She Wants to Keep Her Last Name...Dealbreaker?

[dreamingoftigers]

Not sadfaced at all. Your buddies seem to be the ones butthurt. To quote grandma "A hit dog always hollers". If there were no truth to the stereotype they wouldn't be mad. But their anger wasn't at my stereotype, it was the fact that I said I would never marry a woman who wouldn't take my name. Because only women are allowed to have dealbreakers, If I guy does he's controlling, bitter, etc..... I'm neither one of those things, I just wouldn't budge on that particularly in my friends situation.

 

*Hello? Hello? is this thing on...... *tap* *tap*......

 

Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

Try it out sometime.

 

Please feel free to actually review the points people have made on your thread regarding the topic.

 

And the only one I can remember hollering in this thread was you, in bold about "if she loved you, she'd do it."

 

Grandma would be so proud.

 

If you even look at my last post for instance, it mentions pretty clearly the last name dealbreaker. And Treasa mentioned it before as well, and X mentioned about it being the attitude behind the stance you have. That she should do it or be "kicked to the curb."

 

But I get it, you're in too deep. You've invested too much into the argument to back away from the "women being superior and disrespecting men or ignoring their wants and needs" gag.

 

Yeah, no one said that. Really. FFS no one said that.

 

Or you can't comprehend what the deal is.

 

Or you're just trolling. Well if it's the latter, congrats. You've managed to ruffle a couple of guy's feathers. Not even that many, what was it, 2? Most of the women debated about the attitude and what would make them want to change or not change their last name and offered up reasons as to why. And how they wouldn't marry a guy with the "do it or else" mentality.

 

And somehow in all of this you see anger, hurt, fear?

 

Really, seriously, work on those reading skills. Look for tone, and linear thought.

 

Here, it's a Grade 12 English examination. Standard for my province. Enjoy. There are more available online. You can practice to your heart's contentment.

 

http://resource.rockyview.ab.ca/rvlc/ela301/units/diploma_exams/3_part_b.html

 

And here, a little insight into women's perspectives:

 

Women's Studies and Women's Issues Internet Resources

 

And later perhaps you can reach the conclusion that women are people with perspectives and freedom of choices and options: just like men!

 

And that "your way" is not the only way that the "vast majority of men" agree with and for the "vast majority of women" symbolizes what you think it means.

 

There is more than one woman in the world. And it seems that you may not realize that we aren't all overbearing, oppressive, power-hungry and manipulative. A lot of us may have one or two of those traits. Some women are sociopaths. Some fail on the logic front. Some refuse to take responsibility. But from this angle it appears from your postings that you have the traits and entitlement that you are accusing not just the women in this thread of having, but your friend's girlfriend as well.

 

Hmm. If my friend found someone that he wants to propose to as life-partner, I think my first and possibly only response would be, "Congratulations. That is fantastic news!":D

[Woggle]

I can see why a woman would think that a man taking her name would be more committed to the marriage but I just thought the fact that she offered it said a lot about her. When I decided to get married for the second time I didn't want a woman who had one foot out and saw marriage as disposable and maybe I am wrong for this but I do think somebody who doesn't completely thumb their nose at any kind of tradition would be more willing to look at marriage as a lifetime commitment instead of something disposable.

 

I admit this is probably my own baggage though.

[SJC2008]

I can see why a woman would think that a man taking her name would be more committed to the marriage but I just thought the fact that she offered it said a lot about her. When I decided to get married for the second time I didn't want a woman who had one foot out and saw marriage as disposable and maybe I am wrong for this but I do think somebody who doesn't completely thumb their nose at any kind of tradition would be more willing to look at marriage as a lifetime commitment instead of something disposable.

 

I admit this is probably my own baggage though.

 

I think it said a lot about her too Woggs and execptions aside, I agree with the latter as well. It all comes down to compatibility and from your posting history I can tell you and your wife are made for eachother! I hope to find the same one day brother.

[Pompeii]

...which might actually be a dealbreaker to her. It would be to me. Huge giant ominous waving red flag.

 

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Red flag, red flag, red flag. Buzzwords, buzzwords, buzzwords.

 

It's not like anyone has to know. EVERYONE is flawed.

 

I like covering my tracks. If something's going to happen, it would make sense to prepare for the worst. The reason people fall so far after things such as divorce is because they failed to have a net when the rug is pulled from underneath them.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Pompeii

[serial muse]

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Red flag, red flag, red flag. Buzzwords, buzzwords, buzzwords.

 

It's not like anyone has to know. EVERYONE is flawed.

 

I like covering my tracks. If something's going to happen, it would make sense to prepare for the worst. The reason people fall so far after things such as divorce is because they failed to have a net when the rug is pulled from underneath them.

 

I think that if you expect the worst from a partner, they will know something is not right between you, and may well suspect you're not fully committed. Isn't that really the root of the problem? You really might want to think about whether this attitude is good for you, and is helping your efforts at dating. I say that with all sincerity, despite your rude response.

[Nicomis]

*Hello? Hello? is this thing on...... *tap* *tap*......

 

Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

Try it out sometime.

 

Please feel free to actually review the points people have made on your thread regarding the topic.

 

And the only one I can remember hollering in this thread was you, in bold about "if she loved you, she'd do it."

 

Grandma would be so proud.

 

If you even look at my last post for instance, it mentions pretty clearly the last name dealbreaker. And Treasa mentioned it before as well, and X mentioned about it being the attitude behind the stance you have. That she should do it or be "kicked to the curb."

 

But I get it, you're in too deep. You've invested too much into the argument to back away from the "women being superior and disrespecting men or ignoring their wants and needs" gag.

 

Yeah, no one said that. Really. FFS no one said that.

 

Or you can't comprehend what the deal is.

 

Or you're just trolling. Well if it's the latter, congrats. You've managed to ruffle a couple of guy's feathers. Not even that many, what was it, 2? Most of the women debated about the attitude and what would make them want to change or not change their last name and offered up reasons as to why. And how they wouldn't marry a guy with the "do it or else" mentality.

 

And somehow in all of this you see anger, hurt, fear?

 

Really, seriously, work on those reading skills. Look for tone, and linear thought.

 

Here, it's a Grade 12 English examination. Standard for my province. Enjoy. There are more available online. You can practice to your heart's contentment.

 

Lesson Three - Part B - reading comprehension

 

And here, a little insight into women's perspectives:

 

Women's Studies and Women's Issues Internet Resources

 

And later perhaps you can reach the conclusion that women are people with perspectives and freedom of choices and options: just like men!

 

And that "your way" is not the only way that the "vast majority of men" agree with and for the "vast majority of women" symbolizes what you think it means.

 

There is more than one woman in the world. And it seems that you may not realize that we aren't all overbearing, oppressive, power-hungry and manipulative. A lot of us may have one or two of those traits. Some women are sociopaths. Some fail on the logic front. Some refuse to take responsibility. But from this angle it appears from your postings that you have the traits and entitlement that you are accusing not just the women in this thread of having, but your friend's girlfriend as well.

 

Hmm. If my friend found someone that he wants to propose to as life-partner, I think my first and possibly only response would be, "Congratulations. That is fantastic news!":D

 

Let me review your points in simple terms so that you can understand.

 

1) "Hit dog always hollers" refers to the name calling and attacks perpetrated by your buddies, because I made a generalization that probably hit too close to home.

 

2)"IF SHE LOVED ME SHE WOULD DO IT" is in direct response to "Man up and grow a pair" or did you miss that post? Because it pretty much gave validity to the train of thought you are pinning on me.

 

3) I'm not even going to dignify all of the stupidity about English courses, and women's study courses with a detailed answer. It's just you trying to sound superior (FAIL).

 

4) I never said women weren't people with thoughts and choices just like men. I just said I wouldn't marry a woman who wouldn't take my name. I never said they had to marry me.

 

5) My friend came to me with this, because it is a problem for him too. I advised him to bring it up with her casually, and see if it was a deal breaker for her. If neither will give, then it's probably best to end it before entering to a lifelong commitment.

[Pompeii]

I think that if you expect the worst from a partner, they will know something is not right between you, and may well suspect you're not fully committed. Isn't that really the root of the problem? You really might want to think about whether this attitude is good for you, and is helping your efforts at dating. I say that with all sincerity, despite your rude response.

 

My response wasn't "rude", it was adequate to your readymade, predictable, take-it-off-the-shelf response. Just because you know of the dark side of human nature doesn't make you "uncommitted". I have a friend that I've known for 14 years. I know he could easily betray me at a moment's notice. Does being aware of that fact make a bad person? I don't think so.

[Xinreeki]

Seriously, there are 127 posts. I don't have time to respond personally to each one. You are reading way to much into it. Hypothetically, if it were me in my friends situation, I would tell her how I felt about it, and if she wouldn't budge on that one thing, than I could probably expect her to be the same about most any important decision. Somebody has to be head of the household, somebody has to have the final say, otherwise it doesn't work. (see our current divorce rate) Some guys are OK with a woman running the show, and being head of the house. One of those guys will be great for her, I'm just not that guy. I feel you become a family once your married, and women (aside from the aforementioned exceptions), who wish to keep their maiden name, or ex husbands name, do it to make a point, and whether you will admit it or not, to emasculate her husband. For the record I'm OK with the woman using her maiden name as a middle name, or even hyphenating it. Not taking the man's name at all is a slap in the face.

 

What you describe, with your "Somebody has to be the head of the household" mindset, sounds more like a codependent partnership than a marriage to me...

 

But I guess that's ok, as long as both people are on board with that arrangement.

 

I confess I'm happy to be submissive when it comes to certain things in my relationship, and then want more of a say when it comes to other things.

 

Everyone is going to be different.

 

But I think the majority of successful marriages (and indeed relationships for that matter) are based on mutual love, respect and cooperation and not a codependent association where one partner is making ALL the important decisions with no empathy, understanding or time for the other person's thoughts, feelings and ideas.

 

Most loving marriages are based on compromise, not the dictatorial authority of one partner over the submissiveness of another.

 

I know compromise can sometimes be hard to reach, but they are needed for many aspects of life, look around and I'm sure if you look close enough you'll begin to see sharing and compromises everywhere.

 

And in this case it is HER name and HER choice as to whether she wants to change it or not.

 

Again, if she told you that she wanted you to change YOUR name to her's or else she'd be out of there... You wouldn't stand for that would you? So why should she stand for the reverse from you?

 

A calm discussion is needed to reach a compromise. But you are honestly saying that if she wouldn't budge on that one issue you'd be out of there? Most marriage's are going to be full of decision making moments like that, and you are seriously going to threaten to leave her every time an issue comes up that you don't automatically see eye to eye on?

 

Again, with the right approach, i.e. calmly explaining to her how important this is for you and how much it would mean to you if she would change her name to your's, and then non-judgmentally listening to her thoughts about the matter too... is going to be much more effective in getting her to understand / consider your point of view, than dishing out ultimatums.

[pcplod]

Hey now, animals are my soft spot. Not to derail, but I spent 15 minutes this morning absolutely sobbing while watching a video of a blind doggie who lived in a trash pile who was then rescued, had part of her vision restored, and was adopted.

 

****. Tearing up again. *sigh*

 

Doggie love is all very touching, but surely not to the point of marriage and consummation?

 

PS. Who ever dreamt up that 'twattish' term for such a thing? Ought to really be taken outside and shot if it wasn't for the fact that they are already long dead.

[Xinreeki]

My response wasn't "rude", it was adequate to your readymade, predictable, take-it-off-the-shelf response. Just because you know of the dark side of human nature doesn't make you "uncommitted". I have a friend that I've known for 14 years. I know he could easily betray me at a moment's notice. Does being aware of that fact make a bad person? I don't think so.

 

No, but focusing on it so much makes for a bitter person...

[Pompeii]

Again, if she told you that she wanted you to change YOUR name to her's or else she'd be out of there... You wouldn't stand for that would you? So why should she stand for the reverse from you?

 

I would feel that to be an insult to my masculinity if a woman said that and I believe that every man in my family would feel the same.

[ChessPieceFace]

I was attempting to read through the rants on this thread, but here it is. It's always "HE should MAN-UP", and GROW A SET". That's your answer for everything a man finds disagreeable. I'm selfish, and I'm this, and I'm that, because I wouldn't marry a woman that wouldn't take my name. How about, If SHE LOVES ME ENOUGH TO MARRY ME, SHE'LL DO IT.

 

You're absolutely correct. You're willing to change your life and sign away your future to her, she won't even change her name to show that two have become one.

 

Don't listen to the feminists. Their failed philosophies have created the horrible mess our society is in. They will scream and yell and hate you for believing in traditional values and you have to just ignore them, because they are beyond reason.

[Pompeii]

No, but focusing on it so much makes for a bitter person...

 

Focusing on something vs. being aware it exists are two completely different things.

[pcplod]

Married men "helpless and trapped animal."

 

Please. There's nothing more powerful that a couple who has each other's back.

 

Well, maybe a sociopath with a rocket launcher...

 

A married sociopathic couple that have each other's back and possess a rocket launcher?

 

Married men often have freedom in big ways, guaranteed sex and tons of stuff done for them until kids come along. Then they pitch in more. I can get feeling "trapped" with kids, but not trapped by marriage unless the situation is toxic.

 

Usually toxic situations happen when one or two controlling people end up in a relationship together. *Hmm, why does this seem so familiar?*

 

*cough* this thread *cough* *cough*

 

Now, you have gotta know that I wasn't being at all serious in any way, so I've got to decide whether you were being or not. I prefer to think that you weren't. Apologies if you were.

 

"Guaranteed sex"? You aren't hoping to sell that line beyond the front desk of propaganda companies, are you? I thought that was the last thing you were entitled to assume, just because you are married? I know for certain that it is a deeply unpopular view with one of the partners in many of a marriage, that's for sure.

[Xinreeki]

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Red flag, red flag, red flag. Buzzwords, buzzwords, buzzwords.

 

It's not like anyone has to know. EVERYONE is flawed.

 

I like covering my tracks. If something's going to happen, it would make sense to prepare for the worst. The reason people fall so far after things such as divorce is because they failed to have a net when the rug is pulled from underneath them.

 

Yes I agree. Its good to be prepared.

 

But you don't have to focus on the negative so much. I should know, I've struggled with pessimism for years, but I now realize, its not an attractive quality.

 

So yes. Be prepared. But don't dwell on that and certainly don't always assume the worst about people. If you're always on alert for deceit and betrayal you'll scare people off, because people make mistakes, and they want you to be able to empathize a bit with their side of the story and not have to worry that you are going to turn on them the moment they take a wrong step. Especially in a relationship, empathy, patience and understanding are key.

 

Have a back up plan B - Ok, fair enough.

 

But remember plan A is that everything is going to work out and that the person you love really has all the amazing qualities you think they do. Sure they'll have negative qualities too, but you have to have a little faith that the positive qualities, which attracted you to them in the first place, will prevail.

[Xinreeki]

You're absolutely correct. You're willing to change your life and sign away your future to her, she won't even change her name to show that two have become one.

 

Don't listen to the feminists. Their failed philosophies have created the horrible mess our society is in. They will scream and yell and hate you for believing in traditional values and you have to just ignore them, because they are beyond reason.

 

Same is true for the masculinazis out there. Logic is lost on both of those types of people sadly.

 

When in a relationship, true empathy and understanding for BOTH sides of the argument and BOTH points of view is what is needed.

[pcplod]

There is no point of marrying someone if two people don't have the same last name. Because they are suppose to be united not separate. That wouldn't be a real marriage in the traditional sense.

 

You are clutching onto a very tired cliché with your view on the subject such that it is easy to drive a coach and horses through it. Firstly, it is merely a trivial gesture and is no measure of the real unity there is supposed to be in a marriage. Secondly, expecting one partner in a partnership to give up something symbolic like that infers that the partnership is not one of equality but of dominance by the male half of the relationship. Thirdly, woman could and some do, volunteer to take on their husband's surname, but as far as treating the marriage in a traditional or conventional manner or in any respectful manner at all, that is about the beginning and end of it. In other words, all it is is mere tokenism and no more than that.

 

Apart from all of which, I suspect that the origins of the tradition never lay in the woman taking her husband's name in marriage but rather it was forced on her by virtue of the fact that historically women were the property of their husbands, much in the same way black slaves on the plantations were given their owners' surnames and treated accordingly. It is simply a quaint falsehood, a revision of history, which happened God knows when, that this tradition is supposed to be a sign of equality and unity.

 

On reflection, it is frankly surprising that any woman wishes to stick to a tradition that really doesn't have that much of a tradition to it at all.

[Ursa]

I can understand being taken aback that a woman wants to keep her married name from a previous marriage. Honestly, that would hurt my feelings, and stir up some jealousy. I suspect that's what would go on inside of many men, as well--but some of them will dress it up as an egregious and obvious outrage to masculinity, instead of just admitting to the common, genderblind human failings of hurt feelings and jealousy . In the end, if the attachment to the name was professional or due to the connection to her child, even if the child is grown, I would try to be adult about it. Ultimately, I just think it's understandable that this kind of confusion arises when society still hangs onto the notion that one party should change her name in the first place, and it's up to every couple to resolve it as best they can.

 

Thinking that anybody can know the dynamic of somebody else's marriage based solely on whether somebody changed their name or not? Ridiculous.

[ChessPieceFace]

"Guaranteed sex"? You aren't hoping to sell that line beyond the front desk of propaganda companies, are you?

 

Hilarious isn't it? Guaranteed NO SEX is more often accurate of marriages. I've posted the statistics on here before. Married men get far less sex after the honeymoon period is well over. The statistics also showed that married womens' sex somehow didn't drop off quite as much, implying more cheating on womens' part. Which is absolutely no surprise to me.

 

Same is true for the masculinazis out there. Logic is lost on both of those types of people sadly.

 

When in a relationship, true empathy and understanding for BOTH sides of the argument and BOTH points of view is what is needed.

 

That's trite. Like someone stabs someone else and instead of stopping it or condemning it you just come in saying "hey let's all be nice, we all have to love each other, no one should hurt anyone!" A pointless observation which has no relevance and glosses over the crimes of the situation at hand.

 

We're talking about a divorcee with kid who refuses to change her name to remarry. I've outlined all the reasons why that's bad, insulting and INDICATES a probable bad future if the man walks into that. Boils down to this:

 

If the changing of the name really didn't mean anything, there's no reason she shouldn't change it.

 

So obviously it DOES mean something, and clearly demonstrates why this woman will not fully accept her new husband as a true partner. No more discussion is required.

 

As for "masculinazi" I have absolutely no idea what that means. Would you enlighten us? Hopefully it doesn't refer to anyone who would expect a woman to change her name to reflect the union of marriage. Well, if it does let me know, I can always use another good laugh.

[Pompeii]

You know, when I first entered this thread, it was as a response to someone else, I didn't even bother reading the original post. Now, not only did I see that the last name isn't changing, but it isn't even hers! If I was the to-be-husband in this situation, I would ask her "Are you ****ing crazy, girl????" Seriously? You don't want to change your last name from your ex-husband's to mine? Do you really have that much of an emotional attachment to your last marriage (that went so well, apparently) that you'd rather keep his? Are you people insane? You must be because you're advocating for this.

 

It's one thing to not change it from your maiden name. It is an entirely different ballgame when you wish to keep it from a previous marriage. No, no, no, no, no. No for me. Definitely not. That just signals a complete disregard for who I am, I only see trouble on the horizon.

 

I'd definitely stay farrrrrrr away.

 

Married men often have freedom in big ways, guaranteed sex and tons of stuff done for them until kids come along.

 

There is no greater restriction of freedom than being legally bound to another person. I can't think of any. Can you?

 

Guaranteed sex? That's laughable. If sex was guaranteed there would be no such thing as sexless marriages. And if could of how many cases I've heard of that online + in real life, I'd run out of fingers and toes - quick.

 

You know, when I was younger and much more naive about how life really worked, I actually wanted to get married. You know, looking forward to a comfortable family life with a woman who actually loved me for me - a place to rest. Now, I can see that is all but impossible in the modern era and marriage is nothing but a contract to self-destruction and self-restriction. If I have a choice between being an old, lonely man who gets no pussy and an old guy who gets resentful, begrudging pussy once every 5 months, I would gladly take the latter - and I will.

[Keenly]

Keeping ex husbands name = deal breaker. I don't care if your one of the Walton's. I'm out.

[ThaWholigan]

Wait - she wants to keep the name of another dude she married before?

 

That's strange as hell - I can understand being annoyed at that.

[tbf]

Wait - she wants to keep the name of another dude she married before?

 

That's strange as hell - I can understand being annoyed at that.

Imagine changing your name for your first marriage. This means that every piece of ID, credit card, bill, asset, property, rental, lease, loan, work have all got to be changed to the new name.

 

Now imagine living with this married name for a number of years where every business and social contact knows you by that name.

 

Now imagine remarrying and the new partner who has to do squat, is insisting you change your entire identity all over again, in order to accommodate his ego and insecurities.

 

Since you're one of the few who can honestly understand logical reasoning, that's why I'm bothering to explain it to you.

[dreamingoftigers]

Wait - she wants to keep the name of another dude she married before?

 

That's strange as hell - I can understand being annoyed at that.

 

It's also her child's last name.

 

And she's had it for a VERY long time.

 

Odd, somewhat, yes. But no one even knows FOR SURE that is her plan, apparently it was a suggestion from OP's friend.

 

And no one here even knows her reasoning. Perhaps her boyfriend does.

 

I would think if it was "because my ex-H was the biggest dick I ever sucked, and love that I get to sign the name attached to that beautiful organ"......

 

.... That hopefully his buddy either has a weird fetish or ENOUGH SENSE TO WALK AWAY FROM THAT.

[sweetjasmine]

Ultimately, I just think it's understandable that this kind of confusion arises when society still hangs onto the notion that one party should change her name in the first place, and it's up to every couple to resolve it as best they can.

 

Yup. This name-changing business is how this couple ended up with this problem in the first place!

 

Quick question - how many folks crowing about name changes have ever gone through the process and have any idea what it's like?

 

Thinking that anybody can know the dynamic of somebody else's marriage based solely on whether somebody changed their name or not? Ridiculous.

 

So you're saying that me not changing my name didn't doom our marriage? Guess I better shred the divorce papers I pulled out after reading this thread.