Name Tradition in Marriage

[Gabu]

I don't care.  My mom never changed her name.  Others do change their name.  It's entirely up to the couple and people are really reading far too far into such a simple thing.

Those who promote female equality really need to drop frivolous topics like this.  It undermines their message when they go to talk about things that actually are a real problem.

[Gabu]

I'm going to keep the name my parents have given me for now. If my mom's last name is the same as my dad's, there's no point of adopting my mother's maiden name. It was he choice, and now I have to accept that. Now, it will be my choice when I get married to change my name. A name is who you are. It defines you, that's why I think it is important for women to keep their names- at least part.

I hate to sound like opebo, but it seems to me like that's an entirely subjective thing to say in such absolute terms.  I personally think that, given one's last name is not used very often, it is not completely changing who you are to simply take on your husband's last name.  It creates a sense of connection for a spouse to take on the other's name, although this doesn't necessarily mean it has to be the wife taking on the husband's name.

At the heart of it all, it's the couple's choice regarding who is the one to change his or her name, if anyone at all.  I mean no offense by this statement, but who are you to tell them what they should and shouldn't do?

[Gabu]

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.

[Gabu]

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

What?  Explain.

[Gabu]

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.

Of course, there are exceptions, but it is ridiculous to say there is no relationship. Studies have even shown that working women tend to have (on average) more control over household decisions than housewives.

That would be relevant if all working women kept their name and if all housewives took on their husband's name, but as far as I know, this is not the case.

feminists almost never have good marriages.

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

In theory.  In reality, those who call themselves feminists are just as capable of being sexist towards men as men are capable of being sexist towards women, although obviously not all of them are as such.

[Gabu]

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?

[Gabu]

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.

How is it sexist?  It's just tradition that the female takes the male name, so it would seem to me that it would just make sense with regards to efficiency, to ask the female to indicate whether or not she plans to change her name.

[Gabu]

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.

Given that women are statistically more likely to take on the man's name in marriage than for the reverse or for no change to occur, it seems like a logical thing to do.  It's the same thing that motivates differing car insurance rates, or something like that.  Are you trying to say that we should treat absolutely everyone exactly the same, regardless of statistics indicating that a difference is present?

[Gabu]

So, uh, how would you propose handling disagreements, then?

Such as?  What color to paint the living room?  I'd let her pick.  I really don't care.  Perhaps adding a patio?  I'd let her decide after ensuring we discussed the finances and other factors.  It probably isn't a big deal to me.  Perhaps about moving overseas?  Such a decision I believe requires both to agree.  That is my personal belief.  But should the husband decide so anyways after careful consideration and discussion with his wife, it is his final say, and it is the wife's responsibility to support the husband.

Families don't stay together unless there is mutual respect for each other.  BUT, should a disagreement arise, there is a time for the head of the house to make a decision.

Consider this scenario: The wife wants to stay, the husband wants to move to Texas (from Canada).  There is no compromise; you either stay or you go.  One HAS to yield; if one doesn't, there will be a divorce.  There is simply no other way out.  The head of the household is responsible for his house and with that power comes great responsibilities.

As I see it, all that you're saying is that, eventually, both people in a marriage have to come to an agreement on every issue that affects both of them or else divorce is inevitable, right?

When you put it that way, I can't really argue against that notion, although I'm curious why you say that the man is the head of the household, given that you seem to describe as a much more egalitarian setup than one might perceive from the short description, in which both spouses are expected to consider the other's opinion.