My family is pretty atypical when it comes to naming conventions. My mother kept her maiden name, and then they gave it to me as my middle name. Also my brother's first and middle names are the same name in different languages.
That said, my wife was more than happy to change her name because it was ten letters and foreign and she was tired of spelling it out to people a trillion times. Go figure.
JHunz on
Gamertag: JHunz. R.I.P. Mygamercard.net
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Agreed...I'd let my girlfriend (who will more than likely become my wife) keep her last name without a problem because she plans to use it as the name of her restaurant, but my kids will have my last name... period.
I don't know why everyone these days is so dead set on changing how things have been done for a long freaking time. I support woman's rights, a woman can do whatever she wants, just like I have the right to not date or marry a woman that thinks that if I want her to change her name when we marry, or to have the kids take my last name, then I'm some kind of chauvanist asshole....
Agreed...I'd let my girlfriend (who will more than likely become my wife) keep her last name without a problem because she plans to use it as the name of her restaurant, but my kids will have my last name... period.
I don't know why everyone these days is so dead set on changing how things have been done for a long freaking time. I support woman's rights, a woman can do whatever she wants, just like I have the right to not date or marry a woman that thinks that if I want her to change her name when we marry, or to have the kids take my last name, then I'm some kind of chauvanist asshole....
We're "dead set on changing how things have been done for a long freaking time" because things have been sexist for a long freaking time.
I'm glad you're determined not to force your surname onto your wife, but I have to ask why you say "my kids will have my last name... period" as if the mother of those kids has absolutely no say?
Agreed...I'd let my girlfriend (who will more than likely become my wife) keep her last name without a problem because she plans to use it as the name of her restaurant, but my kids will have my last name... period.
I don't know why everyone these days is so dead set on changing how things have been done for a long freaking time. I support woman's rights, a woman can do whatever she wants, just like I have the right to not date or marry a woman that thinks that if I want her to change her name when we marry, or to have the kids take my last name, then I'm some kind of chauvanist asshole....
We're "dead set on changing how things have been done for a long freaking time" because things have been sexist for a long freaking time.
I'm glad you're determined not to force your surname onto your wife, but I have to ask why you say "my kids will have my last name... period" as if the mother of those kids has absolutely no say?
I really can't argue this. I just wanted to give my .02 to the mix and leave it at that. I was raised very traditionally, and I believe that the children should carry the father's surname, until they themselves become adults. I want a son to carry on the family name, and I would love to have a daughter to bring my families heritage and history with her into her future with another man.
I don't think there is anything sexist about it. I'm not implying that I'm better than my girlfriend. She pretty much runs the show as it is, and will be a successful, independant businesswoman, but I told her my mind on that particular issue and that's that.
I really can't argue this. I just wanted to give my .02 to the mix and leave it at that. I was raised very traditionally, and I believe that the children should carry the father's surname, until they themselves become adults. I want a son to carry on the family name, and I would love to have a daughter to bring my families heritage and history with her into her future with another man.
I don't think there is anything sexist about it. I'm not implying that I'm better than my girlfriend. She pretty much runs the show as it is, and will be a successful, independant businesswoman, but I told her my mind on that particular issue and that's that.
Again, no offense, but why should the children carry the father's surname only? Why is the "family name" only the father's name?
I understand that it's not necessarily easy to come up with an alternative, but I'm extremely suspicious of practices whose seemingly sole justification is "tradition."
I really can't argue this. I just wanted to give my .02 to the mix and leave it at that. I was raised very traditionally, and I believe that the children should carry the father's surname, until they themselves become adults. I want a son to carry on the family name, and I would love to have a daughter to bring my families heritage and history with her into her future with another man.
I don't think there is anything sexist about it. I'm not implying that I'm better than my girlfriend. She pretty much runs the show as it is, and will be a successful, independant businesswoman, but I told her my mind on that particular issue and that's that.
Again, no offense, but why should the children carry the father's surname only? Why is the "family name" only the father's name?
I understand that it's not necessarily easy to come up with an alternative, but I'm extremely suspicious of practices whose seemingly sole justification is "tradition."
But the lack of an alternative is exactly the issue. There is literally no better option.
But the lack of an alternative is exactly the issue. There is literally no better option.
Really? You mean it's completely impossible to hyphenate names? Or give male children the father's and females the mother's? Or a couple can't change both their names to something new? There's literally no other option in the entire world?
I'm glad you're determined not to force your surname onto your wife, but I have to ask why you say "my kids will have my last name... period" as if the mother of those kids has absolutely no say?
yes.
My first son will also have her maiden name as a middle name, regardless of whether or not she changes hers.
Why? Because there are some things that just dont need to be changed. Just imagine how ridiculous shit is gonna get when all those people with hyphenated last names get married to each other. A kid with 4 last names? awesome.
I'm glad you're determined not to force your surname onto your wife, but I have to ask why you say "my kids will have my last name... period" as if the mother of those kids has absolutely no say?
yes.
My first son will also have her maiden name as a middle name, regardless of whether or not she changes hers.
Why? Because there are some things that just dont need to be changed. Just imagine how ridiculous shit is gonna get when all those people with hyphenated last names get married to each other. A kid with 4 last names? awesome.
They've been doing it in Spain for centuries. You get two last names, a paternal and maternal one. The paternal one is the one you usually go by, but the other one is still there.
edit: They're all retained through generations, so most people who keep good genealogies have upwards of 10 last names, technically. They usually only use one or or the two at most.
The only problem with lengthy names is that it gets to be a pain to write the whole thing down. Which you really only ever have to do on birth certificates.
So, yeah. Why do we have to use all of the names all the time?
I know a guy whose middle name is W. And girl I knew in high school's middle name was B.
Harry Truman's official middle name was S --- sans period.
Yeah, my friends' names are without period. I was just torn between representing their names and correct grammar. Grammar won. Sort of. That second sentence is a bit goofy.
I really can't argue this. I just wanted to give my .02 to the mix and leave it at that. I was raised very traditionally, and I believe that the children should carry the father's surname, until they themselves become adults. I want a son to carry on the family name, and I would love to have a daughter to bring my families heritage and history with her into her future with another man.
I don't think there is anything sexist about it. I'm not implying that I'm better than my girlfriend. She pretty much runs the show as it is, and will be a successful, independant businesswoman, but I told her my mind on that particular issue and that's that.
Again, no offense, but why should the children carry the father's surname only? Why is the "family name" only the father's name?
I understand that it's not necessarily easy to come up with an alternative, but I'm extremely suspicious of practices whose seemingly sole justification is "tradition."
It has to be someone's name... are you arguing that it should be the mother's name, or are you arguing that it could be either or something?
Honestly, I don't really understand what the purpose of your argument is.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
But the lack of an alternative is exactly the issue. There is literally no better option.
Really? You mean it's completely impossible to hyphenate names? Or give male children the father's and females the mother's? Or a couple can't change both their names to something new? There's literally no other option in the entire world?
Hyphenating names doesn't work past one generation. What happens when those hyphenated kids have their ow kids? Four last names? And what if you only have a boy or only have a girl? And changing your name to something new because you got married? I suppose that's a matter of personal opinion, but the vast majority of people wouldn't prefer that.
It comes down to whether you want the father's surname or the mother's surname, whose legacy will be carried by the child. That's just personal preference, too, and most people are fine with the traditional route of taking the father's because it really doesn't matter that much, as long as there isn't confusion about who is related to who.
FirstComradeStalin on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
I have no problems with the mother naming the children whatsoever. I'm a fan of that idea. She carries the child, gives birth, and is the first to see the child. We've talked about it and while she would respect and ideas I have on the subject, I have no problem letting my girlfriend name our child. If she decided to use a name I suggest then I wouldn't have a problem with her last name being the child's middle name, but I'm not going to torture my kid with having four names, or a hyphen in his/her name, because tradition is old and bad. I just want my kid to have my last name, all there is to it.
I would say the best option is to let parents name their kids whatever they want, and give out free name-change opportunities when people become legal adults and when they get married. That way, you can fairly easily call yourself whatever you want.
I don't think the issue really needs any more rules than that.
I would say the best option is to let parents name their kids whatever they want, and give out free name-change opportunities when people become legal adults and when they get married. That way, you can fairly easily call yourself whatever you want.
I don't think the issue really needs any more rules than that.
That makes sense. But don't we already get freebies when we get married (albeit after paying for a marriage license)
I would say the best option is to let parents name their kids whatever they want, and give out free name-change opportunities when people become legal adults and when they get married. That way, you can fairly easily call yourself whatever you want.
I don't think the issue really needs any more rules than that.
That makes sense. But don't we already get freebies when we get married (albeit after paying for a marriage license)
Unfortunately not: it costs men much more time and money to change their names than it does women.
...Which underscores the point that feminists have made about surnames: traditionally women taking men's last names has been a symbol of women being men's property.
Yes, it may not be that way anymore, but centuries of cultural programming don't go away overnight, and it's okay to be suspicious of these practices.
EDIT: and re: hyphenation, I never once said that hyphenation was the only way to go. Someone else brought up the relatively efficient system the Vikings had, where boys got dad's name and girls got mom's.
Suspicious is fine because in some cases it might well speak to the frame of mind of the person in question, but assuming that it's the case and outright condemning this convention as such isn't okay.
Some people really like the traditional aspect of the convention. Many of those people are men. I really like that tradition, but it has nothing to do with any kind of proprietary significance, I just like the tradition 'cause I'm a traditional kinda guy.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
Suspicious is fine because in some cases it might well speak to the frame of mind of the person in question, but assuming that it's the case and outright condemning this convention as such isn't okay.
Some people really like the traditional aspect of the convention. Many of those people are men. I really like that tradition, but it has nothing to do with any kind of proprietary significance, I just like the tradition 'cause I'm a traditional kinda guy.
And that's fine. The vast majority of the people posting here think about things rather than blindly going along with them.
Unfortunately, there's a great number of people in American society for whom "traditional" = "patriarchal," which is bad for women.
Suspicious is fine because in some cases it might well speak to the frame of mind of the person in question, but assuming that it's the case and outright condemning this convention as such isn't okay.
Some people really like the traditional aspect of the convention. Many of those people are men. I really like that tradition, but it has nothing to do with any kind of proprietary significance, I just like the tradition 'cause I'm a traditional kinda guy.
And that's fine. The vast majority of the people posting here think about things rather than blindly going along with them.
Unfortunately, there's a great number of people in American society for whom "traditional" = "patriarchal," which is bad for women.
Except its a name. Jesus christ.
Let's try not to equate this with things that actually matter in some way.
Suspicious is fine because in some cases it might well speak to the frame of mind of the person in question, but assuming that it's the case and outright condemning this convention as such isn't okay.
Some people really like the traditional aspect of the convention. Many of those people are men. I really like that tradition, but it has nothing to do with any kind of proprietary significance, I just like the tradition 'cause I'm a traditional kinda guy.
And that's fine. The vast majority of the people posting here think about things rather than blindly going along with them.
Unfortunately, there's a great number of people in American society for whom "traditional" = "patriarchal," which is bad for women.
Except its a name. Jesus christ.
Let's try not to equate this with things that actually matter in some way.
Yaw. If we had complete gender equality in this country with the sole exception that women traditionally assumed their husband's name, I could give a fuck.
Let's try not to equate this with things that actually matter in some way.
Just because the name issue isn't the entirety of patriarchy doesn't make it meaningless. It's still part of the cultural programming that tells women they're inferior to men.
And this doesn't mean that women are forbidden from taking their husband's names, either.
EDIT: And there's a lot of debate about this very issue even in feminist circles. It's a complicated issue. What about professional women? They often need to keep the same surnames they've published under. There's the suspicion factor with men and kids that don't have the same name that I mentioned earlier. There's the fact that all Western surnames are patriarchal at some point: a woman either takes her husband's name or her father's. Etc.
What if we gave children the hyphenated first names of their parents as a last name. This would at least eliminate the multi-generational scaling problems of hyphenated last names.
enc0re on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
Just a suggestion
since NONE OF THIS is actually law in the USA, how about we do what we've been doing..... People can change their names to whatever they want to change them to, and children can do the same once they turn 18 or 21 (depending), and couples can get together and get married because they agree on one or the other.
It just dawned on me. I don't see why this is even an issue for debate.. there is no debate. Who cares if this was once based on patriarchal society, or some non feminist viewpoint.. It's not that way today. If a woman doesn't want to take the man's name she can tell the man to go to hell, and find another man who isn't of the same mindset, or she can come to an agreement with the first man. It's as simple as that. No one is going to make it so that a woman doesn't have to take the mans name by law because by law she already doesn't have to, since there is no law saying that she does. If you are having that much trouble with someone trying to figure out what to name your kids, or yourself, instead of discussing family values, or jobs, or providing for each other, or LOVE, then you don't need to be with that person.
Man, my sister better get her boyfriend to change his name if they marry. I want the name to carry on, but I don't really feel like I'm the marryin' type.
If I do, though, my kids will have my next-door neighbor's last name.
Also, I'm stealing from "Joe Loves Crappy Movies", but the firstborn is going to be Switchblade Motocross.
I think I'll name the second Hazard Coolmoose. I heard about some guy whose last name was Coolmoose on NPR, and it is now my favorite name.
Suspicious is fine because in some cases it might well speak to the frame of mind of the person in question, but assuming that it's the case and outright condemning this convention as such isn't okay.
Some people really like the traditional aspect of the convention. Many of those people are men. I really like that tradition, but it has nothing to do with any kind of proprietary significance, I just like the tradition 'cause I'm a traditional kinda guy.
And that's fine. The vast majority of the people posting here think about things rather than blindly going along with them.
Unfortunately, there's a great number of people in American society for whom "traditional" = "patriarchal," which is bad for women.
Right, but I think maybe it might be appropriate to ask if that's the case more often than not. I doubt very much it is. I also challenge the assertion that you seem to be making that in the case where it hasn't been thought about that it's automatically an "ownership" issue.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
What if we gave children the hyphenated first names of their parents as a last name. This would at least eliminate the multi-generational scaling problems of hyphenated last names.
Billy Julie-Bob?
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
since NONE OF THIS is actually law in the USA, how about we do what we've been doing..... People can change their names to whatever they want to change them to, and children can do the same once they turn 18 or 21 (depending), and couples can get together and get married because they agree on one or the other.
It just dawned on me. I don't see why this is even an issue for debate.. there is no debate. Who cares if this was once based on patriarchal society, or some non feminist viewpoint.. It's not that way today.
I am afraid you have experienced a false dawn. The law is set up to facilitate women taking male names. Try again.
I am afraid you have experienced a false dawn. The law is set up to facilitate women taking male names. Try again.
Seconded. It's far easier (in terms of paperwork, agencies to be contacted, etc.) for a woman to adopt her husband's name than the converse. No idea why this is even legal under the 14th Amendment.
enc0re on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I am afraid you have experienced a false dawn. The law is set up to facilitate women taking male names. Try again.
Seconded. It's far easier (in terms of paperwork, agencies to be contacted, etc.) for a woman to adopt her husband's name than the converse. No idea why this is even legal under the 14th Amendment.
The law is also set up so that it's easier to do a lot of things. It doesn't mean we have to. No where in american law does it say " The woman must take the mans name, and the children must as well, etc, etc. " Don't bring the law into it because your husband got pissed that you wanted to be jane doe or jane doe-smith instead of jane smith. That's your husbands problem. And guys, dont bitch because you have to fill out some paperwork just to make your woman happy. If it's that much of a problem for you then once again, that's your problem.
It's so f'ing stupid when someone doesn't like something, so instead of just changing it in their own little world they go on a crusade to make everyone else agree with them, and screw up what already works.
Just pay the extra coin, fill out the papers, and make your name whatever you want, but don't try to bring in a bunch of BS about how "the law" is meant to keep us down, and make it hard for us to do what we want to do.
If you buy clothes that don't fit to your perfect requirements, you pay a little extra to have them tailored. You pay a little extra to have something added to your meal, you pay a little extra for the car you want, and by god, you can pay a little extra to change your name if you don't like the way the rest of the world does it, but you do have that choice, it's right there, so stop whining.
I am afraid you have experienced a false dawn. The law is set up to facilitate women taking male names. Try again.
Seconded. It's far easier (in terms of paperwork, agencies to be contacted, etc.) for a woman to adopt her husband's name than the converse. No idea why this is even legal under the 14th Amendment.
The law is also set up so that it's easier to do a lot of things. It doesn't mean we have to. No where in american law does it say " The woman must take the mans name, and the children must as well, etc, etc. " Don't bring the law into it because your husband got pissed that you wanted to be jane doe or jane doe-smith instead of jane smith. That's your husbands problem. And guys, dont bitch because you have to fill out some paperwork just to make your woman happy. If it's that much of a problem for you then once again, that's your problem.
It's so f'ing stupid when someone doesn't like something, so instead of just changing it in their own little world they go on a crusade to make everyone else agree with them, and screw up what already works.
Just pay the extra coin, fill out the papers, and make your name whatever you want, but don't try to bring in a bunch of BS about how "the law" is meant to keep us down, and make it hard for us to do what we want to do.
If you buy clothes that don't fit to your perfect requirements, you pay a little extra to have them tailored. You pay a little extra to have something added to your meal, you pay a little extra for the car you want, and by god, you can pay a little extra to change your name if you don't like the way the rest of the world does it, but you do have that choice, it's right there, so stop whining.
Yeah, for real. You think you can make them happy by letting them vote, but it's never enough, is it?
Well, amateurhour, I think that, given we're discussing this on an internet message board in somewhat theoretical terms, we're all aware of the sheer futility of it all. I doubt that, based on anything said here, anybody is going to go out on a crusade to change the law or cause a dramatic cultural paradigm shift.
Ain't nothing wrong with talking about how you think things ought to be, even over something as trivial as what names we take and why (which I don't think is trivial at all).
Regarding your point about the law making one way of doing things easier: if both ways of doing things are equally viable and take equal amounts of resources from the government agency involved, ought not they be equally easy for a given person to use? Just because a law is the way it is doesn't mean it is the way it ought to be.
No-one here is getting worked up apart from amateurhour. If a couple want to use the woman's surname, they'll most likely do so - and have to pay more. Is that fair? No. Is it a fit subject to complain about? Yup.
The law is supposed to be equal. "suck it up" isn't a valid argument.
What's with all this equality nonsense. My wife and children are taking my last name. End of Story.
It's like a stamp saying "these are mine"
At least some people are honest about it. Or sarcastic of course.
If I married my current girlfriend then she'd take my name. Hers is a bit fiddly, and mine is innately cool. She's been giving my name for reservations at places (even when she's on her own) since they invariably ask her how to spell hers.
It's harder to change your name as a guy than a woman? I thought that when you get married, there's just like a box or something about what you want to change your name to, if you want to.
I have no idea how the name changing process goes, but how is it harder for a man?
It's harder to change your name as a guy than a woman? I thought that when you get married, there's just like a box or something about what you want to change your name to, if you want to.
I have no idea how the name changing process goes, but how is it harder for a man?
The women get a box, the men generally do not. They file it the regular way to change a name, the women's part is (if i remember) built into the marriage stuff.
It's so f'ing stupid when someone doesn't like something, so instead of just changing it in their own little world they go on a crusade to make everyone else agree with them, and screw up what already works.
No-one's trying to 'screw' anything up. The only change in American statutes necessary for full gender equality is removing the unfair extra financial burden on a man who wants to change his surname upon marriage (and making it the same for gay people marrying, since I dare say the state would charge both halves of a gay partnership the extra fee). This is like, the only gender equality issue I've seen all year that involves near full focus on men's rights rather than women's, and you're bitching about it?
It's so f'ing stupid when someone doesn't like something, so instead of just changing it in their own little world they go on a crusade to make everyone else agree with them, and screw up what already works.
No-one's trying to 'screw' anything up. The only change in American statutes necessary for full gender equality is removing the unfair extra financial burden on a man who wants to change his surname upon marriage (and making it the same for gay people marrying, since I dare say the state would charge both halves of a gay partnership the extra fee). This is like, the only gender equality issue I've seen all year that involves near full focus on men's rights rather than women's, and you're bitching about it?
He might be afraid that since there are rights involved, there are responsibilities tied to them that he doesn't want? Although I'm not sure how much responsibility would be involved in simply having a different name. Or maybe he is pretending that you want to force it on him so he can feel persecuted and pull something out of Bucky O'Hare's spaceship.
Seriously though, amatuerhour, shut your hole. You don't want to change your name, don't. Mine is obnoxious and if I happened to marry a girl with a badass last name I would totally rather not have to pay a fee to take it. Or fuck, to make one up to share so as not to "take sides" in family-politics.
Posts
Knob, who mods SE, did the same with his son. its awesome
That said, my wife was more than happy to change her name because it was ten letters and foreign and she was tired of spelling it out to people a trillion times. Go figure.
Agreed...I'd let my girlfriend (who will more than likely become my wife) keep her last name without a problem because she plans to use it as the name of her restaurant, but my kids will have my last name... period.
I don't know why everyone these days is so dead set on changing how things have been done for a long freaking time. I support woman's rights, a woman can do whatever she wants, just like I have the right to not date or marry a woman that thinks that if I want her to change her name when we marry, or to have the kids take my last name, then I'm some kind of chauvanist asshole....
We're "dead set on changing how things have been done for a long freaking time" because things have been sexist for a long freaking time.
I'm glad you're determined not to force your surname onto your wife, but I have to ask why you say "my kids will have my last name... period" as if the mother of those kids has absolutely no say?
I really can't argue this. I just wanted to give my .02 to the mix and leave it at that. I was raised very traditionally, and I believe that the children should carry the father's surname, until they themselves become adults. I want a son to carry on the family name, and I would love to have a daughter to bring my families heritage and history with her into her future with another man.
I don't think there is anything sexist about it. I'm not implying that I'm better than my girlfriend. She pretty much runs the show as it is, and will be a successful, independant businesswoman, but I told her my mind on that particular issue and that's that.
Again, no offense, but why should the children carry the father's surname only? Why is the "family name" only the father's name?
I understand that it's not necessarily easy to come up with an alternative, but I'm extremely suspicious of practices whose seemingly sole justification is "tradition."
But the lack of an alternative is exactly the issue. There is literally no better option.
Really? You mean it's completely impossible to hyphenate names? Or give male children the father's and females the mother's? Or a couple can't change both their names to something new? There's literally no other option in the entire world?
yes.
My first son will also have her maiden name as a middle name, regardless of whether or not she changes hers.
Why? Because there are some things that just dont need to be changed. Just imagine how ridiculous shit is gonna get when all those people with hyphenated last names get married to each other. A kid with 4 last names? awesome.
They've been doing it in Spain for centuries. You get two last names, a paternal and maternal one. The paternal one is the one you usually go by, but the other one is still there.
edit: They're all retained through generations, so most people who keep good genealogies have upwards of 10 last names, technically. They usually only use one or or the two at most.
The only problem with lengthy names is that it gets to be a pain to write the whole thing down. Which you really only ever have to do on birth certificates.
So, yeah. Why do we have to use all of the names all the time?
Yeah, my friends' names are without period. I was just torn between representing their names and correct grammar. Grammar won. Sort of. That second sentence is a bit goofy.
It has to be someone's name... are you arguing that it should be the mother's name, or are you arguing that it could be either or something?
Honestly, I don't really understand what the purpose of your argument is.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
Hyphenating names doesn't work past one generation. What happens when those hyphenated kids have their ow kids? Four last names? And what if you only have a boy or only have a girl? And changing your name to something new because you got married? I suppose that's a matter of personal opinion, but the vast majority of people wouldn't prefer that.
It comes down to whether you want the father's surname or the mother's surname, whose legacy will be carried by the child. That's just personal preference, too, and most people are fine with the traditional route of taking the father's because it really doesn't matter that much, as long as there isn't confusion about who is related to who.
I don't think the issue really needs any more rules than that.
That makes sense. But don't we already get freebies when we get married (albeit after paying for a marriage license)
Unfortunately not: it costs men much more time and money to change their names than it does women.
...Which underscores the point that feminists have made about surnames: traditionally women taking men's last names has been a symbol of women being men's property.
Yes, it may not be that way anymore, but centuries of cultural programming don't go away overnight, and it's okay to be suspicious of these practices.
EDIT: and re: hyphenation, I never once said that hyphenation was the only way to go. Someone else brought up the relatively efficient system the Vikings had, where boys got dad's name and girls got mom's.
Some people really like the traditional aspect of the convention. Many of those people are men. I really like that tradition, but it has nothing to do with any kind of proprietary significance, I just like the tradition 'cause I'm a traditional kinda guy.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
And that's fine. The vast majority of the people posting here think about things rather than blindly going along with them.
Unfortunately, there's a great number of people in American society for whom "traditional" = "patriarchal," which is bad for women.
Except its a name. Jesus christ.
Let's try not to equate this with things that actually matter in some way.
Yaw. If we had complete gender equality in this country with the sole exception that women traditionally assumed their husband's name, I could give a fuck.
Just because the name issue isn't the entirety of patriarchy doesn't make it meaningless. It's still part of the cultural programming that tells women they're inferior to men.
And this doesn't mean that women are forbidden from taking their husband's names, either.
EDIT: And there's a lot of debate about this very issue even in feminist circles. It's a complicated issue. What about professional women? They often need to keep the same surnames they've published under. There's the suspicion factor with men and kids that don't have the same name that I mentioned earlier. There's the fact that all Western surnames are patriarchal at some point: a woman either takes her husband's name or her father's. Etc.
What if we gave children the hyphenated first names of their parents as a last name. This would at least eliminate the multi-generational scaling problems of hyphenated last names.
since NONE OF THIS is actually law in the USA, how about we do what we've been doing..... People can change their names to whatever they want to change them to, and children can do the same once they turn 18 or 21 (depending), and couples can get together and get married because they agree on one or the other.
It just dawned on me. I don't see why this is even an issue for debate.. there is no debate. Who cares if this was once based on patriarchal society, or some non feminist viewpoint.. It's not that way today. If a woman doesn't want to take the man's name she can tell the man to go to hell, and find another man who isn't of the same mindset, or she can come to an agreement with the first man. It's as simple as that. No one is going to make it so that a woman doesn't have to take the mans name by law because by law she already doesn't have to, since there is no law saying that she does. If you are having that much trouble with someone trying to figure out what to name your kids, or yourself, instead of discussing family values, or jobs, or providing for each other, or LOVE, then you don't need to be with that person.
DONE
If I do, though, my kids will have my next-door neighbor's last name.
Also, I'm stealing from "Joe Loves Crappy Movies", but the firstborn is going to be Switchblade Motocross.
I think I'll name the second Hazard Coolmoose. I heard about some guy whose last name was Coolmoose on NPR, and it is now my favorite name.
Right, but I think maybe it might be appropriate to ask if that's the case more often than not. I doubt very much it is. I also challenge the assertion that you seem to be making that in the case where it hasn't been thought about that it's automatically an "ownership" issue.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
Billy Julie-Bob?
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
I am afraid you have experienced a false dawn. The law is set up to facilitate women taking male names. Try again.
Seconded. It's far easier (in terms of paperwork, agencies to be contacted, etc.) for a woman to adopt her husband's name than the converse. No idea why this is even legal under the 14th Amendment.
The law is also set up so that it's easier to do a lot of things. It doesn't mean we have to. No where in american law does it say " The woman must take the mans name, and the children must as well, etc, etc. " Don't bring the law into it because your husband got pissed that you wanted to be jane doe or jane doe-smith instead of jane smith. That's your husbands problem. And guys, dont bitch because you have to fill out some paperwork just to make your woman happy. If it's that much of a problem for you then once again, that's your problem.
It's so f'ing stupid when someone doesn't like something, so instead of just changing it in their own little world they go on a crusade to make everyone else agree with them, and screw up what already works.
Just pay the extra coin, fill out the papers, and make your name whatever you want, but don't try to bring in a bunch of BS about how "the law" is meant to keep us down, and make it hard for us to do what we want to do.
If you buy clothes that don't fit to your perfect requirements, you pay a little extra to have them tailored. You pay a little extra to have something added to your meal, you pay a little extra for the car you want, and by god, you can pay a little extra to change your name if you don't like the way the rest of the world does it, but you do have that choice, it's right there, so stop whining.
Yeah, for real. You think you can make them happy by letting them vote, but it's never enough, is it?
Ain't nothing wrong with talking about how you think things ought to be, even over something as trivial as what names we take and why (which I don't think is trivial at all).
Regarding your point about the law making one way of doing things easier: if both ways of doing things are equally viable and take equal amounts of resources from the government agency involved, ought not they be equally easy for a given person to use? Just because a law is the way it is doesn't mean it is the way it ought to be.
The law is supposed to be equal. "suck it up" isn't a valid argument.
It's like a stamp saying "these are mine"
At least some people are honest about it. Or sarcastic of course.
If I married my current girlfriend then she'd take my name. Hers is a bit fiddly, and mine is innately cool. She's been giving my name for reservations at places (even when she's on her own) since they invariably ask her how to spell hers.
I have no idea how the name changing process goes, but how is it harder for a man?
The women get a box, the men generally do not. They file it the regular way to change a name, the women's part is (if i remember) built into the marriage stuff.
He might be afraid that since there are rights involved, there are responsibilities tied to them that he doesn't want? Although I'm not sure how much responsibility would be involved in simply having a different name. Or maybe he is pretending that you want to force it on him so he can feel persecuted and pull something out of Bucky O'Hare's spaceship.
Seriously though, amatuerhour, shut your hole. You don't want to change your name, don't. Mine is obnoxious and if I happened to marry a girl with a badass last name I would totally rather not have to pay a fee to take it. Or fuck, to make one up to share so as not to "take sides" in family-politics.