended from Giant MacAskill, must be a very distant cousin.) Or any other choice made by both parties.

It’s an interesting question in which I believe there isn’t a right answer for. Although I will say that whether or not a woman takes her husband’s name should only be a matter of personal comfort as opposed to what society believes should happen. Personally, I have not decided what I will do with my last name when I get married. Childhood trauma in which I was teased relentlessly about the last name “Ball” makes me think that taking on my future husband’s surname wouldn’t be a bad idea. Plus, I have no real connection to my last name as it belongs to my grandfather whom I only met once in life. However, for branding purposes, I have built a pretty decent reputation around my surname and getting rid of that might have an effect on me professionally.