Last Name Changes on Marriage

[severus68]

I’m just curious, but would you add the fact that your fiancee has a strong emotional attacthment to her own name to this list? Or just that she feels quite strongly about it, for whatever reason that is?

See, I think these are two really important reasons to add to this list. The point being that one should never hold a custom as more important than their spouse. Customs have merit and value, but they are not nearly as important as the living breathing person who you have decided to marry and give yourself to unconditionally, to love unconditionally, to sacrifice for unconditionally.

A man who does not force his wife to take his name and even goes so far as to take hers instead simply because she had strong feelings on the subject is not necessarily making any sort of feminist statement. He is making the statement that he loves his wife more than the custom of assuming the husbands name. And so instead of a feminist statement it is a statement of love extremely fitting to a marriage.

Very well said.

 

[chevalier]

Most people on this thread are not advocating members of couples making unilateral decisions on whims. Most are pointing out the glaring problems with one member compelling another member to do something in particular.

Sorry, but I can’t unsee the claims that it’s her decision, hers and only etc. Might doesn’t make right. Right doesn’t make good. Freedom to do something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And so on and so forth.

What would constitute a bad reason?

I’ve said this already. However, I’ll repeat, but just this once:

1. Avoiding an impression of being married / wanting an impression of being single.
2. Some kind of feminist opposition to taking a man’s name if the maiden’s name is taken from dad, like in most cases.
3. Some kind of inexplicable knee-jerk reaction.

If she does not like her husband’s name, is that a good reason?

I believe so in general.

I do not think that the norm from which deviation must be justified is the wife to take the husband’s name. It may be a cultural norm, but it has no moral value. Thus, using it as a default position and then claiming that deviation must be justified for moral reasons is extremely problematic.

There is a fallacy in that argument. Mostly the bolded part. And morality isn’t the end of the world, especially inherent morality of an act. There are acts which are not inherently morally good or evil, they only become so depending on the intent of the actor.

My point has never been that a woman must take a man’s name (frankly, to say that, one would need to avoid reading most of my posts in this thread). My point is that where someone is avoiding the typical external signs of marriage in one’s culture, this is a warning sign because it may be associated with lack of readiness to commit, unite with a different person, leave the single life-style etc. And obviously a radical feminist diatribe would be a sign of, well, radical feminist attitude, which is not very marriage-friendly.

These are not moral issues.

Addressed above. The inherent good or evil moral quality of something is not the end of the morality of it. Intent matters.

The Church does not make moral judgments on last names at all.

Do you need an infallibility stamp on everything, including detailed matters for each specific culture (and there are cultures where no surnames exist as such but you can’t use an exotic norm for a westerner)? Can’t you have an opinion on something which is not a doctrinal matter addressed by a pope or council in detail? That’s just a bad argument.

The poster to whom I responded said the his fiancee’s taking his name was a prerequisite for marriage. I consider that compulsion. If you do not, replace that word in my post with whatever term suits you best.

I consider it a prerequisite if he’s upfront with it. I also consider it a normal unsaid expectation in the western culture if he expects her to take his surname either on an exclusive basis or by adding it after her maiden name. This is by no means a surprise or nonstandard or unwarranted expectation. In fact, it has not a shred of novelty or surprise or uniqueness to it.

On the other hand, if they finally talked and he discovered that for some reason, especially a good one, she wanted to keep her name, and he basically just wanted to get name change from her (as opposed to working out a potentially problematic attitude he saw), then that would be blackmail.

On the other hand, if he discovered that he didn’t like her reasons for not wanting to take his name (by total change or by hyphenating) and for this reason he decided he didn’t want to marry her, I’d call that partner selection. He has no right to ‘compel’ her but he doesn’t have an obligation to marry her either. I would certainly think long and hard before marrying someone with a potentially problematic attitude.

 

[chevalier]

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

Somewhat of a difficulty here is the distinction between having a right and making a good use of it. A woman should consider her husband’s feelings, from which point of view it makes difference whether she’s depriving him of something traditionally expected and traditionally done, or just turning a unique, eccentric request (regarding such two cases on par would mean being in denial). An action which goes against a popular custom has a different significance than the same action in the abstract. This does include a man who doesn’t want to share his surname with his wife in a culture where this is the standard – just because he can’t be compelled to share it doesn’t mean that any reason or no reason is good and acceptable.

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

You’re ignoring the fact that maiden name is in most cases dad’s name and therefore still a man’s name and a ‘property stamp’ just like the husband’s name if you want to see it that way.

But at least you’re not claiming (at least right now) that a woman can make the decision entirely on her own (as if starting from a clean slate, i.e. no particular customs or traditions) and the man has an obligation to suck it up and live with it.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Can someone please explain to me why a man’s last name is his but a woman’s is her father’s?

 

[sweetpetunia]

I assumed my husband’s last name. It was a sacrifice, but one made willingly. My maiden name was lovely, of gaelic origin. It “went” with my baptismal name, and was aesthetically pleasing. My married name is not euphonious when paired with my baptismal name. My married name is syllabically short, and its consonants are strong. It has a masculine tone to it, and would suit a hockey player or look good on a sports jersey, lol. Not exactly the look I am going for, but it is a part of my husband that I share, and love makes all things sweet

I guess there are little practical trifles that I missed out on as well by switching names–I went “down” about ten letters in the alphabet, but seeing as I’m not in school, it doesn’t affect me, lol. I do notice my initials, however. Signing and initialling were a frequent occurence for me in my profession, and my initials flowed together in cursive. They don’t anymore, and I do notice the full stop between my first and last name initials now, but that’s just an insiginificant pebble in the grand scheme of life.

So why did I not keep my maiden name-- ermmm…I think there were several reasons. A big one for me was family unity. I wanted my husband, future children, and I to all share the same name in the same way we shared the same life. I think it adds to the sense of belonging, and therefore to bonding. I also liked the tradition of it. Family trees were written a certain way for generations, and I like being part of the continuing history. Also, I it made more sense in terms of practicality and ease in daily life–e.g. the same name on the mailbox, Mr. & Mrs. Lastname on all correspondence, no confusion in official documentation or paperwork, and the simplicity of one name, no hyphen.

So why take his name and not him mine? Well, besides the tradition and history factor, there was one more very important key: it meant more to him than it did to me. I think men have dreams as well as women about their future marriage and life, and for some men, having their wife share their name is as important as prince charming, the church, the dress and all the wonderful dreams about their future kiddies is to women In terms of sacrifice, I don’t think comprimise is always the optimal solution to conflict resolution, because a lot of times, this just means NOBODY gets what they want. Instead, I like that if one spouse feels very strongly about something, and the other not so much, the latter gives way to the former. This is just as relationship-healthy as compromise, because next time the other person might feel more strongly, and the first spouse “gives in”. It’s like taking turns, except nobody’s counting And those are my thoughts

 

[StarFireKK]

So why take his name and not him mine? Well, besides the tradition and history factor, there was one more very important key: it meant more to him than it did to me. I think men have dreams as well as women about their future marriage and life, and for some men, having their wife share their name is as important as prince charming, the church, the dress and all the wonderful dreams about their future kiddies is to women In terms of sacrifice, I don’t think comprimise is always the optimal solution to conflict resolution, because a lot of times, this just means NOBODY gets what they want. Instead, I like that if one spouse feels very strongly about something, and the other not so much, the latter gives way to the former. This is just as relationship-healthy as compromise, because next time the other person might feel more strongly, and the first spouse “gives in”. It’s like taking turns, except nobody’s counting And those are my thoughts

Thank you! You said exactly what I was thinking but couldn’t figure out how to put into words.

I don’t think a lot of men know how to express this very gracefully and sometimes it comes out in a “Me Tarzan, you Jane” format. But it is so obvious it means so much to them and sometimes I am shocked how oblivious a woman can being to her soon-to-be husband’s feelings.

 

[sweetpetunia]

I don’t think a lot of men know how to express this very gracefully and sometimes it comes out in a “Me Tarzan, you Jane” format.

Haha, I agree!

 

[Baelor]

Sorry, but I can’t unsee the claims that it’s her decision, hers and only etc. Might doesn’t make right. Right doesn’t make good. Freedom to do something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And so on and so forth.

This is not what most posters are saying. It is the couple’s decision to do what they want with the names. That decision must necessarily be made on the preferences of the specific people involved.

I’ve said this already. However, I’ll repeat, but just this once:

1. Avoiding an impression of being married / wanting an impression of being single.
2. Some kind of feminist opposition to taking a man’s name if the maiden’s name is taken from dad, like in most cases.
3. Some kind of inexplicable knee-jerk reaction.

I agree that those are all bad reasons.

My point is that where someone is avoiding the typical external signs of marriage in one’s culture, this is a warning sign because it may be associated with lack of readiness to commit, unite with a different person, leave the single life-style etc.

My counterpoint would be that the intent is the sole basis for establishing something as a warning sign.

Addressed above. The inherent good or evil moral quality of something is not the end of the morality of it. Intent matters.

Something is inherently morally charged or morally neutral. The addition of intent is not relevant to what I am discussing, which is whether there is a moral obligation to take the name of the husband. My sole interest is in discussing whether there is inherent morality.

Do you need an infallibility stamp on everything, including detailed matters for each specific culture (and there are cultures where no surnames exist as such but you can’t use an exotic norm for a westerner)

No. At the same time, I feel uncomfortable stating that something is inherently morally problematic without the backing of Church teaching or even any Scriptural justification.

 

[chevalier]

I’m just curious, but would you add the fact that your fiancee has a strong emotional attacthment to her own name to this list?

Of course. But please note that there’s the option of hyphenating, so it’s possible to keep the maiden name and still take the married name. It’s not like one can only totally change the name or totally keep it. It’s actually hard for me to imagine a woman actually taking my name and only mine because in my circles it would be more natural to hyphenate, in which I don’t see any bad connotations. It’s similar to the old custom of introducing a woman with both her maiden and married surnames, which was the norm before.

Or just that she feels quite strongly about it, for whatever reason that is?

Within some reasonable limits due to the fact that humans are emotional beings and are not machines, but I still don’t really deal in ‘whatever reasons’ or especially in ‘no because no’. I would be incompatible with someone who made decisions in that fashion. It leads to strife, I consider that attitude to be wrong, I correct it, I can’t respect it. Not good for marriage.

And I frankly wouldn’t marry a westerner with 6 brothers who wanted her husband-to-be to take her surname (as in any guy, regardless of how his name sounds because I understand if it sounds funny or ugly and she’d prefer the family to have the same surname, so she’d ask him to take hers rather). I’d run for the hills, in fact. I don’t expect my intended to be 100% stable and I’ve dated a good share of people who have not been, but I have my limits.

See, I think these are two really important reasons to add to this list.

I would agree with you but I think that attachment to the name is a broad, vague excuse that anybody could claim… and actually do so in good faith even, especially mistaking a fear of commitment for it.

Sort of like the man and wedding ring problem that was actually a similar problem decades ago to the issue of women’s surnames that we are discussing right now. A man could dislike the feel of a metal clasp on his finger, or the feeling of being branded, but he could also dislike the limitations that marriage imposed or the reminders of it that marked him off limits to other women. I’d really be making similar arguments in that dispute too.

The point being that one should never hold a custom as more important than their spouse.

One should never hold a whim or knee-jerk reaction as more important than his or her spouse either.

But the really important thing here is that an action with a conventional meaning attached to it is not the same as the same action performed in the abstract. Just like signing your name on a contract is not the same as writing it down for a receptionist.

Customs have merit and value, but they are not nearly as important as the living breathing person who you have decided to marry and give yourself to unconditionally, to love unconditionally, to sacrifice for unconditionally.

Where’s that ‘unconditionally’ when a woman suddenly tells her husband to be that unlike other women she won’t be taking his name (I include hyphenating in ‘taking’), regardless of how he might feel about it?

Again, consider the example of a western man not wanting to give his wife his surname.

A man who does not force his wife to take his name and even goes so far as to take hers instead simply because she had strong feelings on the subject is not necessarily making any sort of feminist statement.

I agree up to a point. That point is before ‘and even’. Frankly, a woman from a western culture who is not the last of her family and does not have any other good reason but comes up with the idea that she wants her husband to take her name has a problem with attitude. IMHO it looks like she wants to wear the breeches and stick it to the world to see. If a husband plays a long, well… no need to comment.

He is making the statement that he loves his wife more than the custom of assuming the husbands name.

(The following applies only if there was no good reason, I’m specifically excluding last-of-kin situations or the situations where a woman will take his surname without giving up hers, i.e. hyphenate And more than she loves him. Because her position was more bizarre than his in their difference and it was still he who gave in. So yes, his sacrifice is remarkable but IMHO it might be misplaced.

And it may also show that he’s allowing her to make unilateral decisions. Which is a disservice also to her because when we allow people to look out for number one and put themselves first, we cooperate in the egoism.

And so instead of a feminist statement it is a statement of love extremely fitting to a marriage.

I differ as above. For a western woman with plenty of relatives to continue the family line, if her intended’s name were not derogatory or disgraced (or wanted by political enemies, whatever, basically some exceptional and good reason), it would be very strange to want her husband to take her name, especially without hyphenatic but just take her name. It would be impossible to pretend that this is a normal request. In fact, the situation would be insane. Especially if she ‘felt strongly about it’, e.g. she’s a Jane Smith of no particular Smiths, with 6 married and fertile brothers, but wants her husband, a Jones, to take her surname and drop his. That’s insanity and you’ve got to call such situations their proper names.

And by feminist statement I meant a misguided equality statement, acceptance of a balance of power heavily in the woman’s favour, female headship of the family, this kind of thing. Mostly with a tendency towards just a not particularly thought-about manifestation of progressiveness.

 

[chevalier]

Okay, Thewanderer, one more thing that I couldn’t edit in because the 20-minute limit ran out: I also worry a bit about the level of importance you’re giving to her feeling strongly about it, for whatever reason. As in, if you’re taking that kind of feeling as a fact of life that needs to be dealt with, then I guess I can at least understand your argument. On the other hand, I really worry if you aren’t simply offering too much validation to whims or silliness (which are believed to be acceptable by the modern secular culture in its version of liberalism), elevating them to the same level with bona fide reasons (whether ultimately good or bad, obviously good being better than bad but even misguided reasons being better than whims).

And a western woman who is not last-of-kin asking a man with a perfectly acceptable name to take her name would have the onus of proving that it’s not a whim. And if she said, ‘because I want you to and feel strongly about it,’ then whoever actually married her after that would deserve what he got.

 

[chevalier]

Can someone please explain to me why a man’s last name is his but a woman’s is her father’s?

Because westerners, by default, carry their fathers’ names.

You, in turn, please explain to why a woman’s name acquired from her husband upon marriage isn’t hers but the name acquired from her father upon birth is.

I don’t think a lot of men know how to express this very gracefully and sometimes it comes out in a “Me Tarzan, you Jane” format. But it is so obvious it means so much to them and sometimes I am shocked how oblivious a woman can being to her soon-to-be husband’s feelings.

Partly because such expectations are no longer made of women. The modern secular outlook is that a woman is expected to have an ‘attitude’ and a man is expected to suck it up, especially in the relationship area, where she’s expected to try everything at least once and certainly have the freedom to and he’s expected to support her in whatever she chooses to do without consulting him (and no matter how destructive it can be). She has the right to demand him to be considerate, but he can’t demand the same of her, etc.

This is not what most posters are saying. It is the couple’s decision to do what they want with the names. That decision must necessarily be made on the preferences of the specific people involved.

Again, don’t confuse being the only person competent to make the decision in an individual case (e.g. one’s own) with the good or bad reasons for that decision. A decision made by the right person is not always the right decision.

I actually also feel inclined to take issue with ‘preferences’ but I’d rather hear what you mean by them first. IMHO e.g. two westerners from a standard western country suddenly believing that men should take their wives’ names and hyphenate with their mothers-in-law’s maiden names, would not exactly be what I call sane. I’d see no value in upholding their preferences and I’d object to putting such preferences on the same level with reasoned decisions.

I agree that those are all bad reasons.

Good. I forgot to add absence of a specific reason but I think this goes without saying.

My counterpoint would be that the intent is the sole basis for establishing something as a warning sign.

It’s all about intent in this case. Although some sets of facts make this or that type of intent more probable than the other (without conclusively determining it, of course, but then warning signs are never conclusive).

Something is inherently morally charged or morally neutral. The addition of intent is not relevant to what I am discussing, which is whether there is a moral obligation to take the name of the husband.

Per se, there is none. But there might be an immoral reason for making a particular decision.

My sole interest is in discussing whether there is inherent morality.

No offence but that’s kinda pointless. You can’t judge an act if you stop at inherent morality and ignore intent.

No. At the same time, I feel uncomfortable stating that something is inherently morally problematic without the backing of Church teaching or even any Scriptural justification.

Again, ‘inherently’, that’s how you side-tracked it. In reality, you’re just precluding the application of more general rules to more specific categories of cases.

 

[thewanderer]

Of course. But please note that there’s the option of hyphenating, so it’s possible to keep the maiden name and still take the married name. It’s not like one can only totally change the name or totally keep it. It’s actually hard for me to imagine a woman actually taking my name and only mine because in my circles it would be more natural to hyphenate, in which I don’t see any bad connotations. It’s similar to the old custom of introducing a woman with both her maiden and married surnames, which was the norm before.

Within some reasonable limits due to the fact that humans are emotional beings and are not machines, but I still don’t really deal in ‘whatever reasons’ or especially in ‘no because no’. I would be incompatible with someone who made decisions in that fashion. It leads to strife, I consider that attitude to be wrong, I correct it, I can’t respect it. Not good for marriage.

And I frankly wouldn’t marry a westerner with 6 brothers who wanted her husband-to-be to take her surname (as in any guy, regardless of how his name sounds because I understand if it sounds funny or ugly and she’d prefer the family to have the same surname, so she’d ask him to take hers rather). I’d run for the hills, in fact. I don’t expect my intended to be 100% stable and I’ve dated a good share of people who have not been, but I have my limits.

Perhaps I did not phrase what I meant as carefully as I could. I am not talking about a case where a woman just “says no because no” I’m talking about a woman being emotionally attatched to her name/ emotionally averse to changing it. Yes, there will be cases when a women will be emotionally aversed to changing her name that are overboard and a sign of a prevalent detrimental attitude that will cause strife in marriage, but that is not always going to be the case. I am just trying to point out the exceptions so they don’t get lost behind a too strict rule.

I would agree with you but I think that attachment to the name is a broad, vague excuse that anybody could claim… and actually do so in good faith even, especially mistaking a fear of commitment for it.

Sort of like the man and wedding ring problem that was actually a similar problem decades ago to the issue of women’s surnames that we are discussing right now. A man could dislike the feel of a metal clasp on his finger, or the feeling of being branded, but he could also dislike the limitations that marriage imposed or the reminders of it that marked him off limits to other women. I’d really be making similar arguments in that dispute too.

Again, I agree that there being emotionally attatched/averse is not always a good reason, but it certainly can be one, and so must be brought into consideration

One should never hold a whim or knee-jerk reaction as more important than his or her spouse either.

Again, I agree completely and already made a similar comment earlier on this thread. I honestly don’t know where you got the impression that I was ok with such an idea.

But the really important thing here is that an action with a conventional meaning attached to it is not the same as the same action performed in the abstract. Just like signing your name on a contract is not the same as writing it down for a receptionist.

Again, I have never disputed this. Customs are important. But they are not the most important thing. Spouse (even fiance(ee) comes before custom.

Where’s that ‘unconditionally’ when a woman suddenly tells her husband to be that unlike other women she won’t be taking his name (I include hyphenating in ‘taking’), regardless of how he might feel about it?

Again, I don’t know why you are bringing this up because it is of course something I do not think is ok

Again, consider the example of a western man not wanting to give his wife his surname.

This could be for different reasons, I will not judge such a scenario unless I knew more of the particulars.

 

[thewanderer]

I agree up to a point. That point is before ‘and even’. Frankly, a woman from a western culture who is not the last of her family and does not have any other good reason but comes up with the idea that she wants her husband to take her name has a problem with attitude. IMHO it looks like she wants to wear the breeches and stick it to the world to see. If a husband plays a long, well… no need to comment.

I hesitate to make such broad generalities as they tend to ignore particular circumstances that can make a difference. However I do entirely agree that if a woman is going out of her way to subvert the roles of men and women (She would have to be acting for the sake of overturning the general roles, not just relate to her husband in a way that seems to conflict with them. This, again, follows from the fact that generalizations tend to overlook certain particular situations and sometimes it is better for a couple to ignore the generalized gender roles) then there is a huge problem.

(The following applies only if there was no good reason, I’m specifically excluding last-of-kin situations or the situations where a woman will take his surname without giving up hers, i.e. hyphenate And more than she loves him. Because her position was more bizarre than his in their difference and it was still he who gave in. So yes, his sacrifice is remarkable but IMHO it might be misplaced.

And it may also show that he’s allowing her to make unilateral decisions. Which is a disservice also to her because when we allow people to look out for number one and put themselves first, we cooperate in the egoism.

Why do you assume that there is a unilateral decision??? You seem to understand that in the case where a man has a strong preferance for the woman to take his name and she doesn’t really want to but makes the sacrifice the decision is not necessarily unilateral. Why do you not see that this can also be the case in the opposite scenario? Of course, as I have said before, it is wrong for either spouse/fiance to make such a unilateral decision.

I differ as above. For a western woman with plenty of relatives to continue the family line, if her intended’s name were not derogatory or disgraced (or wanted by political enemies, whatever, basically some exceptional and good reason), it would be very strange to want her husband to take her name, especially without hyphenatic but just take her name. It would be impossible to pretend that this is a normal request. In fact, the situation would be insane. Especially if she ‘felt strongly about it’, e.g. she’s a Jane Smith of no particular Smiths, with 6 married and fertile brothers, but wants her husband, a Jones, to take her surname and drop his. That’s insanity and you’ve got to call such situations their proper names.

Here I must disagree with you a little. As others have pointed out, this is not nearly as universal a custom in the West as it used to be, and so, as custom, does not hold as much weight as it used to or as you seem to think it does. Perhaps you are only familiar with the circles within which this is still the strongly accepted custom, but this is not the case for society at large.

And by feminist statement I meant a misguided equality statement, acceptance of a balance of power heavily in the woman’s favour, female headship of the family, this kind of thing. Mostly with a tendency towards just a not particularly thought-about manifestation of progressiveness.

Thats fine, but if a husband gives up his name out of love for his wife because he knows how much it means to her that is not a feminist statement. Period. It is an act of love and so is a statement of his love for his wife. Period.

 

[Baelor]

I actually also feel inclined to take issue with ‘preferences’ but I’d rather hear what you mean by them first. IMHO e.g. two westerners from a standard western country suddenly believing that men should take their wives’ names and hyphenate with their mothers-in-law’s maiden names, would not exactly be what I call sane. I’d see no value in upholding their preferences and I’d object to putting such preferences on the same level with reasoned decisions.

Assume preferences that we have agreed are reasonable. I see no problem with men taking their wives’ names, though.

It’s all about intent in this case. Although some sets of facts make this or that type of intent more probable than the other (without conclusively determining it, of course, but then warning signs are never conclusive).

In which case you are saying that the underlying act is morally neutral. This is not a given, since some posters seem to disagree with you.

No offence but that’s kinda pointless. You can’t judge an act if you stop at inherent morality and ignore intent.

Hardly pointless. Some acts are intrinsically evil (abortion) and some are not (according to you, a woman not changing her name). Catholicism recognizes both intent and the act itself. Establishing an act as morally neutral or morally charged is extremely important.

I have said what I want to say. This will be my last post in this thread.

 

[_Jenn]

First, I honestly can’t believe this little thing has warranted 8 pages of discussion! LOL OP, not saying your post was unimportant, just that in the grand scheme of all the major things in life, this topic is still going - 8 pages later!

My dh & I never talked about this while engaged, until about a month before the wedding. And I think that only came up because someone dh & I worked with asked me one night what I was doing about my last name. My response was “I’m marrying _____, so I will be Mrs. HisLastName. Why do you ask?” For me, it was never a thought; it was just what I would be doing.

It wasn’t until later that night, that dh & I were talking about it, and he told me that he wanted me to know that he didn’t expect me to change my name, that it was the last name I had had for 25 years, and that if I wanted to keep it, or hyphenate it, that was ok with him, because it was, in the grand scheme of life, just a name and his last name wasn’t what was going to make us married. I told him he was cuckoo, and that I wanted to be known as Mrs. HisLastName, and let’s not forget the fact that nobody could pronounce my maiden name anyway - I went to a much easier to pronounce last name! LOL

Had he told me that me taking his last name was a requirement for the wedding to still go on, I’d have told him where he could stuff it. Had he told me that he really preferred it, for xyz reasons, like a mature adult, that would be different, because it would be a discussion. However, that discussion for us was not needed.

 

[Petergee]

Not changing a name in NO way means someon is “not really committed.” That’s ridiculous.

It may not always be implied, but it’s always inferred.

 

[Petergee]

???
I really don’t understand why you think the use of the word claims implies that other people all secretly agree with me. I certainly never intended to imply such a ridiculous statement. By the way, thank you so much for the ad hominum, just how anybody likes to start their day.

You’re welcome. Now maybe you can imagine how it feels to have somebody tell you that what you say is your opinion is what you merely claim is your opinion.

Yes, I agree that if a woman is absolutely set on not taking her future spouses name to the point that she will not honestly consider his feelings on the matter and make the decision with him instead of for him is likely not ready for marriage, just as I think a man who insists on their future wife taking his name without any willingness to actually consider her feelings on the matter. The last part of your reply is exactly why i have been saying what I have. The thing is, ** it goes both ways **

Yes of course, but the custom only goes one way. Don’t pretend that both parties are staring from neutral on a level playing field here.

 

[Petergee]

BlueEyedLady;9348951:

The person changing their name gets to see it as a big deal, but I’m not sure anyone else has a right to. It isn’t your name, and you aren’t owed anyone giving up theirs to take yours.

The “custom” argument doesn’t work with me. I was taught as a teenager that “everybody else is doing it” is not a valid reason, much less a strong argument for anything.

Furthermore, this whole " if she doesn’t it shows that she isn’t ready for marriage" thing is nuts. I’ve showed that I’m completely committed to this in countless ways

Sure. But if a custom has been followed by the vast majority of brides in a culture for centuries, and a bride decides not to do it, people are naturally going to ask “Whoa! Why is she doing that? There must be some reason.”

While we’re taking about sacrifice the man can sacrifice. It’s easier for him to not have her change then for her to change.

??? Easier?

 

[Petergee]

I think it is sad that a woman carries the kid for 9 months and the second it is born, the father’s last name is given because after all he is the man. It is even more sad that often the father isn’t even in the kids life.

Actually it is precisely because of these reasons that the baby is given the father’s surname. When he is born, it’s obvious who his mother is, but giving him his father’s surname proclaims to the world “that man is his father, AND he has the duty to be a true father to him.” Giving the child his father’s surname actually encourages the father to stick around.

Not that I endorse their behaviour, but I have actually heard men who have deserted their families say as an excuse “she didn’t even let the kids have my name.”

And please don’t call a human being “it”.

 

[Petergee]

The real point is that the name question should be talked about far before one is engaged and certinally before one walks down the isle.

The idea that a man would assume for 2-5 YEARS that the woman will take his name could create a tremendous let down, especally if it is important for him. It is at the same time unfair that a woman would have made a decision and not let the man in on it.

I started dating in Jan of 2011. We’re now thinking of a late 2013 wedding (just under 3 years). However, we’ve discussed all this. We’ve discussed name change feelings and why. We’ve discussed professional life and social situations that involve names. I, for one, would not feel that any couple should be married who hasn’t had these signfigant discussions. We had them 6 months in, when marriage was a speck on the horizon. I think that a shock on either party (not changing your name, or changing your name) would be a VERY relevant sign that neither are ready for marriage.

“shock on either party”?
It’s perfectly natural to assume that the established custom will be followed, if not told otherwise. A man shouldn’t have to say to his fiancee 'by the way, when we get married I expect you’ll take my surname". No it does not go both ways equally.