seachange Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 This is another one of those topics where if you're a man and you have an opinion, you're automatically wrong. But if you're a woman and have an opinion, you're automatically right. Tan, that ain't really true. The first two pages of this thread were from guys explaining why they feel what they feel; those feelings are valid, but so are the women's. Why don't they matter equally? I don't buy the financial argument - my husband "paid" for my ring out of our joint finances, since we had already been together for years by that time. And when we first met, I was paying for most everything while he looked for work; later, we both brought in money. True, he asked me to marry him - but then, I had made the first move in our relationship. I just think the "buffet"-style feminism cliche doesn't really take you anywhere anymore. There are all types of relationships out there, and most people aren't trying to take advantage of each other, just to ensure that they have an equal say in what happens, regardless of traditions that may no longer represent them. But I agree, alpha, that there are plenty of women who are happy with that tradition - and more power to 'em. It takes all kinds to make a world. But just because that's their choice, doesn't mean it has to be every woman's. Link to post Share on other sites
Outcast Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Why don't they matter equally? Because it's not a woman's place to be equal. Believe it or not, LS has members who think that way. Link to post Share on other sites
High Contrast Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Taking the husband's name is part of marriage. Why are you bothering to getting married if you don't like marriage? Link to post Share on other sites
Outcast Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Taking the husband's name is part of marriage Actually not. Noplace in the ceremony does it say that anybody has to take anybody's name. In fact both people, if memory serves, give 'all I am and all I have' to each other, so properly they should exchange names. Link to post Share on other sites
tanbark813 Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Tan, that ain't really true. The first two pages of this thread were from guys explaining why they feel what they feel; those feelings are valid, but so are the women's. Why don't they matter equally? They do matter equally. If you'll look again, you'll see that guys will state their opinion but not tear apart women's opinions. Guys have even posted that they can understand why women wouldn't want to change their name (even if they don't happen to agree). BUT, you'll see some women--especially the more feminist ones--tear apart men's opinions and blame it on some ego thing or that it must just be something wrong with them. This thread is likely as to be as lengthy as the last one on this subject and the only thing that will be clear is that some men care if the woman takes his name or not, and some men don't. Women who don't want to change their names should just marry a man who doesn't care. Link to post Share on other sites
High Contrast Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 It's an element of the traditional definition of marriage. I am not one for blindly obeying tradition, but then again, I have no problem with people choosing to be together and not marry. So why pick marriage if one has a problem with its traditional conception? Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 But I agree, alpha, that there are plenty of women who are happy with that tradition - and more power to 'em. yeah SEACHANGE, most women are traditional I would say. The feminists tend to be younger women. The funny thing is that once some of these femi-nazis have children their whole outlook on life changes and they tend to become traditionalists. Its all about the kids... Link to post Share on other sites
Outcast Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 femi-nazis Oboy. Styling oneself after Rush Limbaugh. Now there's a role model you'll see that guys will state their opinion but not tear apart women's opinions. No, that's true. They usually just tear the women themselves apart. Link to post Share on other sites
tanbark813 Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 No, that's true. They usually just tear the women themselves apart. Blah blah blah men are so evil, women are so perfect, blah blah.... *yawn* Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 women are so perfect, womyn are full of themselves. they all want their marble cake with buttercream frosting and they want to eat it too while watching Oprah and wearing their $700 Jimmy Choo shoes and sporting their Gucci handbag and working at a part-time job and makeing $125,000 per year and having perfect kids and a successful husband who looks like brad pitt but doesn't fool around Link to post Share on other sites
seachange Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 the only thing that will be clear is that some men care if the woman takes his name or not, and some men don't. Women who don't want to change their names should just marry a man who doesn't care. I completely agree with this, Tan. But to return to a4a's question for a minute (sorry for the lengthy hijack!!), what to do when both parties are unsure, are wading through the potential minefield of hurt feelings, and neither wants to hurt the other? It's an element of the traditional definition of marriage. I am not one for blindly obeying tradition, but then again, I have no problem with people choosing to be together and not marry. So why pick marriage if one has a problem with its traditional conception? Well, not really. When we talk about "tradition", what we're really referring to is the current prevailing wisdom, right? I mean, the concept of what marriage is has changed a lot over the centuries. We just have short memories, stretching back about as far as our grandparents. Nowadays, marriage is generally considered a celebration of true and lasting love, something we all can get behind. Pre-Victorian times, it was more of a financial contract, and switching the wife's name to the husband's made more sense in that paradigm. Which is why many women today (younger, yes, alpha - because now they realize they do have a choice about it) have trouble with it. I don't think that taking your husband's name has to be a statement about giving yourself up. It can be a beautiful gesture, and that's why I myself was pretty ambivalent about it. But I weighed my choices, and realized that I wanted to retain this part of myself, even as he did - though I did feel that I was offering him every other part of me. I thought it was enough. Link to post Share on other sites
Kenyth Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Rudeness is a weak man's imitation of strength. - Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) Um. No. You do realize that there are LS members from all over the world. My bad. You do live in the free world though, right? That was my point. Well, praise God, I do not live in a conservative society and I avoid conservative people when possible. And, frankly, do not live my life according to the opinions of others. Your choice. Good luck with that. Untrue for here and I doubt if it's even true for there. You can't tell me having a hyphenated name or a name that isn't the same as your spouses isn't a pain in the butt when it comes to this. Having a normal convention name is bad enough. I can see them triple checking things already. Don't have 'em but even if I did, it's no biggie. As someone else has pointed out, in this day of multiple divorces and blended families, it's very common for people in a family to have different names. Not hyphenated though I take it? Children taunt each other over the colours of their coats, the sizes of their noses, their freckles, and every other thing on the planet. Besides, see above about blended families. I'm guessing maybe you live in the deep South or something because none of this is strange or new anymore in most cosmopolitan areas. Yes, you are correct. Like I said, I don't believe in giving kids any more problems than they already have. No, as a matter of fact I don't live in the deep south. Do you have a particular problem with people in that geographical region just because they live there? Anyhow, like you said, social bias doesn't exist in this day and age. I'd hardly marry a conservative. Good for you! Good luck with that. Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy Link to post Share on other sites
Outcast Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 stretching back about as far as our grandparents. True enough. White gowns weren't even 'tradition' until they became a fad at the beginning of the last century. Queen Victoria wore a beautiful white dress to marry her beloved Alfred, and it started a world-wide trend. Prior to that most women wore their best dress--even if that dress was black (from BlissWeddings) Do you have a particular problem with people in that geographical region just because they live there? Nope. Just seems that according to all polls, it is more likely to find people with very conservative or traditionalist views there. Link to post Share on other sites
Kenyth Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 No, that's true. They usually just tear the women themselves apart. If you mean by this what I think you mean, it's uncalled for, unconstructive, and I take offense to it. Link to post Share on other sites
High Contrast Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 When we talk about "tradition", what we're really referring to is the current prevailing wisdom, right? I mean, the concept of what marriage is has changed a lot over the centuries. We just have short memories, stretching back about as far as our grandparents. Interesting semantics, but nevertheless, taking the husband's name is part of the the traditional scheme of marriage, because that's what most people think it is. Both traditional and progressive folk will agree. Progressives are rejecting the model, not trying to claim it never really existed! Link to post Share on other sites
Hot Chocolate Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 womyn are full of themselves. they all want their marble cake with buttercream frosting and they want to eat it too while watching Oprah and wearing their $700 Jimmy Choo shoes and sporting their Gucci handbag and working at a part-time job and makeing $125,000 per year and having perfect kids and a successful husband who looks like brad pitt but doesn't fool around Alpha, I'm impressed! You really DO know women! Link to post Share on other sites
seachange Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Interesting semantics, but nevertheless, taking the husband's name is part of the the traditional scheme of marriage, because that's what most people think it is. Both traditional and progressive folk will agree. Progressives are rejecting the model, not trying to claim it never really existed! No, it's not semantics. People think it now; they may think differently in a hundred years, precisely because of what we're talking about here. What I'm saying is that marriage is not a set thing; it's as flexible as humanity and history itself. It's not about rejecting a model, it's about evolving it. As we've done for centuries. Personally, I like the "idea" of marriage we've got going on today, because I like the "idea" of that kind of love. But for me, that kind of love isn't dependent on names, which is why I made the choice I did. And that stretches the current definition of marriage in a different direction. Returning marriage to a concept of being about procreation, as some groups want to do, just stretches it in another. It's all part of the process. Oops - I said "evolving". That might be a whole other argument!(Kidding!!!) Link to post Share on other sites
loony Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Tag! Hopefully, this thread will be as amusing as the last one. <Getting my popcorn out> Link to post Share on other sites
TUDOR Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Kenyth & Outcast....for the love of pinto beans, unless you two are planning to marry each other, what the F is the point in bantering and picking apart each other's threads. Granted the opinions were asked for but no body asked you to try and disect each other's posts like you are. Why must every post in which an "opinion" is asked for must people break out the armor and go to battle. Link to post Share on other sites
loony Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 the traditional scheme of marriage Traditional, coming from the 'melting pot of nations' Different cultures, different traditions. And yes, this also includes the tradition of taking your husband's name. It's just not a universal concept. Link to post Share on other sites
Hot Chocolate Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Tag! Hopefully, this thread will be as amusing as the last one. <Getting my popcorn out> I'll join you in that popcorn Loony! I'm staying out of THIS one! (My tongue is bleeding though!) Link to post Share on other sites
Outcast Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 If you mean by this what I think you mean, it's uncalled for, unconstructive, and I take offense to it. Stick around, my friend. When you've seen enough of these: womyn are full of themselves. they all want their marble cake with buttercream frosting and they want to eat it too while watching Oprah and wearing their $700 Jimmy Choo shoes and sporting their Gucci handbag and working at a part-time job and makeing $125,000 per year and having perfect kids and a successful husband who looks like brad pitt but doesn't fool around you'll understand that I was just tellin' it like it is. Wait until Alphamale calls somebody an idiot. He's already used 'feminazis'. And read the other thread. Link to post Share on other sites
High Contrast Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Traditional, coming from the 'melting pot of nations' Different cultures, different traditions. And yes, this also includes the tradition of taking your husband's name. It's just not a universal concept. Hey now, just because we have many cultures here in the US doesn't mean we lack a specific, American culture. (And how do you know I'm in the US?) It's not about rejecting a model, it's about evolving it. As we've done for centuries. Personally, I like the "idea" of marriage we've got going on today, because I like the "idea" of that kind of love. I'd much rather reject it outright than try to modify it from within and end up with a quasi-marriage, confusingly taking some but not all of prototypical characteristics of marriage. If we hadn't the tradition already imprinted upon our culture I daresay these generations wouldn't freshly reinvent the institution from scratch. Link to post Share on other sites
seachange Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 I'll join you in that popcorn Loony! I'm staying out of THIS one! (My tongue is bleeding though!) Hot Cocoa, don't bite your tongue. Come join in the fray, what the hell. (Besides, you're getting blood in the chocolate! ) Link to post Share on other sites
loony Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 I was more thinking about this thread on a similar topic where certain posters very manly defended their right to preserve their precious name for the next generation: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t69118/ Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts