Taking the last name

[green-eyed beauty]

I respect everyone until they give me a reason not to do so.

[Trialbyfire]

well than why not a compromise if both people felt so strongly about using their names?

 

I agree, I would never force my name onto a partner.... if indeed it was that important to them to keep their own. I would never want to do that to them.

 

Nobody ever said men don't have feelings... my question is why is the whole name thing so important? Tradition..... sure but why? Or other reasons, such as other people thinking your wife is lacking either love or respect for you? This is a question not an assumption.

I strongly agree with this comment. This is what I don't understand. Why must one person's need supercede another's? Is this not an expectation that your partner be subservient?

[a4a]

And some men may not give a s**t about what others think but genuinely see a woman taking his name as a sign of creating something bigger than their individual identities and see not taking his name as a form of rejection. Unfortunately, too many women (I'm guessing yourself included) will just brush that reasoning off as not being true or as macho BS or attribute it to some "controlling", ulterior motive. Furthermore, I would wager that a woman's willingness to take her man's name is directly proportional to her respect for men in general.

 

Well see now that is an answer...... Rejection.

Hard for me to fathom that as I don't see it as rejecting my own husband nor does he. Perhaps if we were married in our 20's and I did not have a tie to my own name with work or my own identification with myself perhaps I would have just taken his name.

 

And no I have a great deal of respect for many people... it has nothing to do with lack of respect for men. It has to do with respect for myself and my family name.

 

I gotta say I am pretty amazed that you would think of it as rejection. Where I may see it also as lack of respect to expect a woman to take your name or else the wedding is off.

 

Interesting deal breaker.

[serial muse]

Well see now that is an answer...... Rejection.

Hard for me to fathom that as I don't see it as rejecting my own husband nor does he. Perhaps if we were married in our 20's and I did not have a tie to my own name with work or my own identification with myself perhaps I would have just taken his name.

 

And no I have a great deal of respect for many people... it has nothing to do with lack of respect for men. It has to do with respect for myself and my family name.

 

I gotta say I am pretty amazed that you would think of it as rejection. Where I may see it also as lack of respect to expect a woman to take your name or else the wedding is off.

 

Interesting deal breaker.

 

This was kind of what I was saying - amid all the talk of tradition and all the "women who won't do it just plain hate men," behind that anger, it took many pages of LS back-and-forth before I finally saw through that and understood that we're really talking about is hurt feelings. And I don't want a man I love to feel those, any more than I'd want him to want me to be hurt. So that makes it a lot easier to empathize with, once they're put on the table. Of course, that means that I'd appreciate it if my feelings were also empathized with.

 

All of this is why I said earlier that I think it should come down to who cares more. Not every guy will take it as rejection, and not every gal will feel like she's losing her identity. Those things may depend on age, career, or personal preference. All of them are valid. Why not have a nice, reasonable, calm talk about the feelings of the two people in the relationship, then, instead of bludgeoning each other with all this other stuff about other people that is, in the end, just irrelevant? It's about one relationship.

 

Also, let's all sing kumbaya.

 

I only half-kid. Just tired of all the hatin'.

[Touche]

And some men may not give a s**t about what others think but genuinely see a woman taking his name as a sign of creating something bigger than their individual identities and see not taking his name as a form of rejection. Unfortunately, too many women (I'm guessing yourself included) will just brush that reasoning off as not being true or as macho BS or attribute it to some "controlling", ulterior motive. Furthermore, I would wager that a woman's willingness to take her man's name is directly proportional to her respect for men in general.

 

Wow, another excellent point. I've noticed this. It doesn't apply to ALL women, but I've certainly noticed that it does seem to apply to many of those who don't/won't take ther man's name.

[a4a]

[/b]

 

Wow, another excellent point. I've noticed this. It doesn't apply to ALL women, but I've certainly noticed that it does seem to apply to many of those who don't/won't take ther man's name.

 

Well in my case it is not a matter of respect but age and work. I am also the last one who has my name in my family.... no siblings with our name... immediate family is dead.

 

I have some historic roots that I am indeed proud of as well.

 

H's family name was actually changed and mispelled when they exited the boat upon arrival..

 

Of course Serial Muse has it right....... different strokes for different folks.

 

I gotta wonder too if women that don't have strong ties to their family name may also be more willing to dispose of it.

[Lizzie60]

I know...I don't get what is so bad about tradition. Why are people so quick these days to want to eschew tradition? Hello, but in many instances something is a tradition because it WORKS.

 

I wonder if there's some study out there that deals with this. I'll just bet that marriages that are more traditional (including the woman taking the man's last name) outlast those more "modern" type of marriages. Just a hunch.

 

were initially brought up and perpetuated by MEN... women in Canada can only vote since 1930 if I'm not mistaken... taking the husband last name is only to show men one more time that we think they are superior...

 

Why do men and women tend to laugh when we ask why men are not taken the woman's last name... they think it's sooo ridiculous...blablabla...what is so ridiculous about that?

 

We cannot deny the fact that the world is still run mostly by MEN... women have a loooong way to go to assume themselves... but they are certainly not helping the women's cause by taking their husband's name.

[Trialbyfire]

[/b]

 

Wow, another excellent point. I've noticed this. It doesn't apply to ALL women, but I've certainly noticed that it does seem to apply to many of those who don't/won't take ther man's name.

I did give up my name but if I could turn back the clock, I would have said no, deal-breaker or not. I don't think it has anything to do with respecting men, in general. I respect people, not men or women. Respect is earned, not something you are entitled to, based on the physical structure of your body.

[Lizzie60]

I think that if those women want empathy then they should at least offer up empathy to the fact that a lot of men really have a problem with the wife not taking his name and not just brush it off as macho BS. It seems that with a lot of issues--not just this one--women seem to think their feelings are more important than men's for some reason.

 

Why can't both partner keep their respective names?

And sorry but IT IS MACHO BS!

[Curmudgeon]

Is this not an expectation that your partner be subservient?

 

I work in politics, as did my wife before she retired. It's all about negotiation, commisseration and meeting one another half-way. To accede to something the one you love feels very strongly about is neither a sign of weakness nor subservience.

 

Simply put, it's called compromise.

[a4a]

I know...I don't get what is so bad about tradition. Why are people so quick these days to want to eschew tradition? Hello, but in many instances something is a tradition because it WORKS.

 

I wonder if there's some study out there that deals with this. I'll just bet that marriages that are more traditional (including the woman taking the man's last name) outlast those more "modern" type of marriages. Just a hunch.

 

Interesting...... based on your own experience with your first marriage, did you take his last name?

 

not being a smartass - wondering

[Touche]

Well in my case it is not a matter of respect but age and work. I am also the last one who has my name in my family.... no siblings with our name... immediate family is dead.

 

I have some historic roots that I am indeed proud of as well.

 

H's family name was actually changed and mispelled when they exited the boat upon arrival..

 

Of course Serial Muse has it right....... different strokes for different folks.

 

I gotta wonder too if women that don't have strong ties to their family name may also be more willing to dispose of it.

 

Good points.

 

I myself have very strong ties to my maiden name though. No brothers to carry on the name. It's a very unusual name at that. That's why I decided to make it my legal middle name and also made it our son's middle name. It's also out of respect for my deceased father. I've told our son that I'd like it if he keeps the name going with his own kids someday.

[Trialbyfire]

I work in politics, as did my wife before she retired. It's all about negotiation, commisseration and meeting one another half-way. To accede to something the one you love feels very strongly about is neither a sign of weakness nor subservience.

 

Simply put, it's called compromise.

Compromise would be hyphenating names, both your names. This way, both of you get what you want. Very win/win.

 

When a woman gives up her name, she's capitulating. If both of you want this to happen, then it's not capitulation.

[a4a]

I work in politics, as did my wife before she retired. It's all about negotiation, commisseration and meeting one another half-way. To accede to something the one you love feels very strongly about is neither a sign of weakness nor subservience.

 

Simply put, it's called compromise.

 

well in your individual case I can so so understand why you would not want her to have her ex-husbands name..... nor would I if in your shoes.... that seems a bit odd.

[Touche]

Interesting...... based on your own experience with your first marriage, did you take his last name?

 

not being a smartass - wondering

 

Well, you must have missed my post on that. I hyphenated with ex-H. I guess I wasn't "fully" vested in the marriage because for what it's worth, we also had separate bank accounts.

 

And I'm not saying that couples who don't have joint accounts and where the wife doesn't take H's last name aren't vested in the marriage but I do believe it's true for a lot of couples. Including my first marriage.

[Touche]

were initially brought up and perpetuated by MEN... women in Canada can only vote since 1930 if I'm not mistaken... taking the husband last name is only to show men one more time that we think they are superior...

 

Why do men and women tend to laugh when we ask why men are not taken the woman's last name... they think it's sooo ridiculous...blablabla...what is so ridiculous about that?

 

We cannot deny the fact that the world is still run mostly by MEN... women have a loooong way to go to assume themselves... but they are certainly not helping the women's cause by taking their husband's name.

 

That was my laugh for the day! No offense.

 

So you're saying that by respecting my husband and taking his name and becoming a family, I'm not helping the "women's cause?"

 

Well, pardon me, but if that's your definition of helping the women's cause (whatever the hell that is) than screw it. What do I care?

 

And what the heck is this "women's cause" anyway? Sorry, but I'm not for women's causes but for human ones. Go preach your women cause nonsense to someone else. Not interested.

[Touche]

I did give up my name but if I could turn back the clock, I would have said no, deal-breaker or not. I don't think it has anything to do with respecting men, in general. I respect people, not men or women. Respect is earned, not something you are entitled to, based on the physical structure of your body.

 

I agree with that. But my H earned my respect and I respected his traditional values. That's why I took his name. Besides, we wanted to have a child together and I wanted us to all have the same name. We're a family afterall.

 

Guess, I'm just old-fashioned...but it works for me and for us as a couple and as a family.

[tanbark813]

I find it interesting that no one has commented on my remark about the engagement ring. You could easily make the argument that that's a form of marking one's territory. I'm not saying that's what I believe, but the women who are claiming that taking a man's name is him being controlling could also--were they to be truly objective--claim that having to wear an engagement ring is a form of being controlled by a man or claimed as his property.

 

I'm curious to know how many women who refuse to take her husband's name would be genuinely okay with not getting an engagement ring.

[a4a]

Well, you must have missed my post on that. I hyphenated with ex-H. I guess I wasn't "fully" vested in the marriage because for what it's worth, we also had separate bank accounts.

 

And I'm not saying that couples who don't have joint accounts and where the wife doesn't take H's last name aren't vested in the marriage but I do believe it's true for a lot of couples. Including my first marriage.

 

Seems like it's the hyphen thing that dooms a M!

 

Perhaps it is easier to have sep. accounts and a joint for bills if you are a 2 income household. Direct deposits keep on flowing that way without a hitch.

 

I just had to reroute a business acct today to this address .... what a pain in the ass that was! His name is still not on it because it is too much of a pain to do so. It is so much easier just not screwing around with names on insurance, cars, land, accounts, papers, and everything else....... another reason not to change your name after almost 40 years of having it.

[Trialbyfire]

I agree with that. But my H earned my respect and I respected his traditional values. That's why I took his name. Besides, we wanted to have a child together and I wanted us to all have the same name. We're a family afterall.

 

Guess, I'm just old-fashioned...but it works for me and for us as a couple and as a family.

Which is fine. That was your choice to make. I only have issues with forcing someone to do it, where it's perceived as a sign of disrespect. It's just as "disrespecting" to force your demands over someone else's.

[serial muse]

I find it interesting that no one has commented on my remark about the engagement ring. You could easily make the argument that that's a form of marking one's territory. I'm not saying that's what I believe, but the women who are claiming that taking a man's name is him being controlling could also--were they to be truly objective--claim that having to wear an engagement ring is a form of being controlled by a man or claimed as his property.

 

I'm curious to know how many women who refuse to take her husband's name would be genuinely okay with not getting an engagement ring.

 

Actually, I did mean to comment on this because I think it's a great point. I always felt uncomfortable with the fact that I wore an engagement ring while my husband wore nothing. Seemed odd and I admit, I felt like a possession. Also, because I know something about this topic, I was uncomfortable with having a diamond, but he bought it as a surprise and it seemed churlish to say something at that point. So I never did.

 

But the short answer to your question is, I don't know that I would be upset. The engagement ring is another "tradition" that is a recent creation - within the last century, actually - along with the "Diamond is Forever" slogan (created in the 1940s by a - female - advertising writer). So I don't think I'd care much about wearing an engagement ring, no. Even if I didn't take his name. What I care about is that we're both equally part of the marriage, and both feel "engaged" in it, har har.

[Trialbyfire]

Seems like it's the hyphen thing that dooms a M!

We didn't hypenate and we were still doomed, so that negates your theory.

 

In all seriousness, if it were for almost any other reason besides serial infidelity, I would have been 100% committed to making it work. It was my deal-breaker.

[Curmudgeon]

.... that seems a bit odd.

 

...as well as our profession. In politics, access and name recognition are everything. I understood. I just wasn't having it. She understood and agreed.

 

No harm no foul! That was almost 11 years ago. Besides, I had access and name recognition under my last name so it made the transition a bit easier for her, professionally.

 

In time the Legislature rather enjoyed it. Because we worked in the same policy areas, although for two different agencies, there were times we both testified before policy and fiscal committees on the same bill with one of us in support and the other one of us in opposition. We got a lot of comments and questions about domestic squabbles because of it.

 

I always responded that it certainly made for some interesting pillow talk!

[Trialbyfire]

I find it interesting that no one has commented on my remark about the engagement ring. You could easily make the argument that that's a form of marking one's territory. I'm not saying that's what I believe, but the women who are claiming that taking a man's name is him being controlling could also--were they to be truly objective--claim that having to wear an engagement ring is a form of being controlled by a man or claimed as his property.

 

I'm curious to know how many women who refuse to take her husband's name would be genuinely okay with not getting an engagement ring.

ME, ME, ME!!! Although I did take his name, reluctantly.

[a4a]

I find it interesting that no one has commented on my remark about the engagement ring. You could easily make the argument that that's a form of marking one's territory. I'm not saying that's what I believe, but the women who are claiming that taking a man's name is him being controlling could also--were they to be truly objective--claim that having to wear an engagement ring is a form of being controlled by a man or claimed as his property.

 

I'm curious to know how many women who refuse to take her husband's name would be genuinely okay with not getting an engagement ring.

 

Why don't men wear engagement rings to show that they are taken off the market too?

 

Yes I was just fine with not having one. I am old so no need to run to show my girlfriends what I have on my finger. I actually just started wearing my wedding ring because it is the one that I can wear without it being a safety issue and I do happen to like this one...... ring number 4. H is on ring #2.... ruined the first one by knocking the diamonds out of it. I think the original is in his ashtray of his truck? Rings and names don't make the R....