Not at all. It is you who is ditching the cultural norm and falsely claiming that it’s illegal for anyone to choose not to agree with you.
Perhaps you do not understand what “already refuted” means. Please read the thread above, especially the posts by chevalier who is more eloquent than I.Okay, I accept your admission that your argument is totally baseless.
That is not the situation in the real world. Our names are determined for us by our parents or guardians and we overwhelmingly comply with their choice.
No not simply that. There is also your inability to come up withy any argument that hasn’t just been refuted; and your ad hominems and arguing in a circle.
That would be the best assumption I could make though, unless there is evidence that it was done for other reasons, such as a formal proclamation or edict as to why this custom was necessary. Though my position is based on an assumption, I do think it’s a very reasonable one. If the purpose was for family unity, then wouldn’t dual surnames for *both *spouses be more appropriate, as there are two separate individuals being jointly represented by marriage? If not, couldn’t it be reasonably concluded that the rejection of a woman’s name was a reflection of her secondary status in society?
I thought Chinese women and children had the husband’s family name placed first, then their own first names? For example, Jackie Chan would really be “Chan Jackie” in China, and his wife would be “Chan Melissa”, or something like that. But regards to that question, no, I certainly couldn’t argue that they’ve had better rights
In light of that, I really don’t know why their custom is different from ours, or what their rationale is. Perhaps they use that custom as a method of tracing geneology through the mother (which would actually make more sense)?I am not claiming any issue of legality. Names are legally recognized constructs. That is all I am saying.
We overwhelmingly comply with their choice on our own accord. The legal system, at least in the United States, recognizes the right of the individual to change his name; there is not even a standard for the reason for changing one’s name.
I apologise, it was another poster who said that.
The civil law you refer to has no instrinsic significance or moral dimension either.
Exactly. There is a norm, whicdh people overwhelmingly comply with.
No, no, and no.
I think only the more westernised Chinese do that. Same applies with Vietnamese. Even more confusing with them because when Miss Nguyen marries Mr Tran, she often thereafter is called Mrs Nguyen!I thought Chinese women and children had the husband’s family name placed first, then their own first names? For example, Jackie Chan would really be “Chan Jackie” in China, and his wife would be “Chan Melissa”, or something like that. But regards to that question, no, I certainly couldn’t argue that they’ve had better rights
Agreed; the point is that the legal construct reflects a deeper recognition of the right to determine one’s name. Similarly, the law against assault has no intrinsic moral dimension, but still reflects a deeper recognition of the right to control access to one’s body.
Voluntarily.
Nobody is disputing your legal right to reject your husband’s name. But you have no legal right to demand that others go along with the idea.
Who you are is something extrinsic to your own will. Contrary to the popular books and magazine articles claiming that you can somehow, re-invent yourself, you can’t. You are you and will always remain you.
It’s more about attitude and the idea of marriage being a coming together…someone who is more attached to a name (premarital) than a person (marital) just might want to rethink the timing of their marriage and if they are truly mature enough for the give and take of marriage…really. If you can’t give up a word/name for your spouse, are you really ready to be married and give ALL for your spouse?
Finally, a guy who understands that feminism is not the f word
. I haven’t read all the posts here I just clicked on the thread and for some reason this page came up.No, the right to demand that others go along is moral, and it exists. Calling someone by something other than their name knowing that it is not their name is rude, especially when it is used to make a point that is not even credible.
False. This is totally false. The Catholic Church rejects this entirely. We even have examples like St. Augustine to show that what you just said is in fact not true. Furthermore, you do change yourself irreversibly with Matrimony and Holy Orders, for example.
That is illogical, to say the least. So if all the class mates of a fat boy call him “Fatso”, that is his name?
Well said (the bold mine).
Myth? Tell me how many classes were there in medieval England? So it was those devilish Protestants who took away women’s rights.
All Chinese have their surnames (really clan names) first and their Chinese first names follow. Thus Chan Mei Ling’s surname is Chan. With Western/Christian names, the Western name comes first. So it would be Melissa Chan Mei Ling. BTW, I have no idea what Jackie Chan’s wife’s name is.That would be the best assumption I could make though, unless there is evidence that it was done for other reasons, such as a formal proclamation or edict as to why this custom was necessary. Though my position is based on an assumption, I do think it’s a very reasonable one. If the purpose was for family unity, then wouldn’t dual surnames for *both *spouses be more appropriate, as there are two separate individuals being jointly represented by marriage? If not, couldn’t it be reasonably concluded that the rejection of a woman’s name was a reflection of her secondary status in society?
I thought Chinese women and children had the husband’s family name placed first, then their own first names? For example, Jackie Chan would really be “Chan Jackie” in China, and his wife would be “Chan Melissa”, or something like that. But regards to that question, no, I certainly couldn’t argue that they’ve had better rights
Just because she may not wish it, does not make it rude, much less immoral!
Wow. Please refer me to where she “entirely rejects” supposed “heresy” which is in fact common sense which the Catholic Church endorses fully. Every human being is a unique individual from the moment of conception unto eternity. Nothing can change the fact that you are you. THAT is Catholic dogma. Not the reverse as you absurdly claimed.And yet you regard marriage as so insignificant that you reject your husband’s name.
Yes indeed in the sense that if someone uses the name “Fatso” everybody including Fatso himself knows exactly who is being referred to. It’s illogical to deny that your name is by definition what other people call you. You don’t go around saying “severus68 posts on CAF”, you say “I post on CAF”.
Several, if you mean social classes. What possible relevenca does that have to the subject?
Yes indeed, don’t take my word for it if you don’t believe me (which perhaps you don’t having swallowed unthinkingly the myth that protestantism brought nothing but goodness and light and put an end to the bad old Catholic dominated “Dark Ages” of sin, oppression, violence, igniorance etc… See e.g. catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-the-education-of-women-a-modern-idea
how am I back-pedalling? God tells us what to call him; we do not choose what to call him. So too do we tell others what to call us.
While discussing the baptismal name in particular, the teaching nevertheless intuitively applies to our names in general. By denying a woman her name, you are denying her dignity – something the Church explicitly condemns.
We are bodies and souls according to Catholic teaching. We are unique, but not in a predestined manner. Thus, if one defines self as the entirety of one’s existence, we change all the time.
Can you establish how this follows? Like, you know only that a woman does not take her husband’s name. Using only that information, can you demonstrate that she does not care about her marriage?
The question is whether calling someone by something other than their name against their wish is immoral. The answer is yes, because it is rude.