Reasons why a woman should take her husband's last name and not reverse?

[loony]

Originally posted by Art_Critic

Again .. good points..

 

But re-read my post I said "CAN" be reasons that doesn't imply that I think there "ARE" reasons like she can be jaded

I did read it and you immediately jumped to the worst case scenario.

 

Originally posted by Art_Critic

You are starting to just argue with people Loony instead of debate opinions..

 

I can agree that we disagree on somethings.. Can you do the same?

Sure, if the others do the same.

[Art_Critic]

Originally posted by loony

I did read it and you immediately jumped to the worst case scenario.

 

 

Sure, if the others do the same.

 

Nobody says that the rules say I should sugar coat something ..

 

 

and that wasn't the worst case scenario.. There many other reasons that are far worse than being jaded

[loony]

Originally posted by Art_Critic

There many other reasons that are far worse than being jaded

Like what??

[Outcast]

And here you are making my point. It's not that a woman doesn't want to take a name, it's the symbolism you attach to it. So maybe Tanbark thinks it means she doesn't love him or some other guy thinks it's about being 'jaded'. However you may think something that's not at all true; it's not fair to insist that if somebody loves you he or she must give things up nor is it fair to accuse someone of not loving you enough, etc. just because she doesn't want your name.

 

You have to understand that what you think is true is not necessarily the truth so the symbolism you imbue some action with is a construct of your brain, not a reflection of reality. Were this not the case, there'd be no market for CBT therapy

 

Someone's insistence on branding (as loony put it) his name on someone else or else he would not marry would be a huge red flag indicating that he would believe what he wished to believe (in this case, apparently, that the first spouse somehow has more relevance than himself) despite its not being reflective of the real situation. And that's not a great quality, IMHO.

[Art_Critic]

Originally posted by loony

Like what??

 

You are just trying to bait me and lure me into your argument..

 

I would rather not fall into that since it would make me into a Loony Tune

[loony]

Originally posted by Art_Critic

You are just trying to bait me and lure me into your argument..

 

I would rather not fall into that since it would make me into a Loony Tune

I'm not sure what you're meaning... Maybe you're just another guy who is afraid of being captured by the siren's singing, so sorry.

 

If RecordProducer says that taking a man's name is tradition, just like the fact that a men is financially responsible for the woman then I can counterargument this by pointint out that the world has changed and often the man is not the only provider for a family anymore. That's arguing and not debating?

[RecordProducer]

Like it or not, men generally make more money than women. Many more women are stay-at-home moms. Plus men don't deliver babies at all.

 

The symbolism of taking the man's name "reminds" the man that he can't just make a few children and leave the woman to cope with kids and work and take care of the house and everything else. Not that it doesn't happen, but it started happening when women became equal with men. In my opinion, it's a compromise. We should strive to keep the good traditional things and keep our social independence at the same time.

 

The joint-last-name unwritten rule bonds the man in a figurative, but socially accepted way, that he is now responsible for the family. Women are responsible by nature, just like with most animals. The same goal is accomplished by marriage or admitting the children officially. In its nature, this tradition protects the woman rather than the man.

[SoftDrink]

Originally posted by loony

 

 

 

You do it because everybody does it.

 

I don't think people have the right to doubt a woman's commitment to her man or her love for him just because she doesn't believe in taking his name.

 

you still don't understand.

 

i never said anything you are insinuating. i said what i would do as per what i prefer, and that if someone feels so controlled by someone that it becomes names become a possession thing, then marriage might not be the best option anyway.

 

and just for the record, everybody does not do it, or this conversation wouldn't be taking place.

 

i think people should do what's right for them. i don't doubt anyone's personal reasons for choosing to take a man's name or not.

[Rubber_Chicken]

The guy alway's has the social responsibility of being the families caretaker and having all the same name shows that you are operating as a union

[Horse]

I think that, like most traditions, women taking the mans name was done for practical reasons in the past.

 

In the olden days, the women stayed home for the most part and the men were the ones who travelled and traded. Travelling was often dangerous, so it made sense for the man to do it.

 

Because the man was out in the world and represented the family, it made sense for his wife and children to use his name. This is also why there are a lot of names like Jackson (Jacks Son).

 

 

So people did that for centuries and it became a tradition.

 

I will agree that there is no practical reason why the woman should take the mans name, but what are the options?

 

Hyphenation is silly. It makes it seem like the woman doesn't completely want to be part of the mans family. Like she has one foot in her old family and one foot in the new family.

 

or

 

The Couple could break with centuries of tradition and take the womans last name. Some guys have real dumb names, so this is not always a bad choice.

 

or stick with tradition even though there is no real practical reason.

 

Thre are tons of traditions that no longer make practical sense, like:

 

If men and women both work, why does the guy have to pay for dates?

Why do we say Bless you when someone sneezes.

Why do we have expensive marriage ceremonies with white dresses, flowers etc...

Why do we say "it's nice to meet you." when we meet a stranger. It's not always nice.

Opening car doors.

etc. etc.

 

If there was still a real practical purpose, we wouldn't call them traditions.

[SoftDrink]

it's just as difficult to understand the concept of all these women with spent virginities insisting on wearing white as it is to understand taking a man's name.

 

tradition or pretense, call it what you will, but people do it, don't they?

 

and then again, some don't.

 

who cares? worry about yourself, not what other people are doing with their marriages.

[loony]

SoftDrink, my answer:

Originally posted by loony

You do it because everybody does it.

 

was in reference to this answer:

Originally posted by SoftDrink

i will take my husband's last name. i love my own last name and people know me because of it, but when i am married, i will take his.

 

i find hyphenated last names irritating. while i may keep my "maiden" name also, i will not sign both names unless necessary, and i will refer to myself as "Mrs. Blank" not "Mrs. Blankety-Blank".

 

it's not an ownership kind of thing unless you make it that way, and if you do make it that way for yourself, or you feel like you are in an ownership kind of relationship, you shouldn't get married anyway.

 

just my opinion.

 

I had asked if there was any good reason why a woman was supposed to take a man's name and your answer was just that you would do it when you're getting married. I guessed, you would do it because everybody else does as in your answer I couldn't find any real explanation which would have answered my question.

 

Originally posted by loony

I don't think people have the right to doubt a woman's commitment to her man or her love for him just because she doesn't believe in taking his name.

This part was not aimed at you, sorry for the misunderstanding. It was a general comment but I haven't used enough blank lines to separate it from my comSofment for you.

[loony]

Originally posted by Horse

If there was still a real practical purpose, we wouldn't call them traditions.

The problem is not that they have no practical purpose, the problem arises when some people place too much importance on them and jump to conclusions when someone doesn't want to adhere to them.

 

Originally posted by SoftDrink

who cares? worry about yourself, not what other people are doing with their marriages.

If it doesn't interest you to discuss why certain traditions exist and if they still make sense, you don't have to answer, that's simple, isn't it? - Actually, you did not answer anything, but thanks anyway.

[RecordProducer]

Loony, do you want to get married? If the answer is "yes" then why? I am talking about official marriage, not common-law marriage.

[bab]

I think Horse is on the money with where it came from. However, I don't know if I would go as far as to say there are no longer any practical reasons.

 

I've recently decided that I will take my fiance's name, and move my maiden name to my middle name. When I publish, I'm going to publish under all three names. I came to this conclusion after discussing it with a female professor of mine that kept her name. She said that there were practical reasons for changing your name. A few of the hassle's she's gone through:

 

When her daughter was born her wrist band had her mother's name. After the birth certificate was filled out giving the child her father's name, the nurses were looking for a child with the father's name and couldn't find the child in the nursery. This caused a panic that was quickly figured out, but still, a bit stressful after just giving birth.

 

Since 9/11 when they are at the airport they have pulled her daughter aside to ask if she is really the mother. Let's say mom was less than pleased with this.

 

Legalities with making big financial purchases, such as homes, are simpler. My future MIL kept her name when they got married, but later changed it when they were trying to purchase their first home.

 

None of these things are enough of an individual reason, and because keeping your name is much more common now, they are even decreasing, but when this professor, who is one of the most militant feminists told me that if she could do it over again, she'd use both names, I realized this was the option for me.

 

My main reason for this decision still resides with my desire for us to have the same name, representing a new family, regardless of what it is. Yes, the fact that it's his name and not mine is based in tradition, but also practicality. Our names don't mesh well to create a nice new one. And it's tougher for a guy to take on a woman's name.

 

Reading these posts made me realize that there are some men out there that have some really messed up reasons for their wives to taking their names. You paid for a diamond so she "owes" you??? You've got to be kidding. Because I didn't realize that men still thought that way, I asked my fiance what the significance of me taking his name was to him. Lucky for him his response was not that I "owed" him. He said that he was really honored that I would want to align myself with him. (note: He was honored, not that I SHOULD honor him.)

 

He left this decision up to me and didn't pressure me either way, and for that, I do honor him.

[RecordProducer]

Originally posted by bab

Reading these posts made me realize that there are some men out there that have some really messed up reasons for their wives to taking their names. You paid for a diamond so she "owes" you??? You've got to be kidding.

 

Blackfrost WAS kidding! He is a successful guy married for 10 years and his wife is a stay-at-home mom. Now wouldn't it be ridiculous if he took her last name? Or not?

[april]

Originally posted by tanbark813

I don't think I could marry a woman who didn't consider it an honor to take my name.

Ah, my feelings also.

 

Love and marriage

 

And some traditions thrown in - like taking his last name...I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[tanbark813]

Originally posted by loony

The only reason that explains why you want it like this seems to be the male instinct to mark his territory./QUOTE]

 

That's not the only reason. And if you're against things that might be considered a marking of territory, perhaps we should do away with wedding bands as well.

 

Originally posted by loony

If you want to, then fine, you will find a woman who will gladly carry your name, but remember it has nothing to do with respect or love.

 

Others would disagree (i.e., myself, april, ...).

 

Originally posted by loony

You are telling me that it's wrong for a woman not to take her husband's name, that this is the death of chivalry, so obviously you consider a woman who doesn't like this tradition to be a man-eating feminist. Or am I wrong?

 

I would not say it is the defining characteristic but there are certainly women who share the 2 traits.

[Naive]

I am married already even though it's not a REAL wedding where we went and lived together and our whole family was there, anyway, I did not take his last name then and I will not be doing so when we get married through church.

 

I respect him and it's an honor to get married to him but it's also an honor to carry my father's last name (the only man who really cares for me with no ulterior motive) until I die. I would not have it any other way. My sister tells me to just add his last name on but idk.

[loony]

Originally posted by RecordProducer

Loony, do you want to get married? If the answer is "yes" then why? I am talking about official marriage, not common-law marriage.

What's the point you're trying to prove? That marriage is a tradition based on economical reasons and if those don't exist anymore people also actually don't have any reasons to get married but they still do, out of love and nostalgia?

 

I think you're missing something. I did not say let's get rid of all the traditions because their old-fashioned, I asked for the reason behind taking the man's name and I wonder about the validity of this tradition in modern times. It should be allowed to check one's value system once in a while, don't you think so? And the fun thing with this question is, the deeper you dig, the more upset people seem to become if you question this tradition. Suddenly it means that you don't love your man enough if you don't want to take his name. So many people who answered on this thread assume that changing your name is a sign of love and devotion and everybody else who fails to comply to this tradition has, um, issues, is not ready for marriage.

 

Originally posted by RecordProducer

He is a successful guy married for 10 years and his wife is a stay-at-home mom. Now wouldn't it be ridiculous if he took her last name? Or not?

If you want to believe that money rules a relationship, that your worth in a relationship is determined by how much money you bring into it or how successfully you are in the public's eye, then go ahead. It's interesting to see that according to you stay-at-home moms are second class citizens who have forfeited their rights to have personal values and preferences in matters that do not even involve money.

 

If Blackfrost and his wife have both agreed to have a traditional marriage with her taking his name it's their choice, but there's no reason why they should not have decided that he take his wife's name. Just because you want to follow the classical traditional idea of marriage between a big strong successful guy and a strong, feminine, independent, intelligent, sexy, outgoing woman doesn't mean that everybody else has to believe the same. Different things work for different people.

 

Oiginally posted by bab

Because I didn't realize that men still thought that way, I asked my fiance what the significance of me taking his name was to him. Lucky for him his response was not that I "owed" him. He said that he was really honored that I would want to align myself with him. (note: He was honored, not that I SHOULD honor him.)

 

He left this decision up to me and didn't pressure me either way, and for that, I do honor him.

That's the answer that I would also expect from my man.

[loony]

Originally posted by tanbark813

Others would disagree (i.e., myself, april, ...).

Then please explain to me why you would refuse to take her name out of love? Don't you love her enough to change your name? It seems to me that you equal your woman's love to you with her willingness to follow a tradition so that you can keep your honor in society, am I right?

 

I would not say it is the defining characteristic but there are certainly women who share the 2 traits.

As Naive is the only woman here who has kept her name and will keep her name I can only cite her as an example (thanks for posting ), but I think you're jumping to conclusions.

[hear_me_roar]

I'm tossing up whether to change to my fiancé's name or not at the moment. I'm not a very sentimental person, and neither is he, but it's not an easy choice.

 

I can understand why women took their husbands names in the past. Genealogy was patrilineal, and women were coming under their husband's control and inter their husband's family. And it was family that was important – from apprenticeships to share cropping rights though to manner homes, titles and political prestige, it was all passed down through the family. These days, as much as some men would like to deny it, those dynamics have changed - partially because married women can now work and control their own destiny, but they have also changed because family and nepotism are just not as important as it used to be. In fact, relying on daddy to get you a job is now usually treated with derision. So, unless you're a Kennedy or a Murdoch, there doesn't seem to be too point financial or logical incentive for a woman to change her name now, cause her fortunes no longer rise and fall solely by reference to her husband's family.

 

Indeed, for me, changing my name is a bit of a risk, and highlights just how much times have changed. I've built up a good career under my current name, and I fear loosing that. Really <I>fear</I> it, especially as my first name and the fiancé's last name are so popular. And, okay, I'll concede this may be a shallow consideration, but I'm not sentimental, neither is my fiancé, and, besides, money concerns ruin far more relationships than hearts, flowers and fluffy stuff (truly, I think if my fiance had dismissed this concern, I may well have had to dismiss it with him...)

 

That said, however, kiddies still usually take their father's name, and one of the biggest advantages I can see to wives taking their husband's name is the sheer convenience of everyone having a common, recognisable last name. I grew up with a different name to my mum (unless I changed my name to match hers), so I know how damn annoying and convenient it can be for all concerned. Then there's the fact that it's just kind of family-like, to all share an identifier in common.

 

What I'll most likely end up doing is keeping my name for work, and use my husband's name for private and family purposes. It's a compromise, and recognises the reality that I have a duel role, as a wife, a traditional role that requires some connectivity, and a professional woman, that demands that I take pride in my own identity.

[bab]

Blackfrost WAS kidding! He is a successful guy married for 10 years and his wife is a stay-at-home mom. Now wouldn't it be ridiculous if he took her last name? Or not?

 

I think this is exactly the question Loony is after. WHY is it ridiculous if he took her last name? And the answer can't be, because we've always done it that way. I've already said that it is certainly easier for the woman to take the man's last name than the other way around, but for the sake of argument...

 

So, she's a stay at home mom. How does this effect the family? I imagine that she's the thread that holds it all together. She's the one who makes everything run efficiently. Without her the whole thing would fall apart. Her family is dependent on her capabilities. Obviously a family is a unit, and doesn't "belong" to any one individual, but to all. But if you were going to pinpoint one person out of the family that contributed the most, I'd put my money on the stay-at-home mom. With that argument, shouldn't the family have her name to honor her contributions?

[billybadass36]

There's no "right" or "wrong" answer here. Some people are absolutists on this issue, and that's fine. Nobody has to get married to anybody else and nobody has to change his or her name if they don't want to. Do I have a bunch of scholar-babble about the reasons why my fiancee's going to change her name? No, but you bet your ass she's changing it. She hasn't told me why and I haven't asked her why. The last thing she is, though, is some submissive little houswife. She doesn't "need" me, and I don't "need" her from a purely economic standpoint. That's not really the point I don't think. I think she likes the traditional idea of "marriage" and "family". So do I, and I don't think that gives people permission to paint her as some submissive, helpless woman. Why is it that women that refuse to buy into the name-changing game are the ones picking this fight? Don't change your name - nobody's going to kick your ass for it, but potential "husbands" might take offense, rightly or wrongly.

[tanbark813]

Originally posted by loony

Then please explain to me why you would refuse to take her name out of love?

 

I already have.

 

Originally posted by loony

It seems to me that you equal your woman's love to you with her willingness to follow a tradition so that you can keep your honor in society, am I right?

 

No, you're not. You keep asking me the same questions with slightly different wording. You can ask me 100 times but my answer will always be the same. In fact, rather than asking the same question over and over, why not ask those that have been posed to you? Specifically: Why not do away with wedding bands too? And wedding ceremonies? And wedding cake for that matter? They're all just traditions with no real necessity in today's society.