Last Name Changes on Marriage

[sweetpetunia]

Continued from above:

As a married person, I would disagree that my husband and I had a “greater freedom of choice” in our activities when we were single. The only freedom of choice that is illicit in marriage that was not outside of marriage is, well, dating (And by dating, I mean seeing other people, because you can still date each other.) I would agree with you insofar as there is less TIME for independent leisure activties and less MONEY for leisure activities, particularly once you have children, compared to a person who remained single and does not enter the religious life, but I think that has more to do with having children than anything else. I would imagine married couples who are barren and have dual incomes have similiar or better finances than when they were single, and possibly more leisure time, due to combined incomes, and splitting of expenses as well as responsibilities. (Presuming they are roughly equally matched in salary, and participate roughly equally in cooking, laundry, errands, repairs, and household chores.)

As to : “The stereotype these days, however, is that it’s the man who acquiesces most often to avoid confrontation, to ‘keep the wife happy’”, it is just that–a stereotype. Anecdotal evidence is a poor companion, and jokes about the ol’ ball and chain are not evidence at all. I would certainly like to see any studies, if they exist There are studies that show that married men are less likely to drink, be depressed, and commit suicide and studies that show that married men are SIGNIFICANTLY happier and live SIGNIFICANTLY longer than their unmarried counterparts. So, I’d counter your argument that men sacrifice more than women when entering marriage, with the points outlined above and also the fact that women make sacrifices in their careers, if the husband and wife agree that the woman should be a homemaker instead of pursuing a career. (This is also true of stay-at-home dads, of course).

I do agree with you that for some men NOT having their wife take their name would be as much as a sacrifice as it is for some women to give up their name. And furthermore, I’d add that some women would not consider giving up their name a sacrifice at all However, I’d like to point out that a sacrifice coerced is hardly on parity with a sacrifice freely given. But, having said all of the above, I don’t think it’s wrong or immature for a man to have “wants to share my name” on his list of “must-have’s” for a future wife. In fact, that was our societal norm for generations. Just don’t wait until you’re engaged and all the deposits made on the wedding to tell her. (Don’t make it a first date item either, or make it a demand, because then you’ll likely drive away all the traditionally-minded name-taking girls, too )

 

[thewanderer]

(Snip)
As to : “The stereotype these days, however, is that it’s the man who acquiesces most often to avoid confrontation, to ‘keep the wife happy’”, it is just that–a stereotype. Anecdotal evidence is a poor companion, and jokes about the ol’ ball and chain are not evidence at all. I would certainly like to see any studies, if they exist There are studies that show that married men are less likely to drink, be depressed, and commit suicide and studies that show that married men are SIGNIFICANTLY happier and live SIGNIFICANTLY longer than their unmarried counterparts. So, I’d counter your argument that men sacrifice more than women when entering marriage, with the points outlined above and also the fact that women make sacrifices in their careers, if the husband and wife agree that the woman should be a homemaker instead of pursuing a career. (This is also true of stay-at-home dads, of course).

I do agree with you that for some men NOT having their wife take their name would be as much as a sacrifice as it is for some women to give up their name. And furthermore, I’d add that some women would not consider giving up their name a sacrifice at all However, I’d like to point out that a sacrifice coerced is hardly on parity with a sacrifice freely given. But, having said all of the above, I don’t think it’s wrong or immature for a man to have “wants to share my name” on his list of “must-have’s” for a future wife. In fact, that was our societal norm for generations. Just don’t wait until you’re engaged and all the deposits made on the wedding to tell her. (Don’t make it a first date item either, or make it a demand, because then you’ll likely drive away all the traditionally-minded name-taking girls, too )

Excellent post! You said it much better than I would have!

 

[Estevao]

Hi SP. Thanks for bringing up the bible and its mentions of marriage. A marriage between a husband and wife who want to make it work is a great thing, and the bedrock of society. You bringing up God saying “it is not good for man to be alone” is very pertinent since that came before the fall. Marriage is definitely a gift from God. Although St. Paul brings up the benefits of celibacy, he does mention that we have those different gifts resulting in differing preferences. Personally marriage would suit me better (since I’m an only child and grew up much more “cloistered” than I wanted, and I don’t wish to continue this till I die) and for me dating and marriage are or would be more beneficial than celibacy.

Ok lets stick with the sacrifice of getting married. I didn’t mean to derail, I was just trying to use math, I suppose, to persuade the fiancee to make the sacrifice. But since we’re not dealing with numbers it’s not going to be as convincing as I thought it might be because there’s going to be a difference of opinion on what the actual count is.

Thanks for your appraisal of the matter. I like getting how women view marriage. To be honest I have not thought much about marriage so far. I’d still argue that entering into marriage is a greater sacrifice for men, considering that as well the freedom from the risk of divorce is sacrificed when men enter into marriage, but now I have other ideas to consider. I wouldn’t shirk from using anecdotal or rather stereotypical evidence. Stereotypes don’t come from nowhere. And statistics can be fudged. But let’s just agree with those studies about men being happier and more healthy in marriage.

But then let me reiterate the fear that many men have of divorce. It’s like the sword of Damocles hanging over the throne that is a good marriage.

Whose benefits are well enumerated in this article:

city-journal.org/html/10_4_why_marriage_is.html

Your last paragraph sweetpetunia, and the last paragraph of thewanderer’s last long response are good summaries of the matter. (I came here to build faith, yet all of my posts are in contentious arguments - BAD Estevao, BAD! Change this!)

 

[mellowcalico]

How is divorce worse for a man? My husband left me… we are now divorced. When we were married I had a nice, large nest egg that we used to put him though college. We also moved around for his career–so he could move up at the work place. This had the effect of damaging my career since I was “job hopping.”

When he left me, he had secret credit cards that I am still paying. He also didn’t want share custody of our child since it didn’t fit in with his new lifestyle (I have to remind him to do things with his daughter… I have to push to get him involved in her life. He’s seeing her less and less). So now I am a single parent who’s life savings was stripped away and who’s earning potential is diminished. I am recovering, but it stung and still hurts when I see the pain it caused my daughter.

Don’t tell me Mr. “I got a college education on my wife’s pre-marriage savings… and I got to leave her half my debit and now I am living it big in a posh downtown apartment” made a bigger sacrifice. And don’t tell that to our child who misses her dad and doesn’t understand what happened. She’s made the biggest sacrifice and had no choice in the matter.

I will admit, I get a little bit angry at people’s words when I hear them spout off the stereotype of the gold digger wife taking all the man’s money and running. I was in a divorce support group and while yes, it did happen that men had women who left them high and dry. There were just as many women there who’s husbands took off and left them high and dry. It happens to both men and women equally. The idea that a man loses everything in divorce is dated and one-sided.

And yes, I am afraid of marriage now… I am having the Church look into the validity of my marriage. Even if they find it “null” I have my doubts if I ever want to date again (let alone re-marry). What if I get “conned” again? What if I get “used” again? And so many good, Catholic men don’t want anything to do with a divorce (AKA damaged) woman–what are my chances? I rather be alone and focus on being the best mother I can be.

 

[AthenaC]

How is divorce worse for a man? My husband left me… we are now divorced.

I was about to post a similar reply, but you beat me to it, and you wrote more articulately than I probably would have.

In my case my husband left me homeless in Fairbanks, AK with a baby … in the winter. He smashed up the apartment we lived in, blamed it on me, and then when we got kicked out of that apartment, he goes running back to his unit (he was Army), crying about how his crazy wife hits him, showed them a bruise from when I whacked him on the head to get him to stop anally raping me (gee I wonder why I hit him? ), and was given a nice warm room in the barracks to live in. I had nowhere to go.

So who sacrificed more for that marriage? I was a stay-at-home mom and totally dependent on him, as all stay-at-home moms are. When it fell apart I was homeless and penniless. When it fell apart he had a place to live, food to eat, and no one to take care of except himself.

I am with mellocalico - I get a little irritated when I see the stereotype of the gold-digging woman get trotted out. The reality is that if a woman has a good divorce lawyer, she WILL get a hefty settlement, because the husband has the regular paycheck while the wife has nothing since she sacrificed everything to be his wife … and oh yeah, she is still responsible for feeding the kids. Current family law reflects this reality. Is it abused? Sometimes, sure. But sometimes even with the family law the way it is, men still walk away scot-free, like mellowcalico’s and my respective ex-husbands.

Now, some encouragement for mellocalico - if your ex doesn’t really want to see your daughter, don’t force it. It’s better for her to be with you who loves her 100% of the time than to be with a father who has emotionally rejected her. Also, with the remarriage issue, you know what’s best for you, but you may want to consider that if you remarry a great guy, your daughter will have an example to look at for “how someone should treat me in marriage” and your daughter will also have a father figure.

If you do decide to date again, keep in mind that already having your daughter puts you in a position of great power in the dating world. If you have a daughter already, this fact does a great job in weeding out the people who are not serious and who are not open to marriage and family - serious time-saver. Also, some areas that couples negotiate before having kids are much simpler to navigate since you already have a daughter - you basically get to say to a potential husband “This is how I’m raising my daughter - A, B, and C are nonnegotiable. If that’s not okay with you, then we may not be a good match.” The example I always give is that my husband is agnostic while I am Catholic. Before we got together, I told him that I was raising my girls Catholic; he didn’t have to help, but he did have to promise not to undermine me. Fast forward 4 years later, and it’s going well; he even respects my faith because he sees how we practice it.

Now, theoretically you can avoid the mixed-religion issue by marrying a Catholic, but the only “Catholics” I met had some rather strange theological ideas. I would go so far as to not call them Catholic, so you need to be careful here, too. If my only Catholic choices are these “Catholics,” I’ll take my intellectually honest agnostic husband any day. Such a “Catholic” would only serve to corrupt my children’s theological understanding in a way my agnostic husband never can (even if he wanted to). Yes, I could have waited for an actual (not fake) Catholic, but there were a lot of ways my husband was perfect for our family, and I thought that it was important for my girls to bond with a good father figure sooner rather than later.

The above is just what worked for me; your situation may be different, and of course ultimately it is all up to you. One final thought - it is not nearly as stigmatized as it used to be for a woman to be single with kids, so you may not find it to be as difficult to find a good man as you think it will be. This is one of the good side effects of the sexual revolution.

I know most of the above was a tangent, but I thought mellowcalico deserved a reply.

 

[sweetpetunia]

Hi SP. Thanks for bringing up the bible and its mentions of marriage. A marriage between a husband and wife who want to make it work is a great thing, and the bedrock of society. You bringing up God saying “it is not good for man to be alone” is very pertinent since that came before the fall. Marriage is definitely a gift from God. Although St. Paul brings up the benefits of celibacy, he does mention that we have those different gifts resulting in differing preferences. Personally marriage would suit me better (since I’m an only child and grew up much more “cloistered” than I wanted, and I don’t wish to continue this till I die) and for me dating and marriage are or would be more beneficial than celibacy.

Ok lets stick with the sacrifice of getting married. I didn’t mean to derail, I was just trying to use math, I suppose, to persuade the fiancee to make the sacrifice. But since we’re not dealing with numbers it’s not going to be as convincing as I thought it might be because there’s going to be a difference of opinion on what the actual count is.

Thanks for your appraisal of the matter. I like getting how women view marriage. To be honest I have not thought much about marriage so far. I’d still argue that entering into marriage is a greater sacrifice for men, considering that as well the freedom from the risk of divorce is sacrificed when men enter into marriage, but now I have other ideas to consider. I wouldn’t shirk from using anecdotal or rather stereotypical evidence. Stereotypes don’t come from nowhere. And statistics can be fudged. But let’s just agree with those studies about men being happier and more healthy in marriage.

But then let me reiterate the fear that many men have of divorce. It’s like the sword of Damocles hanging over the throne that is a good marriage.

Whose benefits are well enumerated in this article:

city-journal.org/html/10_4_why_marriage_is.html

Your last paragraph sweetpetunia, and the last paragraph of thewanderer’s last long response are good summaries of the matter. (I came here to build faith, yet all of my posts are in contentious arguments - BAD Estevao, BAD! Change this!)

The sword of Damocles…ominous indeed I would definitely agree that the system needs fixing, however. Are you thinking of anything in particular? (Alimony/child support issues? Custody/visitation issues? Other?) If it makes you feel better, couples who seriously practice a traditional faith have a much lower risk of divorce, as do couples who do not cohabitate, as do couples who practice nfp for child-spacing within marriage. I am not saying it can’t happen, but if you practice the faith seriously, and choose wisely, odds are in your favour.

Some sisterly advice, I would very strongly suggest not trying to persuade your (future) fiancee to take your name by using “math” to convince her that it is a fair deal because of all the sacrifices you are making by marrying her. I can see how that would be appealing from a man’s pov, but from an average woman’s…well, you’d be known as the man who killed romance I’d say, appeal to her generous nature instead. Something along the lines of: “Darling, I love you tremendously, and it would mean the world to me if you would share my name, as well as my heart, and be Mrs. X” would have a much better chance at success in most cases, I would imagine (Sorry, I don’t mean to sound sanctimonious by offering unsolicited advice! Just another female perspective )

LOL, I think the controversial discussions/debates are the best, because it is good to be exposed to different points of view. I don’t get it at all when posters lay into other posters for having a different viewpoint, because if they think the person could stand to learn a thing or two from people like them, why the heck would they drive them away? Makes no sense to me! (Obviously promoting evil/causing scandal would be different–I would imagine that breaks forum rules. Meh, maybe I’m just too much of a softy. But I do hope nobody gets driven away by the way people disagree )

 

[AthenaC]

Some sisterly advice, I would very strongly suggest not trying to persuade your (future) fiancee to take your name by using “math” to convince her that it is a fair deal because of all the sacrifices you are making by marrying her.

LOL, I think the controversial discussions/debates are the best, because it is good to be exposed to different points of view. I don’t get it at all when posters lay into other posters for having a different viewpoint, because if they think the person could stand to learn a thing or two from people like them, why the heck would they drive them away? Makes no sense to me! (Obviously promoting evil/causing scandal would be different–I would imagine that breaks forum rules. Meh, maybe I’m just too much of a softy. But I do hope nobody gets driven away by the way people disagree )

Indeed - if you say the word “marry” and “sacrifice” in the same sentence, you won’t have a fiance left to worry about this issue with.

Re: the bolded - it’s not even clear-cut sometimes what types of opinions are “promoting evil/causing scandal” and which are … just opinions. Practically any thread will have some posters condemning even reasonable opinions as “promoting evil.” There’s a reason that the “Mortal Sin Games” in the Water Cooler section has such enduring popularity.

 

[sweetpetunia]

AthenaC and MellowCalico, thanks for sharing your stories. It takes courage to do that! That’s an enormous lot of suffering, and I admire you both for your strength. So sorry you went through that, though. It’s flat out evil. MellowCalico, I hope you can find a better, happier place.

 

[sweetpetunia]

Indeed - if you say the word “marry” and “sacrifice” in the same sentence, you won’t have a fiance left to worry about this issue with.

Re: the bolded - it’s not even clear-cut sometimes what types of opinions are “promoting evil/causing scandal” and which are … just opinions. Practically any thread will have some posters condemning even reasonable opinions as “promoting evil.” There’s a reason that the “Mortal Sin Games” in the Water Cooler section has such enduring popularity.

Ha, I’ve never come across that! Is it really a game? (Like of hypotheticals?)

 

[sweetpetunia]

(snip!) It happens to both men and women equally. (snip!)

Just to clarify, by “equally” do you mean that both sexes are capable of acting sinfully and selfishly to destroy their spouse, and so women as well as men get burned, or do you mean that “the system” burns men and women equally (from a numerical perspective), and so there is a roughly equivalent amount of women and men getting the short end of the stick in divorce cases? I would agree with the first, but for the second, the skeptic in me says, I want to see data to decide either way

 

[mini_me640]

Estevao,

Before you get too attached to the idea that getting married is a bigger sacrifice for men than women, consider that studies show married men live longer than single men and are healthier, while married women have shorter lifespans than single women…

 

[AthenaC]

Just to clarify, by “equally” do you mean that both sexes are capable of acting sinfully and selfishly to destroy their spouse, and so women as well as men get burned, or do you mean that “the system” burns men and women equally (from a numerical perspective), and so there is a roughly equivalent amount of women and men getting the short end of the stick in divorce cases? I would agree with the first, but for the second, the skeptic in me says, I want to see data to decide either way

legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/divorce/men-v-women-who-does

familylaw.typepad.com/stats/effects_on_divorced_people_happiness/

The first link is an article (first one I found on Google that wasn’t the Daily Mail or Huffington Post) describing the reasons why men do significantly better financially after divorce. All of it is consistent with mellowcalico’s and my stories.

The second link has a lot of interesting information.

 

[Petergee]

Estevao,

Before you get too attached to the idea that getting married is a bigger sacrifice for men than women, consider that studies show married men live longer than single men and are healthier, while married women have shorter lifespans than single women…

Beware of selective statistics. And please don’t state averages as if they apply to everyone.
More recent analysis shows that on average married women live as long or even slightly longer than single women.

And even the earlier studies you refer to also showed that on average:
married women live longer than their husbands;
married women live longer than de-facto women;
married mothers live much longer than unmarried mothers.

Another (OT but) fascinating recent study shows that on average women with 2 or more chidlren live longer than women with no chidlren or only one child. And every extra child they have after the first adds a bit longer to their lifespan.

So much for all that propaganda claiming that women “need” contraception to stop them being “worn out by childbearing and dying prematurely”.

 

[Petergee]

I have to be finished with this conversation. This is really cutting into my my schedule. And there will be no convincing me that a man that states he’d choose to call me or any woman by the name of his choosing, in effort to make an example out of the person, would ever be a man I’d spend more time on that I already have. My MIL does this, she always shorten’s my first name to something that makes me want to puke. She also has a passive aggressive manner about her. His behavior, btw, is passive aggressive. I’m sure he doesn’t mean anything by it. He’s just sayin’

Think about it. Your name and what you want to be called. Should it really be up to a stranger to teach you a lesson about your personal choices, that have nothing to do with moral code?

Off to go do my job under my maiden name.

If this is a crack at me for my comment that I would call a women by her married name even if she didn’t, I am not being “passive aggressive” or “teaching you a lesson about your personal choices”. I am merely exercising MY personal choices which do no harm to you whatsoever, unless you are going to fall back on the novel catch-all political corerrectness claim that it “gives offence” to you or is “hate speech”.

Millions of people get called by names, or nicknames, or abbreviations of their names, that they don’t care for, would never use for themselves, and even positively hate. Get over it. You can’t** force** people to call you by a particular name. (Though I’m sure the dictators of political correctness are right now working on proposing a new law to enforce this.) .

 

[BlueEyedLady]

If this is a crack at me for my comment that I would call a women by her married name even if she didn’t, I am not being “passive aggressive” or “teaching you a lesson about your personal choices”. I am merely exercising MY personal choices which do no harm to you whatsoever, unless you are going to fall back on the novel catch-all political corerrectness claim that it “gives offence” to you or is “hate speech”.

Millions of people get called by names, or nicknames, or abbreviations of their names, that they don’t care for, would never use for themselves, and even positively hate. Get over it. You can’t** force** people to call you by a particular name. (Though I’m sure the dictators of political correctness are right now working on proposing a new law to enforce this.) .

Choosing to call someone by a name that isn’t theirs is intentionally rude and disrespectful. If I worked with you and you did that after I told you to stop you would be reported for harassment.

 

[prayforus9]

I always wanted to keep my last name. It means so much to me! I love where it originates from and I’ve grown up with it my whole life. I’m also an only child and no one in my immediate family will pass it on. I was hoping my then boyfriend would be ok with me keeping my name or possibly hyphenating it with his but to be honest it was just to difficult to compromise. In the end I decided it meant more to him that I take his name and we might name one of our future children after my last name because it can be used as a first name too and is the name of a saint. I was quite upset when I decided to take his last name, but at the same time offered it up to God and realized he has already sacrificed so much for us in our relationship. Looking back on it now, I’m happy I decided to take his name.

 

[Petergee]

Choosing to call someone by a name that isn’t theirs is intentionally rude and disrespectful. If I worked with you and you did that after I told you to stop you would be reported for harassment.

And sadly there are a few workplace bosses today whoare so bending over backwards to be seen as politically correct that they would actually take such a complaint seriously and “counsel” the “offender”, instead of laughing it off, throwing it in the WPB where it belongs and telling you to get a grip on reality.

You must be a real fun gal to work with.

I have a relative named Jacqueline. She hates being called Jacquie, or, even worse, Jackie. (In Australia “Jacky” is an old rather offensive term for an Aborigine.) But 99% of the people she meets and works with do it ALL THE TIME, even though she never uses the name herself when introducing herself etc. They do it out of laziness or habit (Australians abbreviate everything) or even because they think it makes them sound more friendly. If she slapped a harrassment suit on all the thousands of people who have called her the “wrong” name, she wouldn’t have time to do so even if she lived to be 100 and did nothing else in her life.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

And sadly there are a few workplace bosses today whoare so bending over backwards to be seen as politically correct that they would actually take such a complaint seriously and “counsel” the “offender”, instead of laughing it off, throwing it in the WPB where it belongs and telling you to get a grip on reality.

You must be a real fun gal to work with.

I have a relative named Jacqueline. She hates being called Jacquie, or, even worse, Jackie. (In Australia “Jacky” is an old rather offensive term for an Aborigine.) But 99% of the people she meets and works with do it ALL THE TIME, even though she never uses the name herself when introducing herself etc. They do it out of laziness or habit (Australians abbreviate everything) or even because they think it makes them sound more friendly. If she slapped a harrassment suit on all the thousands of people who have called her the “wrong” name, she wouldn’t have time to do so even if she lived to be 100 and did nothing else in her life.

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

Most employers would correct the offender because they (and you) could be sued over it. Everyone deserves basic respect, and intentionally calling someone by something that isn’t their name just for the sake of putting them in their place is wrong and has no place in society or the workplace.

 

[Petergee]

I’m very sorry to have offended you, it was not at all my intent.

No problem.

My point isn’t about ‘levelling the playing field’. That kind of attitude has no place in marriage, it is not a competition between the spouses to see who can “win”. My point is that in marriage your spouse and their feelings must come before other things, incuding customs. If someone is willing to put this custom before their spouse then what else are they willing to put before him/her? Yes, customs are important and have value, but they are not as important as being attentive and considerate of the feelings of one’s spouse. When married your vocation is to your spouse, not to the customs of the culture you grew up in.

I never suggested that any custom is more important than one’s spouse. My point is that when someone arbitrarily reverses a longstanding and entrenched social custom, which gives the appearance (though she may deny it is her intention) that any or all of the following apply:
she doesn’t take marriage terribly seriously
she doesn’t intend the marriage to be permanent
she is ashamed of being married to her husband
she is so immature that she is more interested in following a trendy fad or being a supposed “feminist” than being married
she doesn’t want to acknowledge the paternity of any children she and her husband may have
etc.

then she apparently is not (at present) a suitable woman to marry me, or anyone.

 

[Petergee]

After reading a number of these posts, I am, quite frankly, horrified at the individuals who believe that they would separate from a fiancee based on her unwillingness to change her name. This shows an appalling zeal to devaluate and objectify a woman; one should value a person for who they are, rather than who they will become.

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

I believe that one should get married based on mutual love and respect for one another: when two people marry, they come together as equals, and not as a individual exerting dominance over another. If two individuals are equals, then I believe it is quite hypocritical of one individual to desire the other to change their name when the first person is unwilling to consider to change their own. When a man wishes to marry Ms. Maidenname, he desires to marry her for the woman she is presently, not who she will become by donning a name. Most individuals are shaped by the experiences they have encountered in life, and one’s name is a formative and defining aspect to one’s character. If Ms. Maidenname has a legitimate reason why she wishes to keep her name or hyphenate, then her future spouse should understand and respect her wishes. I find it unreasonable and somewhat tyrannical for one individual to dictate the actions of another, for it shows a lack of respect for that individual’s personhood. If I were to marry, I would have no foreseeable objections to taking my husband’s name, however, I understand why some wish to keep their maiden names. For an individual to drop a fiancee based on something so petty is truly unfair, and ruins the integrity of what a relationship is supposed to be based on.

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