Opinion from men....... last names.

[Outcast]

with all due respect A4A, i must disagree

 

Power struggles are about winning for winning's sake. In a4a's case, there is no power struggle. She has valid reasons for wanting to keep her name. Silly me; I keep thinking logic should dictate people's choices. (And 'because it's always done that way' or 'because it's tradition' doesn't count )

[High Contrast]

Power struggles are about winning for winning's sake. In a4a's case, there is no power struggle.

 

I think he's picking up on the attitude expressed in

 

I do not like to be called wife either..... partner yes..... spouse yes....

I have no clue why that just strikes me the wrong way, it just does.

[alphamale]

Power struggles are about winning for winning's sake.

its about much much more than just winning...

 

In a4a's case, there is no power struggle.

bullkrap!

 

(And 'because it's always done that way' or 'because it's tradition' doesn't count )

oh so since women always do the child bearing and that's "sorta tradtion" then now you think men should start having babies? WTF!

[Outcast]

bullkrap!

 

sigh

 

you think men should start having babies?

 

Right. Biology. Tradition. Two different things. And hell YEAH if men could have 'em they should. Why should women go through all that?

[alphamale]

Right. Biology. Tradition.

let me just remind you that a large part of tradition and human history is rooted and based in biology...

[seachange]

a4a,

I don't undertsand why you think taking his name and being called wife you somehow take away from your idenity and make you inferior.

 

Why is it threatening to you?

 

Not to answer for a4a, but I felt this - not threatened, exactly, but sad and a little lost. I guess I'd relate the feeling to one of those Venn diagrams, with the overlapping circles - what made sense to me and felt right was, one circle would be me, and the other my husband, and then we'd have this big overlapping bit in the middle that was our shared selves. I didn't really want to define myself as "wife" so much as "seachange", with wife, along with daughter, mother (someday) and scientist all being different parts of that identity.

 

My school gave me my husband's last name when they listed the alumna for our year on their website. And yeah, I did find it upsetting, since we weren't even married at the time. It just didn't feel right to me, like somehow it wasn't my accomplishment anymore.

[seachange]

let me just remind you that a large part of tradition and human history is rooted and based in biology...

 

alpha, that's a pretty slippery slope, greased with plenty of assumption and bad science.

[Outcast]

This is a very interesting lesson in how people can (or cannot) put themselves in others' places.

[alphamale]

I didn't really want to define myself as "wife" so much as "seachange",

then why get married in the first place? marriage is about compromise. each party gives up something. a man gives up his independence and the right to bang other women and the woman changes her last name. thats the way it works.

[High Contrast]

Seems like traditions are more likely challenged if they benefit men than if they benefit women.

[slubberdegullion]

Seems like traditions are more likely challenged if they benefit men than if they benefit women.

Yes, that's nothing new. It's the standard old, tired MEN = BAD, WOMEN = GOOD situation that continues to play. Anything a woman wants a man to do is for the benefit of the partnership, so the belief goes. But anything a man wants a woman to do is seen as a power play, control issues and chauvinism.

 

*sigh*

 

why can't we all just get along?

[seachange]

then why get married in the first place? marriage is about compromise. each party gives up something. a man gives up his independence and the right to bang other women and the woman changes her last name. thats the way it works.

 

Well, that's one kind of marriage. When I got married, I agreed to give up the right to bang other men, and he gave up the right to bang other women. And we also both agreed to give up the right to think only of ourselves in our daily lives = compromise.

[seachange]

Yes, that's nothing new. It's the standard old, tired MEN = BAD, WOMEN = GOOD situation that continues to play. Anything a woman wants a man to do is for the benefit of the partnership, so the belief goes. But anything a man wants a woman to do is seen as a power play, control issues and chauvinism.

 

*sigh*

 

Wow...do you really think that's what's being said here?

[alphamale]

alpha, that's a pretty slippery slope, greased with plenty of assumption and bad science.

ahh yeah...so lets see SEACHANGE....the fact that women have done ALL of the child bearing thruout human history is not based upon science or biology? And the fact that women almost always raise the children is not based upon the facts that women are better with relationships and better suited to be a care-taker (which is based upon their biology in large part)?

 

WTF are you taking about?

 

Is the fact that usually it's the men doing the heavy lifting thruout history based upon biology and the fact males have bigger muscles?

[tanbark813]

And we also both agreed to give up the right to think only of ourselves in our daily lives = compromise.

 

Doesn't that contradict the desire to maintain your identity?

 

On a side note, I've noticed--not just here but also with women I know in my personal life--that the women who are opposed to taking a man's name also tend to be the ones afraid of losing their identity.

[High Contrast]

Yes, that's nothing new. It's the standard old, tired MEN = BAD, WOMEN = GOOD situation that continues to play. Anything a woman wants a man to do is for the benefit of the partnership, so the belief goes. But anything a man wants a woman to do is seen as a power play, control issues and chauvinism.

 

*sigh*

 

why can't we all just get along?

 

If the tradition had men changing their names, and men stopped, it would be seen as a backlash against women's freedom, and yet another sign of men's fear of committment.

 

To be fair, the ladies posting in this thread do seem honestly interested in equal partnerships. But out in the larger world, there are a sickening number of women who want equality except in those cases where they are benefitted by inequality, in everything from men making the "first move", to receiving expensive wedding rings, the traditional domination of the wedding ceremony, and guaranteed custody should divorce occur.

[seachange]

Doesn't that contradict the desire to maintain your identity?

 

No. Thinking of others, being thoughtful and empathetic, and caring about your loved ones isn't related at all to identity.

 

the fact that women have done ALL of the child bearing thruout human history is not based upon science or biology? And the fact that women almost always raise the children is not based upon the facts that women are better with relationships and better suited to be a care-taker (which is based upon their biology in large part)?

 

WTF are you taking about?

 

Is the fact that usually it's the men doing the heavy lifting thruout history based upon biology and the fact males have bigger muscles?

 

I wasn't saying anything about childbearing at all, alpha. I was talking about the generalization that historical science was always good science. As for why women raise children - I think the slippery slope part is assuming too much about, for example, motherly instincts. (See: Smith, Susan.) The fact is, there's a combination of nature and nurture, and it's a slippery slope to assume too much about the importance either has over the other. It's far more likely to be individual, and serves everyone better if we look at it that way.

 

And, as for the other slippery slope bit, I was referring to the sad, but true, onetime belief that women aren't intellectually or emotionally capable of, for example, voting. People thought that was science, at one time.

[High Contrast]

I dunno...seems like people like to have these sorts of alliances formalized. The forms they take may change, but the idea of a ceremony hasn't really.

 

But who knows. Guess we'll see, if we're lucky enough to live that long.

 

I think that, as a culture, we could use a heck of a lot of creativity in familial arrangements. I'd like to see more experimentation along the lines of the intentional communities formed in the 1960s.

 

Okay, so I had to haul out my dictionary to make sure. But I think I can stand by my point - here's the definition of "prototypical":

 

prototypical - archetypal: representing or constituting an original type after which other similar things are patterned

 

...so, what I was saying is that the current definition /= the original, or prototypical type. Because that has been constantly evolving.

 

 

The current prototypical marriage includes the woman taking the man's name. The exceptions to that principle have not yet outnumbered. It is like saying the prototypical dog has four legs, while we all know there are dogs with only three legs.

 

Of course this is validated by "My school gave me my husband's last name when they listed the alumna for our year on their website."

[tanbark813]

No. Thinking of others, being thoughtful and empathetic, and caring about your loved ones isn't related at all to identity.

 

Well yeah, but that's kind of my point. IMO, a woman taking her man's last name is being thoughtful and caring about one of her loved ones--namely, her husband. But then again, I've never understood how someone can lose their identity while in a relationship.

[a4a]

Not to answer for a4a, but I felt this - not threatened, exactly, but sad and a little lost. I guess I'd relate the feeling to one of those Venn diagrams, with the overlapping circles - what made sense to me and felt right was, one circle would be me, and the other my husband, and then we'd have this big overlapping bit in the middle that was our shared selves. I didn't really want to define myself as "wife" so much as "seachange", with wife, along with daughter, mother (someday) and scientist all being different parts of that identity.

 

QUOTE]

 

Thank you SEA!

 

I will use this to further explain my feelings to him during our chat tonight.

 

a4a

[alphamale]

And, as for the other slippery slope bit, I was referring to the sad, but true, onetime belief that women aren't intellectually or emotionally capable of, for example, voting. People thought that was science, at one time.

well you know, the catholic church still does not let women into the priesthood or condone abortion and that is based upon tradition and their belief system.

 

do you celebrate Xmas SEACHANGE? If you do, why do you celebrate it? Is it because of tradiontion??? Why don't you celebrate another religions holiday? Why don'tyou celebrate Festivus like George's family from Seinfeld?

[High Contrast]

I think the slippery slope part is assuming too much about, for example, motherly instincts. (See: Smith, Susan.)

 

A scientist knows that a single exception doesn't violate a general principle. (At least in the social sciences.)

[seachange]

The current prototypical marriage includes the woman taking the man's name. The exceptions to that principle have not yet outnumbered. It is like saying the prototypical dog has four legs, while we all know there are dogs with only three legs.

 

Here, with this dog thing, you're using alpha's biology argument. Creative, but odd.

 

Anyway, "prototypical" isn't the right word, as I was saying before, because it suggests that a primordial ooze-type definition of marriage, rather than a pretty recent one. To argue that the current marriage is the prototypical one is to assume that the status quo is the way things have always been. But...not so much.

 

Of course this is validated by "My school gave me my husband's last name when they listed the alumna for our year on their website."

 

?? Not at all sure what this means, though I guess I should feel vaguely insulted. But I'd rather not, so explain, please?

[Kenyth]

If the tradition had men changing their names, and men stopped, it would be seen as a backlash against women's freedom, and yet another sign of men's fear of committment.

 

To be fair, the ladies posting in this thread do seem honestly interested in equal partnerships. But out in the larger world, there are a sickening number of women who want equality except in those cases where they are benefitted by inequality, in everything from men making the "first move", to receiving expensive wedding rings, the traditional domination of the wedding ceremony, and guaranteed custody should divorce occur.

 

 

It's human nature. It's much more fun to get things than to give them up.

Everyone feels persecuted in some way, so nobody will believe they deserve to lose anything.

 

Most of womens priveleges are in the form of social values. There's no written law, but they're bred in the bone pretty deeply. Men's were primarily written law, which is a bit less resisitant to being changed. Like I've said before though. You can argue till you're blue in the face, but it changes nothing. It is what it is, and you have to work with it.

 

 

 

Here's a funny quote:

 

Take a starving dog and make him prosperous and he will not bite you. This is the principle difference between a dog and a woman. –Mark Twain

 

More of a humorous witticism than a bit of wisdom, but funny nontheless.

[High Contrast]

Well yeah, but that's kind of my point. IMO, a woman taking her man's last name is being thoughtful and caring about one of her loved ones--namely, her husband. But then again, I've never understood how someone can lose their identity while in a relationship.

 

Women have more of an option to lose their identity in a relationship, if they so choose.

 

Look at internet message board usernames. Count the number of women who use names like "DavesGurl" and "EricsBaby". Then look for some counterexamples of guys doing that.