Last Name Changes on Marriage

[Baelor]

Because ultimately if you really need to look at it that way, the man is the head of the family.

What that means is debatable. Furthermore, there is no reason that his spiritual headship means that he passes along the family name, which is a societal construct in the first place.

 

[chevalier]

I am very glad to hear this. You definately have a more pesimistic outlook as to what subconsious reasons underlie such statements in general than I do, but it shows that you do in fact agree with and recognize the importance of a woman’s feelings in this matter and that her name is indeed her own even though it comes to her from her father.

Sorry but you give me too much credit from the perspective of your position. I merely recognise the important of not jumping to conclusions but rather presuming the best motivation in another as long as this is possible.

And her name by becoming her own doesn’t stop being her dad’s name in origin. This is enough to provide irremediable inconsistency in feminist attitudes of “not talking a name from a man” upon marriage.

I realize you don’t like speaking about it that way because you don’t want overly-feminist types to take that assertion and beat you over the head with it

Only when I have a soft day. I talked back to appellate judges before I made bar. Feminists are more scary than appellate judges, true, but I think I can handle it when I’ve had a solid breakfast.

I would just like to speak up for my part that while I may have come across that way I in no way intended to imply that the feelings of the man should be neglected.

Thank you. I believe it’s not for a man to whine about his feelings but on the other hand a woman should be sensitive to such things and at any rate not as “me first” as the modern society would want her to be in relation to a man. I will now move on to the next quote quickly before I start ranting on the modern society in more detail.

What happened was one poster made a comment that seemed as though he was completely unwilling to consider the feelings of his hypothetical future wife on this matter, so I responded in defense of the fact that it is, in fact, important to pay attention to and listen to the women’s feelings on this matter.

Yeah, it is. It’s also good when the woman realises it’s her feelings and not objective truth that the man shall not dare question. I believe in taking feelings into account, I just don’t believe in using the weight of feelings to validate whatever those feelings concern.

(and yes I realize you are not just talking about me, but it is quite possible that the others were motivated by the same reason into posting, and so, it is quite possible that while it came across as if people were denying the importance of the man’s feeling in this case, all they were doing was responding to someone who sounded as though they were denying the importance of a womans feelings on thiss matter. In other words, their silence on the matter of men’s feelings quite likely has nothing to do with a denial of the importance of said feelings and instead everything to do with the fact that that subjecct had nothing to do with the point they were trying to make. Just my :twocents:

It’s not just silence on the man’s feelings. Silence doesn’t really convey neglect, it only means one doesn’t want to address the subject right now. I’m talking about more pronounced attitudes, a general vibe than men ouught to suck it up and live with the lib. Whereof I tire mightily with each new year of my life.

 

[chevalier]

You are making this about something it may not be about. The woman may simply like her name,

Hyphens exist. I’m not talking about asking the woman to drop her name. I guess I need to make this point even clearer. By taking the husband’s name, I always mean either alone or with a hyphen. Hyphens actually feel more natural to me for some reason, I believe I’m more used to this pattern myself.

Or has used her name for business purposes, etc.

I believe the name Windsor was used for business purposes too. If Windsor can (and their real name is Wettin, anyway, because they are a cadet branch of the Dukes of Saxony), so can Smith or Jones.

The custom has no inherent moral legitimacy in the first place. It can be discarded with no immoral effect. Couples on an individual level do not need to justify their departures from it.

Couples don’t, if they both make a free decision, rather than a man caving in to a wife-to-be who has soaked in too much propaganda. On the other hand, you are wrong in refusing to address the motivations of people that may underlie their choices in this matter. Those motivations too are actually morally neutral on their own, also. But acting on them is not. Some people have good reasons but I can’t believe that everybody does. And I certainly don’t think high of the common sense of people who give every child a different surname and deliver a solid headache to civil registrars and census people.

And stop reducing the discussion to a narrow view of morality that comes down to if it hasn’t been infallibly prohibited then it is perfectly okay to do.

What that means is debatable. Furthermore, there is no reason that his spiritual headship means that he passes along the family name, which is a societal construct in the first place.

Except if he takes his wife’s name because she wants to make a statement of it, he’s effectively making her the head of that family, which I have an issue the size of the moon with. Note that the surname change, wherever the custom exists does seem to be connected with the man’s headship of the family.

I’m not saying the custom should be introduced where it doesn’t already exist. But to go against it by not applying it or especially by inverting it, sends a message. If a man takes his wife’s name because she thought it would be a great idea (and denote how they are different from everybody and theirs is a new kind of marriage etc.), it would basically be her wearing the proverbial breeches in their marriage, as officially expressed to the external world by that statement. Which I have an issue the size of the moon with, regardless whether the message is actually true. (If one claims he doesn’t have a certain attitude, one should not manifest that attitude.)

In 1903, Otto Weininger noted in his influential, if insane, Sex and Character that the fact that women acquiesced to changing their name and thus identity in marriage proved they had a character defect, making them irrational, chaotic, and protean.

Because men too are sometimes inconsistent.

And since this is my last post of the streak, I believe it’s a good time to bring it up again that I don’t care about surnames or that much about the customs we’re discussing here. The attitudes and their manifestations are (one looks silly claiming not to have really the attitude that one is manifesting externally).

 

[thewanderer]

Sorry but you give me too much credit from the perspective of your position. I merely recognise the important of not jumping to conclusions but rather presuming the best motivation in another as long as this is possible.

Yes, but through which you have shown that you would possibly consider the fact that a woman feels strongly about it, so long as it is not for some radical feminist reason, that it might be better for the husband to let her keep her name. I honestly wasn’t sure before whether or not you would consider this a possible reason.

And her name by becoming her own doesn’t stop being her dad’s name in origin. This is enough to provide irremediable inconsistency in feminist attitudes of “not talking a name from a man” upon marriage.

I have never claimed that it ceases to be her dad’s in origin, which is why I am glad to hear that you are willing to admit that it does become her own. (Of course while still being a name that comes from her dad). I think the difference in our approach of this subject is coming from the particular experiences we have had with women… I just really haven’t met very many women, if any, who would refuse to take their husbands name because it was the name of a man. Honestly, even though I’ve lived in multiple places I have yet to run into this attitude, which is why I don’t see it as that big/prevalient of a problem and am more willing to assume innocent motives on the part of a woman who is hesitant to take her husbands name. I have met women who are attatched to their name for various reasons, and, while I know you will say they should at least hyphenate

Only when I have a soft day. I talked back to appellate judges before I made bar. Feminists are more scary than appellate judges, true, but I think I can handle it when I’ve had a solid breakfast.

Thank you. I believe it’s not for a man to whine about his feelings but on the other hand a woman should be sensitive to such things and at any rate not as “me first” as the modern society would want her to be in relation to a man. I will now move on to the next quote quickly before I start ranting on the modern society in more detail.

Yeah, it is. It’s also good when the woman realises it’s her feelings and not objective truth that the man shall not dare question. I believe in taking feelings into account, I just don’t believe in using the weight of feelings to validate whatever those feelings concern.

It’s not just silence on the man’s feelings. Silence doesn’t really convey neglect, it only means one doesn’t want to address the subject right now. I’m talking about more pronounced attitudes, a general vibe than men ouught to suck it up and live with the lib. Whereof I tire mightily with each new year of my life.

I could be misunderstanding what people wrote, but I didn’t see anything that came across as dismissing men’s emotions. Oh well, its hard to know what was really intended unless the people who wrote it speak up again.

 

[lerapt78]

I once had a woman laugh at my surname. Wasn’t exactly romantic. As much as I don’t really feel beholden to it for genealogical reasons most of modern 60 year olds wouldn’t understand. Anyway. Due to my own lack of excessively caring, I did avoid the humiliation but it wasn’t exactly pleasant, nor did it do well to my opinion of her, not like she cared, at least initially. Anyway, men have feelings do. Incidentally, first thing a man thinks in such a situation is, “what’s wrong with my surname?” I know what exactly is wrong with mine (and it’s not just one thing nor exactly one surname either) but for most men this is different.

No fair. I realize you’re not going to divulge your name on a public forum, but now you’ve left us all hanging with a burning curiosity.

What would one do if his name were Coward?

He would probably have to overcompensate.

Thank you. I believe it’s not for a man to whine about his feelings but on the other hand a woman should be sensitive to such things and at any rate not as “me first” as the modern society would want her to be in relation to a man. I will now move on to the next quote quickly before I start ranting on the modern society in more detail.

You make a good point. Women often take the credit for being more intuitive, so it might mean it is our responsibility to stop and think before reacting to a man’s words and consider the unspoken emotional pleas that may be behind them. This enables us to understand his point of view better (and be able to respond in a gracious, feminine way), while allowing him to retain masculine pride.

 

[Baelor]

Hyphens exist. I’m not talking about asking the woman to drop her name. I guess I need to make this point even clearer. By taking the husband’s name, I always mean either alone or with a hyphen. Hyphens actually feel more natural to me for some reason, I believe I’m more used to this pattern myself.

I know. If the woman does not want to take her husband’s name either alone or hyphenated, then of course that possibility is irrelevant given that the option is not exercised.

…Those motivations too are actually morally neutral on their own, also. But acting on them is not. Some people have good reasons but I can’t believe that everybody does. And I certainly don’t think high of the common sense of people who give every child a different surname and deliver a solid headache to civil registrars and census people.

The default should not be that the woman must justify not taking her husband’s name. That is the meaning of legitimacy I was discussing.

And stop reducing the discussion to a narrow view of morality that comes down to if it hasn’t been infallibly prohibited then it is perfectly okay to do.

Please. That is hardly the claim that I am making. I have yet to see any reason, theological or otherwise, that nomenclature is in the realm of morality at an inherent level.

Except if he takes his wife’s name because she wants to make a statement of it, he’s effectively making her the head of that family, which I have an issue the size of the moon with.

How exactly does that argument progress logically?

Note that the surname change, wherever the custom exists does seem to be connected with the man’s headship of the family.

Not at an intrinsic level. It used to be connected with the male’s legal control over the woman. Not so according to Catholic understanding and current legal definition. Again, nomenclature is a societal construct.

If a man takes his wife’s name because she thought it would be a great idea (and denote how they are different from everybody and theirs is a new kind of marriage etc.), it would basically be her wearing the proverbial breeches in their marriage, as officially expressed to the external world by that statement.

False. It would be the couple deciding to adopt the woman’s name. Anything else must be demonstrated conclusively rather than asserted. The whims and unfounded beliefs of hoi polloi are of concern neither to me nor Catholic morality.

 

[chevalier]

Yes, but through which you have shown that you would possibly consider the fact that a woman feels strongly about it, so long as it is not for some radical feminist reason, that it might be better for the husband to let her keep her name. I honestly wasn’t sure before whether or not you would consider this a possible reason.

I have no issue with hyphenation to begin with (and obviously I have no issue with certain cultures or regions or even individual families where the custom or tradition is for a woman not to change), therefore I don’t have an issue with keeping the last name.

On the other hand, having strong feelings against adding the husband’s name with a hyphen, in a culture where this is normally done (and assuming the name is not funny or insulting to the holder or disgraced or whatever) would beg question about the motivation.

I have never claimed that it ceases to be her dad’s in origin, which is why I am glad to hear that you are willing to admit that it does become her own. (Of course while still being a name that comes from her dad).

The whole point is that whether birth surname or married surname, it originates from a man. In this there is no difference. There is a difference in being born with the former but not the latter, obviously, but not in the origin.

Also, a woman’s married surname is her own too.

I think the difference in our approach of this subject is coming from the particular experiences we have had with women… I just really haven’t met very many women, if any, who would refuse to take their husbands name because it was the name of a man.

Neither have I. I am just shelling away at a feminist argument.

Honestly, even though I’ve lived in multiple places I have yet to run into this attitude, which is why I don’t see it as that big/prevalient of a problem and am more willing to assume innocent motives on the part of a woman who is hesitant to take her husbands name. I have met women who are attatched to their name for various reasons, and, while I know you will say they should at least hyphenate

It seems you’ve lost some of your post. Also, would you care to share a couple of examples of reasons of not wanting to hyphenate the husband’s name in?

Obviously not considering women who come from cultures or families where the tradition is not to do it or where customs and traditions are mixed up/ambivalent. I’m mostly interested about the justification for breaking away from the tradition, if you can name some that you’re reasonably confident have nothing to do with feminist programming. Because I’d basically mostly fear subconscious feminist programming here that a woman were acting on but not realising it. But I do admit that in theory such reasons might exist and in practice a couple probably do exist. On the other hand, I’d be inclined to think that many have at least something to do with feminist programming and some might betray some kind of fear of commitment. As a man, I could understand fear of commitment, some kind of fear of losing her identity, something irrational etc., if I knew it didn’t involve feminist programming. But if it were anything involving feminist programming (and obviously the idea that women should vote and earn equally is not “feminist programming” in this sense, just to avoid any other poster misreading me here), I’d be scared cold, my world would be crumbling down and I’d have a massive headache. I might bail out depending on the seriousness of the problem, surname itself not being a problem, really, especially not mine.

I could be misunderstanding what people wrote, but I didn’t see anything that came across as dismissing men’s emotions.

Maybe I made it up in my imagination as a reaction to how I perceived the tone in some posts. (As in a woman’s right to do whatever she wants, husband should shut up and play along and never dare comment, except more polite and less direct language was used.)

Oh well, its hard to know what was really intended unless the people who wrote it speak up again.

Yeah.

 

[chevalier]

No fair. I realize you’re not going to divulge your name on a public forum, but now you’ve left us all hanging with a burning curiosity.

Suffice to say no heraldic authority would ever recognise me anyway.

He would probably have to overcompensate.

Which could actually bring some good value.

You make a good point. Women often take the credit for being more intuitive, so it might mean it is our responsibility to stop and think before reacting to a man’s words and consider the unspoken emotional pleas that may be behind them.

They may be just grinning and bearing it without saying anything. Kinda like we deal with tagged along for shoe shopping.

This enables us to understand his point of view better (and be able to respond in a gracious, feminine way), while allowing him to retain masculine pride.

At worst, good old “permission to talk freely” will work if nothing more socially agile can be arranged. But yeah, you do want to talk to a man a lot (obviously… but then not for everybody), and also about his feelings (it will take a while before he admits he has any) and opinions (just don’t let him fall in love with them ).

 

[chevalier]

I know. If the woman does not want to take her husband’s name either alone or hyphenated, then of course that possibility is irrelevant given that the option is not exercised.

Clearer please?

The default should not be that the woman must justify not taking her husband’s name. That is the meaning of legitimacy I was discussing.

And I’ve said several times that while the burden of proof is normally for a proponent and not the opponent of a thesis, when we have a tradition or some kind of accepted view, the onus inverts.

A woman can do whatever she wants without needing to justify anything. Which does not make it the right thing to do. I realise that it may be hard, coming from a culture which is heavy on individual rights, but you must sever the existence of a right from an automatically following judgement that it’s okay to do whatever that right entails, no matter the circumstances.

Please. That is hardly the claim that I am making. I have yet to see any reason, theological or otherwise, that nomenclature is in the realm of morality at an inherent level.

Please quit with the fallacies already. You don’t need a theological reason there and you don’t need an inherent level. Don’t try to twist my arguments into the land of “inherent” and kill them there. I’ve already said numerous times that surnames are not inherently moral.

Except “not inherently moral or not” does not mean “any motivation goes”. Therefore “not inherently moral or not” does not translate into “everyone can make whatever decision he wants without any ethical problems being associated with it”.

How exactly does that argument progress logically?

How about some logical, clear language?

Not at an intrinsic level.** It used to be connected with the male’s legal control over the woman.**

Come on…

Not so according to Catholic understanding and current legal definition. Again, nomenclature is a societal construct.

What Catholic understanding of what? What current definition of what thing? More clarity please.

False. It would be the couple deciding to adopt the woman’s name.

You are just operating from the false premise that the existence of a right prevents any questioning of the motives to it. You basically seem to believe that as long as some right can be said to exist, then everybody else should shut up and defer to whatever decision the holder of the right makes.

Anything else must be demonstrated conclusively rather than asserted.

Going against established traditions and customs already provides enough of a ground to worry about the motivations behind such a decision. And, just for the record, I would be dead against accepting the validity of a decision to make a statement that, “she wears the breeches in our marriage.” Because I’m a chauvinist like that.

The whims and unfounded beliefs of hoi polloi are of concern neither to me nor Catholic morality.

And “Catholic morality” is your magical stick to reduce everything to theology or be done with it?

And the poetry or the Greek doesn’t make your arguing position smarter.

 

[thewanderer]

I have no issue with hyphenation to begin with (and obviously I have no issue with certain cultures or regions or even individual families where the custom or tradition is for a woman not to change), therefore I don’t have an issue with keeping the last name.

On the other hand, having strong feelings against adding the husband’s name with a hyphen, in a culture where this is normally done (and assuming the name is not funny or insulting to the holder or disgraced or whatever) would beg question about the motivation.

Interesting. I mean, I see your point that it might indicate some other influence behind it, but that is hardly the only reason why. Take, for instance, myself. Now I am by no means some radical feminist. I plan on taking my husbands name when I get married, I do not balk at the language of ‘head’ and ‘heart’ in a marriage etc. Yet I absolutely hate the idea of hyphonating my name. I would be totally fine with both of us taking my name, or evven inventing some new name for both of us to use, but for whatever reason I absolutely cannot stand the idea of having my name hyphenated like that. This has absolutely nothing to do with radical feminism or anything of the sort. It is simply the way it is. Now, seeing as I see this with myself, I am more than willing to admit that this is quite likely the case with other women who show a dislike for the idea of having their name hyphenated, or taking their husbands name if its a particularly weird name etc. Now I wouldn’t be one sided about anything, if for some reason my husband really really wanted to hyphenate I would consider it, but honestly, often times the reason why a woman doesn’t want to take their husbands name has nothing whatsoever to do with radical feminism.

The whole point is that whether birth surname or married surname, it originates from a man. In this there is no difference. There is a difference in being born with the former but not the latter, obviously, but not in the origin.

Also, a woman’s married surname is her own too.

I really dont understand why you keep focusing on that. No one has disagreed with you about this. You are repeating an argument against a certain kind of feminist reaction which noone here has shown support for, (As far as I can tell at least) and which is obviously a ridiculous argument in the first place. To be honest, I have heard that argument much less than the argument that the name is the womans own name, so she shouldn’t be forced to give it up just because of her gender.

To be perfectly honest, I think we’re just going around in circles. We seem to ultimately agree but are just putting a different emphasis on things because of the way we have each perceived the arguments in this thread so far, so I really think dragging this conversation out is rather pointless and we will probably be better off leaving it as is.

Neither have I. I am just shelling away at a feminist argument.

It seems you’ve lost some of your post. Also, would you care to share a couple of examples of reasons of not wanting to hyphenate the husband’s name in?

Obviously not considering women who come from cultures or families where the tradition is not to do it or where customs and traditions are mixed up/ambivalent. I’m mostly interested about the justification for breaking away from the tradition, if you can name some that you’re reasonably confident have nothing to do with feminist programming. Because I’d basically mostly fear subconscious feminist programming here that a woman were acting on but not realising it. But I do admit that in theory such reasons might exist and in practice a couple probably do exist. On the other hand, I’d be inclined to think that many have at least something to do with feminist programming and some might betray some kind of fear of commitment. As a man, I could understand fear of commitment, some kind of fear of losing her identity, something irrational etc., if I knew it didn’t involve feminist programming. But if it were anything involving feminist programming (and obviously the idea that women should vote and earn equally is not “feminist programming” in this sense, just to avoid any other poster misreading me here), I’d be scared cold, my world would be crumbling down and I’d have a massive headache. I might bail out depending on the seriousness of the problem, surname itself not being a problem, really, especially not mine.

Maybe I made it up in my imagination as a reaction to how I perceived the tone in some posts. (As in a woman’s right to do whatever she wants, husband should shut up and play along and never dare comment, except more polite and less direct language was used.)

Yeah.

 

[chevalier]

Interesting. I mean, I see your point that it might indicate some other influence behind it, but that is hardly the only reason why. Take, for instance, myself. Now I am by no means some radical feminist. I plan on taking my husbands name when I get married, I do not balk at the language of ‘head’ and ‘heart’ in a marriage etc. Yet I absolutely hate the idea of hyphonating my name. I would be totally fine with both of us taking my name, or evven inventing some new name for both of us to use, but for whatever reason I absolutely cannot stand the idea of having my name hyphenated like that. This has absolutely nothing to do with radical feminism or anything of the sort. It is simply the way it is.

Hmm… anything to do with conservative people not liking hyphenated names on women upon marriage and reacting with prejudice to a hyphenated name? Just guessing.

Now, seeing as I see this with myself, I am more than willing to admit that this is quite likely the case with other women who show a dislike for the idea of having their name hyphenated, or taking their husbands name if its a particularly weird name etc.

Long names are impractical, I guess if it came to this actually, I could see the point. If it didn’t sound hesitant or unconvinced, I guess I could be convinced by it in a hypothetical scenario with a woman who shared your outlook on hyphenated surnames.

Now I wouldn’t be one sided about anything, if for some reason my husband really really wanted to hyphenate I would consider it, but honestly, often times the reason why a woman doesn’t want to take their husbands name has nothing whatsoever to do with radical feminism.

I just can’t get over the idea it would in most cases at least subconsciously involve either a trace of hostility to men or marriage or some kind of fear of commitment. All of which I could understand (and for personal reasons too, not just in the abstract) but all of which complicate life a lot and some of which could be difficult to form or especially maintain a relationship in the face of.

I really dont understand why you keep focusing on that. No one has disagreed with you about this. You are repeating an argument against a certain kind of feminist reaction which noone here has shown support for,

Honestly, it’s enough that people shrug that reaction away or try to act like whatever reason underlies that decision it is still good (just because there is a right to make such a decision). That alone sufficiently shows influence of feminist programming in my book (sovereign decision by a woman, which should not in any way be questioned or challenged, in a matter involving both partners… I’ve heard that somewhere).

To be honest, I have heard that argument much less than the argument that the name is the womans own name, so she shouldn’t be forced to give it up just because of her gender.

We’ve discussed that one and you know my opinion. I can see some minimal merit in that argument but ultimately I believe it’s inconsistent and potentially problematic. For the record, I can understand the transition from dad to husband being difficult but it can get scary if the particular woman in question is in denial about it. As far as I am aware, women are not particularly thrilled about mum > wife (mum’s opinion > wife’s opinion) type of situations either (to say the least). Only mum can get his scrambled eggs for breakfast or his shirt ironed right, only her dad is good enough to give her his surname. As silly as this sounds.

To be perfectly honest, I think we’re just going around in circles.

I guess so.

We seem to ultimately agree but are just putting a different emphasis on things because of the way we have each perceived the arguments in this thread so far, so I really think dragging this conversation out is rather pointless and we will probably be better off leaving it as is.

That might be the case.

On the other hand, if you could name a couple of non-scary reasons why a woman would insist on not taking her husband’s name (as in neither change nor hyphenate) in a culture where this is the norm, I’d be happy to listen. I mean, abstract reasons, as in, regardless what the husband’s specific name is. And excepting easy cases like last-of-kin or specific family/community tradition.

 

[thewanderer]

Hmm… anything to do with conservative people not liking hyphenated names on women upon marriage and reacting with prejudice to a hyphenated name? Just guessing.

no, really not. I have absolutely no problem with others hyphenating their names, or even taking on the womans name (even if it is not because they belong to some culture that does this). Like I said, I would have no problem with him taking my name or with us both coming up with a completely new name. I just don’t want a hyphenated last name. It has nothing to do with either a fear or a lack of comitment, or some secret hidden radical feminist rejection of that which is male. It is just simply that I dislike the idea of such a ridiculous long convoluted last name as would necessarily result from a hyphenated last name, as well as the fact that there is just something about the hyphen itself that bothers me. I’m not entirely sure what, but I do know that it has nothing to do with your suggested reasons for such a scenario.

Long names are impractical, I guess if it came to this actually, I could see the point. If it didn’t sound hesitant or unconvinced, I guess I could be convinced by it in a hypothetical scenario with a woman who shared your outlook on hyphenated surnames.

I just can’t get over the idea it would in most cases at least subconsciously involve either a trace of hostility to men or marriage or some kind of fear of commitment. All of which I could understand (and for personal reasons too, not just in the abstract) but all of which complicate life a lot and some of which could be difficult to form or especially maintain a relationship in the face of.

Honestly, it’s enough that people shrug that reaction away or try to act like whatever reason underlies that decision it is still good (just because there is a right to make such a decision). That alone sufficiently shows influence of feminist programming in my book (sovereign decision by a woman, which should not in any way be questioned or challenged, in a matter involving both partners… I’ve heard that somewhere).

We’ve discussed that one and you know my opinion. I can see some minimal merit in that argument but ultimately I believe it’s inconsistent and potentially problematic. For the record, I can understand the transition from dad to husband being difficult but it can get scary if the particular woman in question is in denial about it. As far as I am aware, women are not particularly thrilled about mum > wife (mum’s opinion > wife’s opinion) type of situations either (to say the least). Only mum can get his scrambled eggs for breakfast or his shirt ironed right, only her dad is good enough to give her his surname. As silly as this sounds.

I guess so.

That might be the case.

On the other hand, if you could name a couple of non-scary reasons why a woman would insist on not taking her husband’s name (as in neither change nor hyphenate) in a culture where this is the norm, I’d be happy to listen. I mean, abstract reasons, as in, regardless what the husband’s specific name is. And excepting easy cases like last-of-kin or specific family/community tradition.

I’m not sure that I can explain it beyond a personal dislike. Yes, I realize these are often rooted in something, but it really is not necessarily rooted in what you seem to assume it will be. All I know is, as I have already explained, I really dislike the idea of having a hyphenated last name and it is not at all because of any of the reasons you assume.

 

[coopnann]

I’ve really only read page 1 of replies, so,

I have been married for 16 years. I remember when we were preparing to be married I was trying to figure out if I would take his last name, hyphenate, etc. I ended up just taking his last name, because I was thinking of tax forms and other documents and didn’t know if it would be a problem down the road. Probably not, but it was a thought at the time. I am glad I didn’t keep both names–for me as it is with my married name only 8 letters long, when I was working I had to write it everyday and I got to just writing e thfirst 4 letters and then putting a period after that to abbreviate it. I never would have written all the other letters and the hyphenated name too!

The last name change didn’t bother me so much but I did request our priest say, when he would introduce us at the end of the ceremony say “my first name” and “husband’s first name” “last name” INSTEAD of “I now introduce Mr. and Mrs. David (last name)”.
Maybe I wasn’t having my last name said anymore but I certainly wasn’t losing my first name too! My name is not Mrs. David. I don’t know why that is an acceptable thing, as sometimes I still see and my name has been written that way on other invitations in the mail or sometimes an address. That still bugs me.

I do believe that when I got my driver’s license renewed and I had to get a new SS card because of the additional last name, I think I did keep both last names on there.

After 16 years, I really haven’t thought much anymore on not using my original last name, as I think of our last name as shared, and not just his.
Just don’t call me Mrs. David ______!

 

[Baelor]

Chevalier, a preface is in order. I am having trouble grasping why you think the following is my position:

You are just operating from the false premise that the existence of a right prevents any questioning of the motives to it. You basically seem to believe that as long as some right can be said to exist, then everybody else should shut up and defer to whatever decision the holder of the right makes.

Please show me where I have stated this.

I can save you some time: you are not able to, because that is not at all what I believe. Taking your statement and changing it appropriately, I believe that although some right can be said to exist, then everybody is still under the obligation to act with appropriate motives and in an appropriate manner.

Thus, for the sake of your own understanding, read this and the rest of my posts with the knowledge that I do care about motive.

Clearer please?

If the woman does not want a hyphenated name, your addendum is irrelevant.

And I’ve said several times that while the burden of proof is normally for a proponent and not the opponent of a thesis, when we have a tradition or some kind of accepted view, the onus inverts.

There is no onus because the tradition does not need to be respected on any moral level whatsoever, nor is there inherent “goodness” or “badness” to this tradition versus others.

A woman can do whatever she wants without needing to justify anything. Which does not make it the right thing to do. I realise that it may be hard, coming from a culture which is heavy on individual rights, but you must sever the existence of a right from an automatically following judgement that it’s okay to do whatever that right entails, no matter the circumstances.

I have not said this. Please do not accuse me of erecting straw men and then build some yourself.

You don’t need a theological reason there and you don’t need an inherent level. Don’t try to twist my arguments into the land of “inherent” and kill them there. I’ve already said numerous times that surnames are not inherently moral.

In which case the statement is relevant because you have not actually provided any reason that this tradition in particular needs to be “respected.”

Except “not inherently moral or not” does not mean “any motivation goes”.

I have not claimed this, so I do not know why you keep bringing this up.

Therefore “not inherently moral or not” does not translate into “everyone can make whatever decision he wants without any ethical problems being associated with it”.

I have not claimed this, so I do not know why you keep bringing this up.

How about some logical, clear language?

Exactly that. You stated that the man taking the woman’s name makes her the head of the family. That is not obvious at all, so I asked you what the logical progression of the argument was.

What Catholic understanding of what? What current definition of what thing? More clarity please.

I was perfectly clear. Catholic understanding of nomenclature does not connect the family name with male headship, i.e., exactly what I said.

Going against established traditions and customs already provides enough of a ground to worry about the motivations behind such a decision.

Explain.

And “Catholic morality” is your magical stick to reduce everything to theology or be done with it?

Since you have not actually presented any alternative consideration of the issue, yes.

 

[chevalier]

no, really not. I have absolutely no problem with others hyphenating their names, or even taking on the womans name (even if it is not because they belong to some culture that does this). Like I said, I would have no problem with him taking my name or with us both coming up with a completely new name. I just don’t want a hyphenated last name. It has nothing to do with either a fear or a lack of comitment, or some secret hidden radical feminist rejection of that which is male. It is just simply that I dislike the idea of such a ridiculous long convoluted last name as would necessarily result from a hyphenated last name, as well as the fact that there is just something about the hyphen itself that bothers me. I’m not entirely sure what, but I do know that it has nothing to do with your suggested reasons for such a scenario.

Sorry, perhaps I should’ve been clearer. I thought that perhaps other people’s dislike of hyphenated surnames could have been the reason why you preferred to avoid one, since you mentioned you weren’t fully clear on why you disliked the idea.

I’m not sure that I can explain it beyond a personal dislike. Yes, I realize these are often rooted in something, but it really is not necessarily rooted in what you seem to assume it will be. All I know is, as I have already explained, I really dislike the idea of having a hyphenated last name and it is not at all because of any of the reasons you assume.

Again, wasn’t referring to you or your reasons, I believe I mentioned that early in the post, since you said you would change but would not hyphenate, which was an entirely different cup of tea! I associated all the scary potential subconscious motives or issues with an aversion of in any way taking the name (so no changing and no hyphenating either) in a culture or society where this is the norm (or used to be and is changing right now).

 

[thewanderer]

Sorry, perhaps I should’ve been clearer. I thought that perhaps other people’s dislike of hyphenated surnames could have been the reason why you preferred to avoid one, since you mentioned you weren’t fully clear on why you disliked the idea.
Again, wasn’t referring to you or your reasons, I believe I mentioned that early in the post, since you said you would change but would not hyphenate, which was an entirely different cup of tea! I associated all the scary potential subconscious motives or issues with an aversion of in any way taking the name (so no changing and no hyphenating either) in a culture or society where this is the norm (or used to be and is changing right now).

Maybe, I don’t know, I guess I just don’t think its that because they would have just as much of an aversion to anyone hyphenating their names, as well as the idea of a couple taking the womans name or making up their own new last name, none of which I have any problem with. Whatever the reason it is not something that would at all be detrimental to a comitted relationship. I think thats why I was trying to emphasize the importance of a womans feelings with respect to name changes (not that I am ignoring the mans feelings on the matter), I recognize that there really can be legitimate reasons for not wanting a particular name that would not at all be detrimental to a comitted relationship. I can see this applying to any particular name arrangement really, especially if a woman happens to really like the combination of her first and last names and has known many women who continued to use their maiden name after marriage. I guess I just really don’t see it always being motivated by some radical feminist tendencies that will tear apart a relationship.

 

[chevalier]

I can save you some time: you are not able to, because that is not at all what I believe.

I can’t show you cold hard proof that trumps everything but it’s a vibe I get from the general attitude.

Taking your statement and changing it appropriately, I believe that although some right can be said to exist, then everybody is still under the obligation to act with appropriate motives and in an appropriate manner.

Well, sure, but if you believe that it’s up to everybody to think about his motives and others should take the decision at face value? My contention here is that face value is not enough if we’re talking in the abstract (we aren’t “accusing” any specific person of having the wrong motives), then we may devote some time to considering the good or bad motivations. Surnames don’t even need to exist and there’s nothing inherently moral about them. On the other hand, there are psychological and sometimes moral implications to radical feminist attitudes and statements. Mostly focusing on the psychological ones, generally some kind of programming or rubbing off (i.e. cultural influence), resulting in semi-inexplicable subjective aversions.

Thus, for the sake of your own understanding, read this and the rest of my posts with the knowledge that I do care about motive.

As long as you don’t immunise that motive from discussion, we’ll be fine, although I’m troubled by the extent to which you’re ready to take things at face value.

If the woman does not want a hyphenated name, your addendum is irrelevant.

Again, clearer please. I can’t see how your current explanation links to the statement you were explaining, or any other link for that matter. Suppose a woman doesn’t want to take a man’s name because no. Then she doesn’t want to add it with a hyphen to hers because she doesn’t want to hyphenate (if this is what your example is about). Then the end effect is a wall of no. In itself a troubling sign. Obviously not a fullproof inference but we’re talking life here, not mathematics.

There is no onus because the tradition does not need to be respected on any moral level whatsoever, nor is there inherent “goodness” or “badness” to this tradition versus others.

You’re stuck on whatever you want to achieve by introducing the “inherent” part and focusing on it, and you refuse to listen to the argument that going against a tradition sends a different message than if you start from a clean slate.

Incidentally, that type of statement of yours is why I believe you’re essentially arguing from the position that as long as you have a legal right, you can basically do anything you want and others need to shut up about it.

I have not said this. Please do not accuse me of erecting straw men and then build some yourself.

Oh please.

In which case the statement is relevant because you have not actually provided any reason that this tradition in particular needs to be “respected.”

You get things backwards. Traditions don’t need to prove they need to be respected. People going against tradition need to be able to explain why they do so.

I have not claimed this, so I do not know why you keep bringing this up.

Basically a rephrasing of the above.

I have not claimed this, so I do not know why you keep bringing this up.

+1. Because you agree on a substantive issue but then try to kill it off on procedural grounds, which then shows that your stance has a tendency to come down to, “she has the right, you leave her alone.”

Exactly that. You stated that the man taking the woman’s name makes her the head of the family.

Yes, except not necessarily in reality but generally in external appearance. Minus some specific reasons (continuing a family of which the woman is last, changing a man’s humiliating name, changing the name of the family to something sounding more local etc.), i.e. between plain Smiths and Joneses, the obvious implication is that Mr Smith and Ms Jones are questioning traditional family roles and making a statement. Whereas you want to take it at face value and pretending that no such impression exists and refuse to admit anything that you don’t judge to be mathematical proof, I am not ready to do so and while they obviously don’t owe me any sort of explanation in practical life (i.e. a Smith and a Jones whom I’d know in real life), in the abstract I can say that such a situation looks troubling. And that given the state and shape of our modern culture, it would not be unreasonable to expect a feminist statement or attitude to be involved at the root of such a decision. Unlike you, I don’t need tangible, mathematical proof for this observation.

That is not obvious at all, so I asked you what the logical progression of the argument was.

Which does not make it any clearer on your part.

I was perfectly clear. Catholic understanding of nomenclature does not connect the family name with male headship, i.e., exactly what I said.

You just repeat it over and over and will continue to do so, won’t you? Just because you don’t have it spelled out in an infallible papal document doesn’t mean it does not exist.

You can have family headship of a man who took his wife name (although in the hypothetical case of a Jones taking the name of a Miss Smith who had plenty of non-infertile brothers, I wouldn’t be buying the rationale) but it’s obvious to everybody (except a person who wants to dodge obvious facts of life on the grounds that there is no mathematical degree of proof) that the passing down of names in the male line is connected with male headship of families. If you refuse to see this, you live in a fantasy.

Explain.

There is nothing to explain and my language was clear.

If there is no established custom, no established routine, no established solution, then somebody proposing a certain solution has the burden of proving it’s good, necessary etc.

On the other hand, going against an established custom, solution etc., sends a message. The problem is what message it sends. According to you, the only message sent by a man taking a woman’s surname is that he took her surname and there’s no issue of motivation here (for anyone to even theorise about), while in reality sheer life experience suggests a certain issue. There is for starters certain a reason why somebody cares enough to go against established tradition. Just because that person doesn’t see the necessity of that tradition, he or she will not follow it? Perhaps a couple of people out of a large number. Some people think this way, indeed, but I doubt this type of skepticism is a popular mode of thinking in normal, average populace.

On the other hand, in our modern culture, questioning traditional institutions, from marriage to gender roles, is prevalent and is fed to us through the media. Female empowerment is an issue. Commitment phobia is omnipresent in both sexes equally. Refusing to accept a custom associated with traditional views of family tends to have the impression of questioning traditional views of family (if it walks like a duck… is a fine argument in life, even if it isn’t mathematical proof that would satisfy your standards).

Since you have not actually presented any alternative consideration of the issue, yes.

How about you present some clear, meaningful connections instead of trying to use big words? It sounds high and lofty and all but it doesn’t convey a point.

 

[chevalier]

Maybe, I don’t know, I guess I just don’t think its that because they would have just as much of an aversion to anyone hyphenating their names, as well as the idea of a couple taking the womans name or making up their own new last name, none of which I have any problem with.

I see. I was just guessing, you know. Trying to enhance perspective. For some reason I thought of conservatives who didn’t like to see a hyphenated name on a woman.

I think thats why I was trying to emphasize the importance of a womans feelings with respect to name changes (not that I am ignoring the mans feelings on the matter), I recognize that there really can be legitimate reasons for not wanting a particular name that would not at all be detrimental to a comitted relationship.

Yes, those feelings are important and there can be good reasons. But I just think that good reasons would be so rare, probably a small minority, that they shouldn’t be looked at as representative of all such decisions. I think that where we are with our culture, a feminist or commitment-phobic or silly motivation would be more likely than a legitimate reason. And by legitimate I don’t even mean particularly good. Just some reason that doesn’t involve an aversion to vestiges of patriarchy or an aversion to external signs of commitment.

If it would help to leave women alone for a moment, there used to be some friction about men wearing wedding rings. Initially, in some parts of the world only the woman did and men didn’t particularly like the idea. Nowadays, however, it is generally an accepted custom except in some enclaves. So what if a man decided that he didn’t want a wedding ring? Obviously, there could be some legitimate reasons and some relatively silly but still harmless reasons that could be tolerated. But it wouldn’t be unnatural for a woman to wonder if that man isn’t really reserving some part of singlehood, isn’t averse to being visually identified as married for some reason.

Similarly, if we took a woman from a culture where change is the norm and a man who for some reason specifically wanted his wife not to take his name (basically didn’t want to give it to her), she would have a right to be concerned and it would be natural if she started thinking along the patterns of, “I’m not good enough for him to give me his surname?”

I can see this applying to any particular name arrangement really,

Particular arrangements are a tricky thing because some names appear funny or humiliating to some people and to some they don’t. Obviously, not wanting to bear a name that one would feel humiliated by is a legitimate reason, it’s not a stubborn “no because no” that begs question of underlying, psychologically rooted aversions.

especially if a woman happens to really like the combination of her first and last names and has known many women who continued to use their maiden name after marriage.

I suppose. But then I guess a man could say he feels better without a ring. Well, anybody could say that. We could feel better without one of the visual, external signs of this or that institution (not only marriage) but the problem then is, are we really just a little casual with social tradition or are we perhaps casual with the institution itself? If we reject external signs of it: do we only reject some particular signs only (and because we think they aren’t strictly necessary), or are we already in the business of remodelling or undermining the institution (with or without realising it)?

I guess I just really don’t see it always being motivated by some radical feminist tendencies that will tear apart a relationship.

Definitely not always. Just often enough and likely enough to give rise to legitimate worries whenever the issue appears. This is all I’m saying.

 

[Baelor]

Chevalier, clearly you did not read my post carefully enough.

Let us settle the most pressing issue first.

+1. Because you agree on a substantive issue but then try to kill it off on procedural grounds, which then shows that your stance has a tendency to come down to, “she has the right, you leave her alone.”

Either quote one of my posts where I say this explicitly, or quote one of my posts and then show the logical progression that leads without possible deviation to the conclusion that I believe that.

If you are unable to do either of those things, then stop saying that I believe something that I have repeatedly and explicitly stated I do not believe.

I can’t show you cold hard proof that trumps everything but it’s a vibe I get from the general attitude.

Your vibe is wrong. Operate off what I say, not what you think I believe.

Well, sure, but if you believe that it’s up to everybody to think about his motives and others should take the decision at face value?

If you are asking whether I believe we should believe people when there is reason to believe they are being disingenuous, the answer is no. If you are asking whether we should always assume that there is an ulterior motive, the answer is no.

My contention here is that face value is not enough if we’re talking in the abstract (we aren’t “accusing” any specific person of having the wrong motives), then we may devote some time to considering the good or bad motivations.

I do not disagree with this.

Surnames don’t even need to exist and there’s nothing inherently moral about them. On the other hand, there are psychological and sometimes moral implications to radical feminist attitudes and statements.

With which I am totally unconcerned. I agree there are bad motives; I am not interested in those cases because I consider their nature and the proper actions to be taken in those cases to be obvious.

Suppose a woman doesn’t want to take a man’s name because no. Then she doesn’t want to add it with a hyphen to hers because she doesn’t want to hyphenate (if this is what your example is about). Then the end effect is a wall of no. In itself a troubling sign. Obviously not a fullproof inference but we’re talking life here, not mathematics.

The problem, then, is that she is not communicating with her fiance. That just happens to be in the realm of the name issue. If you gave this to me without context, I would not consider an issue of nomenclature, but rather her refusal to discuss things with her husband-to-me.

You’re stuck on whatever you want to achieve by introducing the “inherent” part and focusing on it, and you refuse to listen to the argument that going against a tradition sends a different message than if you start from a clean slate.

I am not. You simply have not justified a departure from the position that because the tradition has no inherent value, there is some obligation to maintain it. I see no reason to operate on a different basis. It is not a matter of “listening to the argument.” I understand your position completely. It simply remains unjustified.

Others may take whatever messages they want. I am not able to control what others think, and they are welcome to think incorrect things however much they would like. That has not, and will not, influence my decisions, or the decisions I recommend to others. Nor does this conflict with Catholic teaching, the morality in which is my concern.

Incidentally, that type of statement of yours is why I believe you’re essentially arguing from the position that as long as you have a legal right, you can basically do anything you want and others need to shut up about it.

Which is not at all what I feel. So please stop saying it is. Nothing I have said could possibly lead to that conclusion directly, which makes sense because I do not believe that that statement is correct.

You get things backwards. Traditions don’t need to prove they need to be respected. People going against tradition need to be able to explain why they do so.

No. Because the tradition has no inherent value. Its existence does not need to be revered simply because it is present.

Yes, except not necessarily in reality but generally in external appearance. Minus some specific reasons (continuing a family of which the woman is last, changing a man’s humiliating name, changing the name of the family to something sounding more local etc.), i.e. between plain Smiths and Joneses, the obvious implication is that Mr Smith and Ms Jones are questioning traditional family roles and making a statement.

Or, Mr. Smith and Mrs. Jones have different last names and were not thinking about “questioning traditional family roles” at all. Until you can demonstrate that in every case that thought is entering the minds of the couple, the “obvious implication” is irrelevant because it is not our business to guess the motives of others.

Whereas you want to take it at face value and pretending that no such impression exists and refuse to admit anything that you don’t judge to be mathematical proof,

The question of whether the impression exists is irrelevant. I may wear clothing that gives off the impression that I am Catholic, or atheist, or pagan, or Buddhist. My house may lead someone to believe that I sacrifice animals in my backyard. My demeanor may suggest to someone that I am gay, or a necrophiliac, or straight, even. These are not factors in my calculations because they are simply not relevant – other people’s interpretations are out of my control, although I may try to influence them. I would rather influence them directly through what I state explicitly than attempt to guess what mental triggers set them off in a particular direction of belief.

If a couple would like to live their life around ensuring that appearances conform to expectations, that is their prerogative. It is, however, not a moral compunction.

in the abstract I can say that such a situation looks troubling. And that given the state and shape of our modern culture, it would not be unreasonable to expect a feminist statement or attitude to be involved at the root of such a decision. Unlike you, I don’t need tangible, mathematical proof for this observation.

You are more than welcome to that belief. But others are not required to conform to standards that you feel express particular positions without being inherent expressions of them.

You just repeat it over and over and will continue to do so, won’t you? Just because you don’t have it spelled out in an infallible papal document doesn’t mean it does not exist.

And yet, it does not. Otherwise you would have already demonstrated that male headship of the family as understood by the Church mandates at an inherent level the assumption of the husband’s name by the wife.

it’s obvious to everybody (except a person who wants to dodge obvious facts of life on the grounds that there is no mathematical degree of proof) that the passing down of names in the male line is connected with male headship of families. If you refuse to see this, you live in a fantasy.

First of all, I would love to see the data. Is that what our current society thinks of when they considered marital nomenclature? Please, indulge me with the evidence.

Second, it is not inherently linked to the Catholic concept of headship of families, and is therefore not a moral imperative.

According to you, the only message sent by a man taking a woman’s surname is that he took her surname and there’s no issue of motivation here (for anyone to even theorise about)

There may not be an issue of motivation. You are not qualified to comment on the motives of every other of the seven billion human beings on this planet.

Just because that person doesn’t see the necessity of that tradition, he or she will not follow it?

That is certainly a possibility.

The mental path is rather straightforward: “I kind of want to do X. Most people do T, but since I do not care that much about T, let us go ahead and do X.”

Boom. Tradition broken. No message sent other than the fact that they did not do T. It follows that they did not think that T was necessarily worth doing.

Refusing to accept a custom associated with traditional views of family tends to have the impression of questioning traditional views of family (if it walks like a duck… is a fine argument in life, even if it isn’t mathematical proof that would satisfy your standards).

And yet, their motives may not be iconoclastic.

 

[thewanderer]

I see. I was just guessing, you know. Trying to enhance perspective. For some reason I thought of conservatives who didn’t like to see a hyphenated name on a woman.

Yes, those feelings are important and there can be good reasons. But I just think that good reasons would be so rare, probably a small minority, that they shouldn’t be looked at as representative of all such decisions. I think that where we are with our culture, a feminist or commitment-phobic or silly motivation would be more likely than a legitimate reason. And by legitimate I don’t even mean particularly good. Just some reason that doesn’t involve an aversion to vestiges of patriarchy or an aversion to external signs of commitment.

If it would help to leave women alone for a moment, there used to be some friction about men wearing wedding rings. Initially, in some parts of the world only the woman did and men didn’t particularly like the idea. Nowadays, however, it is generally an accepted custom except in some enclaves. So what if a man decided that he didn’t want a wedding ring? Obviously, there could be some legitimate reasons and some relatively silly but still harmless reasons that could be tolerated. But it wouldn’t be unnatural for a woman to wonder if that man isn’t really reserving some part of singlehood, isn’t averse to being visually identified as married for some reason.

Similarly, if we took a woman from a culture where change is the norm and a man who for some reason specifically wanted his wife not to take his name (basically didn’t want to give it to her), she would have a right to be concerned and it would be natural if she started thinking along the patterns of, “I’m not good enough for him to give me his surname?”

Particular arrangements are a tricky thing because some names appear funny or humiliating to some people and to some they don’t. Obviously, not wanting to bear a name that one would feel humiliated by is a legitimate reason, it’s not a stubborn “no because no” that begs question of underlying, psychologically rooted aversions.

I suppose. But then I guess a man could say he feels better without a ring. Well, anybody could say that. We could feel better without one of the visual, external signs of this or that institution (not only marriage) but the problem then is, are we really just a little casual with social tradition or are we perhaps casual with the institution itself? If we reject external signs of it: do we only reject some particular signs only (and because we think they aren’t strictly necessary), or are we already in the business of remodelling or undermining the institution (with or without realising it)?

Definitely not always. Just often enough and likely enough to give rise to legitimate worries whenever the issue appears. This is all I’m saying.

So again it basically comes down to our own impressions of how often such a thing arises from bad motives. You are convinced it happens a lot more frequently than I am and so think it is a lot bigger problem and put more of an emphasis on it.

Although I would like to add that by the time you are engaged you have already made a certain level of commitment to your fiance, so I honestly think that they would have to show clear signs of not being truly comitted to you for you to legitimately break up with them over a supposed lack of commitment, not just desire something which could be a sign that they still have some negative connotations to commitment. Some people are never going to be able to fully get ovver their fears about commitment because of the family situation in which they were raised. This doesn’t mean that they don’t deserve to be married, it just means that their spouse needs to be extra supportive of them in this area recognizing that it can be one of greater difficulty for them. It also doesn’t mean that they won’t fully commit themselves, it just means that they were scarred as children. Gosh… I’m kind of rambling at this point… I think what I’m trying to say here is that even in those cases where a desire to not take the husbands name comes from some residual fear of commitment it is not necessarily something for a couple to break up over. It doesn’t necessarily mean a couple will have insurmountable difficulties. If your dating someone who you know has come from a broken family then you really should know that this is an area that you need to be extra sensitive with them about. It is not something to break up with them about unless, through careful discernment and prayer you come to the realization that they are truly not capable of commiting themselves to you in the long run. If my future husband had your attitude of breaking up with someone the instant they show any signs of a fear of commitment he would not be my future husband. Instead he was patient, gentle, kind, and understanding with me, realizing that I come from a broken family, we talked about it, realized that even though I still had a fear of commitment, ultimately I knew that because of who he is I would be able to eventually get to a place where I could fully commit without fear or reservation, and I have since gotten there. If you are engaged to someone they deserve more compassion and kindness than such an ultimatum as you have come off suggesting is appropriate.