She Wants to Keep Her Last Name...Dealbreaker?

[Almond_Joy]

You people need to re-read the OP post.

 

His future wife wants to keep her EX husbands name, not her madian name. How this is cool, i'll never understand.

 

I remember the OP. I don't think that's cool, as she's no longer united with that family line. She may deem it necessary for legal and professional reasons, but it would leave a sour taste in my mouth if I was the guy and she wanted the last name for anything other than legal or professional necessity.

[USMCHokie]

You people need to re-read the OP post.

 

His future wife wants to keep her EX husbands name, not her madian name. How this is cool, i'll never understand.

 

This would make sense if she was trying to keep the same last name as her child, who would obviously keep the last name of his/her dad.

[Emilia]

Who is grown, and no longer living in the house.

your connection doesn't stop with your child just because they leave the house

[carhill]

I recall, when my exW and I were talking about getting married, the name issue came up and she showed me all the paperwork she went through to change her previous married surname back to her maiden name and was firm about not wanting to go through that again, either way, meaning changing to my surname or back. Those reasons, including establishing herself in her business as known by her maiden name, made sense to me so it wasn't a 'dealbreaker' for myself. Another man might have viewed the circumstances differently. I may have considered many reasons for our M not working out but, even on the darkest of days, never considered her desire to keep her maiden name, or not take my surname upon marriage, as one of them.

[USMCHokie]

Who is grown, and no longer living in the house.

 

If she's older, then perhaps it's just too much a pain in the ass to get her name changed after having already done it...or they just like the name and want to keep it because it sounds good, or at least better than the guy's name or her maiden name.

[Els]

Out of curiousity, OP, what ELSE are you going to do to traditionally 'be the man'? Other than having her take your last name, that is?

 

Are you going to:

 

1) Protect her at all costs, with your life if it comes to that

2) Singlehandedly provide for your family

3) Do all the heavy lifting and carrying

 

If you are, yeah, she should probably take it.

 

If you aren't, sounds like a huge case of someone wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

[Pompeii]

I really just find this sad. Do you honestly think you have more experience of the dark side of human nature than others on this board? You aren't talking from experience, but fear. That's the fact, Jack.

 

And if the issue with name-changing is about doubting whether she's all in, but you're saying that you're perfectly a-OK with not being all in yourself - because that IS what assuming the worst of another really is all about - then you're being hypocritical about this entire issue, and your responses basically make no sense.

 

Dude, think about your choices, is all I'm saying. You think my response is ready-made, predictable, blah blah blah rudecakes? Trust me, you're not offering up anything revolutionary or even all that interesting...just the same sad-sack stuff people post every day when they're basically unhappy and lonely. How is that helping you? You've got work to do, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

So you're telling me having a plan B is a bad idea? We all fail in life and some end up in worse shape than others because they don't plan for failure. First rule of entrepreneurship is planning to fail. Starting a marriage is essentially built on the same concepts : bringing something to life from nothing. So this isn't a question of me being "all in", but rather me just being smart and being cognizant of Murphy's Law. If you want to be ignorant and pretend that "all you need is love" or whatever, good on you. But I just know myself and others who plan for the worst are the ones who will end up better for it.

 

As far as "revolutionary ideas" go, I'm no Che Guevara, so I don't know why you think there should be "revolutionary" concepts in my post.

[ChessPieceFace]

Looks like I have to post this again.

 

OP, a bunch of feminists screaming in unison doesn't make them right. We live in a divorce society where men and fathers don't matter anymore. The ultra feminists are right in that she shouldn't HAVE to change her name. However, flip side of that coin is that HE should see this as the big red flag that it is and walk, rather than risk his future on someone who isn't truly willing to commit to him. Because that's exactly what it means.

 

Hate to say it, but men should rarely marry now. A woman has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she's not going to use the powers granted to her by family courts to ruin a man's life. That she is not shallow, petty, spiteful, vindictive, selfish or poisoned by feminism. He needs to get out while he still can.

[Mme. Chaucer]

For a man to be "evolved" he must first abandon everything that makes him a man.

 

This post is very emasculating, if you think that "everything that makes you a man" is represented by a woman agreeing to change her name, especially if she's bullied into it, it's sad. Fortunately, you're only speaking for yourself and a small handful of other guys - none of which I know personally, thank goodness.

 

There is so much more to what makes a man than that. Sad that this is news to you, but I think you're young and manhood might still be attainable for you. If you open your mind and become willing to see stuff that so far has eluded you.

[fortyninethousand322]

I think it's a good idea to know what your personal deal breakers are and aren't.

 

For some people, disagreeing over politics is a huge deal breaker because to them it reflects a "difference in values". For others, they don't care about politics so it's no big deal. And so on and so forth.

 

For some people, a woman refusing to change her name to her would-be husband's is a deal breaker. I honestly do not see why that's a bad deal breaker vs say politics or dietary choices (vegan vs non-vegan for example). It might not be my personal deal breaker, but what's the harm in someone making that their deal breaker? None, as far as I can tell. Live and let live...

[dreamingoftigers]

I always wonder how that ends up after a few generations.

 

Finally, we're married! I'm Mrs. Sara Jonston-Newell-Powell-Smith-Grey-MacElroy!

Or do each offend one parent to pick one of their names for the new last name in the new hyphenation?

Plus it's just long and unwieldy.

 

I took my ex husband's name. I would do it again. I kept using my maiden name professionally and probably always will - word of mouth can get confused through all that - but not legally and personally.

I think it's a good tradition.

 

Legally in Canada, (last I heard anyhow) you can only hyphenate once.

 

So no, "Smith-Jones-Baker"

 

We came up with something ultra-amazing for how our child could deal with it.

We decided we would let them make up their own minds what they wanted to do when it came time to marry or what have you.

 

Completely up to them.

Apparently, in this thread, that's quite a shocking idea.

[Mme. Chaucer]

For some people, a woman refusing to change her name to her would-be husband's is a deal breaker. I honestly do not see why that's a bad deal

 

If it's within the context of people's values and mores and how those merge, that is reasonable to me. A woman who unquestioningly changes her name to that of whatever man she marries, whether the first, or fifth is probably "on the same page" as a man who expects that.

 

All of this talk of kicking to the curb, emasculation, man is boss, etc. seems a little after the fact. If the people are not compatible in the way they view how married people are bound to present themselves to the world, that's a valid issue. If a man is going to browbeat a woman that he professes to love and with whom he's maintained a longterm relationship into changing her name, with threats of curb kicking and "consequences" (parental, no?) and ZERO consideration and respect for her choice -

 

That shows me a man who is not marriage material for any grown-up woman. And best that she finds out now rather than later. During their divorce.

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

OP, a bunch of feminists screaming in unison doesn't make them right. We live in a divorce society where men and fathers don't matter anymore. The ultra feminists are right in that she shouldn't HAVE to change her name.

 

I'm a feminist and my father, grandfather, brother, brother in law, the father of my child, my husband and dozens of men matter a great deal in my life. Thousands of men, if I'm considering all the admirable ones I don't even know, but whose work and contributions to the world are important to me and to all of us.

 

I don't think that a woman being free to choose how she is called is even feminist. It's just normal.

 

I got something in the mail that was addressed to me as "Mrs. Steve S_____"

I had to laugh. Mrs Steve? Not to even mention that I use my maiden surname, and did throughout my first marriage as well.

 

Your big fail - and that of your cohorts around here - is in being threatened by things like a woman choosing what she's called.

 

It's no threat to you unless you allow it to be. Frankly, I think you'd be a lot happier if you'd accept that women, including married ones, are not supposed to be under the dominion of men any more, and just move on. Equitable relationships between people who respect and honor one another are very fulfilling. You might like one yourself.

[fortyninethousand322]

If it's within the context of people's values and mores and how those merge, that is reasonable to me. A woman who unquestioningly changes her name to that of whatever man she marries, whether the first, or fifth is probably "on the same page" as a man who expects that.

 

All of this talk of kicking to the curb, emasculation, man is boss, etc. seems a little after the fact. If the people are not compatible in the way they view how married people are bound to present themselves to the world, that's a valid issue. If a man is going to browbeat a woman that he professes to love and with whom he's maintained a longterm relationship into changing her name, with threats of curb kicking and "consequences" (parental, no?) and ZERO consideration and respect for her choice -

 

That shows me a man who is not marriage material for any grown-up woman. And best that she finds out now rather than later. During their divorce.

 

I disagree somewhat. I think it means he respects her choice, but it's a choice that makes them incompatible. Very similar to a situation in which one partner says to the other "if we get married I want to live in Cleveland near my family", and the other partner doesn't want to live in Cleveland, so they don't get married.

 

I mean it might be unreasonable to you, or to me or whoever, but it is what it is. Like will attract like eventually.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I disagree somewhat. I think it means he respects her choice, but it's a choice that makes them incompatible. Very similar to a situation in which one partner says to the other "if we get married I want to live in Cleveland near my family", and the other partner doesn't want to live in Cleveland, so they don't get married.

 

I mean it might be unreasonable to you, or to me or whoever, but it is what it is. Like will attract like eventually.

 

Don't you think that people who are truly compatible will be able to see the other's perspective on this? I mean … they're at the verge of marriage.

 

And in this situation, it's not the man who is giving up anything, no matter how much complaining the guys are doing. It's the woman.

 

Bottom line is the overall attitude of the OP. There is not even a question or a discussion. There is "kick her to the curb."

[SuperGeek]

Well if it was me, I'd never tell a girl to CHANGE her name for me. But I would be shocked that they didn't want to. After all they are entering into a 'life' commitment with me via marriage, so keeping the remnant name of her ex is just strange to me. Again, if there is a really good reason for it, it wouldn't bother me at all. If she is holding on to the name for sentimental value than I'd seriously question if she was even ready to be married to me. A maiden name doesn't bother me at all.

 

I'd never in a million years 'force' a girl to change her name for me. I wouldn't even ask, but I'd quickly get cold feet about going through with the marriage if a fiance was adamant about keeping the ex's last name and can't provide any logically valid reason for that.

 

 

 

Have you ever had a mutually respectful, deep and mature relationship? Within such a relationship, one does not try to control the other. And the relationship is not used as a weapon in order to get a person to do what you want them to do.

 

Clearly, if a woman who believes she should be able to choose her own name finds herself involved with a man who disputes this and who wants to treat her like garbage over it, they are severely mismatched. She ought to kick him to the curb and find an evolved man.

[fortyninethousand322]

Don't you think that people who are truly compatible will be able to see the other's perspective on this? I mean … they're at the verge of marriage.

 

Yes, probably. But, that means they're not compatible and shouldn't be getting married to each other. It's an irreconcilable difference. It happens.

 

And in this situation, it's not the man who is giving up anything, no matter how much complaining the guys are doing. It's the woman.

 

If a man feels slighted by a woman not taking up his last name, who am I (or who are you) to tell him he shouldn't feel that way?

 

Bottom line is the overall attitude of the OP. There is not even a question or a discussion. There is "kick her to the curb."

 

Well, that's the OP's preference. I don't share it, I don't understand it, but it's his to have.

[clia]

So … is this "family pride" only available to men?

 

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question from Pompeii and some of the other men who rely on this as part of their reasoning why a woman should change her name.

[dreamingoftigers]

Looks like I have to post this again.

 

OP, a bunch of feminists screaming in unison doesn't make them right. We live in a divorce society where men and fathers don't matter anymore. The ultra feminists are right in that she shouldn't HAVE to change her name. However, flip side of that coin is that HE should see this as the big red flag that it is and walk, rather than risk his future on someone who isn't truly willing to commit to him. Because that's exactly what it means.

 

Hate to say it, but men should rarely marry now. A woman has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she's not going to use the powers granted to her by family courts to ruin a man's life. That she is not shallow, petty, spiteful, vindictive, selfish or poisoned by feminism. He needs to get out while he still can.

 

Last time I engage this poster's 'insights' in this thread.

A group of people, especially a mix of men and women, holding the same opinion on the topic does not make us a bunch of "screaming feminists." and really, where's the indignant rage coming from? Not the people saying, "if she doesn't want to change her name, and it is a dealbreaker to this guy, then they could very well be incompatible. If the bf were to approach his gf with the same attitude as the OP, (essentially threatening the relationship in exchange for the name change) that is not attractive or what implies a healthy partner. Same as if a woman were to make the same demand." Where's that rage? Where's that screaming feminism?

Through this thread I have seen two posters say things that cut down on men regarding this type of attitude. The first one was the "man up" etc. The second was mme. Chaucer who I have found does not cut down on "men" as a whole but will use the shaming language to crack down on a particular poster specifically in response to a poster saying something along the lines of, "if this guy doesn't do X, that's not being a man." She'll say something along the lines of "you having xyz attitude or using xyz action makes YOU (or someone with that idea) not a man." (Very basic outline for it anyhow).

 

Whereas I am not supporting either post in that instance, it just doesn't prove whatsoever this big cloud of militant feminists cracking down on any male desire, thought or feeling, simply based on the fact that a man is a man and has different thoughts and ideas about a given circumstance. And that opinion may be different than a woman's. It just isn't here.

 

But yet the points that the posters HAVE made get turned into "don't listen to them. (essentially) they are the enemy. Feminists, screaming, angry, bitter, disrespectful."

 

Honestly, I think we could say ANYTHING, but as long as we aren't tearing OP's friend's girlfriend to shreds for wanting to keep her name without anyone actually knowing why we will be assessed as being hateful to men as part of a larger agenda.

 

That's..... Just..... Nuts.

 

I'm Mormon. I believe in the churches stance on a good deal many things (which is often different than what certain members do in media).

 

This thread makes the men in my church look not traditional, but even highly progressive and liberal. If your attitudes are making the Mormon church look radically liberal and forward-reaching on the "feminist" front, then I would say that you've got some entrenched ideas regarding women that aren't healthy. They'd probably be highly controlling under the guide of self-preservation.

 

IMHO, IME the people who crow the loudest about:

 

1. Respect, and not having it delivered:

Are the least likely to deliver it.

 

2. Family loyalty and how someone else is lacking

Are the least likely to be loyal and deliver that to their families

 

3. Fault-finding with their friends and partners

Are the least likely to be a reasonable friend or partner.

 

4. Marginalize another gender, race, orientation, religion, or any group

Are the least likely to have been targeted by said group; or had extended experience in interacting with them on any kind of logical or open-minded

basis.

 

The conclusions drawn from a simple act of someone *potentially* choosing to keep a last name (yes, from a previous marriage) when someone else is *potentially* proposing to her, has blown up a powder keg with some posters here. The OP itself was loaded with it, practically inviting female-toward-male dissent and after 14 pages, it's barely made an appearance.

 

But the response to the non-response from "feminists" LOL.

 

Some of you posters are fighting ghosts in the dark. You are fighting an argument NO ONE is having with you.

 

Those of us that hold the same opinion have been pretty consistent with "have any opinion you want, but that attitude is controlling, no matter who does it, and a last-name change in our opinion isn't a deal-breaker." others have chimed in saying "I'd be hurt." Others have mentioned, "I don't think I'd like it but it's not a dealbreaker."

 

Some of you have responded to that by saying "see women are eveywhere trying to stomp us out and CLEARLY THIS IS PART OF THAT AGENDA. The line must be drawn here! No further! Destroy the relationship before you become another emasculated male statistic! Nobody puts manhood in the corner!"

 

"IF SHE LOVED ME SHE WOULD DO IT"

 

Overreaction much?

[happydate]

I disagree somewhat. I think it means he respects her choice, but it's a choice that makes them incompatible. Very similar to a situation in which one partner says to the other "if we get married I want to live in Cleveland near my family", and the other partner doesn't want to live in Cleveland, so they don't get married.

 

I mean it might be unreasonable to you, or to me or whoever, but it is what it is. Like will attract like eventually.

 

The Original Poster was not even attracted to the lady of his friend at all, cause he is not marrying her. He's just using her as a point of his own self-centered selfish views that revealed part of his anger and frustration of why he's not at all as successful as his friend who's getting married.

 

You will notice that he makes an emphasis that he will not marry nor date and keep dating women who express her own opinion. Which means he lacks the respect for these women and these women are not attracted to him. Sadly though, sometimes these are the women who are the ones he should be looking once he changed her views.

 

I used to be as egotistical and self-centered selfish views like the OP,because my traditional family values demand that my wife shall take my last family name. Period. That didn't get me anywhere with women as they think I'm shallow. Eventually when they squeeze me hard enough, out comes the authentic me like you squeeze an orange, out comes orange juice.

 

Eventually, a highly confident, high self-esteem and commanding ladies are what make confident men appreciative. Bullying and attacking people are not traits of a confident man. It is a trait of a man who's insecure enough to try and change others to refelct to the same views of him.

This will not last him far in attaining the ulitmate in happy equality relationships that so many people seek.

[serial muse]

So you're telling me having a plan B is a bad idea? We all fail in life and some end up in worse shape than others because they don't plan for failure. First rule of entrepreneurship is planning to fail. Starting a marriage is essentially built on the same concepts : bringing something to life from nothing. So this isn't a question of me being "all in", but rather me just being smart and being cognizant of Murphy's Law. If you want to be ignorant and pretend that "all you need is love" or whatever, good on you. But I just know myself and others who plan for the worst are the ones who will end up better for it.

 

As far as "revolutionary ideas" go, I'm no Che Guevara, so I don't know why you think there should be "revolutionary" concepts in my post.

 

Obviously, I was responding to your charge that my responses were overly predictable, etc.; seemed reasonable to point out that you're hardly one to talk, on that front. And "all you need is love"? All that says to me is you didn't read my posts, just saw opposition and promptly lost it. This is a rampant problem, I notice - many people tend to respond to what they assume someone would say, rather than what they actually type. Classic strawman argument, in other words - put words in my mouth, and then discount them. Tiresome, but there you are.

 

Anyway. Whatever, good luck with your "plan", I guess. You think you'll end up the better for it, some distant day in the future. So far, doesn't seem like it's working out so well for you, but don't stop believin'. And hey, keep us posted on how plan B is going.

[serial muse]

You people need to re-read the OP post.

 

His future wife wants to keep her EX husbands name, not her madian name. How this is cool, i'll never understand.

 

Well, the problem is that the OP either doesn't have or didn't offer any direct information from the woman explaining why she wants to keep it, only his own speculation and judgments. So everyone's just piggybacking off of that. She might tell a different story about what's going on and what her motivations are, but it's way more fun to metaphorically tear a random human being to bits because respect and honor and family pride.

[jolie_baby]

I could maybe understand if she wanted to keep her last name as her son's. At the same time, I could also understand why a man would like his wife to have his last name... So they would need to talk about it, either one of them compromises or they otherwise find a solution that makes both happy.

[Jane2011]

OP, my older sister has been married for fifteen years and has always had her husband's 11-letter hard-to-pronounce last name, with no inclusion of her own last name even in hyphenation, and his balls have still been in her purse the whole time. So...I think the last name thing is immaterial with regard to relationship dynamics.

 

However, I agree with the others that it's usually about the guy's ego when he's insisting that a woman take his last name.

[tbf]

Like will attract like eventually.

This is true. Like attracts like which is why all the male screamers are single. The more rigid the expectations, the less likely they're going to find doormats to date.