S
sweetpetunia
Guest
If you’re implying what I think you’re implying by posting that comment with a specific poster’s name, than that is an extremely ungracious thing to say.
Different folks, different strokes.
- Status
Different folks, different strokes.
F
faithfully
Guest
Perhaps you should read what the specific poster wrote. Because, quite honestly, I think I said what I had to way with plenty of graciousness. What I really think is a not appropriate for this forum.
You’re right. “different folks, different strokes.” Perhaps you should go and reprimand a person who indicates others are STUPID, and are obviously not committed to their marriage for not going with his different stroke.
In case you missed it. His response #56, to mine #51.
A
AthenaC
Guest
All of which is lovely, but irrelevant to this discussion. I don’t really care what the “feminists” think, and in any case I doubt that all “feminists” think as a monolithic block.
You still haven’t explained why a woman’s name is 'her father’s" but a man’s name is not “his father’s” but rather “his.”
S
sweetpetunia
Guest
I went back and re-read it. I see what you’re saying, I do. But I think there is a difference. He is attacking an IDEA. He thinks it is stupid for a woman to want to keep her own name. He does put it bluntly, and I see how you might think it’s a judgement on your ACTIONS since it was in response to your comments. However, your comment really seems to attack his PERSON by implying his inferiority. Or at least that’s the way I saw it. Maybe I’m flying solo here. :takeoff:
A
AthenaC
Guest
Well, to a person such as myself (and faithfully it sounds like), such an individual would be inferior as a husband, compared to the husbands we are blessed with. It’s all a matter of taste and preference.
F
faithfully
Guest
Well, I’m sure there are plenty that would get on your plane. However, he is attacking. There is nothing wrong with hyphenating a name. Especially, when there are very strong reasons for doing so. Especially, when both husband and wife, and parent in laws also agree considering the details it’s the best idea.
See, this sort of stuff is not always taken lightly. Facts are taken into consideration. Actual facts. Decisions are made based on actual facts. And those living with the decisions are perfectly content. Keeping in mind that no moral situation is at hand. No sins have been committed.
So what is inappropriate is a man that decides a woman is just being non committal to a relationship he knows nothing about. He claims that when a woman tells him her name is Jones-Smith, he just calls her Mrs. Smith, because that’s what is right. He decides that what her husband is fine with, for whatever reason, he knows better.
And so, yes, I stand by what I say. My husband would ask. “Hmm, that’s interesting. What brought you to your decision?” Actually, my husband has been asked why he would “allow” me to keep my name. He’s actually quite grossed out with people that assume he would control me and my actions. He functions from a very strong stance that he married a woman who he knows has a strong moral code, and a good head on her shoulders. She doesn’t do stupid things. Generally speaking. However, the people asking for details usually do so politely. They don’t say. “Wow that was stupid. No one is showing love in your situation. Your wife is not committed to your marriage.”
DH then explains our situation. And they say. “Hmm, I hadn’t thought of that. That is understandable.”
And so yes, I stand by what I say. A man that makes blanket statements about non moral issues; Who proclaims the ideas of others are stupid, and basically prove to the world the implementation of those ideas are a lack of committment to a marriage is a man speaking his opinion as if it’s truth. He expresses judgement over another’s actions, again, having nothing to do with a moral situation, and he expresses judgement over the committment to a marriage. Over the committment to a sacrament. A sacrament, carried out in a church, by a priest, witnessed by all those that matter. If you can’t see how utterly insulting, and condensending this is, that is your interpretation. I see it as a very ingracious on his part. And yes, his sort of thought process, expressed as fact makes me even more keenly aware how special my husband is. My husband does not verbally bash people, or their ideas knowing absolutely nothing about their situation. He does not run around on his high horse informing you of your poor choices based on his opinion of unknown facts.
For that, I’m even more greatful for him. Trust me, this is often noticed by my female friends. I can’t tell you how many times I hear them complain about what I consider very ill behavior by their spouses, and they just sit and tell me how lucky I am. I get it often.
S
sweetpetunia
Guest
Taste and preference have to do with suitability, not inferiority. If she said, “Well, I feel so blessed to have found a husband who thinks differently.” it probably wouldn’t have come across the way it did. However, to say “What I love about CAF most! When I thought I couldn’t love my husband anymore, certain men post here.” WHILST naming a specific name, well that just seemed snide. Maybe it wasn’t meant that way, but I hate to see even subtle bullying. I think it drives people away. I don’t have an axe to grind, I am happy to be wrong.
F
faithfully
Guest
I can not believe that you don’t see his attitude as bullying. He’s the bully, and I have every right to defend my stance. And I have every right to to fire back with equal fire power.
Done!
S
sweetpetunia
Guest
I agree. It is definitely not a sin to keep one’s own name or hyphenate
He did not say that a woman who keeps her name is just being non-committal to a relationship. He said it sends a message that she is. (As in, regardless of her intentions, that’s what he thinks it looks like to other people.) Maybe in his part of Australia that is true. Maybe people do wonder why if you choose not to change your name when you get married. Maybe he sees it the same as though a man refused to have (let alone wear) a wedding ring. Maybe the man has a perfectly valid reason for doing so, but still the message that people might take away from that is that the man is not committed to the relationship. I’m not saying it’s right to do that, but some people probably would do that.
You don’t agree with the way he claims to ignore the hyphenated part of a woman’s name. I don’t either. But it definitely doesn’t (shouldn’t) define you, especially since it wasn’t directed to you. And it is so much more productive to address that issue rather than insult the person. I like learning from all you guys, but mudslinging doesn’t promote personal growth, even if he had “started it” and it was just a knee-jerk reaction
Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox, lol. I am not claiming to be perfect, either I am glad your husband is the way you says he is too. He seems like a stand-up fella. I probably would like you both IRL.
A
AthenaC
Guest
Well … If I am blessed with a man who cares about my feelings and is open to deciding such an issue together, and on the other hand is a man who does not care about my feelings and would throw our relationship away rather than decide such an issue together, then yes, the terms “superior” and “inferior” definitely apply.
F
faithfully
Guest
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’I agree. It is definitely not a sin to keep one’s own name or hyphenate
He did not say that a woman who keeps her name is just being non-committal to a relationship. He said it sends a message that she is. (As in, regardless of her intentions, that’s what he thinks it looks like to other people.) Maybe in his part of Australia that is true. Maybe people do wonder why if you choose not to change your name when you get married. Maybe he sees it the same as though a man refused to have (let alone wear) a wedding ring. Maybe the man has a perfectly valid reason for doing so, but still the message that people might take away from that is that the man is not committed to the relationship. I’m not saying it’s right to do that, but some people probably would do that.
You don’t agree with the way he claims to ignore the hyphenated part of a woman’s name. I don’t either. But it definitely doesn’t (shouldn’t) define you, especially since it wasn’t directed to you. And it is so much more productive to address that issue rather than insult the person. I like learning from all you guys, but mudslinging doesn’t promote personal growth, even if he had “started it” and it was just a knee-jerk reaction
I am glad your husband is the way you says he is too. He seems like a stand-up fella. I probably would like you both IRL.
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.
N
nickybr38
Guest
It is our culture for women to take on the last name of their husbands.
I know in Korea the women retain their given name at birth, even after marriage. That’s their culture. It’s not mine. (just as an example of cultures where women do not take on their husband’s last name)
When and if I ever marry I will honor my heritage and take on the name of my husband. Because it’s how my family has always done things and I see no valid reason to buck the tradition.
I know in Korea the women retain their given name at birth, even after marriage. That’s their culture. It’s not mine. (just as an example of cultures where women do not take on their husband’s last name)
When and if I ever marry I will honor my heritage and take on the name of my husband. Because it’s how my family has always done things and I see no valid reason to buck the tradition.
E
Estevao
Guest
Marriage is a larger sacrifice for men than it is for women, who’ve virtually all dreamed of it since they were little girls. This is in addition to the risk and danger that divorce poses these days for men and their assets and children. I think the least women can do in light of that is to go along with the tradition if the husband so wishes. She’s not giving up much (even if it has a big significance for her), but the man is risking a lot. I think a man must be firm on this matter, if he wants it. If a woman were willing to leave you over something as simple as a name change, just imagine how easily she’d leave you, or how rough married life would become, with when bigger issues come up. You’d be definitely be better off not marrying if it’s that big a deal to her.
I think these would be a nice product suitable for the man who begrudgingly acquiesces to his fiancée’s demands to keep her name or hyphenate the name:
empathybelly.org/home.html
"The Empathy Belly"® Pregnancy Simulator lets you know what it feels like to be pregnant! It is a multi-component, weighted “garment” that will – through medically accurate simulation – enable men, women, teenage girls and boys to experience over 20 symptoms and effects of pregnancy,
http://www.empathybelly.org/teen300.jpg
I think these would be a nice product suitable for the man who begrudgingly acquiesces to his fiancée’s demands to keep her name or hyphenate the name:
empathybelly.org/home.html
"The Empathy Belly"® Pregnancy Simulator lets you know what it feels like to be pregnant! It is a multi-component, weighted “garment” that will – through medically accurate simulation – enable men, women, teenage girls and boys to experience over 20 symptoms and effects of pregnancy,
http://www.empathybelly.org/teen300.jpg
S
severus68
Guest
Why is marriage a larger sacrifice for a man than a woman? Why is marriage a sacrifice for a man or a woman at all? I would think that anyone who looks at marriage as a sacrifice should really not get married at all.Marriage is a larger sacrifice for men than it is for women, who’ve virtually all dreamed of it since they were little girls. This is in addition to the risk and danger that divorce poses these days for men and their assets and children. I think the least women can do in light of that is to go along with the tradition if the husband so wishes. She’s not giving up much (even if it has a big significance for her), but the man is risking a lot. I think a man must be firm on this matter, if he wants it. If a woman were willing to leave you over something as simple as a name change, just imagine how easily she’d leave you, or how rough married life would become, with when bigger issues come up. You’d be definitely be better off not marrying if it’s that big a deal to her.
I think these would be a nice product suitable for the man who begrudgingly acquiesces to his fiancée’s demands to keep her name or hyphenate the name:
empathybelly.org/home.html
"The Empathy Belly"® Pregnancy Simulator lets you know what it feels like to be pregnant! It is a multi-component, weighted “garment” that will – through medically accurate simulation – enable men, women, teenage girls and boys to experience over 20 symptoms and effects of pregnancy,
http://www.empathybelly.org/teen300.jpg
S
Sullibe
Guest
Why is marriage a larger sacrifice for a man than a woman? Why is marriage a sacrifice for a man or a woman at all? I would think that anyone who looks at marriage as a sacrifice should really not get married at all.
On the contrary, marriage is, indeed, a sacrifice. It takes a LOT of hard work and requires the carrying of many crosses. It’s the people who don’t want to accept that marriage is supposed to be about sacrifice who are the ones that struggle in their marriages. Sacrifice is not a bad thing.
On the contrary, marriage is, indeed, a sacrifice. It takes a LOT of hard work and requires the carrying of many crosses. It’s the people who don’t want to accept that marriage is supposed to be about sacrifice who are the ones that struggle in their marriages. Sacrifice is not a bad thing.
R
ryecroft
Guest
I kept my last name for many reasons - but eventually we wound up hyphenating. It bothers me when some men say that they could possibly end a relationship because a woman wouldn’t take his last name - Why should it be any less insulting that you wouldn’t want to take a woman’s last name or hyphenate. I guess I’m lucky, my husband knew I would never change my last name to his - actually we thought he might change to mine but with the military it was too weird. If your marriage can be prevented or broken up by a name then maybe it wasn’t meant to be in the first place. (and maybe someone is putting too much emphasis and needs to think about why it’s so important that another change something when you aren’t willing to change yourself…)
God Bless
Rye
God Bless
Rye
T
thewanderer
Guest
Really? Are you trying to turn this into a men vs women debate? Marriage is not a greater sacrifice for men. Marriage is a complete sacrifice of self for the other whether you are male or female. Period, end of story.
And as to your specific examples … again, really? First of all… how would thinking about marriage from a younger age make it less of a sacrifice? If a man is not 100% on board with getting married the solution is simple, don’t get married! It doesn’t matter what age they were before they realized that they want to get married. Men and Women must both want 100% to get married or else they shouldn’t do it.
Divorce takes its toll on everyone involved, especially the children, especially if the couple decides to fight over who gets custody of the children thinking only of making sure they each get ‘their share’ of time with the children. Also, how in the world can you count problems that come from a divorce as part of the sacrifices of marriage? Divorce is usually the result of the inability of a couple to live out their married vocation as they ought, ie, their failure to sacrifice themselves for the other. Please do not confuse the two. It is precisely when someone comes to marriage thinking about all of their wants and desires and/or about the what ifs of divorce as if divorce is a viable option that the marriage is almost gauranteed to fall apart. Such a person is not ready for marriage.
As I said earlier, each person must sacrifice themselves 100% for the other. This is what they are called to do in this vocation. Of course no one will live up to this perfectly, but it is wrong to come to marriage as a martyr, convinced that you are the one sacrificing more, and so feeling entitled to certain things from your spouse. Entitlement is the worst enemy of a married couple. When someone feels entitled then they are thinking about themselves rather than their spouse. The attitude presented here where it is “the least women can do” to take their husbands last name is an attitude incompatible with the true vocation of marriage. If I heard any man say such a thing it would raise HUGE red flags as to their ability to live out the vocation of marriage. I would honestly run for the hills if someone I was dating were to make such a statement as I know I cannot allow myself to marry someone who lacks the maturity necessary for the vocation of marriage.
S
severus68
Guest
Working on a marriage should not be considered a sacrifice. Sacrificing for each other is not the same as making marriage a sacrifice. Sacrificing for each other is about love. If anyone considers that it is a sacrifice to even go into a marriage he/she should not.
E
Estevao
Guest
I should have said “getting married” is a larger sacrifice for men.
**sac·ri·fice (skr-fs)
n.
2.
a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.
b. Something so forfeited.**
There are many benefits to the single life, enumerated in scripture and known through experience. Greater freedom of choice in your activities I’d guess is the greatest benefit. There are also many benefits in marriage, greater in some viewpoints. One sacrifices the former for the latter if one wishes.
Now when both partners get married, they give up doing what they want in many areas, and have to negotiate with their spouse. The stereotype these days, however, is that it’s the man who acquiesces most often to avoid confrontation, to “keep the wife happy”. This might also be called being whipped, especially when the husband is subjected his wife withholding sex or using it as a weapon, being forced to sleep on the couch, and losing time to hang out with his friends. I don’t mean to create discord here between the sexes, in fact being whipped by the ol’ ball n’ chain is sometimes humourous to many around here, but I don’t think it’s out of line to say that these days husbands sacrifice more for their brides than vice versa.
Now, add to this the risk of divorce. I don’t think a man should jump into a marriage thinking that divorce couldn’t affect him because he’s in love. Anything’s possible, and I’ve witnessed many divorces in my family and read enough stories all about Jekyl and Hyde on the part of the lovely and beloved bride who wants a divorce (and needs no substantial reason for it). Pretending that it couldn’t happen will lead to more stress if it unexpectedly does. This is all true for the woman too, but the statistics I’ve read stated that it is women who initiate divorce 70% of the time. Then comes the family law courts, whose bias towards women is the subject for another thread. I didn’t expressly say that the possibility of divorce was a sacrifice, and I should have called it a burden that a man bears out of love.
Thus taking on the risk of potential divorce, and the sacrifices that men make for a marriage, would, in my case, necessitate me demanding it of my fiancee that she change her last name to mine. No hyphenating either, because that’s just dorky imo. A woman who would make such a fuss over this would also raise red flags for me, as I alluded to in my last post #153.
It was suggested earlier on that these two types of people would certainly be better off not marrying, but since we’re discussing this, it helps to consider the views of various opinions and how we all approach this. I can see how me mentioning my fear of divorce would make some think that I was being immature here, and for that I guess I wouldn’t mention it to my fiancee (the sacrifice argument should be sufficient enough), but I wanted to bring it up to mention in this discussion what’s going through my mind when I’m being a stickler on this issue.
P.S. If the woman makes the same demand to keep her name and her and the fiance come to a cross-roads, it has been suggested at several times at this thread that the man is the one who’s being immature in not going along. If we ignore the reasons of those who support taking on the husband’s name, or vice versa, this argument then simply works both ways and is in effect simply becomes an opportunity to use an ad hominem. One side, if it’s important for both, has got to give, so I view it as a sacrifice that has to be made somehow.
tl;dr:
-Men sacrifice more by entering into marriage
-Men are at a greater risk of a divorce through a biased family court system
-Women should therefore just make this one sacrifice if the name has significance for her, and if the husband wants her to take his name
**sac·ri·fice (skr-fs)
n.
2.
a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.
b. Something so forfeited.**
There are many benefits to the single life, enumerated in scripture and known through experience. Greater freedom of choice in your activities I’d guess is the greatest benefit. There are also many benefits in marriage, greater in some viewpoints. One sacrifices the former for the latter if one wishes.
Now when both partners get married, they give up doing what they want in many areas, and have to negotiate with their spouse. The stereotype these days, however, is that it’s the man who acquiesces most often to avoid confrontation, to “keep the wife happy”. This might also be called being whipped, especially when the husband is subjected his wife withholding sex or using it as a weapon, being forced to sleep on the couch, and losing time to hang out with his friends. I don’t mean to create discord here between the sexes, in fact being whipped by the ol’ ball n’ chain is sometimes humourous to many around here, but I don’t think it’s out of line to say that these days husbands sacrifice more for their brides than vice versa.
Now, add to this the risk of divorce. I don’t think a man should jump into a marriage thinking that divorce couldn’t affect him because he’s in love. Anything’s possible, and I’ve witnessed many divorces in my family and read enough stories all about Jekyl and Hyde on the part of the lovely and beloved bride who wants a divorce (and needs no substantial reason for it). Pretending that it couldn’t happen will lead to more stress if it unexpectedly does. This is all true for the woman too, but the statistics I’ve read stated that it is women who initiate divorce 70% of the time. Then comes the family law courts, whose bias towards women is the subject for another thread. I didn’t expressly say that the possibility of divorce was a sacrifice, and I should have called it a burden that a man bears out of love.
Thus taking on the risk of potential divorce, and the sacrifices that men make for a marriage, would, in my case, necessitate me demanding it of my fiancee that she change her last name to mine. No hyphenating either, because that’s just dorky imo.
A woman who would make such a fuss over this would also raise red flags for me, as I alluded to in my last post #153.It was suggested earlier on that these two types of people would certainly be better off not marrying, but since we’re discussing this, it helps to consider the views of various opinions and how we all approach this. I can see how me mentioning my fear of divorce would make some think that I was being immature here, and for that I guess I wouldn’t mention it to my fiancee (the sacrifice argument should be sufficient enough), but I wanted to bring it up to mention in this discussion what’s going through my mind when I’m being a stickler on this issue.
P.S. If the woman makes the same demand to keep her name and her and the fiance come to a cross-roads, it has been suggested at several times at this thread that the man is the one who’s being immature in not going along. If we ignore the reasons of those who support taking on the husband’s name, or vice versa, this argument then simply works both ways and is in effect simply becomes an opportunity to use an ad hominem. One side, if it’s important for both, has got to give, so I view it as a sacrifice that has to be made somehow.
tl;dr:
-Men sacrifice more by entering into marriage
-Men are at a greater risk of a divorce through a biased family court system
-Women should therefore just make this one sacrifice if the name has significance for her, and if the husband wants her to take his name
S
sweetpetunia
Guest
Wowza, you just opened a huge can of worms, lol.I should have said “getting married” is a larger sacrifice for men.
**sac·ri·fice (skr-fs)
n.
2.
a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.
b. Something so forfeited.**
There are many benefits to the single life, enumerated in scripture and known through experience. Greater freedom of choice in your activities I’d guess is the greatest benefit. There are also many benefits in marriage, greater in some viewpoints. One sacrifices the former for the latter if one wishes.
Now when both partners get married, they give up doing what they want in many areas, and have to negotiate with their spouse. The stereotype these days, however, is that it’s the man who acquiesces most often to avoid confrontation, to “keep the wife happy”. This might also be called being whipped, especially when the husband is subjected his wife withholding sex or using it as a weapon, being forced to sleep on the couch, and losing time to hang out with his friends. I don’t mean to create discord here between the sexes, in fact being whipped by the ol’ ball n’ chain is sometimes humourous to many around here, but I don’t think it’s out of line to say that these days husbands sacrifice more for their brides than vice versa.
Now, add to this the risk of divorce. I don’t think a man should jump into a marriage thinking that divorce couldn’t affect him because he’s in love. Anything’s possible, and I’ve witnessed many divorces in my family and read enough stories all about Jekyl and Hyde on the part of the lovely and beloved bride who wants a divorce (and needs no substantial reason for it). Pretending that it couldn’t happen will lead to more stress if it unexpectedly does. This is all true for the woman too, but the statistics I’ve read stated that it is women who initiate divorce 70% of the time. Then comes the family law courts, whose bias towards women is the subject for another thread. I didn’t expressly say that the possibility of divorce was a sacrifice, and I should have called it a burden that a man bears out of love.
Thus taking on the risk of potential divorce, and the sacrifices that men make for a marriage, would, in my case, necessitate me demanding it of my fiancee that she change her last name to mine. No hyphenating either, because that’s just dorky imo.
It was suggested earlier on that these two types of people would certainly be better off not marrying, but since we’re discussing this, it helps to consider the views of various opinions and how we all approach this. I can see how me mentioning my fear of divorce would make some think that I was being immature here, and for that I guess I wouldn’t mention it to my fiancee (the sacrifice argument should be sufficient enough), but I wanted to bring it up to mention in this discussion what’s going through my mind when I’m being a stickler on this issue.
P.S. If the woman makes the same demand to keep her name and her and the fiance come to a cross-roads, it has been suggested at several times at this thread that the man is the one who’s being immature in not going along. If we ignore the reasons of those who support taking on the husband’s name, or vice versa, this argument then simply works both ways and is in effect simply becomes an opportunity to use an ad hominem. One side, if it’s important for both, has got to give, so I view it as a sacrifice that has to be made somehow.
tl;dr:
-Men sacrifice more by entering into marriage
-Men are at a greater risk of a divorce through a biased family court system
-Women should therefore just make this one sacrifice if the name has significance for her, and if the husband wants her to take his name
Actually, I actually am genuinely interested in why you feel “getting married” is a larger sacrifice for men, using your definition of sacrifice. And I’d like to address some of your assertations as well.
First, “There are many benefits to the single life, enumerated in scripture and known through experience.” There are also many benefits to the married life enumerated in scripture, and especially of the benefits of marriage to men.
Marriage is of divine origin. It was instituted by God, and according to the biblical account, Eve was God’s gift to Adam, not the other way around, lol. God literally said, “it is not good for man to be alone”!
Then there are quotes such as: “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.” Proverbs 18:22. I mean, I could go on with scriptural quotes about what a treasure a good wife is, and the many scriptural benefits of the married life, but I am more interested in addressing the many benefits to the single life as enumerated in scripture:
I assume by the many benefits to the single life you refer to St. Paul. Yes, he thought it was the higher calling to remain single, but he thought it was better for BOTH men and women to remain single. (He specifically mentions women as well). Why did he think it was better to remain single? He names several reasons in his letters: first, because he thought it was good for the “present necessity”, second, because he felt that “time was short”, and third, because he felt that an unmarried person could focus undivided attention on the Lord. (Which is pretty much true. Married life =/= contemplative, cloistered life). But as I said, St. Paul specifically notes that these things are true for women as well as men, so this is not a proof that men have a greater sacrifice than women.
- Status