Changing last name after marriage: Who takes whose?

[iguana_tonante]

However, you can't deny that most traditions are about arguing over some stupid shit.

If I deny it, does that mean we can argue some more?

Of course! And I foresee great shouting and maybe throwing of furnishing, as it should be in any traditional argument!

Well, lots of times, traditions are about symbolism...and there are such things as very important symbols.
Edit: And some "stupid shit" symbols as well, of course.

I think you just stole my thunder, lady.

 

[Shaw]

Well, unconditional love is a different thing. One might love someone and still not wish to marry her. In choosing a partner for life, there are things to consider beyond love. And while I do think that this whole naming situation should not be a dealbreaker, it's obvious that everyone has their own standards. True unconditional love is rare, and most relationships are dependent on at least some conditions.

Yeah. I mean, you're talking about a life together here (at least that's what I'm talking about, and the other posters seem be talking about the same thing) - and "life" doesn't just mean "the period of time that makes up the rest of my life." You're talking about all the things that make up that life: where you live, what you do for a living, children, in-laws, vacations, house cleanliness standards, religion, finances...everything. So there had better be some conditions. You might love him/her with your whole heart, but if you don't want the same kind of life and and the two of you don't agree on how you are mutually going to try to achieve that life...well, that will NOT be good. At all.

So really, the only discussion is, what constitutes a valid condition? And that's going to vary quite a lot.

Boy, unless all you guys are talking about arranged marriages (where the first time you meet your future spouse is at the alter), most of your "conditions" should have been ironed out long before any discussion pops up about last names.

I've found (sadly) that most people who are young don't know the difference between love and infatuation. Too many people base their relationships on superficial things that could change in a moment.

If you marry someone because they are beautiful, do you divorce them if they are disfigured in an accident? If you marry someone because they are rich, do you divorce them if they lose everything? If you marry someone to have kids, do you divorce them if they are unable to reproduce?

People seem to consider others to be disposable items these days. Sticking around for the good times but bailing during the bad. I can only imagine that relationships like that are as lonely as if the two people were actually single.

I've only ever had one hard and fast condition in a relationship: No cheating. Amazing how many people actually have a problem with sticking to that one.

That is pretty much my only deal breaker.

My feelings on the subject are that if they are looking to someone else outside the relationship, then they must want out of the relationship. And I'm always happy to oblige in that type of situation.

As a husband my primary duty is to my wife's happiness... and if the only way I can insure that happiness is with my absence, then that is what I'll provide.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Shaw--I TOTALLY agree with you about ironing all conditions out BEFORE marriage, really learning what you truly feel about the important things. Rushing into a thing like marriage is truly reckless...and I despise how people have devalued the entire institution.

Ironic, I always say, that there are those in this country currently fighting to be allowed to marry, and that those who legally can do not take it seriously!

 

[RJDiogenes]

^because the argument is couched in such a way that to disagree with you is to be labeled sexist. As well as the poor, whipped chattel of women that have changed their name to signify that they are property that has changed hands.

You are arguing the point just fine, but stating it so that if you disagree, you're sexist. At least, that's how I'm seeing the argument going...

I think Tachyon Shield and Lonely Squire have answered that one for me.

You still really seem to feel that most women who change their names do so primarily because of societal pressure. That's a perfectly tenable theory, except that here you have actual women (and some men, for that matter), some of whom have changed their names, some of whom have not, some of whom have done both, some of whom haven't had to make that decision yet, all talking from their own and their friends' and families' personal experience, and that doesn't seem to affect you at all. There you are politely and eruditely writing stuff that sounds as though you're quoting sociological texts, whereas I and some of my female cohorts are trying to tell you what this is like from real life...and you seem to dismiss that. Politely and eruditely, but still dismissively.

Well, that's why I said "most" and not "all." Also, I'm speaking from personal experience as well; not just with women on this particular topic, but my experience with Human nature in general. I'm not being dismissive at all. I believe everything you say and I've seen it myself (quite a bit, since I have a tendency to know rather progressive women). I'm just talking about what most people do and why.

And looking at it from the other side, I still don't understand your point of view entirely either, which is also a bit depressing.

Sorry about that. What don't you understand?

RJ, I feel like ... I'm a woman, I have these conversations with my friends and co-workers, I have these conversations on a regular basis because of the field that I work in, and each time I tell you something you just dismiss it as "in the minority."

Well, having worked in Women's Health for 22 years, and having known countless women from all over the world, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the subject, too. As far as I can tell, the majority of women take their husband's name because that's the way it goes-- they may talk about it, but they eventually go with the tried and true. That's how most people are about everything. It's Human nature. That's why traditions exist.

In the minority? Probably. But it's annoying to have you dismiss every single thing because you feel it represents such a small sub-section of people.

I haven't dismissed anything. I just said that more and more women are keeping their own names, but most still change them.

I keep coming back to this:

We're living in a transitional time now, so more of them than ever will feel empowered to do what they really want. But the majority of women still take their husband's name; I suspect that in a perfect world, it would be a small fraction.

I suspect that in a perfect world, the fraction would be higher than you think. I suspect that many women enjoy having the choice, but choosing tradition.

Maybe so. But the mere existence of a tradition is a pressure to choose it. But, in any case, my belief is that in a perfect world the number of women and men choosing to change their names would be roughly equal.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that it's a male poster who claims to know so much about why women change their names at marriage?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that it's a male poster who claims to know so much about why women change their names at marriage?

Indeed.

But I think the dismissiveness is the bigger problem by far. He seems to take as representative those posters whose actions support his point and ignore the rest (who are in the majority). Which is the same thing i_t did, which probably makes him think he's justified in it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that it's a male poster who claims to know so much about why women change their names at marriage?

Why would being male prevent me from having knowledge and understanding?

Am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that it's a male poster who claims to know so much about why women change their names at marriage?

Indeed.

But I think the dismissiveness is the bigger problem by far. He seems to take as representative those posters whose actions support his point and ignore the rest (who are in the majority). Which is the same thing i_t did, which probably makes him think he's justified in it.

I haven't been dismissive about anything.

 

[JustKate]

Maybe you haven't meant to, RJ - from your posts in other threads, I am pretty sure that you haven't. But honest to God, that's how it sounds - and feels. I mean, whenever anybody disagrees with you, you automatically imply or flat-out say, "Well, but you're in the minority." And while it's possible that you're right about that, it's also - and I'd like to emphasize this - possible that you're wrong. Either way...can you imagine how dismissive it feels to be told repeatedly, "Yes, I know you have experience in this area, but nonetheless, I don't agree with you because you represent the minority."

Your next logical question would be, "How else am I supposed to say 'I disagree with you?'" and I agree that's a tricky one. I guess what I'd like - and I don't know how you can convey is - is for you to sometimes give some indication that maybe, just maybe, some of us know stuff that you don't. Maybe you have, in which case I apologize, but I can't remember it if so.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I would never disagree with anybody because they're in the minority. I'm not even sure what part of the discussion that's coming from.

I've said that the number of women who change their names are in the majority. I've said that more and more women are not changing their names but are still in the minority. What have I said that could be taken as disagreeing with somebody just because they are in the minority?

And I have no doubt that most of you know stuff that I don't.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that it's a male poster who claims to know so much about why women change their names at marriage?

Why would being male prevent me from having knowledge and understanding?

Because it's none of our business, really. We're guys. We should stick to what we know. You want to know why women change their names when they get married...then ASK them! Don't claim to know more than they themselves do.

 

[RJDiogenes]

"None of our business because we're guys?" This isn't the 1950s, man. Women are not a separate species. People are individuals and Human nature is universal.

 

[Michael Chris]

Yikers. You go away for a little while and the thread explodes!