Women and getting their name changed after marriage

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 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.

yea, my preference of non-bvtchy women over bvtchy ones makes me a chauvinist a$$hole.

 

[Mill]

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?

The keyword is "were." That, of course, shows that it was in the PAST. Implicating current marriages in a haze of past transgressions is short-sighted and unfair.

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

Considering the number of people who just live together, get married at the courthouse, or completely ignore marriage, then it is obvious they are exercising free will. How is free will stopped by the acceptance of a tradition?

Up until the the last 100 years or so, married women were in EVERY aspect, slaves.

That's certainly not true. Marriage has a long and colorful history of bad traditions, but the majority of married women were not treated as slaves 100 or even 200 years ago. You are taking a minority experience and applying it to an entire institution.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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?

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.

Good point. Marriage itself is very traditional. Whats the point of a woman wanting to engage in a very traditional practice if she wants to be all non-traditional and keep her last name? Might as well not get married at all. The truth is women benefit more from marriage than men and that is why these 'non-traditional' women still engage in the practice. And you can bet the bank that the same woman who has a problem taking a mans last name in marriage will have no problem taking half his net worth after the divorce.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Mill

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?

The keyword is "were." That, of course, shows that it was in the PAST. Implicating current marriages in a haze of past transgressions is short-sighted and unfair.

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

Considering the number of people who just live together, get married at the courthouse, or completely ignore marriage, then it is obvious they are exercising free will. How is free will stopped by the acceptance of a tradition?

Up until the the last 100 years or so, married women were in EVERY aspect, slaves.

That's certainly not true. Marriage has a long and colorful history of bad traditions, but the majority of married women were not treated as slaves 100 or even 200 years ago. You are taking a minority experience and applying it to an entire institution.

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, couldn't be on a jury, had no rights to their children, had no rights if their husbands raped or beat them, etc.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Mill

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?

The keyword is "were." That, of course, shows that it was in the PAST. Implicating current marriages in a haze of past transgressions is short-sighted and unfair.

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

Considering the number of people who just live together, get married at the courthouse, or completely ignore marriage, then it is obvious they are exercising free will. How is free will stopped by the acceptance of a tradition?

Up until the the last 100 years or so, married women were in EVERY aspect, slaves.

That's certainly not true. Marriage has a long and colorful history of bad traditions, but the majority of married women were not treated as slaves 100 or even 200 years ago. You are taking a minority experience and applying it to an entire institution.

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, couldn't be on a jury, had no rights to their children, had no rights if their husbands raped or beat them, etc.

Speaking in absolutes is beyond dangerous. Yes, some of those things did occur 150+ years ago, but in MOST communities, women did have rights. Not equal rights, but they did have rights.

Are you arguing about the history of the United States, or the World in general? Because women have not been property in most cultures for quite some time. In fact, most of them have had more rights than African-Americans had before the 1960's and 70's. I don't see you asking for reparations and affirmative action.

I don't understand why this thread turned into a discussion of women's rights. Who the fvck cares? It is about people changing their last name when they get married. There is free will in this country, and if people want to change their names then who the hell is anyone to tell them they shouldn't or can't? Furthermore, it is an insult to any free person out there when you say that they are simply doing it because of tradition or because they are simple-minded. People have a plethora of reasons for their behaviors and actions.

You need to stop trying to examine everything from a sociological context. Many people do things without regard for tradition or what society says.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Ryan


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, couldn't be on a jury, had no rights to their children, had no rights if their husbands raped or beat them, etc.

So whats the point of still getting married for people who view it as you do? Does the name thing somehow make it no longer a tradition rooted in oppression?

Also how were unmarried women treated back then?

 

[Thorny]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Mill

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?

The keyword is "were." That, of course, shows that it was in the PAST. Implicating current marriages in a haze of past transgressions is short-sighted and unfair.

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

Considering the number of people who just live together, get married at the courthouse, or completely ignore marriage, then it is obvious they are exercising free will. How is free will stopped by the acceptance of a tradition?

Up until the the last 100 years or so, married women were in EVERY aspect, slaves.

That's certainly not true. Marriage has a long and colorful history of bad traditions, but the majority of married women were not treated as slaves 100 or even 200 years ago. You are taking a minority experience and applying it to an entire institution.

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, couldn't be on a jury, had no rights to their children, had no rights if their husbands raped or beat them, etc.

So your saying that married women had about the same rights as an unmarried woman. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: 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.

hah don't even mention expensive and lavish wedding ceremonies. guess who pushes for those? i can pretty much garrantee 99% of the time its not the men..who simply sit by and let her have her thing. if there was truely equal say/division on everything the incredibly lucrative wedding industry would just bust.

 

[CalvinHobbs]

who is Ryan btw??

 

[Feldenak]

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?

So, where does the dowry fit into this purchase plan? IIRC, that was given by the wife's family.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbs
who is Ryan btw??

Apparently a first year sociology student who delivers pizza in a box on wheels.

 

[Xstatic1]

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.

i stopped reading after the 3rd page of this thread. but Ryan---i'm in total agreement with you. i won't ever change my last name.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xstatic1
i stopped reading after the 3rd page of this thread. but Ryan---i'm in total agreement with you. i won't ever change my last name.

Would you marry a man who thought monogamy was just a silly tradition? Hey, if you're not willing to change your name, maybe he doesn't want to stop sleeping around.

If you're going to condemn tradition, go all the way. Don't just pick and choose which little parts suit you, otherwise you just look like a hypocrite.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Xstatic1

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.

i stopped reading after the 3rd page of this thread. but Ryan---i'm in total agreement with you. i won't ever change my last name.

i won't ever marry you (along with a big chunk of bachelors out there).

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Xstatic1
i stopped reading after the 3rd page of this thread. but Ryan---i'm in total agreement with you. i won't ever change my last name.

Tip.

You just eliminated most men that would marry you.

 

[Ryan]

I think people get so heated with the discussion, because it's something that's hit close to home for most people. Most people don't think about where the origins of our traditions come from, they just do them. I was the same way, but after looking at the legacy or marriage and it's practices, it's just not something I could involve myself with (at least - not in the traditional sense). I think they see it as an attack on the love they have in their relationships - but I don't see how understanding the origin of our practices can diminish the love between two individuals. Love is love, no matter how we choose to consummate it.

I think we've come along way in how we treat the sexes in the past 50 years, but that still doesn't mean that women are still seen as equals to men in our society, in the general sense. Until we reach a point where we are, marriage for many will still be a manifestation of inequality in the household. Many women will still be left to rear the children, and take care of household duties, sacrificing careers, education, hopes and dreams - while their husbands are left to their jobs, left to the satisfaction of doing as they feel free. That situation is a huge power disparity in itself - whether both parties are conscious of it or not/willing or not.

Maybe the humanitarian in me cares too much, but where is the social justice?

 

[BoberFett]

Hahaha, men are free to be stuck at work, slaving away for a paycheck to keep the family fed and clothed. Lucky men.

 

[CalvinHobbs]

not all traditions are good to follow, but some are good and some are bad, we keep the good and leave the bad out, just because a person is bad doesn't mean he can't teach you a few lessons about life. my kids will have my name and their mothers name as well, because she wants it like this and i see no prob with it, btw what names does your child bear if your wife keeps her name and you keep yours too??

 

[CalvinHobbs]

and when you say it's only in western countries that the wife has to take the husband's name after marriage says a lot about you knowledge as to how things are done around the world. and i'm not gonna argue with you. i wont be reading this thread now. cheers . alvida

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: 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.

Good observation