I didn't even know there was a car voltron, just the lion variety.
Changing last name after marriage: Who takes whose?
- Thread starter SeerSGB
- Start date
I didn't even know there was a car voltron, just the lion variety.
I didn't even know there was a car voltron, just the lion variety.
Be grateful for your ignorance, young one.
Well I was until you told me about it, thanks a lot! 
Actually, I think how other cultures handle it is very interesting (almost as interesting as the Voltron side conversation
). The Latin American method isn't a bad method, actually. Although it does keep the male name over the female name, doesn't it?
Actually, I think how other cultures handle it is very interesting (almost as interesting as the Voltron side conversation
). The Latin American method isn't a bad method, actually. Although it does keep the male name over the female name, doesn't it?^Yes it does actually which I think is antiquated and should change.
Marriage is not a David Cronenberg movie.
For me, it's a very important issue and my wife will need to take my name. No hyphens, no "stage-name," no "professional name," no bullshit. It's not so much sexism on my part as the understanding that it would severely disappoint my very large, proud family-- and it would put her at a disadvantage. I know it's an archaic tradition and I don't dog people who snub it-- but I'd want to marry a girl proud to take my last name.
What would you change it to?
I think it's a silly, outdated tradition. It was created to put women down, to denote ownership. If a woman want to take her husband's name, fine. They can also wear a burka if they want, but it doesn't make it right or sensible. And all this talking about "I'm not sexist but i want my wife to take my name" is just that: sexist. It's like saying "I'm not racist but I want those black people to live segregated". Discrimination is in the action.
Yet, what is she's just as proud of her family name?
That's my thinking to: It's the equivelant of saying "She's mine, I own her."
We did it cause it was the default and it was basically just done without anyone thinking about it; it was assumed. When we-- recently-- started looking to going back the other way or go back to our own family names, gods-damn it's pain in the ass.
Have the couple decide which of their names would go first or decide if they want to use their second last names instead.
I think if your very large proud family can't compromise then I feel sorry for any women coming in to it. Sorry but, archaic tradition indeed.
Exactly. I'm proud of my maiden name. My parents have created a good, solid reputation for themselves in this community and it's a name I can be proud of. It's a name that was a large part of my identity growing up. Heck, my maiden name even means "friend," something that I liked and felt was important. It's not a common name as my parents are immigrants, and retaining it in some form is a link not only to them, but to my cultural heritage.
I'm all for "to each his own." But Danoz, I'd hope you'd tell her that while it severely disappointed your family, you understood her reasons and would stand by whatever she decided. An archaic tradition shouldn't be a dealbreaker.
I did it because I felt like I was starting something new, and I like being joined to my husband in that sort of formal way. It's silly, the way that I like it. Anything from seeing "Mr. and Mrs. _______" on envelopes, to when we are huge dorks and are all "go team ________!" It's probably entirely superficial, but having the same last name to me, is just something that adds to my connection with him and announces to the rest of the world that we're together. Some people don't feel this need, which is perfectly understandable.
That being said, we definitely discussed choosing an entirely different last name that would be ours alone (hence the talk of "Skeletor"). We ultimately decided against this because I felt that I liked the history that came from both of our last names, that we both had families that we could be proud of, and that I wanted to retain that connection with them.
My fiancee and I were discussing this just the other day. She is going to keep her name for legal and business purposes, but we will be "the Greens" socially.
Maybe my wife and I should switch last names. That could be fun.
LMAO. It has nothing to do with sexism (well now). It has to do with two becoming one.
So her keeping her own name some hows cheapens the marriage or makes it in someway a lesser commitment?
.
This reminds me of an incident when I was on the AOL Sci Fi Forum ages ago. Some young punk was dissing the classic writers and complained that naming a character something like Sheerin 501 was "cheesy." His name was Michael47.Maybe it'd be easier if people took numbers, like in Asimov's Nightfall.
Not necessarily. However, if one was unwilling to change one's name, I think so. After all if someone isn't willing to give up their name how can you expect them to give up worldly possessions, health, or even life for the other party?
^What does giving up your name have to do with the other things you mentioned? It makes no sense to me. A marriage is a mutual commitment. What does the man give up? Why would I as a woman be the one that makes all the sacrifices? Why would my commitment be in question if I chose to keep the name that I've had since birth?
Well, I was talking about both man and woman. A man can change his name, a woman can change her name, they both can change their names, they can keep their names, but I think if either is unwilling to change then that's not a good sign. A name is not more important than family, friends, possessions, property, lifestyle, and most everything else that should be secondary in marriage. If one is not willing to give up one's name why would they be willing to give up those other things that most people would think much more important?
