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

[Pompeii]

Obviously, I was responding to your charge that my responses were overly predictable, etc.; seemed reasonable to point out that you're hardly one to talk, on that front. And "all you need is love"? All that says to me is you didn't read my posts, just saw opposition and promptly lost it. This is a rampant problem, I notice - many people tend to respond to what they assume someone would say, rather than what they actually type. Classic strawman argument, in other words - put words in my mouth, and then discount them. Tiresome, but there you are.

 

Anyway. Whatever, good luck with your "plan", I guess. You think you'll end up the better for it, some distant day in the future. So far, doesn't seem like it's working out so well for you, but don't stop believin'. And hey, keep us posted on how plan B is going.

 

Your entire argument hinges on someone being "all in". If someone needs to be "all in" in a marriage, I would expect that they are putting a great deal of trust, which stems from love in the marriage. Many people believe that if you truly love each other, everything will be alright, which surely isn't the case. That's where the "all you need is love" comes from. I'm not saying you specifically said it, but that is what you were inferring by your post. Love is not the panacea.

 

So yes, I will always have a backup plan for any situation and I will come out the better man for it. Many of my dad's friends have been ripped to bits by a divorce because surprise, surprise, they didn't have a backup plan.

 

So go take your sarcasm elsewhere.

[dreamingoftigers]

Your entire argument hinges on someone being "all in". If someone needs to be "all in" in a marriage, I would expect that they are putting a great deal of trust, which stems from love in the marriage. Many people believe that if you truly love each other, everything will be alright, which surely isn't the case. That's where the "all you need is love" comes from. I'm not saying you specifically said it, but that is what you were inferring by your post. Love is not the panacea.

 

So yes, I will always have a backup plan for any situation and I will come out the better man for it. Many of my dad's friends have been ripped to bits by a divorce because surprise, surprise, they didn't have a backup plan.

 

So go take your sarcasm elsewhere.

......

[Nicomis]

"IF SHE LOVED ME SHE WOULD DO IT"

 

Overreaction much?

Dear God! How many times are you going to use that out of context? You took nothing from the entire post, but that one line, out of context. Weren't you accusing me of picking and choosing posts to respond to? I used it as a counter to one of your nutty friends "It's her choice, deal with it" posts. I didn't outright say it like that. "Reading comprehension is your friend" Remember??? Did you not see the words "WHAT ABOUT" in front of "If she loved me she'd do it"? Conveniently left that out did ya? hmm.

[Nicomis]

Well, the problem is that the OP either doesn't have or didn't offer any direct information from the woman explaining why she wants to keep it, only his own speculation and judgments. So everyone's just piggybacking off of that. She might tell a different story about what's going on and what her motivations are, but it's way more fun to metaphorically tear a random human being to bits because respect and honor and family pride.

 

The OP is offering only this She wants to keep her EX HUSBAND'S NAME. Her CHILD NO LONGER LIVES AT HOME. Nobody ripped anybody to bits, I only stated, in my own colorful language, that this is disrespectful of my friend, and that I would NEVER consider her a candidate for marriage, unless her name was Trump, Kennedy, Gates or Spiderman, in which case I would gladly change my own name. That's how I feel, I didn't say anything further about her character, so stop over dramatizing. She doesn't look bad for taking his name in marriage, but he looks like a chump, cuckold, if she doesn't. Talk about all the "evolved man" nonsense you want, but outside of extreme left-wing loonies, this is how most American men feel. Any that say otherwise, are in need of your approval. I'm not.

[Treasa]

The OP is offering only this She wants to keep her EX HUSBAND'S NAME. Her CHILD NO LONGER LIVES AT HOME. Nobody ripped anybody to bits, I only stated, in my own colorful language, that this is disrespectful of my friend, and that I would NEVER consider her a candidate for marriage, unless her name was Trump, Kennedy, Gates or Spiderman, in which case I would gladly change my own name. That's how I feel, I didn't say anything further about her character, so stop over dramatizing. She doesn't look bad for taking his name in marriage, but he looks like a chump, cuckold, if she doesn't. Talk about all the "evolved man" nonsense you want, but outside of extreme left-wing loonies, this is how most American men feel. Any that say otherwise, are in need of your approval. I'm not.

 

Um, to who? Anyone who is honestly confident doesn't give a crap what others may or may not think.

 

I don't think you can clearly speak for most American men. I happen to know a lot of them, and I don't know a single one who would give a **** over this issue.

 

Also, I'm an adult and moved out a long time ago, but my mom still has her married last name. There has been no real reason to change it, and it keeps us connected in an additional way.

 

So, wait...Spiderman but NOT Batman? Are you kidding me??

[dreamingoftigers]

Dear God! How many times are you going to use that out of context? You took nothing from the entire post, but that one line, out of context. Weren't you accusing me of picking and choosing posts to respond to? I used it as a counter to one of your nutty friends "It's her choice, deal with it" posts. I didn't outright say it like that. "Reading comprehension is your friend" Remember??? Did you not see the words "WHAT ABOUT" in front of "If she loved me she'd do it"? Conveniently left that out did ya? hmm.

 

It isn't "out of context"

 

Jeez. Do you even read what you post?

[Almond_Joy]

The OP is offering only this She wants to keep her EX HUSBAND'S NAME. Her CHILD NO LONGER LIVES AT HOME. Nobody ripped anybody to bits, I only stated, in my own colorful language, that this is disrespectful of my friend, and that I would NEVER consider her a candidate for marriage, unless her name was Trump, Kennedy, Gates or Spiderman, in which case I would gladly change my own name. That's how I feel, I didn't say anything further about her character, so stop over dramatizing. She doesn't look bad for taking his name in marriage, but he looks like a chump, cuckold, if she doesn't. Talk about all the "evolved man" nonsense you want, but outside of extreme left-wing loonies, this is how most American men feel. Any that say otherwise, are in need of your approval. I'm not.

 

 

This isn't about approval. You started this thread knowing that it would incite strong opinions, and you exacerbated that by making sweeping negative generalizations about the character of women (not just your friend's wife but women in general, just wanted to emphasize that) which was uncalled for and completely unnecessary if you solely wanted responses on your friend's situation.

 

THEN the women who are offended by your negative generalizations and respond in kind by attacking you are labeled as overreacting, or taking things out of context. Come on man.

 

If you want to talk crap about women and their motives based on your experience ok. But don't try to act like you didn't play a hand in being attacked on this thread. Had you just presented the situation and how you feel about THE SITUATION without making sweeping negative generalizations I doubt this many people would be arguing so vehemently with you.

 

And since it's highly unlikely that you know every man in America, your claim to speak for the majority of them is likely inaccurate.

[Mme. Chaucer]

but outside of extreme left-wing loonies, this is how most American men feel. Any that say otherwise, are in need of your approval. I'm not.

 

That's blatantly false. I don't know about "most American men," but there are plenty of men I do know - and quite a few on this very thread - who don't feel that it's an outrageous affront to a fellow's tenuous grasp on his masculinity if they're faced with the concept that a woman might want to keep the name she's been identified with. Wherever it came from. Men who are not "extreme left-wing loonies."

 

By the way (this is not addressed to you, OP, but to the majority of folks reading and participating in this thread who don't share your position on this), I am NOT against a woman taking the name of her husband. I think it can be a very meaningful, loving and even romantic gesture, when it's chosen without threats of "consequences" or coercion. I really mean WHEN IT'S CHOSEN.

 

I seriously considered it myself, but for many reasons of my own - all of which both of my husbands understood and respected - ultimately I chose to keep the identity I came with. Same as they did.

[Nicomis]

This isn't about approval. You started this thread knowing that it would incite strong opinions, and you exacerbated that by making sweeping negative generalizations about the character of women (not just your friend's wife but women in general, just wanted to emphasize that) which was uncalled for and completely unnecessary if you solely wanted responses on your friend's situation.

 

THEN the women who are offended by your negative generalizations and respond in kind by attacking you are labeled as overreacting, or taking things out of context. Come on man.

 

If you want to talk crap about women and their motives based on your experience ok. But don't try to act like you didn't play a hand in being attacked on this thread. Had you just presented the situation and how you feel about THE SITUATION without making sweeping negative generalizations I doubt this many people would be arguing so vehemently with you.

 

And since it's highly unlikely that you know every man in America, your claim to speak for the majority of them is likely inaccurate.

 

Go back and read the post genius, the only thing in it that could be construed as a "sweeping generalization" is when I wrote "seems like another way women want us to "be the man", but take away our ability to be head of our household". So yes, if you are stupid enough to believe that I think every woman in the world wants to take my ability to be the head of my household, then have at it champ. The other statement referred to "women like that" meaning specifically my friends girlfriend, who would choose to keep her ex's name going into a new marriage. So that's hardly sweeping. I am an American male. I know many other American males, and quite a few females who feel the same way I do about this very subject. And as far as "this many people" arguing with me, It's the same ones, spewing the same crap over and over. The fact that you all post on the same message board doesn't make you a majority. I'd really love to see an anonymous poll of men about this subject.

[tbf]

Go back and read the post genius, the only thing in it that could be construed as a "sweeping generalization" is when I wrote "seems like another way women want us to "be the man", but take away our ability to be head of our household". So yes, if you are stupid enough to believe that I think every woman in the world wants to take my ability to be the head of my household, then have at it champ. The other statement referred to "women like that" meaning specifically my friends girlfriend, who would choose to keep her ex's name going into a new marriage. So that's hardly sweeping. I am an American male. I know many other American males, and quite a few females who feel the same way I do about this very subject. And as far as "this many people" arguing with me, It's the same ones, spewing the same crap over and over. The fact that you all post on the same message board doesn't make you a majority. I'd really love to see an anonymous poll of men about this subject.

"I'm not going to respond to this post since it will only start a fight".

 

Recognize the tactic?

[Nicomis]

"I'm not going to respond to this post since it will only start a fight".

 

Recognize the tactic?

 

Yeah, the tactic where you "DON'T RESPOND" but you make a snide comment to make it seem like you had something intelligent to add, but you're holding back, when the truth is, you can't dispute any of it? Is that the one you meant?

 

Wow your so cool, and insightful.

[tbf]

Yeah, the tactic where you "DON'T RESPOND" but you make a snide comment to make it seem like you had something intelligent to add, but you're holding back, when the truth is, you can't dispute any of it? Is that the one you meant?

 

Wow your so cool, and insightful.

You've missed my point but that's no surprise. Carry on.

[Almond_Joy]

Go back and read the post genius, the only thing in it that could be construed as a "sweeping generalization" is when I wrote "seems like another way women want us to "be the man", but take away our ability to be head of our household". So yes, if you are stupid enough to believe that I think every woman in the world wants to take my ability to be the head of my household, then have at it champ. The other statement referred to "women like that" meaning specifically my friends girlfriend, who would choose to keep her ex's name going into a new marriage. So that's hardly sweeping. I am an American male. I know many other American males, and quite a few females who feel the same way I do about this very subject. And as far as "this many people" arguing with me, It's the same ones, spewing the same crap over and over. The fact that you all post on the same message board doesn't make you a majority. I'd really love to see an anonymous poll of men about this subject.

 

 

Whether it was one generalization or 10, it was still unnecessary. And I'm not psychic, so I'm not gonna guess at what you MEANT. I'm going by what you WROTE. Write what you mean.

 

If you're really interested in showing that the majority of men feel as you do, and not that you just want to berate those who don't agree with you, find one and post it. Your dialogue up to this point in the thread shows that you're essentially here to rant and argue with people, not to have a respectful discussion about this topic or even acknowledge the validity in differing opinions. There's a forum here just for ranting if that's what you wanted to do, and if you just like to argue.....well I don't for no good reason, so I won't.

 

I came to this thread to share my perspective and see some other perspectives on this topic. I got that, so I'm out.

[Silly_Girl]

Pretty sure how this is going to go down, but it could be fun anyway. A friend of mine moved to Seattle from Atlanta about 3 years ago. He's been seeing the same woman exclusively for about a year. He called me last night, and said he was thinking about proposing, but she had said in passing that she wanted to keep her last name if she ever got married. He's 43, and she's 38, and it's not her fathers last name. It's her ex husband's, and her 1 child is grown and moved out. Despite the flaming I'm sure I'll get, If it was me, I'd kick her to the curb. Just seems to be another way women want us to "be the man", but want to take away his ability to be the head of his household. Marry a woman like that, and you will never see a day of respect. If a man asked 100 other men, if they would marry a woman that wanted to keep her last name, I'd bet 95 of them would say no way in hell. I can see it with celebrities, where maybe she built her success on that name, but otherwise no way. Might as well keep your balls in her purse. Flame on!

 

I'm getting married. I don't want to keep my name, I'd be damned glad to get shot of it. But it means so very much to my son that we have that connection. Particularly as he's been mostly spurned by his father and his father's side of the family.

 

I think you're being harsh. And in any case, if there's a concern about sharing a surname the guy can change HIS name just as easily. Don't see why the female has to have all the hassle.

[Els]

Still waiting for the OP's explanation for how else he intends to fulfill his traditional role as a man in a relationship. He'd better be earning bucketloads, given that it takes a lot more to support a family now, than it did a century ago.

 

As for Pompeii and ChessPiece, given their stories about their dates (or lack thereof), I would wonder why they have such strong opinions about a situation that they are unlikely to ever face in the foreseeable future. You need to actually have a woman willing to marry you before you land in this predicament.

[fortyninethousand322]

I'm getting married. I don't want to keep my name, I'd be damned glad to get shot of it. But it means so very much to my son that we have that connection. Particularly as he's been mostly spurned by his father and his father's side of the family.

 

I think you're being harsh. And in any case, if there's a concern about sharing a surname the guy can change HIS name just as easily. Don't see why the female has to have all the hassle.

 

Well, in this particular case it would be kind of weird for the guy to change his last name to his wife's ex-husband's last name. Talk about awkward...

[Els]

Well, in this particular case it would be kind of weird for the guy to change his last name to his wife's ex-husband's last name. Talk about awkward...

 

The OP isn't just talking about this particular case, though. He's making blanket declarations about how all women who don't take their H's name should be 'kicked to the curb'.

[serial muse]

Your entire argument hinges on someone being "all in". If someone needs to be "all in" in a marriage, I would expect that they are putting a great deal of trust, which stems from love in the marriage. Many people believe that if you truly love each other, everything will be alright, which surely isn't the case. That's where the "all you need is love" comes from. I'm not saying you specifically said it, but that is what you were inferring by your post. Love is not the panacea.

 

So yes, I will always have a backup plan for any situation and I will come out the better man for it. Many of my dad's friends have been ripped to bits by a divorce because surprise, surprise, they didn't have a backup plan.

 

So go take your sarcasm elsewhere.

 

Snort. Exhibit A.

[serial muse]

The OP is offering only this She wants to keep her EX HUSBAND'S NAME. Her CHILD NO LONGER LIVES AT HOME. Nobody ripped anybody to bits, I only stated, in my own colorful language, that this is disrespectful of my friend, and that I would NEVER consider her a candidate for marriage, unless her name was Trump, Kennedy, Gates or Spiderman, in which case I would gladly change my own name. That's how I feel, I didn't say anything further about her character, so stop over dramatizing. She doesn't look bad for taking his name in marriage, but he looks like a chump, cuckold, if she doesn't. Talk about all the "evolved man" nonsense you want, but outside of extreme left-wing loonies, this is how most American men feel. Any that say otherwise, are in need of your approval. I'm not.

 

Dude, you're not the only person who posted in this thread, so perhaps I wasn't just referring to you? Many people (yes, including you, but not limited to you) did attack her character on the basis of not much more than assumptions and their emotions, and that's what I was pointing out. I referred to you specifically because you didn't tell us much, as you yourself admit right here. But seriously, calm down.

 

And who said anything about "evolved man"? What are you even talking about?

Edited May 24, 2013 by serial muse

[vanhalenfan]

I can see if it were her original maiden name, then by all means if that's what she wanted. However, I see it as disrespectful to her new husband to keep her ex-husbands name if she were to remarry. Her child is grown and out of the house now. (Even so if the child were young, you can change a child's last name as well, even though it's probably a pain.) If I were to get remarried, I wouldn't want to keep my ex-husbands last name. I have issues with it even right now!

 

I don't know, maybe I am being too traditional (and this is probably the only thing I do traditionally) but I think a woman should take on the man's last name upon marriage.

[Els]

I can see if it were her original maiden name, then by all means if that's what she wanted. However, I see it as disrespectful to her new husband to keep her ex-husbands name if she were to remarry. Her child is grown and out of the house now. (Even so if the child were young, you can change a child's last name as well, even though it's probably a pain.) If I were to get remarried, I wouldn't want to keep my ex-husbands last name. I have issues with it even right now!

 

I would guess the OP's friend's lady is against changing her name because she probably vowed that she would never do it again when the first marriage ended up not working out. However, I suspect that is not what the multiple pages of this thread have been about. I don't think most people feel the OP's 'friend' would be wrong to question the ex's name issue. Seems like most of the back and forth in this thread has been due to the OP's (purposeful, IMO) colorful use of inflammatory phrases.

 

I don't know, maybe I am being too traditional (and this is probably the only thing I do traditionally) but I think a woman should take on the man's last name upon marriage.

 

Personally, if/when the bf and I marry, I will take his name as well.

 

However, a big difference in this case would be that the bf, of his own accord, undertakes some traditional 'male' duties in our R, so I feel it is only fair that I reciprocate in some ways. On the other hand, the OP, as well as several of his supporters here, have been very vocal denouncers of traditional expectations of men due to their gender, as well as constant complainers about how such expectations are so very 'unfair'. In that case, it seems like the name issue is simply yet another pawn in the gradeschool 'Battle of the Genders', a way to get some points for your own side. Hardly a manly attitude.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Elswyth

[Jane2011]

I can see if it were her original maiden name, then by all means if that's what she wanted. However, I see it as disrespectful to her new husband to keep her ex-husbands name if she were to remarry. Her child is grown and out of the house now. (Even so if the child were young, you can change a child's last name as well, even though it's probably a pain.) If I were to get remarried, I wouldn't want to keep my ex-husbands last name. I have issues with it even right now!

 

I don't know, maybe I am being too traditional (and this is probably the only thing I do traditionally) but I think a woman should take on the man's last name upon marriage.

 

I do think her having her ex-husband's last name complicates things a little more so than if she just had her original maiden name. However, honestly, I'd say it still depends on the situation. How far back was this ex-husband and was it a situation worth being insecure about?

 

I'm not saying this is the OP's friend's girlfriend's situation, but a single friend of mine has, in 2013, a married name from when she was married in, like 2000-2001 (short-lived marriage). For whatever reason, she kept his name. I think she just likes his name. Little to no contact with him over the years and has had several other involvements.

 

Say she gets married this year or next, and her ideas about taking a man's last name have changed, and she no longer wants to do it. But she still has her ex-husband's last name, which she just liked the sound of, and kept. No emotional bond. Just...she's used to the name now, and she furthermore likes it.

 

If her current guy is insecure about that, I think that's silly.

 

If, on the other hand, an 'ex-husband' is from just three or four years ago, there are no longer MAJOR residual feelings, but there's still a little something that feels like a very slight...something...remaining, I can see a current guy saying...c'mon now, take your original maiden name if you're not gonna take mine.

 

Bottom line, though, is that if a person is secure enough in their current relationship, it really won't matter.

 

I'm in a relationship with a guy, and if he for whatever reason had his girlfriend or wife's last name from like three or four years ago but was so clearly "all in" with me, I'd not likely say anything about his keeping that last name if the explanation was that he was down with a name change then, but not so much now.

 

I think many men need to realize that many women aren't down with changing their names so much anymore. I think if you keep holding onto the desire to have a woman change her name to yours, your options are going to be more and more limited as time goes by. Change with the times. Women want to be good to you; they want to have sex with you and be devoted to you; they just don't want you acting all....patriarchal....lol

Edited May 24, 2013 by Jane2011

[serial muse]

(Even so if the child were young, you can change a child's last name as well, even though it's probably a pain.)

 

Well, but that could be considered disrespectful to the ex-husband, whose child it is, right?

 

What I think the OP and others aren't getting is that the people who are disagreeing with him aren't necessarily saying it's a simple or obvious decision. I can certainly understand why the guy in the relationship would want to talk it out with his girlfriend, and why he might balk. Sure. But does that equate to hard-line ending the relationship and automatic disrespect and all of that over-emotional wailing and gnashing of teeth? I mean, really? I think people are really quick to assume disrespect when there's just disagreement. Making it personal is so not necessary. Reasonable people can disagree, and there's no need to determine that a person is a horrible human being or unfit for marriage because she doesn't want to change her name, or because she just might have reasons for keeping her current one - even if it was also her ex-husbands - that make sense to her.

 

Sure, he could want something different, and he could explain his point of view and that he's uncomfortable and ask if she'd reconsider given his feelings about it all. But if this is the sort of thing one is willing to immediately end a relationship over, no discussion, kicked to the curb, worst possible assumptions about the person - then I think that bodes terribly for the ability to discuss any differences of opinion in a reasonable, calm, and respectful way.

[dreamingoftigers]

Well, but that could be considered disrespectful to the ex-husband, whose child it is, right?

 

What I think the OP and others aren't getting is that the people who are disagreeing with him aren't necessarily saying it's a simple or obvious decision. I can certainly understand why the guy in the relationship would want to talk it out with his girlfriend, and why he might balk. Sure. But does that equate to hard-line ending the relationship and automatic disrespect and all of that over-emotional wailing and gnashing of teeth? I mean, really? I think people are really quick to assume disrespect when there's just disagreement. Making it personal is so not necessary. Reasonable people can disagree, and there's no need to determine that a person is a horrible human being or unfit for marriage because she doesn't want to change her name, or because she just might have reasons for keeping her current one - even if it was also her ex-husbands - that make sense to her.

 

Sure, he could want something different, and he could explain his point of view and that he's uncomfortable and ask if she'd reconsider given his feelings about it all. But if this is the sort of thing one is willing to immediately end a relationship over, no discussion, kicked to the curb, worst possible assumptions about the person - then I think that bodes terribly for the ability to discuss any differences of opinion in a reasonable, calm, and respectful way.

 

And the "because I'm head of this household and have the final say" mentality RARELY works in a marriage nowadays.

 

Gottman has a nice piece on this actually, mentioning how men who don't accept their wive's perspective and influence are far more likely to have their marriages fail. It doesn't mean that men have to "bend" to their wive's will. It means that by validating and at lest attempting to understand her perspective, she is far more likely to work with him to compromise than to take a hard line in return, or cave now only to resent it later.

 

A relationship should have two people on the same team, not two power competing for power over one another. Or to defend one's personal power.

[Ursa]

Well, but that could be considered disrespectful to the ex-husband, whose child it is, right?

.

 

Not just disrespectful, it is illegal without the biological father's notarized consent.