Last Name Changes on Marriage

[BlueEyedLady]

I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would assume that a woman is avoiding outward appearances of commitment if she doesn’t want to change her name. Married couples wear rings, live together, go everywhere together, raise kids together, etc. If you can look at that and then say that a woman is trying to avoid appearing committed then your priorities are screwed up. Being a married couple and a family is far more telling and important than a last name is.

I offered to have my FH’s father move in with us when his health and finances were in trouble, when FH got in to a car accident I put my world on hold for two months to take care of him every day, I have bent over backwards to help one of his siblings who repeatedly hurts and takes advantage of me, twice now I have driven cross- country on a day’s notice to help him out, I have long treated any money I make as ours. But I will not take his last name. I wouldn’t even if he wanted me to. And if after everything he had the gall to tell me that he felt like I wasn’t committed to him and our marriage it would tell me a lot about who he is and how little he values me.

And “feminist programming” or not, some women like their own names and don’t want to change them to their husband’s just because they got married. I don’t see that as a decision that needs to be justified, or one that needs to be heavily scrutinized and investigated for any traces of “feminism”. A last name is not a barometer of love and commitment.

I think you would notice if a woman rejected all things masculine or family related. Not seeing it necessary to lose her lifelong name when she gets married is not the same thing. Not even close.

 

[AthenaC]

I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would assume that a woman is avoiding outward appearances of commitment if she doesn’t want to change her name. Married couples wear rings, live together, go everywhere together, raise kids together, etc. If you can look at that and then say that a woman is trying to avoid appearing committed then your priorities are screwed up. Being a married couple and a family is far more telling and important than a last name is.

I offered to have my FH’s father move in with us when his health and finances were in trouble, when FH got in to a car accident I put my world on hold for two months to take care of him every day, I have bent over backwards to help one of his siblings who repeatedly hurts and takes advantage of me, twice now I have driven cross- country on a day’s notice to help him out, I have long treated any money I make as ours. But I will not take his last name. I wouldn’t even if he wanted me to. And if after everything he had the gall to tell me that he felt like I wasn’t committed to him and our marriage it would tell me a lot about who he is and how little he values me.

And “feminist programming” or not, some women like their own names and don’t want to change them to their husband’s just because they got married. I don’t see that as a decision that needs to be justified, or one that needs to be heavily scrutinized and investigated for any traces of “feminism”. A last name is not a barometer of love and commitment.

I think you would notice if a woman rejected all things masculine or family related. Not seeing it necessary to lose her lifelong name when she gets married is not the same thing. Not even close.

:clapping:

 

[thewanderer]

I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would assume that a woman is avoiding outward appearances of commitment if she doesn’t want to change her name. Married couples wear rings, live together, go everywhere together, raise kids together, etc. If you can look at that and then say that a woman is trying to avoid appearing committed then your priorities are screwed up. Being a married couple and a family is far more telling and important than a last name is.

I offered to have my FH’s father move in with us when his health and finances were in trouble, when FH got in to a car accident I put my world on hold for two months to take care of him every day, I have bent over backwards to help one of his siblings who repeatedly hurts and takes advantage of me, twice now I have driven cross- country on a day’s notice to help him out, I have long treated any money I make as ours. But I will not take his last name. I wouldn’t even if he wanted me to. And if after everything he had the gall to tell me that he felt like I wasn’t committed to him and our marriage it would tell me a lot about who he is and how little he values me.

And “feminist programming” or not, some women like their own names and don’t want to change them to their husband’s just because they got married. I don’t see that as a decision that needs to be justified, or one that needs to be heavily scrutinized and investigated for any traces of “feminism”. A last name is not a barometer of love and commitment.

I think you would notice if a woman rejected all things masculine or family related. Not seeing it necessary to lose her lifelong name when she gets married is not the same thing. Not even close.

Yup, I entirely agree with you. I really don’t see why it is presumed to usually be a sign of the lack of an ability to commit.

 

[chevalier]

@TheWanderer: No disagreement there but sometimes people need to be told their behaviour is irrational and helped deal with it rather than reinforced in their problems by others in their misguided attempts to be supportive.

@Baelor: Basically, a short summary of my position goes as follows:

• radical feminist ideas and even some kinds of milder feminist programming are troubling, much of this stuff is also subconscious or otherwise not fully realised;
• if it looks like a sign of feminist programming, there is a strong chance it really is (but is not necessarily so);
• being careful about red flags when marrying someone is not a criminal trial, beyond reasonable doubt is not needed that there is potential trouble;
• going against external manifestations of something has a chance of being in some way directed against the thing the external manifestations manifest (if you want to opt out of a customary sign of something, e.g. of marital unity, you’d better be convicing);
• for strange choices, going against tradition, making awkward requests etc., the onus is on the proponent to show that it’s reasonable (not on someone who would prefer to hold on to a more established, standard view);

This is nothing like an attempted moral-theological determination of guilt in an individual where all sorts of protective presumptions would be in place, it is common-sense evaluation that trouble is looming and the situation needs to be investigated. This is the reason why I refuse to budge and play along with the suggestion that decisions about surnames should be taken on face value, at least if we take them in the abstract (when not dealing with a specific, named individual’s moral guilt or lack of it). Obviously, if we discussed a specific, named individual, I’d have to say we’ve got no proof, so we’ve got to presume the best. But in the abstract I just refuse to accept the idea that weird decisions that go against tradition should be taken at face value with all the credit for presumably being good decisions.

As for the onus, improbable, fanciful claims, claims going against what’s already established etc., even if they are framed as mere negations, can’t benefit from putting the onus on someone who holds on to the established version. You want to change things, you have the onus of proving it’s sensible. You can’t put the onus on the existing state of things to make it defend itself from your scrutiny.

Hope this makes things clearer.

As for inherent morality in clear religious criteria, you can use it to deflect charges of wrongdoing (moral guilt, fault etc.) but you can’t use the lack of inherent, clearly stated immorality of an act on proper religious grounds to shield acts from any doubt as to their motives.

 

[chevalier]

I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would assume that a woman is avoiding outward appearances of commitment if she doesn’t want to change her name. Married couples wear rings, live together, go everywhere together, raise kids together, etc. If you can look at that and then say that a woman is trying to avoid appearing committed then your priorities are screwed up. Being a married couple and a family is far more telling and important than a last name is.

Yes but you’re ignoring the fact that what you mention are signs visible several years into marriage, while the choice of what to do with surnames is a choice made before the wedding. So the comparison is off.

“Being a married couple and a family,” tells nothing about the priorities, whether things are in a good order or a bad one etc. One can live as a couple and family without being married or being married invalidly. Merely being married and having children is not proof that the family model is in a good order.

But I will not take his last name. I wouldn’t even if he wanted me to.

Since you opened the door by using your own example: for what reason? Because there’s a lot of difference between having professional reasons, just liking one’s own name, not liking the other name, being raised in a family or community where this wasn’t done… and wanting to make a statement against supposed patriarchal oppression or some other feminist agenda.

And if after everything he had the gall to tell me that he felt like I wasn’t committed to him and our marriage it would tell me a lot about who he is and how little he values me.

Things like that can generally go both ways, it’s a bit saddening that you can’t see it.

And “feminist programming” or not, some women like their own names and don’t want to change them to their husband’s just because they got married.

Because marriage is not sufficiently life-altering or because a man doesn’t deserve that or something yet else? Because that’s the feminist agenda. Being married is not a “just because” kind of thing.

Plus, already a long while ago I said I had no problem with hyphenating. People who hyphenate keep their names. They just add another name. Except for people who simply dislike long, pretentious-looking and unwieldy hyphenated names, not even wanting to hyphenate sounds like a, “I don’t want you in my surname because you’re not a permanent enough thing in my life,” kind of thing.

I don’t see that as a decision that needs to be justified, or one that needs to be heavily scrutinized and investigated for any traces of “feminism”.

I don’t think we will move any forward.

A last name is not a barometer of love and commitment.

A last name is not. A drive to make statements undermining a man’s role or belligerent against supposed patriarchal oppression is not either (not a proper barometer, so to say). But it is a sign of trouble.

I think you would notice if a woman rejected all things masculine or family related.

It’s not all or nothing. Tendencies are gradual.

Not seeing it necessary to lose her lifelong name when she gets married is not the same thing. Not even close.

And marriage is not lifelong? Marriage is not a thing of several years or a decade. Barring divorce, one spends more years married than not married, actually. To me, that would sound like putting marriage down, lowering its place on the list of priorities in life, along with it, the man’s place (marriage more and more casual, man less and less important, having it one’s way more and more important). Being unaccommodating would be a sign of trouble too. Unfortunately, the tendency for women to push very hard for the fruition of their will is growing in the twenty-something generation. But I’m going to stop now before I’m accused of misogyny.

 

[chevalier]

For the record, I say all of the above from the POV of someone who doesn’t care about surnames per se (let alone my own).

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Yes but you’re ignoring the fact that what you mention are signs visible several years into marriage, while the choice of what to do with surnames is a choice made before the wedding. So the comparison is off.
I would suggest finding someone else to marry if you aren’t sure that she’s committed beforehand. And if something like her last name makes or breaks how committed you think she is then you guys aren’t ready for marriage.

“Being a married couple and a family,” tells nothing about the priorities, whether things are in a good order or a bad one etc. One can live as a couple and family without being married or being married invalidly. Merely being married and having children is not proof that the family model is in a good order.
If marriage and children don’t indicate a proper functioning family a last name certainly doesn’t either. I would say that the marriage and children say far more than a name.

Since you opened the door by using your own example: for what reason? Because there’s a lot of difference between having professional reasons, just liking one’s own name, not liking the other name, being raised in a family or community where this wasn’t done… and wanting to make a statement against supposed patriarchal oppression or some other feminist agenda.I’m not doing it because I am the only person I know with my last name. I never knew my father or his side of the family, and my mom remarried long ago. My brother has a different father, and therefore a different last name. My last name is so firmly mine. I’m not losing something that special and important to me when taking the husband’s last name makes absolutely no difference in a marriage. And frankly, it doesn’t matter what my reason is. It is my name, I will have to go by it for the rest of my life, not him. I’ll decide what I go by.

Things like that can generally go both ways, it’s a bit saddening that you can’t see it.
Excuse me? That was a very rude and uncharitable assumption. Of course it goes both ways. If it didn’t I wouldn’t be marrying him. And the fact that it does go both ways is the reason why neither of us question the other’s commitment. When you stand by each other and go through so much the idea of using a name as an indicator of commitment is absurd. And just because it goes both ways does not mean I “owe” him my last name, anymore than he owes me his.

Because marriage is not sufficiently life-altering or because a man doesn’t deserve that or something yet else? Because that’s the feminist agenda. Being married is not a “just because” kind of thing.Marriage is life-altering. But while a woman’s name may mean a great deal to her it won’t make a difference in the quality or strength of the marriage. And if it does than the couple needs counseling. A woman taking a husband’s last name will do nothing for their love, commitment, communication, etc. Nothing important is affected by her taking his name.

I don’t think we will move any forward.

A last name is not. A drive to make statements undermining a man’s role or belligerent against supposed patriarchal oppression is not either (not a proper barometer, so to say). But it is a sign of trouble.
Undermining a man’s role? What the heck does her last name have to do with his role? Sounds more like an ego thing to me. And wanting someone to change something as big, important and sometimes sentimental as their name when it will have no bearing on the quality of the marriage over your ego is a far worse sign than “feminist programming”.

It’s not all or nothing. Tendencies are gradual.

And marriage is not lifelong? Marriage is not a thing of several years or a decade. Barring divorce, one spends more years married than not married, actually. Of course marriage is lifelong. But its longevity is not influenced in any way by a name change.

Just because most women do it does not mean that your woman owes you a name change. It’s a personal decision that affects the person changing their name tremendously. The other person not much, if at all.

 

[thewanderer]

@TheWanderer: No disagreement there but sometimes people need to be told their behaviour is irrational and helped deal with it rather than reinforced in their problems by others in their misguided attempts to be supportive.

To be perfectly honest, you must have a seriously different understanding of being supportive than I do, at least I certainly hope so. The only appropriate response to ones fiance/serious boy/girlfriend who is dealing with psychological/emotional trauma is to be supportive. Anything else shows a complete lack of both respect and charity for them. If you think being supportive is not appropriate then all I can say is I am unbelievably grateful that I never seriously dated anyone who thinks as you do. It would be too hurtful and traumatic to invest so much of oneself in a relationship only to discover that ones boy/girlfriend refuses to be compassionate and supportive of oneself.

 

[Baelor]

@Baelor: Basically, a short summary of my position goes as follows:

• radical feminist ideas and even some kinds of milder feminist programming are troubling, much of this stuff is also subconscious or otherwise not fully realised;
• if it looks like a sign of feminist programming, there is a strong chance it really is (but is not necessarily so);
• being careful about red flags when marrying someone is not a criminal trial, beyond reasonable doubt is not needed that there is potential trouble;
• going against external manifestations of something has a chance of being in some way directed against the thing the external manifestations manifest (if you want to opt out of a customary sign of something, e.g. of marital unity, you’d better be convicing);
• for strange choices, going against tradition, making awkward requests etc., the onus is on the proponent to show that it’s reasonable (not on someone who would prefer to hold on to a more established, standard view);

You are more than welcome to believe whatever you want. If you feel that that level of suspicion of someone you have presumably known for years is appropriate, go and operate on that basis. I assume that your experience has prompted this protocol. Mine has not, and I find it bizarre and totally unfounded, not to mention involving assumptions that should not be made. For specifics, read my posts.

Furthermore, I reject your assertion that traditions should be honored because they exist unless there is an inherent moral aspect to them.

Finally, I – and many I know – prefer to focus on the moral character of actions rather than symbols that may or may not reflect particular attitudes. If you want to make assumptions about a family based on the fact that the couple has the same name, go right ahead. I prefer to know rather than think.

 

[anilorak13ska]

My fiance and I are both hyphenating our last names. I am not joining his family; we are coming together to start a new family and we are both bringing our heritage, experiences, and identities in to the new family. Our children will have both names, and when they are adults and starting their own families they can decide how they want to handle the names.

Oh my goodness, I had to double check to see if I wrote this! This is what my husband and I did! We both hyphenated for the same reason - we are forming a new family. Likewise, if God ever blesses us with children, they’ll carry both as well, and when they’re adults, they can choose if they want to drop one or change entirely to their spouse’s. Name changes in the US are very simple, cheap, and quick, so it’s not at all a big burden. Besides this, DH and I are both from different countries with different cultures and languages, and our last names reflect that. That was the main reason I wanted us to have each other’s names. Now, DH loves using my part of the name, as it makes him unique.

 

[anilorak13ska]

I just noticed some of the other posts here, the ones operating on personal experiences that clearly have wounded if not egos, then at least hearts.

I can tell you from “the inside” that my husband’s and my marital relationship is consistently used as a model by others who observe us together. In fact, when making our Worldwide Marriage Encounter, we were asked to be a presenting couple because our love and commitment to each other was that obvious. And I did not simply “take my husband’s name”. When we marry, two become one - two do not become “him”. Show me in the Bible, or in the Catechism, or for that matter, any Vatican-approved encyclical or apostolic letter or such, where it says “thou shalt take thy husband’s surname upon marriage”?

This is not a religious or moral issue, and I urge those who have been trying to defend yourselves to save your breath. The issue of whether or not a woman - or, shocker, a man - takes their spouse’s surname is entirely between those two spouses and no one else. If my husband had any reservations about what we decided to do with our last names (and it was a joint decision), I would have had to take into consideration how my refusing to honor his wish on this reflected on my marital submission. But if he doesn’t care? Why should a complete stranger judge me for it? Nonsense. Save your breath.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I just noticed some of the other posts here, the ones operating on personal experiences that clearly have wounded if not egos, then at least hearts.

I can tell you from “the inside” that my husband’s and my marital relationship is consistently used as a model by others who observe us together. In fact, when making our Worldwide Marriage Encounter, we were asked to be a presenting couple because our love and commitment to each other was that obvious. And I did not simply “take my husband’s name”. When we marry, two become one - two do not become “him”. Show me in the Bible, or in the Catechism, or for that matter, any Vatican-approved encyclical or apostolic letter or such, where it says “thou shalt take thy husband’s surname upon marriage”?

This is not a religious or moral issue, and I urge those who have been trying to defend yourselves to save your breath. The issue of whether or not a woman - or, shocker, a man - takes their spouse’s surname is entirely between those two spouses and no one else. If my husband had any reservations about what we decided to do with our last names (and it was a joint decision), I would have had to take into consideration how my refusing to honor his wish on this reflected on my marital submission. But if he doesn’t care? Why should a complete stranger judge me for it? Nonsense. Save your breath.

Can I ask you a question? How did his father take it? We get asked all the time “But what will his father think?”. To be honest we haven’t discussed it with him but we have a hard time imagining that he will care. It seems like something that really shouldn’t matter to him, but we get asked a lot.

 

[EasterJoy]

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 realize that it does not take criminal-level evidence to exclude someone as a potential spouse, but you talk as if there is such a glut of wonderful women to marry out there that you can afford to discard a prospect because you find her desire to keep her maiden name “scary”? Really? Do you find the prospect not the least bit “scary” that you might be passing over any number of women who would have been wonderful partners because you are stuck on this particular issue? Ask yourself: Is it really that important?

You also need to define “in a culture where this is the norm.” The culture where women don’t change their names after marriage is the culture of women with professional degrees: MDs, JDs, PhDs, and so on. In other words, you are disqualifying just those women who have the best chance of understanding the very sub-culture you yourself have put yourself into. Even the women do not who work in law and who do not have advanced degrees know that this is not a huge deal in the circle in which you work. What kind of “non-scary” excuse would you have for pretending otherwise? Should they then conclude that you must be unnecessarily controlling, and decide to be scared of you?

Most of the women I know who did not change their names when they married did so because a) it would be a huge hassle in their professional lives to change it, as they had published under their original name and b) they did not want the hassle of having one name in their private life and another name in their professional life. Granted, this gave them the hassle of not having the same last name as their husbands and children, but oh, well, they were in a corner where hassle was a given.

The other non-scary reason is that some people, both men and women, have a healthy disregard for cultural standards that are more or less arbitrary. This is one of those standards. It is a question of conformity, not a question of morality. On the scale of disqualifications for marriage, this one has to be pretty low on the list, somewhere near wanting to live in a house that is the wrong color.

 

[anilorak13ska]

Can I ask you a question? How did his father take it? We get asked all the time “But what will his father think?”. To be honest we haven’t discussed it with him but we have a hard time imagining that he will care. It seems like something that really shouldn’t matter to him, but we get asked a lot.

That’s an interesting question. My response probably won’t help… DH’s parents weren’t married, and according to their cultural tradition, this meant that he had his mother’s surname. He grew up with a loving step-father, but never changed his name to his dad’s.

However, I will add this - I actually changed “my” part of our name to my mother’s, who had hyphenated hers with my dad’s, because it was more obviously reflective of my heritage and Americans could actually pronounce and spell it correctly. My father, who is brain-injured and thereby has limited cognitive ability, was indeed upset that I would keep my mother’s but not his name. However, had I simply changed my name to my husband’s, he likewise would’ve lost that “connection”.

In all honesty, as difficult as it is, this is a decision for spouses and not in-laws. This is just one of many issues that in-laws may want to interfere with or share their opinions on… when to start having kids, how many to have, how to space them, and not to mention how to raise them! We are not obligated to do what our parents tell us once we are adults, because they are done raising us.

Now, just because a wife doesn’t take her husband’s name doesn’t mean their children won’t have his name. That’s the second part of this decision. I can see in-laws being upset over their grandkids not carrying on the family name, though somehow maternal grandparents/parents of daughters are able to suck it up.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

That’s an interesting question. My response probably won’t help… DH’s parents weren’t married, and according to their cultural tradition, this meant that he had his mother’s surname. He grew up with a loving step-father, but never changed his name to his dad’s.

However, I will add this - I actually changed “my” part of our name to my mother’s, who had hyphenated hers with my dad’s, because it was more obviously reflective of my heritage and Americans could actually pronounce and spell it correctly. My father, who is brain-injured and thereby has limited cognitive ability, was indeed upset that I would keep my mother’s but not his name. However, had I simply changed my name to my husband’s, he likewise would’ve lost that “connection”.

In all honesty, as difficult as it is, this is a decision for spouses and not in-laws. This is just one of many issues that in-laws may want to interfere with or share their opinions on… when to start having kids, how many to have, how to space them, and not to mention how to raise them! We are not obligated to do what our parents tell us once we are adults, because they are done raising us.

Now, just because a wife doesn’t take her husband’s name doesn’t mean their children won’t have his name. That’s the second part of this decision. I can see in-laws being upset over their grandkids not carrying on the family name, though somehow maternal grandparents/parents of daughters are able to suck it up.

I completely agree that it isn’t an issue for in-laws, which is why the question always perplexed me. Thank you for you (name removed by moderator)ut and experience.

 

[chevalier]

Skipping BlueEyedLady’s and Baelor’s replies. Sorry, but enough of going through the same again.

I realize that it does not take criminal-level evidence to exclude someone as a potential spouse, but you talk as if there is such a glut of wonderful women to marry out there that you can afford to discard a prospect because you find her desire to keep her maiden name “scary”? Really? Do you find the prospect not the least bit “scary” that you might be passing over any number of women who would have been wonderful partners because you are stuck on this particular issue? Ask yourself: Is it really that important?

I’ve already said that the name itself is not important. Since you refer your elaboration to me specifically, especially not my own to me. But to answer your other point, yes, I would skip someone with scary tendencies, as in some illogical bone of contention, especially something I saw as a hidden feminist bone.

You also need to define “in a culture where this is the norm.” The culture where women don’t change their names after marriage is the culture of women with professional degrees: MDs, JDs, PhDs, and so on. In other words, you are disqualifying just those women who have the best chance of understanding the very sub-culture you yourself have put yourself into.

Too much assumption, EasterJoy. We’ve been there. I’ve listed professional reasons (published papers, established practices etc.) as normal, non-scary reasons.

Even the women do not who work in law and who do not have advanced degrees know that this is not a huge deal in the circle in which you work. What kind of “non-scary” excuse would you have for pretending otherwise? Should they then conclude that you must be unnecessarily controlling, and decide to be scared of you?

Let’s leave my personal life outta that please.

Most of the women I know who did not change their names when they married did so because a) it would be a huge hassle in their professional lives to change it, as they had published under their original name and b) they did not want the hassle of having one name in their private life and another name in their professional life. Granted, this gave them the hassle of not having the same last name as their husbands and children, but oh, well, they were in a corner where hassle was a given.

…Since hassle was a given either way, why picked the one way and not the other? Could be a hint of priorities. Surnames don’t matter. Priorities do.

The other non-scary reason is that some people, both men and women, have a healthy disregard for cultural standards that are more or less arbitrary.

It’s also healthy to grow up at some point and make peace with the establishment. I’m not a fan of male-dominated families and I mostly just ignore the issues but there’s one point when I wake up: when there’s ranting about marriage as a vehicle of oprression, consequently questioning “gender roles” etc. Or treating marriage as unimportant, husband as low priority on a woman’s list of important things in her life. That’s an entirely different thing from suffrage and equal pay (which I’m dead for, while dead against the other thing).

This is one of those standards. It is a question of conformity, not a question of morality. On the scale of disqualifications for marriage, this one has to be pretty low on the list, somewhere near wanting to live in a house that is the wrong color.

To each his own, I guess. For the record, colours aren’t all that unimportant. Imagine living with someone who insisted on all-black wallpapers. Or a man asked to live in an all-pink house. I’m exaggerating, of course, but heh. Having some kind of subconscious alternative family model agenda is not a trivial problem in somebody we’re about to marry. And yeah, I’d skip.

This is not a religious or moral issue, and I urge those who have been trying to defend yourselves to save your breath. The issue of whether or not a woman - or, shocker, a man - takes their spouse’s surname is entirely between those two spouses and no one else. If my husband had any reservations about what we decided to do with our last names (and it was a joint decision), I would have had to take into consideration how my refusing to honor his wish on this reflected on my marital submission. But if he doesn’t care? Why should a complete stranger judge me for it? Nonsense. Save your breath.

Not a particularly deep reading of what I said if you’re referring to me.

 

[EasterJoy]

Skipping BlueEyedLady’s and Baelor’s replies. Sorry, but enough of going through the same again.

I’ve already said that the name itself is not important. Since you refer your elaboration to me specifically, especially not my own to me. But to answer your other point, yes, I would skip someone with scary tendencies, as in some illogical bone of contention, especially something I saw as a hidden feminist bone.

Too much assumption, EasterJoy. We’ve been there. I’ve listed professional reasons (published papers, established practices etc.) as normal, non-scary reasons.

Let’s leave my personal life outta that please.

…Since hassle was a given either way, why picked the one way and not the other? Could be a hint of priorities. Surnames don’t matter. Priorities do.

It’s also healthy to grow up at some point and make peace with the establishment. I’m not a fan of male-dominated families and I mostly just ignore the issues but there’s one point when I wake up: when there’s ranting about marriage as a vehicle of oprression, consequently questioning “gender roles” etc. Or treating marriage as unimportant, husband as low priority on a woman’s list of important things in her life. That’s an entirely different thing from suffrage and equal pay (which I’m dead for, while dead against the other thing).

To each his own, I guess. For the record, colours aren’t all that unimportant. Imagine living with someone who insisted on all-black wallpapers. Or a man asked to live in an all-pink house. I’m exaggerating, of course, but heh. Having some kind of subconscious alternative family model agenda is not a trivial problem in somebody we’re about to marry. And yeah, I’d skip.

Not a particularly deep reading of what I said if you’re referring to me.

Combining these personal opinions with your personal life is what is going to get you personally married. Who wants to listen to someone who has an opinion that he can’t say is entirely in keeping with those parts of his personal life that he discloses on the world wide web?

“Grow up and make peace with the establishment”? Would that be like St. Francis, or like St. Joan? Where did “make peace with the establishment” and the arbitrary fashions of the establishment become something Christians concern themselves with? Besides, the establishment allows people to do anything they like with their names when they marry. One could as easily tell some of us to “grow up and join the 21st century” because what name people go by after marriage is not one of those parts of tradition that has uniformly been part of the faith…or more to the point “grow up and stop trying to please the busybodies of the world”. This is a secular issue, and I would challenge you to find evidence to the contrary.

As for colors, I’ve always thought it a bad sign if someone wants to marry but isn’t willing to live with some aesthetic detail that their spouse likes and they don’t. Colors and noises, you have to be willing to grow up and give some room.

NEWS FLASH: Hiding her right to openly hold her own opinion is not something feminists typically do!! If a woman is a feminist, she won’t hide it from you. You’ll know!
(Really, though…do you think feminists go around trying to snag themselves guys who are afraid of feminists? Does that even make sense? )

 

[EasterJoy]

I believe that this is a personal decision for each couple and there is no right or wrong way but I would love to hear how everyone came to there own decision of what they did or would like to do.

I think its a personal decision, too, but not one that you can read a lot into in a general sense. People have such emotional relationships with their names, you just don’t know how they’ll feel about them, especially when the society at large has really stopped giving any hard-and-fast rules. A couple can choose a brand-new name out of thin air, if they like, and nobody but their parents seem to blink. There will be times when she doesn’t change her name because it is important to her, or one of them changes their name because it is important to the other, or just that they decide the pros outweigh the cons.

I don’t like hyphenated names, but only because they tend to look and sound clumsy to me. It’s an aesthetic thing, and not something I’d try to make out to be absolute, like the Golden Mean. I think hyphenated names also look like a futile attempt to stave off an inevitable choice, because there is a limit to how long a family can keep doing that. Still, it is not awful. It is more like choosing a car I wouldn’t want if you paid me to drive it. I may shake my head, but I don’t count it a sin.

As for me, I took my husband’s surname when I married but bumped my middle name in favor of my maiden surname, because nobody ever used my middle name and most people who knew me didn’t even know it. That strategy has combined the advantage of our family all having the same last name and my old last name being on my driver’s license when I need to make that connection to my past. I sometimes put my maiden name on my name badge, too, when I think it likely that someone who knows my family or knew me only by my maiden name might need it to make that connection.

 

[chevalier]

Combining these personal opinions with your personal life is what is going to get you personally married. Who wants to listen to someone who has an opinion that he can’t say is entirely in keeping with those parts of his personal life that he discloses on the world wide web?

Skipping that one. Enough talk of me. Let’s pick on somebody else.

“Grow up and make peace with the establishment”? Would that be like St. Francis, or like St. Joan? Where did “make peace with the establishment” and the arbitrary fashions of the establishment become something Christians concern themselves with? Besides, the establishment allows people to do anything they like with their names when they marry. One could as easily tell some of us to “grow up and join the 21st century” because what name people go by after marriage is not one of those parts of tradition that has uniformly been part of the faith…or more to the point “grow up and stop trying to please the busybodies of the world”. This is a secular issue, and I would challenge you to find evidence to the contrary.

As I said, reasons matter. Yes, you can do whatever you want. On the other hand, the reasons will be telling. The things they tell will not always be nice.

As for colors, I’ve always thought it a bad sign if someone wants to marry but isn’t willing to live with some aesthetic detail that their spouse likes and they don’t. Colors and noises, you have to be willing to grow up and give some room.

Works both ways. Both parties need to adapt, which means both parties need to budge. It can’t be just one. Additionally, in some situations that’s just too much asking of you, then you’ve got to realise that’s not what you want or can do, and quit. (Rather than trying to prove something.) You don’t like a particular quality in men or women? You don’t go for those who have it, you skip, pick from the rest of the pool. You don’t force yourself into a relationship with someone with that quality in order to prove you can do it (and get divorced 5 years later due to irreconcilable differences). Same with aesthetical preferences or whatever else is important to you. This also is part of growing up when it comes to relationships. Finally, if you, to use your example with colour, run into someone who can only live in an all-pink house, or with black wallpapers, then you know something odd’s going on, you’d better activate your safety protocols.

NEWS FLASH: Hiding her right to openly hold her own opinion is not something feminists typically do!! If a woman is a feminist, she won’t hide it from you. You’ll know!

She needs to know that she’s a feminist first. Consciously realised attitudes aren’t that much of a problem really. The bigger problem is stuff people don’t realise about themselves. Inexplicable aversions to this or that tend to link there.

(Really, though…do you think feminists go around trying to snag themselves guys who are afraid of feminists? Does that even make sense? )

See above. Feminist programming. Empowerment. Put yourself ahead. Put the guy down. Marriage isn’t as important as expressing yourself an making a statement. Whatever. And all that coinciding with a subconscious aversion, resentment towards man or marriage. Or at least some aspects of the latter. Nobody’s perfect or ideal in this regard and we all have to “settle” regardless whom we marry. But trouble is still trouble. We’ve discussed all sorts of cases with some actual, reasonable grounds. We’ve covered the practitioners, those who publish, those who grew up where customs were different, those who were last of their families, nobody else did but I mentioned the case where the husband’s name was derogatory or humiliating. So what remained not agreed on was the less reasonable, more knee-jerk situations, closer to, “because I (don’t) want to and it’s important to me,” with no argument other than subjective importance connected with an underlying reason unable to be worded. Which is something that scares me. And I believe for good reason. With this kind of thing there’s always something nasty that breaks out sooner or later. Except those cases where people really can’t give a reason but their subjective aversion to something or insistence on something else is really innocent and there’s nothing more to it. I guess you need to sense the person. I’ve never said it always, necessarily means trouble, anyway. Only ever said it potentially means it and the possibility should be reckoned with.

The size of the room for trouble is directly proportional to the degree of deep-seated but not explicable aversions or insistences. If a reason can be given and it’s not a patently unreasonable one, we can generally move on and forget the issue (bad reasons are not as back as no reasons in this case).

 

[EasterJoy]

As I said, reasons matter. Yes, you can do whatever you want. On the other hand, the reasons will be telling. The things they tell will not always be nice.

OK, as long as you realize that not every knee-jerk conjecture you make up in your head is actually a reason that exists anywhere else but in your head.

Works both ways. Both parties need to adapt, which means both parties need to budge. It can’t be just one…You don’t like a particular quality in men or women? You don’t go for those who have it, you skip, pick from the rest of the pool. You don’t force yourself into a relationship with someone with that quality in order to prove you can do it (and get divorced 5 years later due to irreconcilable differences). Same with aesthetical preferences or whatever else is important to you. This also is part of growing up when it comes to relationships. Finally, if you, to use your example with colour, run into someone who can only live in an all-pink house, or with black wallpapers, then you know something odd’s going on, you’d better activate your safety protocols.

I say this having been married over 20 years: It is* always* just one. The only other alternative is to keep score. Trust me, do not go there. Life is too short.

Remember that whatever is on your laundry list of disqualifications will disqualify someone with some great traits. You’ll do far better if you are as flexible as possible on as much as possible, and get a sense of humor about it. “Irreconcilable differences” can just be another way of saying that you don’t have the flexibility that married people need to have.

Yes, there are going to be non-negotiables and yes, sometimes they will be things that only matter to you, but don’t go overboard, that’s all I’m saying. There are things indicative of a marriage ready to collapse, but the name thing isn’t one of them. It just isn’t.

She needs to know that she’s a feminist first. Consciously realised attitudes aren’t that much of a problem really. The bigger problem is stuff people don’t realise about themselves. Inexplicable aversions to this or that tend to link there.

See above. Feminist programming. Empowerment. Put yourself ahead. Put the guy down. Marriage isn’t as important as expressing yourself an making a statement. Whatever. And all that coinciding with a subconscious aversion, resentment towards man or marriage. Or at least some aspects of the latter. Nobody’s perfect or ideal in this regard and we all have to “settle” regardless whom we marry. But trouble is still trouble. We’ve discussed all sorts of cases with some actual, reasonable grounds. We’ve covered the practitioners, those who publish, those who grew up where customs were different, those who were last of their families, nobody else did but I mentioned the case where the husband’s name was derogatory or humiliating. So what remained not agreed on was the less reasonable, more knee-jerk situations, closer to, “because I (don’t) want to and it’s important to me,” with no argument other than subjective importance connected with an underlying reason unable to be worded. Which is something that scares me. And I believe for good reason. With this kind of thing there’s always something nasty that breaks out sooner or later. Except those cases where people really can’t give a reason but their subjective aversion to something or insistence on something else is really innocent and there’s nothing more to it. I guess you need to sense the person. I’ve never said it always, necessarily means trouble, anyway. Only ever said it potentially means it and the possibility should be reckoned with.

Feminist programming. Empowerment. Put yourself ahead. Put the guy down. Marriage isn’t as important as expressing yourself an making a statement. Whatever.

Could also be: Societal programming. Entitlement. Put yourself ahead. Put the gal down. Marriage isn’t as important as conforming to a society that you don’t even think is moral or reasonable. Whatever.

Don’t you see that you’re just giving yourself excuses? If you are going to get married and stay married, you are going to have to give in to some things you don’t like about your spouse and you are going to have to cope with some things you don’t like that you didn’t see coming. A rat does not have a nose good enough to sniff out all the dangers human being can hide in his or her soul.

IOW, marriage requires prudence beforehand, don’t get me wrong, but even that can be taken too far…especially if it comes from a place of fear instead of from a desire to make sure you have what the other needs you to give. Marriage requires courage, generosity, and endurance afterwards, and a sense of humor that is willing to give up your sense of what you used to think you had to have. Always, no matter how well you each choose each other…always! If you get ready for that inevitable truth, you might not disqualify so easily. It really is easier to be more flexible yourself. Ask anyone married over 20 years, they’ll all tell you the same.

Again: if it is non-negotiable to you, if you can’t live in a black house, fine. Just don’t try to make this out to be some global red flag indicating hidden reservations about marriage. It isn’t. Many are the women who took their husband’s names, only to leave him and sue for half his assets ten years later. Don’t make this into more than it is.