Women and getting their name changed after marriage

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm not talking about equals in the sense that men an women are biologically equal - I'm talking about the disparity in their differences in how each is seen in society. When a woman takes on a man's name, they are both acknowledging this disparity - whether they're is conscious of it or not.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: 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.

You stated the exact same thing I just quoted.

 

[Thorny]

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.

Since when were men and women equall? You REALLY missed a lot in biology if you believe that. If my wife was my equal I would not have married her. My wife is my complement, she's the things that I am not, as I am to her. If my wife was my equal she damn sure wouldn't need me anyway, she'd be able to kill her own spiders

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Thorny

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.

Since when were men and women equall? You REALLY missed a lot in biology if you believe that. If my wife was my equal I would not have married her. My wife is my complement, she's the things that I am not, as I am to her. If my wife was my equal she damn sure wouldn't need me anyway, she'd be able to kill her own spiders

Again - I'm not talking biological differences. The biology of a man or woman has no bearing on the social position of the sexes. Marriage has nothing to do with biology - it's a social construct.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Ryan
I'm not talking about equals in the sense that men an women are biologically equal - I'm talking about the disparity in their differences in how each is seen in society. When a woman takes on a man's name, they are both acknowledging this disparity - whether they're is conscious of it or not.

We ARE disparate - and complimentary (mostly). So we're just supposed to pretend like we are equal and identical? How about we all keep our birth names, and instead fight over who gets the phone book listing, or whether to pay for two?

The fact is that society rewards married couples who share the same last name - and that's nothing to sneeze at, either. No matter which spouse takes the other's name.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Again - I'm not talking biological differences. The biology of a man or woman has no bearing on the social position of the sexes. Marriage has nothing to do with biology - it's a social construct.

So it's ALL social construct? You sound like one of the pompous elitist sociology professors I had in college...thinking everything is social construction, the answer to all the world's questions :roll:

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Marriage has nothing to do with biology - it's a social construct.

Assuming that's true - and I don't - answer this: How do you think it got to be that way? Do you think that ALL wives were sold by their fathers during any part of our history? Do you think people never got to choose their spouses until recent times? Do you think tradition can't be defeated by free will?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Ryan
I'm not talking about equals in the sense that men an women are biologically equal - I'm talking about the disparity in their differences in how each is seen in society. When a woman takes on a man's name, they are both acknowledging this disparity - whether they're is conscious of it or not.

We ARE disparate - and complimentary (mostly). So we're just supposed to pretend like we are equal and identical? How about we all keep our birth names, and instead fight over who gets the phone book listing, or whether to pay for two?

The fact is that society rewards married couples who share the same last name - and that's nothing to sneeze at, either. No matter which spouse takes the other's name.

Society rewarded couples who married within their own race at one time too - does that justify anything? You've still refused to answer WHY commitment is different for men than women, and why women not taking their man's name is a sign of non-commitment.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Ryan
Marriage has nothing to do with biology - it's a social construct.

Assuming that's true - and I don't - answer this: How do you think it got to be that way? Do you think that ALL wives were sold by their fathers during any part of our history? Do you think people never got to choose their spouses until recent times? Do you think tradition can't be defeated by free will?

It's in his own personal interest to promote that ideology.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Ryan
Again - I'm not talking biological differences. The biology of a man or woman has no bearing on the social position of the sexes. Marriage has nothing to do with biology - it's a social construct.

So it's ALL social construct? You sound like one of the pompous elitist sociology professors I had in college...thinking everything is social construction, the answer to all the world's questions :roll:

It's not an answer - it's an explanation. The answers are much more complicated, and I don't know if we'll ever have a society where women and men are equals, or how we'll ever segway into one. The best we can do is try.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Thorny

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.

Since when were men and women equall? You REALLY missed a lot in biology if you believe that. If my wife was my equal I would not have married her. My wife is my complement, she's the things that I am not, as I am to her. If my wife was my equal she damn sure wouldn't need me anyway, she'd be able to kill her own spiders

Again - I'm not talking biological differences. The biology of a man or woman has no bearing on the social position of the sexes. Marriage has nothing to do with biology - it's a social construct.

Yes it does. Men tend to have different physical traits, different emotional traits, and there's also a different mental aspect. Plus, the main biological reason is that women can have children whereas men cannot. That's the BIGGEST biological difference that you can find, and it has an immense effect on the social position of sexes. It is why it was so hard for women to have stead employment for awhile. It is why men used to have more than one wife. Additionally, there's a layer of protection that men give many women. Part of the reason my fiance loves me is because she says that I give her support and protect her. Her words -- not mine.

Marriage is more than a social construct to some people. I know where you are headed with this, but it isn't fair. I think you know that I support the right for all/any people to be able to get married, but it doesn't mean there isn't a biological reason behind marriage. Humans, by their very nature, have a hard time being monogamous. Marriage is a way of dealing with that problem. I think you are deconstructing marriage for your own personal reasons (chiefly the inequality concerning those of a different sexual orientation) since if probably hurts you in some way. That seems pretty tranparent and unfair to me. There's no reason to attack all these happily married people simply because the law is biased toward you. I agree it should be changed, but your arguments are not the way to potentiate change.

 

[Mill]

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.

I'd say you are looking for fire just because you see a little smoke. Marriage is based on a lot of tradition, and it is silly to ignore those traditions just because: "they are tradition." It is also tradition for men to shave, cut their hair, and cut the grass. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it wrong.

You are unfairly basing your stereotypes on what you see as marriage in your area. Marriage across the United States is not like that, and it certainly isn't like that worldwide. In my fiance's country, the women takes the man's surname, but she doesn't lose her own. She simply tacks it on. My fiance and I actually discussed this last night, and she wants to take my name and follow American tradition. Its the same reason I want to have a wedding in her home country following her traditions. Following traditions ARE a sign of unity. That's what you can't see.

You've got this idea that traditions are outmoded and bad, and that it is all about subjugating women. Take that feminist bullsh!t elsewhere. Most people have entirely different motives for wanting a unified family name other than subjugating a wife to a husband. My fiance and I want our kids to have unified names, and we've already planned names for them. Both kids have a mixture of names that shows they are both American and Hispanic. We wouldn't do that if it wasn't about unity. If it was about just following tradition and subjugation of women, then I'd name the kids and they'd have American names, right?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Ryan
Marriage has nothing to do with biology - it's a social construct.

Assuming that's true - and I don't - answer this: How do you think it got to be that way? Do you think that ALL wives were sold by their fathers during any part of our history? Do you think people never got to choose their spouses until recent times? Do you think tradition can't be defeated by free will?

Do you know NOTHING of the history of marriage? It was originally a form of ownership, a way of controlling women. Girls were SOLD by their father's for cattle, or other goods. Up until the the last 100 years or so, married women were in EVERY aspect, slaves. They couldn't vote, couldn't own property (anything they owned, was by proxy, property of their husband), couldn't testify in court, had no rights to their children, etc, etc. Taking the name of is borne out of this archaic system, and has no use but to solidify the social disparity.

If someone does something out of tradition only, are they really exercising free will?

Also - have you ever read "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson?

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Ryan
I'm not talking about equals in the sense that men an women are biologically equal - I'm talking about the disparity in their differences in how each is seen in society. When a woman takes on a man's name, they are both acknowledging this disparity - whether they're is conscious of it or not.

We ARE disparate - and complimentary (mostly). So we're just supposed to pretend like we are equal and identical? How about we all keep our birth names, and instead fight over who gets the phone book listing, or whether to pay for two?

The fact is that society rewards married couples who share the same last name - and that's nothing to sneeze at, either. No matter which spouse takes the other's name.

Society rewarded couples who married within their own race at one time too - does that justify anything? You've still refused to answer WHY commitment is different for men than women, and why women not taking their man's name is a sign of non-commitment.

If you're comparing the punishment that bigots dealt out to people who married "outside their race" to how people act towards spouses who share or don't share the same name, you're talking apples to oranges. There is just no comparison, and you cheapen your argument by trying to make one.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Mill

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.

I'd say you are looking for fire just because you see a little smoke. Marriage is based on a lot of tradition, and it is silly to ignore those traditions just because: "they are tradition." It is also tradition for men to shave, cut their hair, and cut the grass. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it wrong.

You are unfairly basing your stereotypes on what you see as marriage in your area. Marriage across the United States is not like that, and it certainly isn't like that worldwide. In my fiance's country, the women takes the man's surname, but she doesn't lose her own. She simply tacks it on. My fiance and I actually discussed this last night, and she wants to take my name and follow American tradition. Its the same reason I want to have a wedding in her home country following her traditions. Following traditions ARE a sign of unity. That's what you can't see.

You've got this idea that traditions are outmoded and bad, and that it is all about subjugating women. Take that feminist bullsh!t elsewhere. Most people have entirely different motives for wanting a unified family name other than subjugating a wife to a husband. My fiance and I want our kids to have unified names, and we've already planned names for them. Both kids have a mixture of names that shows they are both American and Hispanic. We wouldn't do that if it wasn't about unity. If it was about just following tradition and subjugation of women, then I'd name the kids and they'd have American names, right?

I never said it was the singular justification - but that our concept of marriage is borne out of the legacy of marriage in the past, and legacy that is still active (JS80's remarks are a prime example).

 

[unsped]

taking the womans name would be fun ive always thought, i wonder if they could sue to have you reverse it after you divorce.

or both of you could pick a new last name together !

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Ryan
Marriage has nothing to do with biology - it's a social construct.

Assuming that's true - and I don't - answer this: How do you think it got to be that way? Do you think that ALL wives were sold by their fathers during any part of our history? Do you think people never got to choose their spouses until recent times? Do you think tradition can't be defeated by free will?

Do you know NOTHING of the history of marriage? It was originally a form of ownership, a way of controlling women. Girls were SOLD by their father's for cattle, or other goods. Up until the the last 100 years or so, married women were in EVERY aspect, slaves. They couldn't vote, couldn't own property (anything they owned, was by proxy, property of their husband), couldn't testify in court, had no rights to their children, etc, etc. Taking the name of is borne out of this archaic system, and has no use but to solidify the social disparity.

If someone does something out of tradition only, are they really exercising free will?

Also - have you ever read "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson?

If you want to do away with tradition, why not do away with marriage completely? What is marriage other than a social construct based on tradition? If you want to eliminate the bad practices of the past, fighting against women taking the man's family name is like pissing on a shrub to put out a forest fire.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Do you know NOTHING of the history of marriage? It was originally a form of ownership, a way of controlling women. Girls were SOLD by their father's for cattle, or other goods. Up until the the last 100 years or so, married women were in EVERY aspect, slaves. They couldn't vote, couldn't own property (anything they owned, was by proxy, property of their husband), couldn't testify in court, had no rights to their children, etc, etc. Taking the name of is borne out of this archaic system, and has no use but to solidify the social disparity.

If someone does something out of tradition only, are they really exercising free will?

Also - have you ever read "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson?

Right: only people who could buy a wife ever got one, up until 100 years ago. :disgust:

Okay, can't argue with sheer blind stupidity. Have a nice day.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Ryan
I'm not talking about equals in the sense that men an women are biologically equal - I'm talking about the disparity in their differences in how each is seen in society. When a woman takes on a man's name, they are both acknowledging this disparity - whether they're is conscious of it or not.

We ARE disparate - and complimentary (mostly). So we're just supposed to pretend like we are equal and identical? How about we all keep our birth names, and instead fight over who gets the phone book listing, or whether to pay for two?

The fact is that society rewards married couples who share the same last name - and that's nothing to sneeze at, either. No matter which spouse takes the other's name.

Society rewarded couples who married within their own race at one time too - does that justify anything? You've still refused to answer WHY commitment is different for men than women, and why women not taking their man's name is a sign of non-commitment.

If you're comparing the punishment that bigots dealt out to people who married "outside their race" to how people act towards spouses who share or don't share the same name, you're talking apples to oranges. There is just no comparison, and you cheapen your argument by trying to make one.

I was pointing out that social rewards do not define whether something is right or wrong.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Ryan
Do you know NOTHING of the history of marriage? It was originally a form of ownership, a way of controlling women. Girls were SOLD by their father's for cattle, or other goods. Up until the the last 100 years or so, married women were in EVERY aspect, slaves. They couldn't vote, couldn't own property (anything they owned, was by proxy, property of their husband), couldn't testify in court, had no rights to their children, etc, etc. Taking the name of is borne out of this archaic system, and has no use but to solidify the social disparity.

If someone does something out of tradition only, are they really exercising free will?

Also - have you ever read "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson?

Right: only people who could buy a wife ever got one, up until 100 years ago. :disgust:

Okay, can't argue with sheer blind stupidity. Have a nice day.

I guess the easiest way to negate the facts and history is to ignore - do as you wish, You're no worse than the child who plugs their ears in protest, screaming "lalalalallala - I can't hear you".

The facts won't magically vanish. As much as I hate to link to Wiki, this page provides a good synopsis of the history of marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Ryan
I never said it was the singular justification - but that our concept of marriage is borne out of the legacy of marriage in the past, and legacy that is still active (JS80's remarks are a prime example).

What are you talking about? Quote my remark and explain why you think I have a lowly view of women.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Ryan
I never said it was the singular justification - but that our concept of marriage is borne out of the legacy of marriage in the past, and legacy that is still active (JS80's remarks are a prime example).

What are you talking about? Quote my remark and explain why you think I have a lowly view of women.

Just about every reply you've made to this thread.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Ryan
I never said it was the singular justification - but that our concept of marriage is borne out of the legacy of marriage in the past, and legacy that is still active (JS80's remarks are a prime example).

What are you talking about? Quote my remark and explain why you think I have a lowly view of women.

Just about every reply you've made to this thread.

Well it should be easy for you. Now do it.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Ryan
I never said it was the singular justification - but that our concept of marriage is borne out of the legacy of marriage in the past, and legacy that is still active (JS80's remarks are a prime example).

What are you talking about? Quote my remark and explain why you think I have a lowly view of women.

Just about every reply you've made to this thread.

Well it should be easy for you. Now do it.

I've quoted you already - the burden is not on me if you refuse to read.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Mill

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.

I'd say you are looking for fire just because you see a little smoke. Marriage is based on a lot of tradition, and it is silly to ignore those traditions just because: "they are tradition." It is also tradition for men to shave, cut their hair, and cut the grass. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it wrong.

You are unfairly basing your stereotypes on what you see as marriage in your area. Marriage across the United States is not like that, and it certainly isn't like that worldwide. In my fiance's country, the women takes the man's surname, but she doesn't lose her own. She simply tacks it on. My fiance and I actually discussed this last night, and she wants to take my name and follow American tradition. Its the same reason I want to have a wedding in her home country following her traditions. Following traditions ARE a sign of unity. That's what you can't see.

You've got this idea that traditions are outmoded and bad, and that it is all about subjugating women. Take that feminist bullsh!t elsewhere. Most people have entirely different motives for wanting a unified family name other than subjugating a wife to a husband. My fiance and I want our kids to have unified names, and we've already planned names for them. Both kids have a mixture of names that shows they are both American and Hispanic. We wouldn't do that if it wasn't about unity. If it was about just following tradition and subjugation of women, then I'd name the kids and they'd have American names, right?

I never said it was the singular justification - but that our concept of marriage is borne out of the legacy of marriage in the past, and legacy that is still active (JS80's remarks are a prime example).

The legacy of slavery still exists in some people's mind, but it isn't widespread enough to justify a debate. Neither is the amount of neanderthals that believe another person is property. However, you attacked marriage as a whole as some type of bungled tradition that people only do because it is tradition. The reality is that marriage exists today in a form entirely different than the past. In fact, today, marriage is mainly controlled by females.