Name Tradition in Marriage

[dazzleman]

It's not that important an issue in the grand scheme of things.

For many people, it's a matter of convenience.  I know a number of women who started out keeping their name when they got married, but later found it to much more convenient to change it, for a number of reasons.

I don't think it's in any way an impediment to women's equality, nor does it force anybody to reestablish a career.  I know plenty of women who changed their name with absolutely no negative effect on their career.

[dazzleman]

I'm strongly against the practice of taking the husband's name. I for one, plan on heiphenating my name when I get married. In fact, I enjoy thinking about girls, and what my name would be if I were to marry them . It may "just be a name", but it is a symbol of inequality. Plus, it makes things damn confusing when women keep changing their names.

What name will you give your kids?

[dazzleman]

I'm strongly against the practice of taking the husband's name. I for one, plan on heiphenating my name when I get married. In fact, I enjoy thinking about girls, and what my name would be if I were to marry them . It may "just be a name", but it is a symbol of inequality. Plus, it makes things damn confusing when women keep changing their names.

What name will you give your kids?

Obviously the same name as us. I do realize the problem with heiphenated names, as they can get too long. However, I am at a loss for a solution to this problem. One thing I would like to say, I really believe in the institution of marriage, and its principles of love, and equality, and this is issue is deeply embedded in this belief.

But your name came from your father presumably, itself an indication of inequality.  Ditto for your presumtive wife.  Therefore, you hyphenated name is already a symbol of male dominance over females, by your thinking.

And in order to eradicate this male dominance, the length of everybody's last name will double each generation.  Yet you offer no solution to this problem.  Maybe you need to rethink your theory.

[dazzleman]

But your name came from your father presumably, itself an indication of inequality.  Ditto for your presumtive wife.  Therefore, you hyphenated name is already a symbol of male dominance over females, by your thinking.

It's not ideal but it's a step in the right direction.

And in order to eradicate this male dominance, the length of everybody's last name will double each generation.  Yet you offer no solution to this problem.  Maybe you need to rethink your theory.

There are other ways to solve this problem without hypenating everybody's name. Each couple could choose whether to name the kids the mother's name or the father's name using criteria such as:

- combining or contracting names
- using the more ethnic name
- using the name of the parent who has fewer relatives with that name
- with two children naming one the mother's and one the father's

Those are all ridiculous ideas.

[dazzleman]

I wonder if anybody has ever done a formal study on the rates of divorce of couples who use the same last name versus couples who use different last names.

I once spoke to a divorce lawyer who said that about half the people who came to him for a divorce were using different last names.  While this is highly anecdotal, it suggests that there is a much higher rate of divorce among couples who use different last names, since they only represent about 10-15% of married couples.  It makes a lot of sense to me.

[dazzleman]

Like I said earlier, stupid bullsh**t like this can easily snowball into more serious issues. If you insist on arguing over whose name should be changed and are willing to continue arguing about it and pushing your "spouse" around about name changes, then you're asking for a lousy marriage. I don't see why the hell something as simple as marriage, which should be about love and unity, needs to be thrown into the pile of political correctness. If you don't like it that there are women who change their names, keep it to yourself instead of acting as though you are superior to people who either don't care or don't think that there's anything wrong with women who change their names. Marriage is no place to worry about PC rubbish.

You are so right, Everett.  This whole discussion and the mentality behind arguments like the ones nclib is making are a perfect example of why feminists almost never have good marriages.

[dazzleman]

Marriage is about equality, simply put. You can tell how equal a marriage is a lot by the last names of the married.

That makes not the slightest amount of sense.  There is no relationship between power in a marriage and the names used. 

I have seen women who kept their own name, supported their non-working husbands, and were still abused by them.  On the other hand, I have seen housewives who took their husbands name and had almost total control over the household.

There is truly no relationship.  You've been reading far too much feminist propaganda if you believe that there is.

[dazzleman]

This is clearly the fault of anti-feminist men. Feminists treat their spouses with equality.

Dude, if you believe that, I want some of what you are smoking.

Feminists are like communists who adhere to the Brezhnev Doctrine -- what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.  If you think feminists are committed to equality, you really need a reality check.

Why do you hate your own gender so much?

[dazzleman]

The only law I would like changed is that, you should have to legally change your name when you get married, if you choose to, instead of de facto being the husband's name.

I don't know of any law that says that you have to change your name to your husband's name when you get married.

I think the woman has to do something to indicate she is keeping her name while the man has to do nothing.

How does she do this?  Do they just ask her a question to which she answers "yes" or "no", or is the process more difficult than this?

It's actually a far more difficult process to change your name.  If a woman keeps her name, she just indicates it on the marriage certificate, and there's nothing more to be done.

Changing her name requires notifying social security, going to the DMV for a new license, etc.

In the grand scheme of things, this is nothing of course.  The whole issue is just a red herring.  People who bring up these issues are simply looking to create problems.  It is always possible to find a problem if you look hard enough.

[dazzleman]

The only law I would like changed is that, you should have to legally change your name when you get married, if you choose to, instead of de facto being the husband's name.

I don't know of any law that says that you have to change your name to your husband's name when you get married.

I think the woman has to do something to indicate she is keeping her name while the man has to do nothing.

That seems to very sexist, and if that is the case, I would wonder if it were unconstitutional.

Well, let's get it before the Supreme Court immediately.  I can't imagine a more pressing issue.

[dazzleman]

It's part of a law that treats one gender differently from another for a reason other than biology. This is not right in any book.

So then you don't think that only men should be required to register for the draft, and you don't think that women should be favored in child custody cases?

[dazzleman]

It's part of a law that treats one gender differently from another for a reason other than biology. This is not right in any book.

So then you don't think that only men should be required to register for the draft, and you don't think that women should be favored in child custody cases?

No one should have to register for the draft. But if you're going to have it, both genders should.

And no one should be favored in child custody cases. Just look at the situation and then see who'd be the better parent.

You realize of course that neither of these are the case.  Only men register for the draft, and women are favored in child custody cases, as a matter of course.

Then of course, there's car insurance.  Young men pay much higher rates than young women.

If we want to talk about violation of gender equality over trivial issues like name changes, let's look at the whole picture.  In general, feminists want to maintain any advantages that women have had, while neutralizing any traditional male advantages.  If we're going to have equality, let's have it across the board.  I have a feeling that a lot of feminist women wouldn't really like that very much.

[dazzleman]

Equality across the board! I'm thinking most sane feminists would be in favour of equality across the board. Of course, the feminists you guys think of are the radicals, which are actually few in numbers, but are unfortunately  fit the stereotype.

I doubt that very much.  Feminists would be screaming bloody murder if they had to deal with real equality.  In any case, real equality can never exist between men and women because of biological differences, and the different life roles that these differences dictate.  The best we can hope for is basic equity with offsetting assymetries.  My problem with the feminists is that they want all the inevitable assymetries between men and women, which they implicitly acknowledge even while saying that they don't, to favor women and disfavor men.

[dazzleman]

I personally disapprove of women changing their last names after marrying, but the government should have no part in it. My mom absolutely hates it when she is called Mrs. (my father's surname). As for what surname children will have, why don't we say that the child will share the surname with the parent of the same gender? Don't see anything wrong with that.

Whose last name do you have?

I think that having everybody in the family have the same last name is a form of unity, and different last names create confusion and imply disunity.  People are free to do as they want, but I find it ridiculous for people to actually disapprove of a woman changing her name upon marriage.

In an age of ubiquitous single parent households who mostly struggle financially and are subject to a whole slew of non-financial social problems that two-parent families suffer to a much lesser extent, we should remember why this tradition was inaugurated.  Because men lack the physical connection to their children that women have, not having given birth to them, the tradition of naming a family after the father was created to give him a sense of obligation to support that family.

Back at that time, a family wouldn't survive very long without a man to support it, and this practice ultimately became the foundation of the marriage/family system for raising kids.  We like to think that times have changed, that families don't really need men anymore.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

We live in a time when the traditional family has come under sustained assault.  This mentality that it is wrong for a family to have the same name (as opposed to individual choice) is part of that assault.

I don't really care what people do within their own families, but we should recognize that to assert that the practice of name-changing is WRONG (rather than an individual choice) is another assault on the family structure.  If we look at the segments of the population among whom this assault on the family structure has had the most impact, we will see that it is all negative.  Crime, bad education and deeply entrenched poverty have all resulted from weak family structure; the last thing we ought to be doing is attacking it over something trivial.

Again, I don't care if an intact family chooses to have a couple of different names, but the reality is that these are the families most likely to break up.  This assault on the family structure has also led to a whole legion of kids who have never known the support, both financial and emotional, of a father.  It is truly tragic, and much more important an issue than this idiotic carping over something that isn't required anyway.

[dazzleman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My mom disapproves this because it reminds her of the oppressive times of old China, when women had no rights, had their feet wrapped up as toddlers, were frequently sold out of family, where many families left baby girls out to die, etc. Even now, the sexism there is atrocious. You have an imbalanced sex ratio, girls are denied the right to education when the family can't afford everyone to go to school, and so on and so on.

That's funny because eastern cultures generally haven't adopted the name-changing practice.  It kind of proves my point that it's irrelevant.

[dazzleman]

This is clearly the fault of anti-feminist men. Feminists treat their spouses with equality.

Dude, if you believe that, I want some of what you are smoking.

Feminists are like communists who adhere to the Brezhnev Doctrine -- what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.  If you think feminists are committed to equality, you really need a reality check.

Why do you hate your own gender so much?

I am simply pointing out the inequalities in marriage. I do not hate men as a gender--only the ones that oppress women.

In case you hadn't noticed, not every marriage inequality favors men.  You really need to get out more and see beyond the feminist brainwashing that you have gotten.  It's very sad, actually.

[dazzleman]

That's funny because eastern cultures generally haven't adopted the name-changing practice.  It kind of proves my point that it's irrelevant.

Yes, they do. One of the reasons boys are preferred over girls is because men carry the family surname to the next generation. Who told you otherwise?

I know that Korean women don't take their husband's names.  I don't believe Chinese women do either.

[dazzleman]

Well, I'm a firm believer in the idea of the woman taking the man's last name.  I don't believe it's sexist, and it should be encouraged.  Seriously, people (especially feminists) have gone overboard with the sexism issue, assaulting almost anything nowadays.

It's this kind of attitude that really makes me feel angry. I don't mind the people saying that this is not an issue to worry over, but when people say this practice should be encouraged.... urgh!

Earl, I really think you ought to occupy your mind with real problems.  Why spend your time thinking about a non-issue.

[dazzleman]

Well, I have a set of values I believe in, and this is one I feel strongly about. Plus, I think it is more of an issue than perhaps you think it is. A name can mean a lot to a person, it is someone's definition. I just don't think it's right that one gender should lose their identity in marriage and the other gets to keep theirs. I'm proud to be a Washburn, and I will be proud to be a ___-Washburn when I get married

Nobody has to change their name if they don't want to.  It's a non-issue unless it's forced.

[dazzleman]

I've already admitted to the shortcomings of hyphenated names. It's a shame really, but it's just an aesthetic problem. I guess, there would be a point where the drop the names that are hard to spell, like Everett has mentioned. I don't mind at all when people change their names when they get married for a good reason like the fact their surname is "Butt" or is foreign sounding, or is long or for some other reason. But, to change one's name because of tradition, is not something I support.

The problem is more than aesthetic.  A person can't have 16 last names, with the number doubling each generation.

And if people are forced to change their names because they get too long, how is that any different from changing them due to marriage?

Face it; your idea is really only practical for one generation, if that.  You need to think a little longer term, dude.

[dazzleman]

However, given that women do most of the compromising in a marriage (studies have shown that even in couples that consider themselves to be egalitarian, men get their way more than half the time), it is ironic that marriage starts out with the woman compromising.

I don't know what studies you're talking about.  Were they funded or sponsored by NOW, by any chance?

Every marriage is different, but in most marriages I've observed, women get their way at least half the time.  Of course, there are some where the husband runs roughshod over the wife, but there are many others where the opposite is true.

It's absurd for you to state that women do most of the compromising in marriage in general.  You have no basis to make this statement, and neither does anybody else.  Statements like that are meant to advance a political agenda, not to reflect reality.

[dazzleman]

I will assume my wife will take my last name.  There is simply no liberty here.  My first son will be named after me, and my first daughter after her (but that is her choice).  Men name the boys, women the girls.  All will carry my, and only my, name.  It is my household, not hers.

Richius, you're pretty extreme.  It's really guys who think like you who add fuel to these dreadful feminists.

[dazzleman]

I love feminists.  I think they are cute.

I'm not extreme; I only go with tradition.  Tradition is important to me, and I will find a girl that shares that belief.

I think your statement that "it is my household, not hers" is pretty extreme.  I think husband and wife should be equal, though they may decide among themselves to give one partner or the other more authority within certain realms.

Will a "traditional" girl marry a guy who also likes to get it on with other men?   Sorry, I just couldn't resist asking.

[dazzleman]

Will a "traditional" girl marry a guy who also likes to get it on with other men?   Sorry, I just couldn't resist asking.

They still marry men who likes to get it on with other girls...

Maybe, but that's not viewed quite the same way as getting it on with other men, at least when you're dealing with a traditional woman.

[dazzleman]

The household is named after the last name.  It will be my last name, not some hyphenated halfbreed mongrol piece of crap.  I firmly believe the man is the head of the house.  That said, each family member must respect each other.  But the man is the head and it is his name, his household.

You're implying that the use of the male name gives the man total control.  Honestly, this is the feminist argument against women adopting the man's name.  I have never found it to be true, in any case.