Last Name Changes on Marriage

[Petergee]

If you’re implying what I think you’re implying by posting that comment with a specific poster’s name, than that is an extremely ungracious thing to say.

Different folks, different strokes.

Thank you for coming to my defence in my absence.

I’m surprised that the Moderators allowed such a gratuitous ad hominem attack.

 

[Petergee]

Calling someone by their name is not " politically correct", its basic respect and manners. It’s on thing to call your coworker Jennifer Jenn out of habit or on accident. It’s another to call Jennifer Suzie because that’s what you think she should be named.

Most employers would correct the offender because they (and you) could be sued over it.

Good grief. Only in America.

Everyone deserves basic respect, and intentionally calling someone by something that isn’t their name just for the sake of putting them in their place is wrong and has no place in society or the workplace.

Why don’t you just back off from attack mode for a moment, take a deep breath and consider the possibility that people are not trying to disrespect you or put you in your place just because they call you by a name you don’t use for yourself? Especially when according to long and deeply established custom it** is **actually your name. The supposed lack of respect and putting in their place lies entirely in your imagination.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

Why don’t you just back off from attack mode for a moment, take a deep breath and consider the possibility that people are not trying to disrespect you or put you in your place just because they call you by a name you don’t use for yourself? Especially when according to long and deeply established custom it** is **actually your name. The supposed lack of respect and putting in their place lies entirely in your imagination.

Good grief. All right, then. I shall call you a Kiwi. I’m not trying to disrespect you or put you in your place. I’ve decided that you’re a Kiwi as per established custom. You’re actually a Kiwi. That is your identity. The supposed lack of respect lies entiirely in your imagination.

Luna.

 

[Baelor]

I never suggested that any custom is more important than one’s spouse. My point is that when someone arbitrarily

Arbitrarily: “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system”

If someone provides a reason, it is no longer arbitrary.

reverses a longstanding and entrenched social custom, which gives the appearance (though she may deny it is her intention) that any or all of the following apply:
she doesn’t take marriage terribly seriously
she doesn’t intend the marriage to be permanent
she is ashamed of being married to her husband
she is so immature that she is more interested in following a trendy fad or being a supposed “feminist” than being married
she doesn’t want to acknowledge the paternity of any children she and her husband may have
etc.

None of those follow. None of those are likely reasons. More likely is that the fiancee likes her name, uses it for work, is in a position legally that makes name changes difficult, etc.

You are not entitled, although you clearly think you are. Christ rejects such lack of charity; you should too.

 

[Petergee]

Good grief. All right, then. I shall call you a Kiwi. I’m not trying to disrespect you or put you in your place. I’ve decided that you’re a Kiwi as per established custom. You’re actually a Kiwi. That is your identity. The supposed lack of respect lies entiirely in your imagination.

Luna.

a. don’t confuse “name” with “identity” or with “identification”. By treating them as the same thing you are implicitly conceding that someone who claims she is being “disrespected” when someone innocently calls her “Mrs Jones” IS actually saying that she doesn’t want it to be publicly known that Mr Jones is her husband.
b. there is no custom of any kind by which an Australian is called a Kiwi.
c. You plainly do intend to disrespect me and put me in what you view as my proper place. Don’t worry, I will not retaliate in kind, but merely keep pointing out the facts which apparently so infuriate you. .

 

[Petergee]

Arbitrarily: “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system”

If someone provides a reason, it is no longer arbitrary.

Judges arbitrate all the time and they give voluminous reasons for their arbitration.

None of those follow. None of those are likely reasons.

And you know this because - …?
And which is it? Do they not follow? i.e. impossible?
Or are they merely unlikely?

More likely is that the fiancee likes her name, uses it for work,

rather grand to call these actual “reasons”.

is in a position legally that makes name changes difficult, etc.

who could possibly be in such a position? No situation that I can think of in real life.

You are not entitled, although you clearly think you are.

Entitled to what? I never claimed entitlement to anything.
Or do you mean “titled” in the sense of the nobility? In that case it is or can be the other way around with the Royal Family, e.g. when Elizabeth Windsor married Phillip Mountbatten, she and their children took the name Windsor. But it makes no difference to the otherwise general custom. The same rule applies to a king as to a commoner.

Christ rejects such lack of charity; you should too.

What have I said or done which you could possibly depict as uncharitable?

 

[AlTheCollegeGal]

Wow. You show an applalling zeal to put people into boxes and devalue them as people because they disagree with you. The only one objectifying anyone here is you.

You’re trying to have it both ways. If a bride taking her groom’s name is something so trivial, then it’s just as petty for the bride to insist not to do it as for the groom to insist to do it. You can’t claim that he’s being petty and she’s not. Both of them or neither are being petty. Neither, in my view.

Sorry, your comment was just too ironic. If I am putting people into boxes and devaluating them, then what pray tell are you doing by disrespecting some women by calling them by their husband’s name??? You show an appalling lack of respect towards someone by naming them on your terms rather than their own. Your second point is quite ridiculous, I never said that the groom is petty and the bride is not. What I am saying is that the groom should not be thought of as superior to the bride, which is exactly what you believe if the woman must change her name. There’s a beautiful thing that I like to call compromise; if the woman does not want to change her name, she shouldn’t have to.

 

[Baelor]

Judges arbitrate all the time and they give voluminous reasons for their arbitration.

And their decisions are not arbitrary. Arbitrary by definition means whimsical or random.

And you know this because - …?

Because no one I have heard of ever in my life has ever stated that her reason for keeping her original name was any of those things, nor is there anything to suggest that those were reasons at all.

If your experience is different, then so be it.

And which is it? Do they not follow? i.e. impossible?
Or are they merely unlikely?

They do not follow logically, i.e. that a woman does not take her husband’s name does not lead directly to the conclusion that she does not take her marriage seriously etc.

rather grand to call these actual “reasons”.

They are very valid reasons.

Entitled to what? I never claimed entitlement to anything.

What have I said or done which you could possibly depict as uncharitable?

Actually, you did:

I am merely exercising MY personal choices which do no harm to you whatsoever, unless you are going to fall back on the novel catch-all political corerrectness claim that it “gives offence” to you or is “hate speech”.

You feel entitled to call people by names that are not theirs knowing that they are not theirs. This is rude. If a woman does not take her husband’s name, calling her by her husband’s name is as rude as it is incorrect. The Catholic Church does not recognize nomenclature in that manner, and they are legally NOT their husband’s name. There is no justifiable basis whatsoever, then, for using their husband’s name.

You disagree; stating that you in fact have a morally acceptable choice to call them by their husband’s name. This is, in fact, incorrect. Thus, you feel entitled, but are in fact not. The offense in questions is uncharitable.

 

[Petergee]

Sorry, your comment was just too ironic. If I am putting people into boxes and devaluating them, then what pray tell are you doing by disrespecting some women by calling them by their husband’s name??? You show an appalling lack of respect towards someone by naming them on your terms rather than their own. Your second point is quite ridiculous, I never said that the groom is petty and the bride is not. What I am saying is that the groom should not be thought of as superior to the bride, which is exactly what you believe if the woman must change her name. There’s a beautiful thing that I like to call compromise; if the woman does not want to change her name, she shouldn’t have to.

You are begging the question.
In effect you are saying "calling a married woman by her husband’s surname is disrespecting her, putting her into a box and devaluating her and saying that her husband is superior to her, because calling a married woman by her husband’s surname is disrespecting her, putting her into a box and devaluating her and saying that her husband is superior to her, "
You haven’t proved your assertion at all, just re–asserted it.

And yes you did indeed say
“For an individual [obviously meaning the groom] to drop a fiancee [obviously the bride] based on something so petty is truly unfair, and ruins the integrity of what a relationship is supposed to be based on.” !

 

[Petergee]

Because no one I have heard of ever in my life has ever stated that her reason for keeping her original name was any of those things, nor is there anything to suggest that those were reasons at all.

If your experience is different, then so be it.

You must have missed reading my words “though she may deny it is her intention”.
Obviously nobody is ever going to say to anybody about any of his actions “I’m doing this because I’m so immature” or any of the other unflattering reasons I listed or the many others. We human beings are remarkably inventive at coming up with plausibly rational and noble reaasons for our self-centred and immature actions, which we try to convince others and even ourselkves are the real reasons.

They do not follow logically, i.e. that a woman does not take her husband’s name does not lead directly to the conclusion that she does not take her marriage seriously etc.

Nor does it lead directly to the opposite conclusion.

You feel entitled to call people by names that are not theirs knowing that they are not theirs.

Actually the names are theirs. And suppoosedly feeling entitled or any other of my feelings have nothing to do with it. (And it’s quite remarkable how you “feel entitled” to use your expression to pontificate about hwhat are the feelings and m0otivations of someone on the other side of the world based on his opinion on a subject being different to yours.)

This is rude.

Pointing out a fact may at times be impertinent (not rude) but it is always very pertinent.
It is trude to accuse someone of rudeness when he has done nothing rude.

If a woman does not take her husband’s name, calling her by her husband’s name is as rude as it is incorrect. The Catholic Church does not recognize nomenclature in that manner, and they are legally NOT their husband’s name. There is no justifiable basis whatsoever, then, for using their husband’s name.

Nonsense! The Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to say about the question. She doesn’t “recognise” your proposed inversion of established custom. Nor does the civil law dictate it.

You disagree; stating that you in fact have a morally acceptable choice to call them by their husband’s name. This is, in fact, incorrect. Thus, you feel entitled, but are in fact not. The offense in questions is uncharitable.

It is not uncharitable, nor am I responsible, if someone makes the choice to prtend that mentioning a simple fact is supposedly “offensive” according to some newly invented standard of political correctness. Especially when it is not hard to see that those who invented this silly idea have done so with the specific aim to undermine and dillute marriage. (And in anticipation of your next attempt to twist my words, no I did not say that everyone who goes along with it is trying to undermine marriage. The vast majority simply do so unthinkingly trying to follow a politically correct trend.)

 

[Baelor]

You must have missed reading my words “though she may deny it is her intention”.

But nothing has ever suggested to me that any of them have. Are you seriously advocating assuming that the individual is lying? How could you justify such an assumption?

We human beings are remarkably inventive at coming up with plausibly rational and noble reaasons for our self-centred and immature actions, which we try to convince others and even ourselkves are the real reasons.

Fortunately, this is neither an immature nor self-centered decision. And this does not change the fact that you have yet to produce any evidence that the bad motives you claim are real justifications exist at all or in such abundance that they cause concern.

Actually the names are theirs. And suppoosedly feeling entitled or any other of my feelings have nothing to do with it.

No, they are not. No institution including the Catholic Church would state otherwise – the Church does not regulate nomenclature, and legally the name of the wife is what she states is her name. Names are legal constructs; they are regulated at a legal level and not at a personal one. I could call you Duckface McGuido; that would not be your name even if I felt it was on whatever irrational basis I make my decisions.

And thus, the entitlement correctly assigned to you. You argue that you are the authority on the names of others. This is the ultimate sense of entitlement: that one is an arbiter whose authority extends to everyone.

Nonsense! The Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to say about the question. She doesn’t “recognise” your proposed inversion of established custom. Nor does the civil law dictate it.

Exactly: the Catholic Church does not recognize nomenclature. It is addressed at the level of government, at least in the United States and most other developed countries. Whether something is an established custom or not is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Names are legal names. There is no other authority on names whatsoever, including you. You have yet to provide a basis for explaining why you are uniquely qualified to tell others what their names are. The custom has relied on legally changing one’s name; thus, if one does not legally change one’s name, then the maiden name remains.

Furthermore, the fact that it is an established custom is totally irrelevant to the law and Church alike.

It is not uncharitable, nor am I responsible, if someone makes the choice to prtend that mentioning a simple fact is supposedly “offensive” according to some newly invented standard of political correctness.

The offensiveness has nothing to do with political correctness. If I knew your name was X but I kept calling you Y, that would be rude.

Especially when it is not hard to see that those who invented this silly idea have done so with the specific aim to undermine and dillute marriage.

Fine. So you would be fine with the man taking the woman’s name? Or combining the two last names in some manner? Or each keeping their own last name?

There is no way that keeping separate names intrinsically undermines marriage; the two are one flesh regardless. If the Church cared, it would have required the same last name. It did not. But as you have stated, you think your authority is above both law and Church, so I guess this is not compelling to you.

 

[AlTheCollegeGal]

But nothing has ever suggested to me that any of them have. Are you seriously advocating assuming that the individual is lying? How could you justify such an assumption?

Fortunately, this is neither an immature nor self-centered decision. And this does not change the fact that you have yet to produce any evidence that the bad motives you claim are real justifications exist at all or in such abundance that they cause concern.

No, they are not. No institution including the Catholic Church would state otherwise – the Church does not regulate nomenclature, and legally the name of the wife is what she states is her name. Names are legal constructs; they are regulated at a legal level and not at a personal one. I could call you Duckface McGuido; that would not be your name even if I felt it was on whatever irrational basis I make my decisions.

And thus, the entitlement correctly assigned to you. You argue that you are the authority on the names of others. This is the ultimate sense of entitlement: that one is an arbiter whose authority extends to everyone.

Exactly: the Catholic Church does not recognize nomenclature. It is addressed at the level of government, at least in the United States and most other developed countries. Whether something is an established custom or not is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Names are legal names. There is no other authority on names whatsoever, including you. You have yet to provide a basis for explaining why you are uniquely qualified to tell others what their names are. The custom has relied on legally changing one’s name; thus, if one does not legally change one’s name, then the maiden name remains.

Furthermore, the fact that it is an established custom is totally irrelevant to the law and Church alike.

The offensiveness has nothing to do with political correctness. If I knew your name was X but I kept calling you Y, that would be rude.

Fine. So you would be fine with the man taking the woman’s name? Or combining the two last names in some manner? Or each keeping their own last name?

There is no way that keeping separate names intrinsically undermines marriage; the two are one flesh regardless. If the Church cared, it would have required the same last name. It did not. But as you have stated, you think your authority is above both law and Church, so I guess this is not compelling to you.

Thank you! Your response is exactly what I have been attempting to articulate to the poster, and you worded it perfectly!

 

[lerapt78]

No one has said that it is one way only with the woman having all the rights. You have taken the position that in the West ( or for Anglo-Saxons), it is traditional and the custom for women to take their husband’s surname and it should be so as if it were a law or doctrine. So a man has a right to insist his wife to be take his surname and that is fine and right but a woman has a right which should not be used?

A tradition/custom historically based on property rights, protection of women when women needed or were deemed to need it and a wrong biblical interpretation of a woman being property and then subordinate, is not a tradition/custom that must be continued. Each couple should mutually make their own decision about this issue.

Several comments have been made appealing to tradition and custom to support the notion that a woman should take her husband’s name in marriage. This was the only post I saw that touched upon the reasons this custom was instituted in the first place, and after making a quick comparison between the rights afforded to women in the 1800’s and the rights they have now, I would think it would be obvious as to *why *this tradition is no longer relevant or necessary.

Prior to women having a legal claim on property, finances, inheritance, and even their own children, it was understood (if not claimed outright with words), that a woman became in essence a possession of her husband, and her assumption of his name was a verbal “mark” of ownership as an engagement ring might have been a physical one. She went from her father’s charge to her husband’s, and her change of name was a natural reflection of this mentality. As women were eventually granted the maternity, educational, and financial rights to determine and secure their own survival, their dependency upon men naturally diminished and therefore it no longer became necessary to reinvent their identities to reflect those of their husbands.

Obviously, things have changed. Some people think a woman’s proclamation of independence was a wonderful phenomenon that was long overdue in coming, some don’t really think of it at all (as it is the only thing they have ever known), and some think it has been the most horribly catastrophic event that causes every conceivable ill the world at this present time. Regardless of the opinions on whether or not a woman’s desire to outwardly express an identity separate from that of her husband’s is a good thing, the fact remains that she no longer *has *to mold herself to him in such a way because she is legally viewed as a citizen in her own right. Therefore, the appeal made by men who would push this matter is an emotional one, and has no logical basis.

As it stands, I think most women choose to change their names anyway, because they are simply accustomed to this practice and don’t really analyze the reasons behind it. Or maybe because they like the feeling of “belonging” to him, even if they would never admit it. And that’s fine – I wouldn’t presume to make the generalization that these women have no pride in their family name or that they have lost their individual identities. On the other hand, I think the men who have a problem with women choosing to retain their names are expressing a knee-jerk reaction to this change of custom and all too quickly throw out the charge of “Feminist!” without really considering it from a woman’s perspective. Not all women who choose to keep their names are doing it as a slap in the face to men – as stated in other posts, they do it for personal reasons of their own, none of them which are in any way malicious.

 

[Petergee]

legally the name of the wife is what she states is her name. Names are legal constructs; they are regulated at a legal level and not at a personal one. I could call you Duckface McGuido; that would not be your name even if I felt it was on whatever irrational basis I make my decisions.

No actually you’ve got it the wrong way around. Your name is what OTHER people call you. If everyone calls you Duckface McGuido, then this is your name even if you hate it.

As for the rest of your comment you are just repeating claims which have been amply refuted several times above and I’m not going to bother doing so again. You may enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing but I don’t have the time.

 

[Baelor]

No actually you’ve got it the wrong way around. Your name is what OTHER people call you. If everyone calls you Duckface McGuido, then this is your name even if you hate it.

Wrong again – we have a legal structure in place for determining names. It recognizes the legal right of each individual to determine his name. In addition, nicknames, etc. are acceptably determined only by the individual in question. We recognize this at a basic level, such as when a teacher asks a student whether he goes by “Matt” or “Matthew.” Thus, you are disagreeing with both the legal and cultural system and feel you know better than they and than individuals in general.

As for the rest of your comment you are just repeating claims which have been amply refuted several times above and I’m not going to bother doing so again. You may enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing but I don’t have the time.

Okay, I accept your admission that your argument is totally baseless.

 

[Petergee]

Several comments have been made appealing to tradition and custom to support the notion that a woman should take her husband’s name in marriage. This was the only post I saw that touched upon the reasons this custom was instituted in the first place, and after making a quick comparison between the rights afforded to women in the 1800’s and the rights they have now, I would think it would be obvious as to *why *this tradition is no longer relevant or necessary.

Prior to women having a legal claim on property, finances, inheritance, and even their own children, it was understood (if not claimed outright with words), that a woman became in essence a possession of her husband, and her assumption of his name was a verbal “mark” of ownership as an engagement ring might have been a physical one. She went from her father’s charge to her husband’s, and her change of name was a natural reflection of this mentality. As women were eventually granted the maternity, educational, and financial rights to determine and secure their own survival, their dependency upon men naturally diminished and therefore it no longer became necessary to reinvent their identities to reflect those of their husbands.

Obviously, things have changed. Some people think a woman’s proclamation of independence was a wonderful phenomenon that was long overdue in coming, some don’t really think of it at all (as it is the only thing they have ever known), and some think it has been the most horribly catastrophic event that causes every conceivable ill the world at this present time. Regardless of the opinions on whether or not a woman’s desire to outwardly express an identity separate from that of her husband’s is a good thing, the fact remains that she no longer *has *to mold herself to him in such a way because she is legally viewed as a citizen in her own right. Therefore, the appeal made by men who would push this matter is an emotional one, and has no logical basis.

I’m actually surprised too that nobody in this thread briought up this myth before. Yes we all know that that’s the story put out by the emotional and illogical dictators of political correctness but it has no basis in historical fact.
Women were taking their hudsband’s surnames in medieval England and were free to own property, regraded as full citizens etc etc. It was only after the Protestant Revolt that these women’s rights were suppressed. It had nothiong to do with bride taking a groom’s surname which is and always was done for the obvious reason, so that the whole family would acvtually be seen as a family.

the men who have a problem with women choosing to retain their names are expressing a knee-jerk reaction to this change of custom and all too quickly throw out the charge of “Feminist!” without really considering it from a woman’s perspective.

I have never a"thrown out the charge" of feminism. I regard feminism as a badge of honour and I am proud to say that my dear wife is a true feminist as I am too. (Of course I condemn as we all should the pseudo-feminism which asserts that any male who dares to utter a politically incorrect peep must be at least metaphorically speaking kicked in the groin.)
My wife is a fesity lady (one of the things that makes me love her so) who would never take a backward step in asserting her rights. But she would never dream of rejecting my surname.

Not all women who choose to keep their names are doing it as a slap in the face to men – as stated in other posts, they do it for personal reasons of their own, none of them which are in any way malicious.

Who said they are malicious? Not I? I’m sure their intentions ares quite innocent. a great saint said, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. It’s what we do that matters, not just our intentions.

 

[adrift]

Wrong again – we have a legal structure in place for determining names. It recognizes the legal right of each individual to determine his name. In addition, nicknames, etc. are acceptably determined only by the individual in question. We recognize this at a basic level, such as when a teacher asks a student whether he goes by “Matt” or “Matthew.” Thus, you are disagreeing with both the legal and cultural system and feel you know better than they and than individuals in general.

I do not know of anyone who has a nickname that they chose. Generally they come about by others. My bil came about because of misunderstanding of his name. It was easier to accept it than fight it.

Okay, I accept your admission that your argument is totally baseless.

This type of snarkiness only diminishes your argument and proves the other person right.

 

[Baelor]

Double post

 

[Baelor]

I do not know of anyone who has a nickname that they chose.

Really? Sometimes nicknames come about on sports teams/military units/etc. involuntarily, but my experience has been that they do not stick around indefinitely against the perpetually opposed wishes of the person in question. Furthermore, such nicknames – when not desired – show the inherent rudeness of addressing someone by something other than their desired name.

The legal framework remains paramount over all this, of course. Consider also one method of science-fiction authors to establish a dystopian/totalitarian atmosphere: take away names altogether or assign people numbers or names.

Generally they come about by others. My bil came about because of misunderstanding of his name. It was easier to accept it than fight it.

Which meant that the name was problematic in the first place, which was exactly my point – we all have a sense that we ourselves should be able to determine what our name is, and affronts to that right are perceived negatively. The fact that your bil had to choose to accept it or fight it merely reinforces my point that such behavior is rude.

This type of snarkiness only diminishes your argument and proves the other person right.

I would hope that no one’s reasoning is so weak that he feels the other person is proved right simply because of my snarky replies.

 

[lerapt78]

I’m actually surprised too that nobody in this thread briought up this myth before. Yes we all know that that’s the story put out by the emotional and illogical dictators of political correctness but it has no basis in historical fact.
Women were taking their hudsband’s surnames in medieval England and were free to own property, regraded as full citizens etc etc. It was only after the Protestant Revolt that these women’s rights were suppressed. It had nothiong to do with bride taking a groom’s surname which is and always was done for the obvious reason, so that the whole family would acvtually be seen as a family.

I’m sorry - sometimes I forget that not everyone on this forum lives in the US; I should have specified that the above were situations ocurring in my country. Let me frank - I’ll be the first person to acknowledge that radical feminism and political correctness have overreached to the point of absurdity, and that patriarchy is not the horribly brutal monster it’s made out to be. However it’s also equally unjust of people who, in their opposition to anti-male feminism (admittedly with legitimate reason), would dismiss the very real oppression women experienced in the past as myth. As an aside, when you reference women in medieval times as free to own property, I have to ask you (and I’m being sincere - I really don’t know for sure) - were these property-owning women of the noble class? Because from all accounts I’ve read, this privilege was extended to a very small number of women, usually if they were unmarried or had no children or their sons were not of age.

But in regards to my comments, the fact that (in the US at least) women had very little direct control over their resources until such laws as the Homestead Act, and Married Women’s Property Act were passed. As I stated, it would have been natural at that time for women to assume the husband’s name, for his name would have figured predominantly on all legal paperwork. The intent of my post was not to simply rant about oppression out of context to the subject of the thread, but merely to illustrate that the reasons a woman may have previously had to take her husband’s name are no longer valid, and that there is no logical basis for them to continue doing so if they choose not to.

Incidentally, it was in the Anglo colonies/states that this custom was prevalent. Prior to the addition of states like California and Texas, the western part of America was predominantly under the rule of the Spaniards. In these states, under Spanish law, married women were allowed to control their own property and assets. And coincidentally (or perhaps not?) women in Spain do not change their names after marriage, and their children receive the names of both parents. So it seems there might be a correlation between a woman’s retention of her name and her level of legal authority.

I have never a"thrown out the charge" of feminism. I regard feminism as a badge of honour and I am proud to say that my dear wife is a true feminist as I am too. (Of course I condemn as we all should the pseudo-feminism which asserts that any male who dares to utter a politically incorrect peep must be at least metaphorically speaking kicked in the groin.)
My wife is a fesity lady (one of the things that makes me love her so) who would never take a backward step in asserting her rights. But she would never dream of rejecting my surname.

I never referenced you directly in any of my comments, and the theme of feminism came up long before I posted, so the charge *was *thrown out, even if it wasn’t done by you. Not that I mind, though; I enjoy discussions on controversial issues, even when I disagree - that’s how we all learn, right? And I am happy for you if your wife decided to take your name. I probably wouldn’t change mine, but I don’t dictate to other women what they should do in this regard.

Who said they are malicious? Not I? I’m sure their intentions ares quite innocent. a great saint said, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. It’s what we do that matters, not just our intentions.

Again, I don’t believe I ever referenced you directly, and I didn’t say that anyone called them malicious. That was my adjective, used to reinforce the notion that keeping their names is not done by wives with the intention of hurting or belittling their husbands. I got this impression from some of the posts that this is what some men think. Apologies if you thought any of this was directed at you personally.