Last name

[jackslife]

I'm quite surprised by the massive swings on either side of this particular topic.

 

I certainly don't see it as weak or unmanly as so many have pointed out. That is just ridiculous.

 

If it's a choice a couple makes together than so be it. I don't see it as a battle worth fighting in my opinion.

 

To each their own

 

Good point well made. Like everything it is the couples choice, live and let live and all that. But could it be a deal breaker?

[ufo8mycat]

What do I think? I guess some women don't mind being married to a sissy guy.

 

I don't mind but I don't think "strength" is synonymous with insisting a woman take your surname. I rather think it is about control or tradition that doesn't relate to genetics but to an anglophile tradition of women as chattels.

 

I am married to a sissy beta man who is an equal, has taken a step back professionally to support me when required, the same as I have done for him. We share stuff and I rather like that we don't have fixed views of gender roles. It makes us happy.

 

So what is the down side to being married to a sissy guys again?

[angel.eyes]

I have two friends who created a mashup off their last names when they got married. I thought that was a cute, equitable solution. Of course, they didn't share this with his parents. They would have had a conniption since he was the last male in their family with their surname.

 

Legally, I think I would prefer to keep my own name when I married, maybe hyphenate it. This isn't a dilemma I've had to face yet! So, I've given it very little thought. Still, my name has personal significance, I'm very proud of my heritage, plus my career is built around my surname. I first published as a sophomore in college, and all my published work is relevant to my career. It's the way I've been identified my whole life. But I also understand why it's important to some guys that you take their last name. I'm open to a discussion if future hubby feels strongly.

 

Socially, I really wouldn't care what name people used. I'll go with whatever option my future husband prefers. If I had children, I would prefer to hyphenate their names to reflect their heritage on both sides (which is the norm in many parts of the world anyway), but I'm fine either way. Maybe we'll all hyphenate. Who knows? Let's find future hubby first before we wrap ourselves in knots fretting about minutiae.

 

If we disagree, I'm sure we'll find an acceptable compromise. I don't think it's worth fighting over. There are more important issues to me in a marriage.

[angel.eyes]

Jay-Z took Beyoncé's last name.

 

Umm, sorry, but someone needs to notify Jay Z of that development!

 

It's actually the reverse! Both she and their daughter took his last name legally. She even refers to herself as Mrs. Carter in several of her songs following her marriage. Their daughter is Blue Ivy Carter, not Blue Ivy Knowles.

 

Her stage name is now Beyonce, not Beyonce Knowles. She's dropped her maiden name.

 

Nice sentiment, but you'll be hard pressed to find a male public figure who took his wife's surname.

 

Thanks for starting the discussion! It's interesting to see such a wide range of viewpoints.

[angel.eyes]

It's because x chromosomes are passed only within males from generation to generation. The family name is a label which represents those genetics, and the code of honor the family lives by. Every male is the embodiment of the will that is passed from generation to generation.

 

Honorable people understand the importance of the surname.

 

I barely know where to begin!

 

First, it's the Y chromosome that's passed from father to son. When a father passes on an X chromosome to his child, he has a daughter. Pre-Mendel, everyone worldwide got this wrong and blamed the woman when she had no sons. Exhibit A: Henry VIII who banished or lopped off the heads of his successive wives when he failed to have male heirs.

 

Second, your mitochondrial DNA is inherited solely from your mother. When archeologists talk about us all descending from "Eve" an early skeleton found in East Africa, or humans originating in East Africa with detailed patterns of how groups then migrated around the world at different times, those genetic studies are based on mitochondrial DNA analyses...in other words, a portion of your maternal inheritance.

 

Third, like it or not, infidelity is rampant (...in humans and in other seemingly monogamous animals)! Historically, it's an important secondary reproductive strategy, but not for the reasons I've seen bandied about LS.

 

You're always certain who a child's mother is. When the stakes were high and getting inheritance right really mattered, many societies, even staunchly patriarchal ones, resorted to matrilineal heritage to make a determination. Pharaohs in Egypt were determined matrilineally...although the woman didn't rule. Her husband became pharaoh. Her eldest daughter's husband became Pharaoh.

 

In Judaic law, whether your mother was Jewish determined whether you were a Jew. Your father had no bearing on the matter even though it was a very patriarchal society.

 

European royalty for whatever reason refused to cave even though it was clear infidelity was a massive problem for them. Instead they resorted to inbreeding and filling the court with relatives. At least if the Queen cheated, the child was still related to the King...one hoped? Who knows what they were thinking! The Hapsburgs inbred themselves into insanity. When you look at patterns of hemophilia and other recessive traits that were very common among the royal families (a side effect of inbreeding BTW), estimates of incorrect paternal assignments run as high as 20%.

 

The male surname representing genetics and the code of honor that families lived by? The male is the embodiment of the will passed from generation to generation? Surely you jest! A good chunk of the time, males were focusing resources on children in the next generation who were unrelated to them biologically. Or they might be killed off by someone more powerful who suddenly fancied one of their wives. Or...

 

Certainly not a credible argument for why women in certain countries took their husband's surname.

[Monm82]

Umm, sorry, but someone needs to notify Jay Z of that development!

 

It's actually the reverse! Both she and their daughter took his last name legally. She even refers to herself as Mrs. Carter in several of her songs following her marriage. Their daughter is Blue Ivy Carter, not Blue Ivy Knowles.

 

Her stage name is now Beyonce, not Beyonce Knowles. She's dropped her maiden name.

 

Nice sentiment, but you'll be hard pressed to find a male public figure who took his wife's surname.

 

Jay-Z is actually Shawn Knowles-Carter.

 

Others:

 

Lorenzo Lamas

 

Jay Mohr

 

Deryck Whibley took Avril Lavigne's last name when they married.

 

Also:

 

One of Kate Winslet's kids has her last name.

 

Comedian Scott Foley's kids have their mother's last name.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Monm82

[angel.eyes]

I haven't seen Jay Z refer to himself or others refer to him as Knowles-Carter. Ditto for Deryck Whibley. Perhaps you can share an example where either of these guys did this?

 

Otherwise, nice examples. Although is hyphenation or adding your wife's last name to your name the same as giving up your name for hers? In one case, your name remains. In the other, it's lost to posterity. When women "take" their husband's name, they drop their own. Those who hyphenate, will say they're hyphenating...as I did when discussing the various options in my first post. Do you think these are equivalent? Even you referred to them by their own names, the names they use publicly, not their hyphenated names.

 

In terms of Kate Winslet using her own surname for her child, Rocknroll isn't a family name. If her husband won't use his own family name (Smith), what name makes most sense for your child? I suspect their son will thank them in thirty years for not saddling him with Rocknroll.

 

Again, thanks for starting a very interesting thread!

Edited September 24, 2014 by angel.eyes

[Keenly]

Absofriggenlutely not. I would never be okay with that. I also would not be friends with a man that did that, as I would not respect him.

[angel.eyes]

Why? What's your reason for this stance? I gave my reasons for my preferences. I'm curious about your position on this, which is a common one.

[Keenly]

Quite frankly... because its a stupid idea.

 

You'll be hard pressed to find respect among the male community if you do something like that, too.

[angel.eyes]

What exactly makes it a stupid idea?

[Almond_Joy]

Yes, I also earnestly want to know why so many men and some women have a serious problem with a woman's lineage being represented in marriage. Why is this seen as so unreasonable and stupid? Why do men who choose to respect the lineage of their wife enough to have it represented in a name get seen as less worthy of respect by other men? How does acknowledging their wife take away from their identity as a man?

 

It doesn't, at all. You're not marrying an inanimate object with no history, no identity. You're marrying another person. Just like men, women have ancestry. They have an identity and a legacy too. If they don't want to carry the legacy of their family into their union, fine. But so many men are against even giving their wives the choice to do so. And that is SO insulting!

 

A man on his own does not make a family or a union. It takes two people and recognizing that second party is only respectful and sensible. Men should be OK with offering women that choice. Honestly, put yourself in the place of a woman in this debate. You and your partner make a life, TOGETHER. But you, as an individual person, with a distinct history and ancestry of your own, don't deserve the right to acknowledge where you come from? That's what it means to deny a woman that choice. And it's a damn slap in the face.

 

Please, I entreat you, give me a rational legitimate explanation as to why this is not the case that does not include you discounting the effort, investment, or identity of a woman as something less than a man's. Because at the core of EVERY argument I've EVER heard on this argument, that is the basic premise: that you see a woman as a lower class lifeform to men.

 

I find it ridiculous that women have to fight for this choice. I would NEVER put someone I love in this position or even think of them this way.

[Monm82]

I barely know where to begin!

 

First, it's the Y chromosome that's passed from father to son. When a father passes on an X chromosome to his child, he has a daughter. Pre-Mendel, everyone worldwide got this wrong and blamed the woman when she had no sons. Exhibit A: Henry VIII who banished or lopped off the heads of his successive wives when he failed to have male heirs.

 

Second, your mitochondrial DNA is inherited solely from your mother. When archeologists talk about us all descending from "Eve" an early skeleton found in East Africa, or humans originating in East Africa with detailed patterns of how groups then migrated around the world at different times, those genetic studies are based on mitochondrial DNA analyses...in other words, a portion of your maternal inheritance.

 

Third, like it or not, infidelity is rampant (...in humans and in other seemingly monogamous animals)! Historically, it's an important secondary reproductive strategy, but not for the reasons I've seen bandied about LS.

 

You're always certain who a child's mother is. When the stakes were high and getting inheritance right really mattered, many societies, even staunchly patriarchal ones, resorted to matrilineal heritage to make a determination. Pharaohs in Egypt were determined matrilineally...although the woman didn't rule. Her husband became pharaoh. Her eldest daughter's husband became Pharaoh.

 

In Judaic law, whether your mother was Jewish determined whether you were a Jew. Your father had no bearing on the matter even though it was a very patriarchal society.

 

European royalty for whatever reason refused to cave even though it was clear infidelity was a massive problem for them. Instead they resorted to inbreeding and filling the court with relatives. At least if the Queen cheated, the child was still related to the King...one hoped? Who knows what they were thinking! The Hapsburgs inbred themselves into insanity. When you look at patterns of hemophilia and other recessive traits that were very common among the royal families (a side effect of inbreeding BTW), estimates of incorrect paternal assignments run as high as 20%.

 

The male surname representing genetics and the code of honor that families lived by? The male is the embodiment of the will passed from generation to generation? Surely you jest! A good chunk of the time, males were focusing resources on children in the next generation who were unrelated to them biologically. Or they might be killed off by someone more powerful who suddenly fancied one of their wives. Or...

 

Certainly not a credible argument for why women in certain countries took their husband's surname.

 

 

Great post.

[Monm82]

Yes, I also earnestly want to know why so many men and some women have a serious problem with a woman's lineage being represented in marriage. Why is this seen as so unreasonable and stupid? Why do men who choose to respect the lineage of their wife enough to have it represented in a name get seen as less worthy of respect by other men? How does acknowledging their wife take away from their identity as a man?

 

It doesn't, at all. You're not marrying an inanimate object with no history, no identity. You're marrying another person. Just like men, women have ancestry. They have an identity and a legacy too. If they don't want to carry the legacy of their family into their union, fine. But so many men are against even giving their wives the choice to do so. And that is SO insulting!

 

A man on his own does not make a family or a union. It takes two people and recognizing that second party is only respectful and sensible. Men should be OK with offering women that choice. Honestly, put yourself in the place of a woman in this debate. You and your partner make a life, TOGETHER. But you, as an individual person, with a distinct history and ancestry of your own, don't deserve the right to acknowledge where you come from? That's what it means to deny a woman that choice. And it's a damn slap in the face.

 

Please, I entreat you, give me a rational legitimate explanation as to why this is not the case that does not include you discounting the effort, investment, or identity of a woman as something less than a man's. Because at the core of EVERY argument I've EVER heard on this argument, that is the basic premise: that you see a woman as a lower class lifeform to men.

 

I find it ridiculous that women have to fight for this choice. I would NEVER put someone I love in this position or even think of them this way.

 

 

Great post.

[Monm82]

I haven't seen Jay Z refer to himself or others refer to him as Knowles-Carter. Ditto for Deryck Whibley. Perhaps you can share an example where either of these guys did this?

 

 

There are articles online about male celebs who have taken the wife's last name. They may not publicly go by it, but it's still a cool thing.

 

 

Maybe in the future, some male celebs will have the balls to publicly use their wife's surname.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Monm82

[compulsivedancer]

I have come up with a solution for the lineage/naming problem, but of course it introduces it's own issues. Women pass down their own name to a female child, men to a male child.

 

If the woman is Ms. Jones and the man is Mr. Smith, their family becomes the Jones-Smith family. Their kids are Jill and Jack Jones-Smith.

 

Jill marries Mr. Black and Jack marries Ms. White. Jill's family is now the Jones-Black family (because she took mom's name), and Jack's family is now the White-Smith family.

 

Not sure how this would play out for gay families, or male kids with unknown fathers... :/

[Almond_Joy]

Still waiting on the argument for a man's surname only that doesn't require discrediting the effort, investment, or identity of the woman in the relationship. The dudes just abandoned this thread, now it's not worth the time and effort to debate, huh?

 

Hilariously sad.

[me85]

I'm traditional but I think it's cool if a husband wants to take his wife's last name. Perfectly fine with me.

 

If I ever marry I won't ditch my last name (because I love it too much) I'll Be J_______ N________ D________ ?.

[goodyblue]

I took my guys name. I was in a bad relationship that lasted for years. I finally divorced and my guy is so sweet and good to me, takes care, is respectful an kind. I want to be his, and he, mine. And I want everyone to know it. I am proud of our relationship and taking his name, for me, says so.

 

On the other side, my son has nothing to do with his father. When he married both he and his darling wife took my maiden name.

[cocorico]

I have come up with a solution for the lineage/naming problem, but of course it introduces it's own issues. Women pass down their own name to a female child, men to a male child.

 

If the woman is Ms. Jones and the man is Mr. Smith, their family becomes the Jones-Smith family. Their kids are Jill and Jack Jones-Smith.

 

Jill marries Mr. Black and Jack marries Ms. White. Jill's family is now the Jones-Black family (because she took mom's name), and Jack's family is now the White-Smith family.

 

Not sure how this would play out for gay families, or male kids with unknown fathers... :/

 

I have friends who did this the other way. The daughter took the father's last name, and the son his mother's. And another family I know, where the kids had both last names hyphenated, the son went on to drop his father's last name and the daughter her mother's, simply because the hyphenated double-barrel name was too long and clunky for day-to-day use.

 

I took my H's name when we M. He would have been happy to take mine, but it made sense for him to keep his last name professionally, and having different professional and personal identities seemed too messy at his stage of life. I was starting a new life in a new country, so it seemed like a good time for a change.

[MuscleCarFan]

Pink_sugar didn't take my last name because 1) She's her own person and likes her own last name, 2) She would HATE to spell out my last name constantly. (It's rather uncommon).

[Diezel]

How does everyone feel about marriages in which the husband takes the wife's last name?

 

 

I think it's beyond beautiful, and this is coming from a man.

 

No, doesn't sound like it's coming from a man.

[beatcuff]

there are some 'actions' i see as a sign of weakness of a man:

 

1 - man taking a woman's last name. that includes the 'hyphen'. but taking her last name as your middle name is fine. and having the woman keep her last name is fine (very common for established professionals).

 

2 - woman drives when they go out.

 

why? not sure. can't explain it. i accept that some M have a strong W (my sister is exhibit A). and he said 'i do' so who am i to argue. which leads me back to why? my only reasoning is the man is giving up everything , and being that in the USA it is tradition for them to take the man's last name then W demanded it and he caved.

 

sorry for those looking for facts or substance, sometimes it is what it is.

[compulsivedancer]

there are some 'actions' i see as a sign of weakness of a man:

 

1 - man taking a woman's last name. that includes the 'hyphen'. but taking her last name as your middle name is fine. and having the woman keep her last name is fine (very common for established professionals).

 

2 - woman drives when they go out.

 

why? not sure. can't explain it. i accept that some M have a strong W (my sister is exhibit A). and he said 'i do' so who am i to argue. which leads me back to why? my only reasoning is the man is giving up everything , and being that in the USA it is tradition for them to take the man's last name then W demanded it and he caved.

 

sorry for those looking for facts or substance, sometimes it is what it is.

 

Wow that's weird. My H and I each drive our own cars, so when we go somewhere in my car, I drive. I have the larger car, so when we go somewhere with passengers or where we need to have more room for storage, we take my car. Additionally, I can't drive a stick, so I can't drive his car. So if there's any chance I'll need to drive home (eg. He's going to be drinking, or he's exhausted), we take my car.

 

Also, I grew up in a neighboring larger city, where my family and many of my friends still live, so if we go there, I usually drive because I know the area better.

 

So all in all, I drive probably 80% of the time when the two of us go out.

 

But no one anywhere thinks my husband is weak.

 

I personally think it's a sign of weakness to feel the need to assert your "manhood" constantly. It's a sign of strength to be comfortable enough with your self not to feel "less" when you're with a woman who does the same things you do.

[Monm82]

The Taylor in Aaron Taylor-Johnson is his wife's last name. He's the guy from the new Godzilla and the Kick-Ass movies.