Women and getting their name changed after marriage

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: waggy
my opinion on it is the women should take the name. BUT i will not force her into it. but it is going to give me something to think about.

her refusing shows (to me) that she is not committed into the relationship. and from my experience i have seen women that refused to do it the marriage fail. but no way would i force her to.

Why is it a sign of non-commitment?

as i said it is my opinion that it is a sign she is not commited to the marriage. its as if she not willing to do everyhting because changing it yet again is a pain etc.

Everyone keeps saying the same thing - but without providing the reasoning. Why is it a sign of non-commitment for a woman not to take a man's name, but it's not a sign of non-commitment if the man does not take her name? That disparity is what I'm trying to get you guys to answer - and none have. Why must she show she's committed, but not you?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: waggy
my opinion on it is the women should take the name. BUT i will not force her into it. but it is going to give me something to think about.

her refusing shows (to me) that she is not committed into the relationship. and from my experience i have seen women that refused to do it the marriage fail. but no way would i force her to.

Why is it a sign of non-commitment?

as i said it is my opinion that it is a sign she is not commited to the marriage. its as if she not willing to do everyhting because changing it yet again is a pain etc.

Everyone keeps saying the same thing - but without providing the reasoning. Why is it a sign of non-commitment for a woman not to take a man's name, but it's not a sign of non-commitment if the man does not take her name? That disparity is what I'm trying to get you guys to answer - and none have. Why must she show she's committed, but not you?

because tradition is that they take the males name. if it was the oppisiot i would have taken her last name.

as i said it is my opinion. if you do not like that well who cares? heh.

as i said i would have doubts on marring the women. But my wife was more then happy to take my last name (hahah the fool! she tripled the size of her last name! that nobody spells right!)

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: 49erinnc

Originally posted by: JS80
i will never marry a woman who keeps her last name or does the stupid dash thing

My exwife refused to change her last name when we got married. And now that we're divorced, I realize just how much there was to read into something as simple as that. I also found out after the divorce, that the majority of my family and several friends didn't think too highly of her for not taking my name.

She had several personality/character traits that I consider to be very relevant to someone who would refuse to change their name.

So what you're saying is that she was a strong, independent woman, who didn't want to live in a relationship where there was a power struggle between you two? That's the only reason I can think of not changing one's name.

Can any of you provide a reason, outside of archaic cultural practice, why a woman should change her name when she marries a man?

because i bet she choose to benifit from archiac cultural practice when it suited her. like when it came to accepting expensive engagement rings.

 

[Ryan]

Just as I suspected - nobody will answer the question, or even acknowledge the disparity. How does your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Just as I suspected - nobody will answer the question, or even acknowledge the disparity. How does your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment?

Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family. The family is a single unit, with a common name. This binds the family in blood and society.

If a woman is not willing to become a single unit/family the basically is saying "I want to make getting out of this real easy for me". So it's a big red flag in my book. Not to mention the man is the head of the household, so she takes his name.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Just as I suspected - nobody will answer the question, or even acknowledge the disparity. How does your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment?

we have. you just refuse/ignorant etc to see it.

if you do not like it fine.

if you disagree fine.

it is some of oure opinion that is a sign of non-commitment. based on tradition a women takes the mans last name.

to us it seems of her having commitment problem. some even have seen it first hand.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ryan
Just as I suspected - nobody will answer the question, or even acknowledge the disparity. How does your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment?

Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family. The family is a single unit, with a common name. This binds the family in blood and society.

If a woman is not willing to become a single unit/family the basically is saying "I want to make getting out of this real easy for me". So it's a big red flag in my book. Not to mention the man is the head of the household, so she takes his name.

EXACTLY!

man that is what i was trying to say and failing. heh I think i need a beer to clear my head

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ryan
Just as I suspected - nobody will answer the question, or even acknowledge the disparity. How does your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment?

Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family. The family is a single unit, with a common name. This binds the family in blood and society.

If a woman is not willing to become a single unit/family the basically is saying "I want to make getting out of this real easy for me". So it's a big red flag in my book. Not to mention the man is the head of the household, so she takes his name.

EXACTLY!

Agreed.

 

[0roo0roo]

yup, keeping one foot half way out the door just in case she finds someone better basically. that and its wanking nonsense, its not her name anyways, it was from her father hows that feminist anyways.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ryan
Just as I suspected - nobody will answer the question, or even acknowledge the disparity. How does your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment?

Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family. The family is a single unit, with a common name. This binds the family in blood and society.

If a woman is not willing to become a single unit/family the basically is saying "I want to make getting out of this real easy for me". So it's a big red flag in my book. Not to mention the man is the head of the household, he she takes his name.

I asked why your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment, and you answered with "Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family". Our names are arguably the only things we own as human beings that are genuinely ours, so why must the wife take on the husbands name, and not the other way around?

The problem I'm trying to point out, is that the practice of taking on a name does show unity, but when that name is only of the man, then it shows that the familial unit is united UNDER him. This basic disparity serves no real purpose other than to subjugate women under men. People who have this viewpoint see themselves unable to be equal with a woman - they must be better, they must control her - down to the only thing she has in this world - her name.

It may be tradition, but the tradition serves no real purpose if both couples see themselves as equals in their marriage. This argument isn't weakened by those who say their wives WANTED to take their name - the disparity is deeply rooted into our society, to that point where women don't even consider themselves equal to men.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: JS80
i will never marry a woman who keeps her last name or does the stupid dash thing

How progressive of you! Sounds like you really respect women.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: JS80
i will never marry a woman who keeps her last name or does the stupid dash thing

So what you're saying is that you'll never marry a woman who is subservient to you, and one you can't own (she's giving up her name, and taking yours - it's like branding an animal - eh?).

It's an archaic practice, that served no other reason in the past than to confine and limit women, making them objects of ownership.

Yes.

90% of "Strong, independent women" are huge B!TCHes who will divorce you and take your loot and your children. There are the 10% that are independent and strong and make good family oriented wives.

Great reply - I can now see why you're holding this position in this argument.

And I can see why you have your views :roll:

Why the roll? You've submitted that you wouldn't marry a woman who wouldn't take on your name, and you've also indicated that you have a biased view of women, and believe that those who won't submit to your will are bitches.

I see 2 types of women. One, the ones I despise, are the militant feminists who keep their own last name, want to keep their career at 100% while getting pregnant, milking companies through maternity pay, and who's definition of "equality" is actually "I'm a woman so I deserve an unfair advantage and I'm gonna milk Men for all their worth."

Then there are the ones that recognize that men and women are inherently not equal (and I'm not talking brain size) and each are supposed to make some sacrifices to compliment each other.

I prefer the latter.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ryan
Just as I suspected - nobody will answer the question, or even acknowledge the disparity. How does your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment?

Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family. The family is a single unit, with a common name. This binds the family in blood and society.

If a woman is not willing to become a single unit/family the basically is saying "I want to make getting out of this real easy for me". So it's a big red flag in my book. Not to mention the man is the head of the household, he she takes his name.

I asked why your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment, and you answered with "Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family". Our names are arguably the only things we own as human beings that are genuinely ours, so why must the wife take on the husbands name, and not the other way around?

The problem I'm trying to point out, is that the practice of taking on a name does show unity, but when that name is only of the man, then it shows that the familial unit is united UNDER him. This basic disparity serves no real purpose other than to subjugate women under men. People who have this viewpoint see themselves unable to be equal with a woman - they must be better, they must control her - down to the only thing she has in this world - her name.

It may be tradition, but the tradition serves no real purpose if both couples see themselves as equals in their marriage. This argument isn't weakened by those who say their wives WANTED to take their name - the disparity is deeply rooted into our society, to that point where women don't even consider themselves equal to men.

ugh and the practice of the woman taking an expensive engagement ring shows she is what? a whore to be bought? the problem is most of these so called feminists who choose to make a show of being mrs independent are not at all consistent.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Ryan
I asked why your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment, and you answered with "Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family". Our names are arguably the only things we own as human beings that are genuinely ours, so why must the wife take on the husbands name, and not the other way around?

The problem I'm trying to point out, is that the practice of taking on a name does show unity, but when that name is only of the man, then it shows that the familial unit is united UNDER him. This basic disparity serves no real purpose other than to subjugate women under men. People who have this viewpoint see themselves unable to be equal with a woman - they must be better, they must control her - down to the only thing she has in this world - her name.

It may be tradition, but the tradition serves no real purpose if both couples see themselves as equals in their marriage. This argument isn't weakened by those who say their wives WANTED to take their name - the disparity is deeply rooted into our society, to that point where women don't even consider themselves equal to men.

You didn't pick your name - it was given to you at birth...hopefully. It may be yours, but if that's the only thing you have in this world, you have a pretty sad little life going on to begin with.

And I've seen men take their wife's name on marriage - they certainly had a choice not dictated by tradition or ownership. Does that still make them controlled, subjugated, under the wife's thumb?? NO.

 

[Zap Brannigan]

This topic is so boring I decided not to read it.

 

[ColdFusion718]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: waggy
my opinion on it is the women should take the name. BUT i will not force her into it. but it is going to give me something to think about.

her refusing shows (to me) that she is not committed into the relationship. and from my experience i have seen women that refused to do it the marriage fail. but no way would i force her to.

Why is it a sign of non-commitment?

I can't believe no one else has mentioned this. But here goes:

Whether you believe it or not, when a man decides to marry a woman and he symbolically shows that by putting on a ring, he is essentially handing his balls to her in a glass jar.

Now I know this is extreme, but for you men out there who are married, sometimes when your wife wants you to do something you don't like, you still do it because you love her. Giving her your "balls" isn't exactly a bad thing.

Now with that said, the least she can do in return is take your last name.

What's with the false support for the feminists? Have you been so frustrated with women that you're buying into this even though you know you don't truly hold those beliefs? Look at Jerry Springer. He's the so called "masculine feminist." Yet, he hosts a show which parades women as sluts, whores, etc.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ryan
Just as I suspected - nobody will answer the question, or even acknowledge the disparity. How does your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment?

Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family. The family is a single unit, with a common name. This binds the family in blood and society.

If a woman is not willing to become a single unit/family the basically is saying "I want to make getting out of this real easy for me". So it's a big red flag in my book. Not to mention the man is the head of the household, he she takes his name.

I asked why your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment, and you answered with "Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family". Our names are arguably the only things we own as human beings that are genuinely ours, so why must the wife take on the husbands name, and not the other way around?

The problem I'm trying to point out, is that the practice of taking on a name does show unity, but when that name is only of the man, then it shows that the familial unit is united UNDER him. This basic disparity serves no real purpose other than to subjugate women under men. People who have this viewpoint see themselves unable to be equal with a woman - they must be better, they must control her - down to the only thing she has in this world - her name.

It may be tradition, but the tradition serves no real purpose if both couples see themselves as equals in their marriage. This argument isn't weakened by those who say their wives WANTED to take their name - the disparity is deeply rooted into our society, to that point where women don't even consider themselves equal to men.

ugh and the practice of the woman taking an expensive engagement ring shows she is what? a whore to be bought? the problem is most of these so called feminists who choose to make a show of being mrs independent are not at all consistent.

lol you beat me to the punch.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: waggy
my opinion on it is the women should take the name. BUT i will not force her into it. but it is going to give me something to think about.

her refusing shows (to me) that she is not committed into the relationship. and from my experience i have seen women that refused to do it the marriage fail. but no way would i force her to.

Why is it a sign of non-commitment?

as i said it is my opinion that it is a sign she is not commited to the marriage. its as if she not willing to do everyhting because changing it yet again is a pain etc.

Maybe youre not commited by not taking HER name. Ryan has some very valid points.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: waggy
my opinion on it is the women should take the name. BUT i will not force her into it. but it is going to give me something to think about.

her refusing shows (to me) that she is not committed into the relationship. and from my experience i have seen women that refused to do it the marriage fail. but no way would i force her to.

Why is it a sign of non-commitment?

as i said it is my opinion that it is a sign she is not commited to the marriage. its as if she not willing to do everyhting because changing it yet again is a pain etc.

Maybe youre not commited by not taking HER name. Ryan has some very valid points.

Valid if you're looking to fill hot air balloons

 

[Zap Brannigan]

Can you guys try and debate a topic thats more interesting instead?

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Maybe youre not commited by not taking HER name. Ryan has some very valid points.

Committment is not the same for boys as it is for girls. We are not wired the same, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Ryan
I asked why your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment, and you answered with "Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family". Our names are arguably the only things we own as human beings that are genuinely ours, so why must the wife take on the husbands name, and not the other way around?

The problem I'm trying to point out, is that the practice of taking on a name does show unity, but when that name is only of the man, then it shows that the familial unit is united UNDER him. This basic disparity serves no real purpose other than to subjugate women under men. People who have this viewpoint see themselves unable to be equal with a woman - they must be better, they must control her - down to the only thing she has in this world - her name.

It may be tradition, but the tradition serves no real purpose if both couples see themselves as equals in their marriage. This argument isn't weakened by those who say their wives WANTED to take their name - the disparity is deeply rooted into our society, to that point where women don't even consider themselves equal to men.

You didn't pick your name - it was given to you at birth...hopefully. It may be yours, but if that's the only thing you have in this world, you have a pretty sad little life going on to begin with.

And I've seen men take their wife's name on marriage - they certainly had a choice not dictated by tradition or ownership. Does that still make them controlled, subjugated, under the wife's thumb?? NO.

I never said we picked our names - nor does a man taking on a woman's name negate the argument that taking on ones name has no justification outside of archaic tradition, and that taking the name of a another is not a sign of unity. True unity would take combining of two equals - and taking the name of another without the other doing the same is, you guessed it, not equal. The people who say they won't marry another unless they take another's name solidify the disparity between men and women in society.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: homercles337
Maybe youre not commited by not taking HER name. Ryan has some very valid points.

Committment is not the same for boys as it is for girls. We are not wired the same, no matter how you slice it.

WTF do you mean by this?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Ryan
I asked why your wife's refusal to take your name indicate non commitment, and you answered with "Because it is a sign of not really committing to the marriage or the family". Our names are arguably the only things we own as human beings that are genuinely ours, so why must the wife take on the husbands name, and not the other way around?

The problem I'm trying to point out, is that the practice of taking on a name does show unity, but when that name is only of the man, then it shows that the familial unit is united UNDER him. This basic disparity serves no real purpose other than to subjugate women under men. People who have this viewpoint see themselves unable to be equal with a woman - they must be better, they must control her - down to the only thing she has in this world - her name.

It may be tradition, but the tradition serves no real purpose if both couples see themselves as equals in their marriage. This argument isn't weakened by those who say their wives WANTED to take their name - the disparity is deeply rooted into our society, to that point where women don't even consider themselves equal to men.

You didn't pick your name - it was given to you at birth...hopefully. It may be yours, but if that's the only thing you have in this world, you have a pretty sad little life going on to begin with.

And I've seen men take their wife's name on marriage - they certainly had a choice not dictated by tradition or ownership. Does that still make them controlled, subjugated, under the wife's thumb?? NO.

I never said we picked our names - nor does a man taking on a woman's name negate the argument that taking on ones name has no justification outside of archaic tradition, and that taking the name of a another is not a sign of unity. True unity would take combining of two equals - and taking the name of another without the other doing the same is, you guessed it, not equal. The people who say they won't marry another unless they take another's name solidify the disparity between men and women in society.

That sounds like an OPINION. Men and Women are not equal. They are different. When you marry a man, go ahead and share a hyphenated name, because yes you will be equal to your partner; however, when a man marries a woman, 2 equals are not marrying.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: homercles337
Maybe youre not commited by not taking HER name. Ryan has some very valid points.

Committment is not the same for boys as it is for girls. We are not wired the same, no matter how you slice it.

WTF do you mean by this?

In general, committment is much more difficult for men than it is for women, with exceptions on both sides, of course.

EDIT: That is not a value judgment, I'm not saying better or worse, just not the same, either.