Ok, back up. Why do you refer to the womans name as her dads name?
Because her birth name comes from her father, not her mother.
Do you not think a woman can have a name in her own right? She is not culturally allowed to own a name???
Stop the question mark multiplication please. I have already explained above that I call it ‘dad’s name’ because that is the origin of the name, in most cases.
If her dad is Mr Smith and her mum is Mrs Smith (née Jones), that name obviously comes from dad. It’s not the same as a unique surname, which is not inherited from an ancestor. Why are you so bent on refusing to acknowledge the obvious, i.e. inheritance of family name from male ancestors?
Why does the woman’s name belong to her dad while the man’s name belongs to himself rather than his father??? This makes no sense, and, to be honest, comes across as sounding a little sexist.
I’m not afraid of labels, so I don’t worry about that. Anyway, my point is that when a Jane Smith, daughter of John Smith, marries a Thomas Jones, whether she remains Smith or becomes Jones, she has still acquired the surname from a man (because we inherit surnames, they are not created for us). That man being either her father (inheritance upon birth of the surname Smith) or her husband (acquisition of the surname Jones upon marriage).
Therefore it is illogical to resent the notion of being tagged with a man’s name and for this reason reject changing upon marriage, while having no problem carrying a name inherited from one’s dad (unless it actually happen’s to be mum’s maiden name or a name acquired via deed poll while adult).
I realize that you probably do not intend to come across this way, but when you insist on refusing to allow a woman the ability to own her own name it definately comes across this way.
And do I need to tell you how you come across when you’re accusing me of refusing to allow a woman the ability to own her name? And taking my ‘guilt’ as granted? While in reality you’re simply resisting the fact that surnames are typically inherited from our fathers, which is their origin?
You will not make the world less sexist by pretending that our surnames are not connected with our father’s surnames.
As to the difference between attatchment to ones own name vs aversion to take someone elses, I again agree with you.
Great, we might be able to lay it to rest.
There is a huge difference. It is more likely for someone to have a good reason for wanting to keep their name than for having an aversion to taking their husbands name.
Yeah. And we’re obviously talking about aversion to the taking the husband’s name in general, not e.g. taking the specific surname of a Mr Dimwit, for example.
This does not change the fact that there can be situations in which an aversion to taking your husbands name are perfectly understandable and are not a sign of a lack of comittment or raadical feminism as some of your comments seem to imply.
Example. And I’d like you to provide an example of aversion (which has a dominant or at least psychic component) rather than a reasonable reason. This because in the abstract, I could agree with you, but I just fail to see the possibility for there being perfectly understandable and acceptable reasons for such aversion.
This is why it seems like we disagree I guess. Although I would add that I am not focusing on exceptions just for the sake of it. I am bringing them up because it is very easy to represent a general rule as an absolute.
No, we’re not dealing in absolutes here. What we’re talking about are highly subjective matters where we’re taking guesses at possible problems that could be there if a person behaves in a certain specific way (tip of iceberg style). This is not absolutes.
This really is never a good idea. It can cause unnecessary harm/offense to those who fall within the range of “exceptions” and it can cause others to judge those with exceptions as not doing what they ought.
They shouldn’t be offended and, for the record, my own situation would probably fall under exception, as in I’d understand why in my case a woman would prefer not to take this particular surname. And as I said, I’m a bit of a history buff, so I can very well recall the moment when there were no legal surnames of the kind we know today but at best hereditary or life-time nicknames. I can imagine a world without surnames at all again. Again, it’s not about the surname. It’s only about the message by whatever decision is made.
For example, where the norm is to retain the family name, family could feel abandoned by dropping it. And a woman could feel hurt if it were her husband actually who didn’t want her to take his name. It’s not a question of ‘must a woman take her husband’s name?’, it’s a question of, ‘what message is sent by not taking it, what are the reasons for wanting to do something different?’ Some of which are troubling (and some not and some are actually pretty sensible, others could even be imperative (e.g. the last-of-kin-woman who marries a man with brothers, especially older ones)).
I just wanted to make sure that you are willing to acknowledge that such exceptions are legitimate.
Of course, but I even provided a specific list of exceptions myself. You must remember I always stressed the absence of a specific reason, or the presence of a reason that falls within the modern socially liberal ideas. I always said, multiple times, that good reasons existed in some situations, and that I wasn’t referring to them.
I understand these as general guidelines, not rigid rules that apply to every single couple, but I see a lot of value in talking about the roles this way, even though it is often misunderstood. I am not trying to push a radical feminist agenda.