F
Fidelia
Guest
That is rather selfish. Why does she absolutely have to take your name? What if she had a reason to want to pass her name to children?
- Status
B
bunnynessuk
Guest
I am lucky enough to be with a man who does not decide on who to marry based on whether or not I want his name. A marriage should be based on ar more important things than a surname and mine certainly will be. I think that says more about you than anything else.
A
Amaris
Guest
I’m to be married in September, and want to take my husband’s name. My sister reacted violently to this revelation - saying that I was betraying our feminist (we’re also pro-life, causes great confusion in social circles 
ideals by taking a man’s name. I pointed out to her that my “maiden” name was also a man’s name, our father’s, and since I must carry a man’s name through life, I prefer the one belonging to the man I love with my whole heart and soul and am choosing to be with, and not our abusive and neglectful father.
That said, because the marriage is international, and I’m moving to his country, we think, for ease and legal purposes, that I’ll have to keep my maiden name for quite awhile. Socially I will be known and Mrs. Hislastname, and our children will carry his name.
My sister and her long-term boyfriend have decided to make up a new name should they ever get married - she’d like Darling, like in Peter Pan, so her children can be the Darlings
ideals by taking a man’s name. I pointed out to her that my “maiden” name was also a man’s name, our father’s, and since I must carry a man’s name through life, I prefer the one belonging to the man I love with my whole heart and soul and am choosing to be with, and not our abusive and neglectful father.That said, because the marriage is international, and I’m moving to his country, we think, for ease and legal purposes, that I’ll have to keep my maiden name for quite awhile. Socially I will be known and Mrs. Hislastname, and our children will carry his name.
My sister and her long-term boyfriend have decided to make up a new name should they ever get married - she’d like Darling, like in Peter Pan, so her children can be the Darlings
F
Fidelia
Guest
well put.
C
chevalier
Guest
Then she could have the two names combined. Even the British queen did that for anyone younger than Prince Charles, the heir. Besides, if it’s selfish for a man to want to pass his name on, it must also be for a woman. Even more so for the woman because that’s also in contradiction with prevailing customs in our culture. I’m talking about the general principle, not particularly humiliating names or something like Hitler or Stalin.
As I have a name which is neither ugly, nor humiliating or anything else, if a woman I were to marry, coming from our standard culture in which the man’s name is passed on, wanted to pass her name exclusively without a really good reason like nothing I can think of right now (I don’t mind a combination and could perhaps even be convinced to take it for myself apart from the children, if she did), I would conclude she had issues or was selfish (selfishness is an issue too, so this is probably redundant) and would consider it a sign from above that I should keep looking. I’m allergic to issues, selfishness, double-standards and the like. I just flee from that stuff. I’ve collected my scars already.
What you are saying basically shows that he would give up on the name for you, but you wouldn’t for him. You can say it’s based on more important things than his name, but what about yours? You say you’re glad he will marry you even though you don’t want his name for yourself or children and that he will give up his male ego for that. But at the same time you believe it goes without saying that you shouldn’t be expected to give up anything in that regard. With all respect and meaning no offence (again), but you seem to have a double standard there. It’s not my business, so forgive the intrusion, but if you force him into too many concessions, it may backfire at some point, especially when the hormones and emotions cool down and relations between you become more and more casual.
R
redtech
Guest
I wanted my husband to take MY last name but he wouldn’t go for it. 
C
chevalier
Guest
You didn’t want his, he didn’t want yours, why is it that he’s the bad one and you’re the goodie? It’s the same on both sides.I wanted my husband to take MY last name but he wouldn’t go for it.
R
redtech
Guest
Its just not a very flattering last name.
Do you remember the old Bugs Bunny cartoons and the skunk named Peppy le _______ ?
I love him though so I took it anyway!
I thought about painting a white stripe down my cats back.
Do you remember the old Bugs Bunny cartoons and the skunk named Peppy le _______ ?
I love him though so I took it anyway!
I thought about painting a white stripe down my cats back.
C
chevalier
Guest
No, I don’t. Sorry for the hasty reaction… since there was no reason given, I assumed it was a standard whose-name-wins situation. “Do not assume,” hehe. Once again, apologies. As I said, I wouldn’t make a problem of it if I had an unflattering name, I wouldn’t make a problem of making a combination of two, but I think if the name is pretty much normal and the woman insists on only it passing to children, then it looks to me like she’s expecting her husband to submit to her and that’s not quite what I read in Ephesians, hehe. I don’t want to be anyone’s boss outside of work - I can be a leader but one that’s followed willingly. On the other hand, any sign that the woman expects obedience from her man (in casu me) and I’m out of there. It’s just not right. I won’t even pull theology on anyone, but it just looks unnatural for the woman to be the leader and the decision maker in marriage. I would have no problem taking orders from a woman or a younger male in a professional matter, but in marriage, it feels wrong. And quite creepy if I’m to be honest. I’d only commend my hypothetical future wife for not being pushover and standing up to me when she feels obliged to, but husband submitting to wife is just not right. You can serve her, you can die for her, but she isn’t telling you what to do. Sometimes it just looks like the battle over the name is the battle over who’s going to wear the breeches in that marriage.
Sorry for the hasty reaction… since there was no reason given, I assumed it was a standard whose-name-wins situation. “Do not assume,” hehe. Once again, apologies. As I said, I wouldn’t make a problem of it if I had an unflattering name, I wouldn’t make a problem of making a combination of two, but I think if the name is pretty much normal and the woman insists on only it passing to children, then it looks to me like she’s expecting her husband to submit to her and that’s not quite what I read in Ephesians, hehe. I don’t want to be anyone’s boss outside of work - I can be a leader but one that’s followed willingly. On the other hand, any sign that the woman expects obedience from her man (in casu me) and I’m out of there. It’s just not right. I won’t even pull theology on anyone, but it just looks unnatural for the woman to be the leader and the decision maker in marriage. I would have no problem taking orders from a woman or a younger male in a professional matter, but in marriage, it feels wrong. And quite creepy if I’m to be honest. I’d only commend my hypothetical future wife for not being pushover and standing up to me when she feels obliged to, but husband submitting to wife is just not right. You can serve her, you can die for her, but she isn’t telling you what to do. Sometimes it just looks like the battle over the name is the battle over who’s going to wear the breeches in that marriage.
F
Fidelia
Guest
You can’t argue that a woman should by default take her husband’s name because it is what we do in our culture. Like I have said before, it is something that each cople should discuss and decide, but there is no reason why he should get his way just because he wants to stick to patriarchal tradition.
imho, it only makes sense for children to have the last name of their mother. They begin in her body, and come from her womb. And are often left to be entirely her responsibility, because of above-mentioned patriarchal tradition.
imho, it only makes sense for children to have the last name of their mother. They begin in her body, and come from her womb. And are often left to be entirely her responsibility, because of above-mentioned patriarchal tradition.
F
Fidelia
Guest
You have some very sexist viewpoints. No one is “in charge” in a marriage. No one bosses, nor obeys. Marriage is compromise and equal partnership.No, I don’t.
B
bunnynessuk
Guest
I take no offense to any of your statements Chevalier - your opinion is your opinion and you are more than welcome to it!!!
My fiance and I have been together for nearly 5 years (We started dating at 16), I definatley wear the trousers as far as the outside world is concerned, i have the most money, i have the higher intelligence and i was the only one who could drive up until a few months ago BUT when it is just me and him he has the strings! In my relationship it is not a question of one person having the authority or being subserviant we are equals - 100% equal! I cook a meal he cleans up after it, I wash the clothes he irons them. I choose where to eat one night he chooses the next. Any decision about careers is now made around mine - i was the first to secure a job and job location. And we have discussed that if we have children we will work our careers around that BUT i will never have to give up mine.
With regards to the name thing I don’t want his name and I am not overly fussed about keeping mine so WE have decided that we will either make a whole new name or use a double barrel with our grandmothers maiden names.
I understand catholic teaching and I am a practicing catholic my h2b is not but I love him anyway and he is considering converting but on the instruction that he converts for himself and not for me!
Anyway I understand that for many men their surname is important but it is not something the bible tells me I must do and as I dont want his name I dont have to take it.
My fiance and I have been together for nearly 5 years (We started dating at 16), I definatley wear the trousers as far as the outside world is concerned, i have the most money, i have the higher intelligence and i was the only one who could drive up until a few months ago BUT when it is just me and him he has the strings! In my relationship it is not a question of one person having the authority or being subserviant we are equals - 100% equal! I cook a meal he cleans up after it, I wash the clothes he irons them. I choose where to eat one night he chooses the next. Any decision about careers is now made around mine - i was the first to secure a job and job location. And we have discussed that if we have children we will work our careers around that BUT i will never have to give up mine.
With regards to the name thing I don’t want his name and I am not overly fussed about keeping mine so WE have decided that we will either make a whole new name or use a double barrel with our grandmothers maiden names.
I understand catholic teaching and I am a practicing catholic my h2b is not but I love him anyway and he is considering converting but on the instruction that he converts for himself and not for me!
Anyway I understand that for many men their surname is important but it is not something the bible tells me I must do and as I dont want his name I dont have to take it.
T
Trelow
Guest
C
chevalier
Guest
You cannot use the following facts to deny the existence of a standing tradition:
- the fact that the law allows a different choice pursued by a minority of people;
- the fact that your opinion is different;
To prove the tradition and the fact that in our culture normally the woman takes the man’s name would be like proving that grass is normally green, so, with your permission, I will skip that.You don’t like St. Paul too much, I take?
Apparently, you skipped the part where I said I wouldn’t like to be anyone’s boss. A situation in which no one bosses and no one obeys exists when no one is in submission. Not when merely the woman’s submission is not there, but the man instead is subject to her. Such a situation is not one of balance. And, besides, it totally, directly and literally contradicts Ephesians.
As I said, I don’t have pretences do order anyone around just because I’m male, but I will not be expected to obey unilateral decisions. If you want to call this sexist, be my guest.
F
Fidelia
Guest
What unilateral decisions??You cannot use the following facts to deny the existence of a standing tradition:
An exception doesn’t invalidate a rule.
- the fact that the law allows a different choice pursued by a minority of people;
- the fact that your opinion is different;
You don’t like St. Paul too much, I take?
Apparently, you skipped the part where I said I wouldn’t like to be anyone’s boss. A situation in which no one bosses and no one obeys exists when no one is in submission. Not when merely the woman’s submission is not there, but the man instead is subject to her. Such a situation is not one of balance. And, besides, it totally, directly and literally contradicts Ephesians.
As I said, I don’t have pretences do order anyone around just because I’m male, but I will not be expected to obey unilateral decisions. If you want to call this sexist, be my guest.
C
chevalier
Guest
Thank you. I don’t mean any and if the subject is not one you feel like discussing, I’ll drop it this instant.
As far as the following part goes, I’m trying to empathise with your position and your concerns and I see some valid points, but it still looks to me like your fiance is not on equal footing with you overall and, with all respect, it does appear to me like you’re treating him as a subordinate (lower intelligence, less money, expected to follow your decisions, your job matters more than his etc). I would hate to be unsensitive, so maybe let’s finish here.
That’s fair to both sides, as far I’m concerned.
No, absolutely. Besides, not everyone who is Catholic has a surname in the strict sense, anyway (royals, tribals etc don’t normally have a proper surname, for instance). However, the adoption of the wife’s name by the husband has a strong matriarchal appearance, whereas even if the current norm is patriarchal, it’s the current norm - following it has a different connotation from reversing it. Think for example about a situation in which just the man would be expected to wear the ring. Not both, not neither, not just the woman (patriarchal and all, yep, I don’t like that custom a single bit but it prevails here and there and is seen as normal), but just the man. People who take things at the letter and are only concerned with the litteral meaning or external apperance of things, will say it’s just a ring and what is the whole fuss about. But in reality, the significance of such a choice goes way beyond the ring itself.
As for the Bible, well. “Submit to one another,” is there. “Wives, submit to husbands,” is there, but, “husbands, submit to wives,” is nowhere. If couples decide to make it that way, it’s not my problem, not my business, but if I really have to voice my opinion, then I believe that’s not right. Besides, no side ordering the other around is right, or mattering more or having 51% of the vote between the two people that make marriage. I have no intention of inflicting that on my future wife, but I would never be able to take it myself (hopefully). Now, as I’m already feeling awkward commenting about people’s relationships like this…
Apologies if anyone has been offended.
C
chevalier
Guest
A decision which concerns two people, is made by one of them and the other one’s opinion doesn’t count, is one-sided, unilateral.
For example:
Miss A: “I know you’re very attached to your name, but I cannot take and I will not allow it to pass to my children. You must accept this.”
Whereas:
Miss B: “I know you’re very attached to your name, but it’s unflattering and I’d rather not be called that or have my children share it with you. I understand this is difficult to you and I’m sorry to tell you this, but we need to come up with something.”
…Has some unilateral vibe but at least the guy’s opinion counts.
Another example of a unilateral point of view is when you say that if a woman wants to pass her name to children, not her husband’s, and the husband doesn’t agree, then he’s after a small thing and making problems because of it etc etc. Whereas if the woman insists on it, you don’t see a problem at all. So if both want to pass the name to children, you see the man as the bad one and the woman as the good one. That’s wrong.
Miss A: “I want to pass my name to children, not yours!”
Mister B: “No way!”
You will only condemn Mister B as the one who makes problems out of a small thing and is obstinate, not Miss A. You seem to believe that Mister B should silently and graciously grant that request and that it’s the only right way. Which is wrong.
What I meant in that post most precisely is that if decisions which affect me were to be made by my hypothetical future wife without including me in the decision-making and especially without my opinion mattering a single bit, I would cancel the engagement. Any… “or I won’t marry you,” that didn’t refer to a bad or unhealthy habit of mine, would likely lead to break-up on the spot. Feminism these days often leads women to consider men subordinates or inferiors. I doubt it’s that odd that I have a strong desire to avoid that kind of thing.
F
Fidelia
Guest
That is false. Feminism is not about complete gender-reversal. it is about equality, because women used to be subordinates and inferior.
C
chevalier
Guest
Now you say it’s about equality, before you were pushing forward the woman’s rights above the man’s. I’d rather finish this discussion now because it doesn’t look like you’re going to realise you’re doing this.
I’d rather finish this discussion now because it doesn’t look like you’re going to realise you’re doing this.
F
Fidelia
Guest
No one’s rights are above anyone elses.Now you say it’s about equality, before you were pushing forward the woman’s rights above the man’s.
- Status