Marriage Last Names

[Snappy Penguine]

Removed

[Zombified]

I don't see anything wrong with it.

So a woman takes a man's last name when they wed, is that the end of the world?

[Starry]

It's really there for the sake of convenience more than anything else. You're married, you have the same last name, as simple as that. It doesn't really have to be the woman taking the man's name, but if you have different last names, it can get confusing.

The only problem with that is that if you get fairly well-known under your maiden name (authors, anyone in a performance industry, etc) and then you change your name, it gets more confusing. :P

[Zombified]

Wow...
The Andersons?

Talk about avoiding confusion.

:rolleyes:

If you have such a problem with it, tell your fiance someday, "Sorry honey, we're not gonna be Mr. and Mrs. Wells. We're gonna be, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson!"

If it was that easy, I'd marry someone just to change my name to Petty or Dylan just because I like the name.

Thats dumb.

[jordanisonfire]

If I am to marry someone, I'll ask my wife/husband if they want to keep their name. I might even take their's if it sounds better than mine. x)

[Lykaios]

Wasn't it originally something to do with carrying on the family name through heirs? Which was in the olden days, passed through the males of the family?

I think you're right on a lot of things, but the name thing is a tradition from previous centuries when the Family Name was very important and was the basis of that familie's honour. A well-established name with a long history was great for people back then and men were thought to be more important then too.

Today, your surname isn't as important as it might once have been. I've heard of quite a few couples that get married and put their surnames together as their joint last name. It isn't compulsary to take the name of your husband when you marry. Your husband might have a really horrible surname. :P

But most people think of it as a tradition and I personally wouldn't mind taking my future-husband's name. It's like my commitment and signifies that we are one and a family. I think it's a nice tradition.

But if I married someone with a surname like 'Kinglybottom' or something then I'd keep my own name. :P Oh, and I have met someone with that surname. :laugh:

[Charlie]

The man can take the woman's name - I think - I know that my Dad wanted to have my Mum's surname but she wouldn't let him.

[Zombified]

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks so but taking a woman's last name just seems like a slap in the face to me.

As a man, if my woman told me she wanted us to be Mr. and Mrs. Valentino or Wong or something, I'd likely be a bit upset.

Even if their last name was nicer than mine, I don't like the idea of changing a life long tradition because it may be "sexist".

I've had just about enough of that shit already.

We have to call trash men "Garbage Handlers" and stewardess' "Flight Attendants". No. They are trash men and stewardess'.

Sure, woman do a lot for a family. More than men do sometimes. But that doesn't make the act of marriage and taking the husband's last name sexist.

Thats the kind of thinking that I am sick and tired of.

Get it the fuck out of here.

[Rafael Domination]

For someone like me with a bit of spanish descent, both husband and wife get their last names into the mix. But yeah, a lot of people don't have a problem with it either way. Some do take their husband's name, some don't. But what we should avoid is to turn things into an issue. Those people didn't. Why should we?

[Nyx]

First off, they don't create a new name because that would create TWICE as much confusion for both parties and also alot of people want to keep their family line going.

Next, a woman doesn't HAVE to change her lastname, she has the choice. My parents are married but my mom chose to keep her lastname so it was never changed to my dad's.

There's nothing like "purchasing" going on, marriage should be out of love, and if a woman truly loves a man, I don't see why she would disagree to taking her lovers lastname. It's a sign of the unity of the couple, I think it's very sweet, in fact.

[Mercy]

I don't really care about the subject, considering I would have a choice. I would probably take my husband's last name, but use my maiden name for writing. It doesn't really matter, though, does it? A man can take the woman's last name and they can change it if they want. It's just a personal decision.

[Starry]

I have a friend who's Spanish, and apparently in Spain the woman adds her husband's name but also keeps her own. Sounds great, right? And then the kids get both names. It seems like a nice, equal custom, until you hear a Spanish person recite their full name...or at least the first six or seven names that they remember.

It's all for the sake of convenience.

[Rafael Domination]

I have a friend who's Spanish, and apparently in Spain the woman adds her husband's name but also keeps her own. Sounds great, right? And then the kids get both names. It seems like a nice, equal custom, until you hear a Spanish person recite their full name...or at least the first six or seven names that they remember.

It's all for the sake of convenience.


But it sounds cool. Especially is one of your names happen to have kick-ass Spanish names. :rolleyes:

[Nyx]

And I agree, a marriage is out of love, but why does it have to be the woman that has to change her last name? That's the whole point of this. I would think if the man loved the woman he would be just as willing to change his last name to that of his lovers.

That's just the thing darling, the woman doesn't HAVE to change her last name. She can keep it for all her life.
And perhaps there are some men out there that would want their wife's last name.
The point is: it is purely a personal choice. Yes the tradition is wife changing their last name to their husband's but so what? Traditions have changed, more and more women are keeping their last names these days; and for those who want to keep the traditions, they're free to keep it. And now days no one HAS to change their last name. Besides, it's just a name, love is beyond petty things like that.

[GeorgeMichael]

Oh Snappy, what's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other wouldst smell as sweet. (Is that completely correct? I'm too tired to google it :P)

Anyways, I agree with Nyx, Snappy. Women today have the choice of either following the tradition or not. Yes the way of thinking hasn't changed because no one really sees a problem with it, seeing as how low key it is. Usually the woman takes the last name of the man, is it sexist? No. It's just how the bloodline passed in the olden days where it was always done and it had just stayed in our minds that way. I mean our moms most likely took our dad's last name when they got married so from very young we see that the woman takes the man's name. But do they HAVE to? No. They just say I don't want to and that's that. If she's resolute it won't happen.

But for the most part I don't think it will matter that much. I doubt it will be such an important issue at the time of marriage that they'll spend months debating on whether to change her "Johns" to his "Johnson".




Clothing is fashion... fashion changes every six months (or something like that, I don't know... it was in a joke on the internet :P) and technology needs to evolve because it keeps making our lives better, it makes things easier, and is basically almost seen as a necessity in today's world. What would America or nearly any other country get done without technology? We'd probably have the marines swordfighting with Samurais... (Interesting... that wasn't at all relevant but the image popped into my head...) As for this tradition however, it doesn't matter. It doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't cause coinfusion, and it just makes a lot of things like bills and forms much simpler to fill out as a family. Also if you have children and you have two different names, whose name would the child get? See, so it's simply for simplicity that it's done most of the time. And by the time you get married you really just don't care about that anymore, you know?

ok, I'm done now...

[Midnight_Moon]

I think personally it should be the choice of the couple. If they want to take the guys last name, great! If they want to mix it around and take the girls, that's fine too. Or make a completely different one is great. I don't believe it is being sexist or anything like that. It's kinda tradition but if the couple wants to mix it around then they should completely have the choice of doing that.

[Lizzie]

I know many people who have combiened last names. Like *Smith-Mayes for intstance. I am a women. I normally think of my last name in the future sounding like my current boyfriend. Like my friend kept teasing me when I was going out with this gut called David *Marigon. They called me "Lizzie *Marigon" all the time. Hmm...Anyway, last names. I think they should decide between them what their last name should be. You might want to keep their last name as one (*Smith-Mayes) or they could keep one (*Smith or *Mayes) or they could change it for good (*Mhichcovatyi).

*Changed names.

[Shaun]

I don't see anything wrong with it.

So a woman takes a man's last name when they wed, is that the end of the world?

While I generally agree I think the problem isn't that taking a man's last name is the issue. What is the issue is the implication that woman MUST take a man's last name. For feminists and people who identify themselves as activists for women and women's rights, this implication is one of patriarchal authority, and it is an important thing to mention. Women have spend so long in western society being subject to the wills and devices of men; only recently were these social conventions adjusted.
So, while I agree that it isn't the end of the world you do have to understand the complexities of it. What should become more prevalent and discussed regarding issues of marriage is the OPTION of taking a man's name, because there actually isn't a requirement for a woman to take a man's name. A man can take the name of his wife (or husband, if that be the case), or the woman can take the husbands, or neither can take the name at all. It isn't required and that is precisely what people are upset about: it's the implication that the patriarchy is still running things, and the case is unfortunately a good one in favor of this.

[Zombified]

While I generally agree I think the problem isn't that taking a man's last name is the issue. What is the issue is the implication that woman MUST take a man's last name. For feminists and people who identify themselves as activists for women and women's rights, this implication is one of patriarchal authority, and it is an important thing to mention. Women have spend so long in western society being subject to the wills and devices of men; only recently were these social conventions adjusted.
So, while I agree that it isn't the end of the world you do have to understand the complexities of it. What should become more prevalent and discussed regarding issues of marriage is the OPTION of taking a man's name, because there actually isn't a requirement for a woman to take a man's name. A man can take the name of his wife (or husband, if that be the case), or the woman can take the husbands, or neither can take the name at all. It isn't required and that is precisely what people are upset about: it's the implication that the patriarchy is still running things, and the case is unfortunately a good one in favor of this.

Whats funny is that all the girls here just said they don't have a problem taking the man's name.

These people are just too tightly wound and need to shut up before they start up another "Political Correctness" movement.

[Zombified]

And Zomb, they might have said they don't mind, but as soon as it's forced upon you it's a whole different matter. And you're pretty much saying women should take the man's name whether they like it or not. That's not a great attitude to have now, is it?

Did I ever say, "Women MUST take a man's last name or else!"?

Show me.
Please do.

Nothing?
Didn't think so.

All I said is that it's NOT sexist to take a man's last name and I am tired of hearing that crap.

[Shaun]

Whats funny is that all the girls here just said they don't have a problem taking the man's name.

These people are just too tightly wound and need to shut up before they start up another "Political Correctness" movement.

The girls here are not a representative sample, nor do they comprise of cross-generational groups.

They're not too tightly wound, Zombie. What you're suggesting right now is the same as suggesting that black people who get upset about subtle racism are too tightly wound. We have to acknowledge history to move forward in the future.

[Zombified]

There's a big fucking difference between racism and the act of taking a man's last name when getting married.

Seriously.

[dj4ever]

I just think this is a strictly personal decision.
I mean, I plan on keeping my last name just because it's part of who I am. I wouldn't want to have to lose that, and I wouldn't ask my spouse to lose part of himself either. It does unite two people as a couple, but doesn't getting married do that too? Why do you have to change your last name to become a unit? I don't think you should have to. Marriage is more about love than it is about what your name is.

[Shaun]

There's a big fucking difference between racism and the act of taking a man's last name when getting married.

Seriously.

And this attitude of rejecting the complaints and concerns of women is precisely what led us into a world where women were unimportant and thus controlled by men in the first place. True equality does not separate people who have an objection to a pre-established institution. In this case the institution is the patriarchy that still has a stranglehold on marriage.
Similar discourses were used to exact racism and sexism, so while the target of the action might be different, the principles behind it are exactly the same. Worse yet is the fact that women have been slaves far longer than people of color, but we discount that because for so long it was considered acceptable to make women second class citizens and ignore all that had occurred before. That has to change.

[appleofmyeye]

When I get married I would want to take my husband's last name. It's a symbol of two lives becoming one (that was really corny). And there is no law that forces a woman to change her name. She can get a hyphen or keep her normal name. But most woman want to change their name so I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

*EDIT*

This is strictly personal but I partially want to take another name because I do not want to be part of my father's legacy. I think changing names at marriage is a way of disconnecting from parents and another milestone to adulthood. But that might just be my observation as a child.

[Shaun]

Zomb, you have seriously got to calm down. I'm not calling you a sexist. I'm telling you what the argument is and why ignoring that argument and calling it "political correctness" garbage is contributing to the wrong side of the argument.

[Shaun]

When I get married I would want to take my husband's last name. It's a symbol of two lives becoming one (that was really corny). And there is no law that forces a woman to change her name. She can get a hyphen or keep her normal name. But most woman want to change their name so I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

Is it that most women want this because they actually want it, or is it because they grow up in a society where that is the norm? How do you differentiate from true desire and coerced desire?

[appleofmyeye]

Hmm... good question. I mean, most ideals in modern society are pre-formulated and we just go with them. I may not have come up with the idea of changing my name but I do agree with it.

[Shaun]

I wasn't saying that to say that you were coerced, I'm just saying that the issue is far more complex that it seems.

[Crocolyle]

I have a problem. I don't want to be 'LSD'. I also think it's about time people went back to traditional values and went with the matriarchal version of things. Much less violent. If it weren't for Christianity we wouldn't have to be dealing with sexism because it would likely have never developed in the matriarchal 'pagan' culture--everyone was much more equal back then.

And Zomb, they might have said they don't mind, but as soon as it's forced upon you it's a whole different matter. And you're pretty much saying women should take the man's name whether they like it or not. That's not a great attitude to have now, is it?

Rome was considered a heavily patriarchal society. In Greek society, so was Athens (in Spartan and Minoan culture, women, while still not considered equal to men, were comparatively more free).Unfortunately, my books on classical history aren't at hand right now, so I can't go into too much detail, but, even though women in both cultures dominated the priestly class, outside of that ordinary women and even many of the women of the wealthier classes were not nearly as well educated or could hold as much power as men. Even if you look at the Latin language, words that describe something that one would consider "bad" are usually femine. And the words, poeta, agricola, and nauta (poet, farmer, and sailor) despite having feminine endings, are always masculine, since it was inconceivable for a woman to hold any of those positions in the eyes of a Roman. (You can scream Sappho until you're blue in the face but 1) she was Greek, not Roman 2) She was the exception 3) In her poetry, women are still the object of affection).

Women not only could not act in the ancient Greek Dramas, but they weren't even allowed to watch. In Roman, women were only allowed to act in one certain type... I forgot which type in particular, though.

Likewise, ancient Scandinavia, even if women enjoyed many rights--though still not equal to men--was a very masculine culture. For a man to do anything "feminine" or "effeminate," such as cross dress, engage in homosexual behavior (punishable by death), etc. was frowned upon. Loki was shamed for turning into a mare, having sex with a giant's magical stallion, and then giving birth to sleipneir. He and Thor were both shamed for pretending to be women at I think Thyrm's wedding (He was promised Freyja because of some contest or something).

Before you accuse Christianity as being a singularly anti-matriarchal system, realize many pagan cultures, such as Greece, Rome, and Scandinavia also were patriarchal, even if their clergy was predominately female. Maybe the Celts were matriarchal--I don't know much about them--but Western culture's patriarchy has been a constant for thousands of years. Saying that it came out of Christianity is a pretty large claim, and unvalidated if you look at the facts.

EDIT: And calling a matriarchal society less violent, seems to be a sexist view...

[Shaun]

Well I am one half of God on this site... :P

[Shaun]

Before you accuse Christianity as being a singularly anti-matriarchal system, realize many pagan cultures, such as Greece, Rome, and Scandinavia also were patriarchal, even if their clergy was predominately female. Maybe the Celts were matriarchal--I don't know much about them--but Western culture's patriarchy has been a constant for thousands of years. Saying that it came out of Christianity is a pretty large claim, and unvalidated if you look at the facts.

I wouldn't even narrow it down to just the Western world, to be honest. Much of the world is patriarchal in some way, shape, or form. Even in the East. It might have more to do with a twisted part of what it is that makes us human...

[Crocolyle]

I think it's because men are physically stronger. They could rape and bully their way to the top of the social pyramid, as disgusting and terrible it sounds.

[GeorgeMichael]

This is probably the first time I have ever typed these words:

I agree with absolutely everything Shaun has said.

Congratulations Snappy. I find it very hard to picture myself ever writing those words in my near future :)

[Shaun]

I think it's because men are physically stronger. They could rape and bully their way to the top of the social pyramid, as disgusting and terrible it sounds.

Ain't that the sick truth. I'm reading a book called Are Women Human? right now and it's absolutely disgusting how twited our society still is on issues of gender. Take rape law in the U.S. It's surprising how many sick-frak rapists get away with their crimes.

[Crocolyle]

I know where you're coming from. I have a friend whose mother goes by her maiden name with a "Ms." in front of it. I mean, honestly, that instantly makes me think "Femi-nazi" even if her views, while supportive of women, are in fact moderate and equality-based, rather than female-centric.

Unfortunately though, our society--and most cultures--are patrilineal, so even if a woman did this she still could not pass on her last name (the exception usually being illegitimate children with an uncertain or estranged father). Conversely, following, a matrilineal genealogy has the opposite problem since it neglects the father. A portmanteau of the two names of both names, at surface looks like a good idea, but makes it ultimately impossible to truly track a person's descent. Also, there are problems of actually having to tie the two names together in a way that sounds pleasant. There also is, the child can chose whichever last name he or she wants--but I guess that's why he or she can legally change his or her name.

In regards to genealogy, though it may be insensitive to the feelings of women, I am for maintaining the status quo. All women should have the choice to keep their maiden names as their last names, should, like men, have the choice of whether or not to marry and whether to pursue or not to pursue a career. That being said, since a system is already in place and no other system can be devised that is satisfactory and sensitive to all parties and can be used and implemented practically, the patrilineal genealogy should be maintained.

OFF TOPIC:
Congratulations Snappy. I find it very hard to picture myself ever writing those words in my near future :)

I wrote those words once, but I followed it with a misrepresentation of his views. (Post #26 in Animal Testing). I think it went over everyone's heads though. Or what I said was so crazy no one took it seriously...

[Shaun]

That being said, since a system is already in place and no other system can be devised that is satisfactory and sensitive to all parties and can be used and implemented practically, the patrilineal genealogy should be maintained.

Would you mind elaborating? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.

[Crocolyle]

Would you mind elaborating? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.

Currently, we trace one's lineage patrilineally, or through the father's name. My father's last name was Lyle, so my last name is Lyle. If I have children they will have the last name Lyle. I stated in the paragraph above the one you quoted several alternatives: we can trace descent through the mothers last names (matrilineally), or we could combine both parents' names. But the former only changes the sex that is discriminated and the latter doesn't really work because it prevents the expedient tracking of lineage in addition to other reasons that I stated. Because we currently track lineage through the father's name and because no other system is sensitive to both sexes while staying practical, we should continue to track lineage through the father's name, for the sake of tradition and simplicity.

[Crocolyle]

I did a three-month long paper on Christianity's assertion of dominance at the end of the Middle Ages, which spread over the whole of Europe. I've done extensive research into this. I don't know much about Rome and the Classical world, but the culture we grew directly out of after the "dark ages" was matriarchal. If you look at the pattern of invasions etc during the "dark ages" it was substantially quieter during that period, at least in Western Europe. You had the patriarchal Scandinavian cultures marauding a bit, but for the most part it was quiet, only petty land wars, no one trying to build an empire.

This is directly contradictory to what I learned in my Medieval History class last semester. From my research, it was my understanding that the heavily patriarchal system of the originally pagan Roman Empire eventually grew into the similarly patriarchal Dark Ages.

After the fall of Rome, it is actually evident that Christianized barbaric tribes were trying reestablish the Roman Empire, leading the founding of the Holy Roman Empire. In the History of the Franks and the Life of Charlemagne, written during this time period, the authors attempt to legitimize the rule of Frankish Kings, by connecting them to Rome--the authors would sometimes claim or make note that certain leaders had Roman ancestors (which I'm sure is done with the Carolingians)--or to Constantine. For example, in the discussion of Merovingian kingship, the writer of the History of the Franks, discusses Clovis having a conversion experience strikingly similar to Constantine's.

This is what my research shows. Maybe I'm discussing a slightly different time period or maybe I'm looking at a different region, but the barbaric invasions following the fall of the Roman Empire were greatly influenced by the Roman Empire.

I would hardly call the extensive military campaigns intended to reestablish the Roman Empire during the Dark Ages petty.

The Norse culture had a heavy basis on males in the pantheon, but there was also a good amount of equality around--society recognised that it was probably best for the men to do the heavy farm work etc, and to go off to war--but they also recognised that a woman was perfectly capable of doing it herself and she was given control when the man was away.

I alluded to that. I'm sorry if I was too vague. But even you admit that the society was patriarchal, even if women enjoyed many rights.

That all ended during the late middle ages when the Pope's influence had spread over the whole of Europe and the Christian church was in a position to stamp out previous cultures. You see a dramatic decrease in the number of powerful women around after that, and it took a lot of work to claw our way back up. If you study prior to the Renaissance, you'll read a lot of stories about powerful queen-consorts. They might not have been liked, but people recognised their skills and power, or they paid the price. You have Matilda who fought her cousin for the throne, even though everyone hated her; Eleanor of Aquitaine who did far too much for me to list here, Isabella who deposed her own husband and ruled for her son and didn't do too bad a job.

I don't know much about Matilda or Eleanor of Aquitaine, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance. But it seems that while there were powerful queen-consorts they don't seem to have been the norm, which "matriarchy" would have required.

There have been multiple queens named Isabella and I'm not sure which one you're talking about, but you can't be talking about Isabella I of Castile, because she was from the Renaissance are doesn't fit your description. Isabella was a deeply Christian woman who reorganized the Church in her country, ultimately preventing it Protestantism from taking route in Spain. She also supported Columbus mainly hoping to help fund military campaigns against Muslims.

She also was one of the leading figures in stamping out non-Christian religions in her domain by creating the Spanish Inquisition. She tried to ensure the loyalty of her subjects through Christianity after reconquering Granada from the Muslim Moors. She also wanted to keep an eye on her Jewish subjects.


[qupte] So my view isn't sexist, it's carefully researched, and while some of it is extrapolated into my opinion, it's all based in fact.[/quote]

What you seemed to be hinting at was:

There were less wars when women were in power. Therefore, women leaders prevent violence.

That would be considered a sexist and largely unsubstantiated sexist view that neglects the possible turbulence of certain historical periods. If that was not what you meant, I'm sorry for misreading what your wrote.

[Rouge]

The woman doesn't have to take the man's name. It's ultimately what will happen, but she has the choice to not to. I find it quite insulting if she doesn't, because she should love him enough to take his name. I see it as a sign of love more than anything.

See, I don't care. We have a band director - hate her - that didn't take her husband's last name and I see her as, well, as a --

I won't say anything.
xD

But, I don't have a problem with it. If the woman does, then she doesn't need to marry, or she can opt out of getting her name replaced.

EDIT: I did not realize this had five posts. If I've said something that's already been said, my bad. d:

[Shaun]

It should stand to reason that the only reason you think someone who doesn't take a man's name is a horrible person is precisely because we have a system that makes taking a man's name the norm. You would say the exact same about a man not taking a woman's name if we were in a different society where women were the dominant class. That's precisely the problem. It's deemed as disrespectful to not take a man's name, which makes the idea that it is a "choice" seem like an arbitrary thing to say.

[Starry]

Changing your name isn't submission, though--it's a sign of unity, and mostly just for the sake of convenience.

[Rouge]

I don't understand, why is a woman bad if she decides not to take the man's last name? Perhaps I've missed something, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. How is a woman a bitch (if that's the word you were going to use) for wanting to keep her own name? Taking the man's last name isn't a sign of love, Nyx said that same thing and I don't know where you're getting that from. Submission is not love. It's something that they've been trying to make people think for the longest time, but it's not true.
Well, she's already a bitch to begin with. I just thought less of her when I found that out.

Anyways, I didn't say it was a sign of submission. Really, I think this is a personal thing.
I feel that I'll love the person enough to take his name, because that's how much I love him. I'm not being submissive or anything because he's a guy, but I'm changing mine so that we could be "one" or whatever.

I see it as bad and disrespectful because the man is who you love. Why wouldn't you take his name? He's giving it to you, offering a part of him to you. Why not take it?
When someone offers you something that is theirs, not yours, something so special as a name, why not take it? It's seems rude not to accept a gift.
You know how you get those horrible birthday gifts, but you smile to make them happy? You accept the gift because it would be rude to say "I don't like this, I don't want it, take it back."
That's not nice, or at least it's not to me.

Listen, this is something that you as a woman, or whatever, would have to decide for yourself. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, but it's solely a choice.

[Rouge]

Well that's what I mean, it is a choice and you shouldn't look down upon someone because they made a differing choice that what you personally would have done. Like with you, if it's your choice to take the man's last name with the ideaology that that is your sign of love I have no problem with that, because it is a conscience choice on your part. What I have a problem with is when people give it no consideration at all and just want to go along with the herd, that's what I'm saying. The only thing I was saying I didn't agree with of your post was that you disliked your band teacher (more so, since you already didn't like her) because of her choice in the matter. I'm not going to hate you just because you want to have the man's last name; I don't agree with it, but you have reasoning behind it. Perhaps your band teacher had reasons to keep her last name; if you don't like her because she's a bithc ok, but don't dislike her moreso because her opinion differs from yours.

(Oh, FYI Tsuki, sorry if it sounded like I were calling you submissive earlier).


The reason her name got to me so much is because she flirts with the other band directors. When her husband came to band camp, she didn't talk to him. At all.
It's like they're two people living together.

And I simply find that wrong.

The fact that she didn't take his name just kinda made it worse for me, even though I already didn't like her.

I never said to go along with the crowd like sheep. I say do what you want, but that's just me.
Anyways, I'm getting out of this thread. I hate debates. :mellow:

[Pibs]

Hmm... interesting subject, Snappy. I'm a gal (duh) and I guess I don't feel really strongly either way in the matter.

On one hand, It bothers me that, as I think Snappy mentioned, the origin of this practice was when a husband was literally taking a wife, and she (as well as any offspring SHE would bear!) became his property. It seems, and is, totally obsolete in today's world because a married woman CAN own property, and the money earns is HERS, and she actually gets credit for all the hard work she does. So, I could be convinced that the practice should be discarded, as Snappy says.

However, Tsuki's point about the name being a gift makes sense too, in today's world at least. It could be considered kind of an honor to take a husband's name, maybe.

But then Snappy had a really good point, if it's a gift, who's to say that a man couldn't and shouldn't take his wife's name?

Now Zombie; I'm actually really amused at the fact that you are accusing us of being "tightly wound" about this stuff, while you're cussing and shouting about it, and we're discussing things civilly. Now, which of us is so tightly wound?

And please, tell me WHY the suggestion of taking a future wife's name feels like a slap in the face to you, but you think the idea of us (women) taking your (men's) name wouldn't feel just as bad to us? Because it's tradition, you say? I'm actually quite insulted by that comment, Zombie. Just to make my point that just "because tradition" isn't necessarily a great reason; foot binding in the East was a long-standing pracitce. Putting girls through that much pain and suffering so they can look "pretty" (even though bound feet looked ugly and disfigured) was and is wrong, but it was tradition.

Just a note - I'm not saying all this in a work-up, tightly-wound way. Just making a point.

So, my opinion: I think it should be PURELY the couple's decision. If they're like Tsuki, and view it as a gift, go for it. If they are like Zombie, and like tradition (AND the wife agrees too!) go for it. If they're like Snappy, and think it's sexist, go for it. To each, his/her own.

[blue phoenix]

I think It is totally up to the couple. If they're in love they would just agree on a name, they'd probably both be willing to take the others. When I get married I'd want to pass my name to my kids, but I'm sure their father would to. And If my kids don't like their last name they can legally change it, right? Because there's no laws that tell people what their names should be why would other people care? I mean they, can't do anything about it.

[Pibs]

:blush: Thanks Snappy. :)

[Shaun]

I agree almost entirely, Pibs. The only thing I would suggest is that folks need to be critical of what is considered tradition. A choice should be made because it is actually a choice, not because you were born into a system that tells you something is the right thing to do. If you want to go with tradition or non-tradition, it should be because you're educated enough to understand the implications of both. Only then can a correct decision be made. Hence why Imelda and I are still discussing the right course of action for our future marriage.

[Pibs]

Yeah, that too.:D

[Crocolyle]

If I may reopen some old wounds, the semester has ended and I have been reunited with my history books. According to the 8th edition of "Medieval Europe" by C. Warren Hollister in the brief section on Medieval aristocratic women, he discusses how, as Imelda had stated, did experience an increase in rights--though, according to Hollister, women still remained subjugated and this increase was actually due to a Christian influence.

Hollister argues that while women were subordinated to men in virtually all premodern societies, the status of women improved due to a late Roman and Christian influence. In ancient pagan Germanic law codes women were treated as property. By the 10th century some Anglo-saxon women did hold property, but once again this was due to the removal of pagan law codes.

Christianity, though was inconsistent in the treatment of women. The writings of Paul also did have an antifeminine bias, particularly in the writings of Paul. In the writings of several churchmen, such as Eckhart and a 13th-Century Dominican, argued for the equality of women in God's eyes, even if other churchmen argued the opposite.

This book covers the women you mentioned, discussing them as the exception to the rule. The closest thing to matriarchy during this age, an age when Europe had been Christianized, was the fact that some queens and noblewomen served as regents while their husbands were fighting in the Crusades. The existence of women ruling in the absence of their husbands does not prove matriarchy or Christianity removing the rights of women, since these Christian women ruled in Christian times and only ruled because their husbands were away. In order for "Matriarchy" to be present, women rulers would have to have been more commonplace than a handful of notable exceptions.

Based on Hollister's claims, while women did experience an increase in rights, they still remained subjugated to men in all but a few exceptional cases. Christianity, though at times had an antifeminine bias, actually improved the status of women in pagan Germany.

[Pibs]

So, Crocolyle, what's YOUR opinion on last names in marriage (if you have one)?

Interesting information... kinda weird about the Germanic pagans... I guess I figured that that they were matriarchal.... *shrug*

[Crocolyle]

I might've already said this, but I think that if a woman doesn't want to change her last name, she doesn't have to. I know some women who have kept their maiden name as their last name, and I don't think any less of them.

[ScottyMcGee]

This reminds me of a story someone told me about a guy she knew named "Dick Tingler."

Like seriously.

That was his name.

I know it has nothing to do with this, but I mean, REALLY?

Imagine having that engraved on your tombstone.

"Here lies Dick Tingler."

[Crocolyle]

I know someone named Dick Hearst and someone named Harry Bonham.

Edit: And I also know a Phil Cupp

[Melo]

In Islam, the woman keeps her maiden name, no matter what, so that any lineage will stay known. She keeps the name of her father, and any brothers she has carry the task of continuing the name.