Would your husband use your last name?

It is so typical of some people to resort to labels when they're in a debate. What is a demagogue? "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power "

Did I do that? I am a natural science researcher by profession. What I did in my previous post was tease apart statements with logical reasoning. What is wrong with asking why I have to follow what others do just because others are doing it?

Why mock "hunters/gatherers etc." when it is a supported fact unless you personally believe that all our anthropologists have been lying about our societies' beginnings?

I personally would not change my name primarily because I am very close to my father (who has already passed away) and so I wouldn't want to lose that part of him in me. But that's an issue apart from why I also would not change my name because the reasons for changing it doesn't exist anymore for me.

Hmmn, I will not dwell on your reference to pizza and tacos because eating pizza and tacos does not change my legal identity (unless they start requiring that anyone who eats pizza should append PIZZA to their name).

Demogogues will still be demogogues, especially if they're feminists who might find better identity in lesbianism.

We 'were' hunter-gatherers/etc.? Oh how progressive! Impressive. But y'know, in a Monsanto processed foods world, I'll be thankful to believe we still are and should be, industrialized or not. As tradition, per se, goes, it's not a dirty word. It's not excrement your parents would smear all over you because they only thought you would wear it so well, though I'm tempted to wonder if in you own mind that's all you do. My guess is you'd rant against 'traditional' foods like pizza, or tacos and enchiladas as well trying to call them something they're just NOT. Well, it's "traditional" isn't it! Fair game then, as a matter of cultural pride... Might go to show how ridiculous some people really are for their "rugged" individualism and sexist "prides" screw all that bogus half-baked bs, I say.

I realize there will be freaks like this guy they call "egalitarians" which sounds somewhat hawkish to me, but so many women have no problem whatsoever taking their husbands name. So what it's
"traditional." (OMG! get a heart-attack would ya!) It is what it is, despite all this feminist moaning and murmuring bs about "equality" like some kid complaining they think you have a bigger marble when you're on the same freakn team. It is really so unaffordably unforgivable or really cause for so much controversy that's it's a matter of 'traditional' pride for a man to give his name to the woman he LOVES? I seriously doubt it.

"The man carries the seed. This is why we use the family name of the father for that new family. The wife joins the lineage of the husband. "

I agree, this is pure poppycock.

First statement - "The man carries the seed."
This is an absolutely false statement. A seed is an embryo - it is diploid. It is the result of the union of a sperm and an egg. Both sperm and egg are haploid. Again, the seed is diploid. Therefore, it is not the man that carries the seed. Both man and woman contribute equally to create a seed. If you want me to be more melodramatic about this, a man has to shoot out millions of sperms. Most of them will die expect for one that will reach the ONE egg.

"The man carries the seed" is a baseless statement that tries to give the impression that begetting a child lies primarily on the man's donated sperm. There wouldn't be a child as well if there was no egg.

Now, since the first statement is false, that makes the second statement (This is why we use the family name of the father for that new family) false as well.

Third statement - "The wife joins the lineage of the husband."
Again, this is more of a tradition that evolved because of the way of life then. Life was harsh. We were hunter-gatherers/etc., tasks much more suited to the brawn of men. For the kind of survival skills that people had to possess then, it's no wonder that women were secondary to men in terms of importance. You still see that setup in existing traditional villages that are still attached to the land. Men are valued more because they can till the land. It makes sense then that when a man and woman married back then, that the woman is viewed as being subsumed into the man's family.

In Western society (and other urban societies), women do not enter a marriage as a lesser being. A woman doesn't exist anymore to be subsumed into a man's lineage. In this world where both men and women can both contribute a lot, a woman enters into a marriage as an equal being. There is no question of one person just being absorbed into someone else's lineage. Both man and woman join each partner's lineage.

Good God, I can't believe that people are trying to apply traditional views on current society without considering why society back then had those traditional values. Conversely, if we could time travel, I wouldn't expect our traditions today to be applied to societies in 6 B.C. or 1200 AD.

It's very simplistic to reduce this argument to just noise being made by the "me generation." I could say the same thing about the traditional view of taking the man's name. That's also the "me generation" raising it's head - in this case, "me" being the man. Why is it right for the man and his lineage to keep the tradition going and not be accused of being a whiny member of the "me generation"? It's condescending to use the "me generation" excuse when one shows how flimsy the basis for some traditions can be.

I grew up in an Asian household that has a lot of old traditions. As a child, we were told what to do/how to behave by elders. I remember myself as a kid always asking "why" when an elder told us that so and so is what we're supposed to do. The elders' answers were always the same - it's a tradition (kinda like that song in Fiddler on the Roof). Well, "it's a tradition" isn't enough as an explanation. You have to be able to explain why and how the tradition came into being in the first place. Then you will know if the tradition is still valid or not.

Plusaf,
Were you trying to be condecending with your 'cute thought, though' comment?
I know it isn't going to happen, I was saying what I thought, adoption is important to me and I have seen a lot of pregnant teenage girls in my hometown and it saddens me. Not just because they were born to parents so young,... I was wondering if college were more affordable in general, if we would see that affect teen pregnancies... One of my favorite things about adoption is there is an application process to becoming a parent! LOL.
But seriously, I am just way into promoting adoption, it's just an opinion that I know our massive population would not follow. so, on the off chance you were being condecending,... please never assume I am stupid again, thank you.

'Tradition' isn't always wrong, it's just not right for everyone. I understand the concern to keep lineage, I can respect that, however, I do think it sounds a little bit like the whole 'the aryan race is the pure race'. Besides, I think perspective parents have a responsibility to provide loving homes to the current children who have none. Hundreds of thousands of children, worldwide, need good loving homes,.... I say we put procreation on hold, or at the very least limit it, for awhile in interest of helping these children.

Another thing,.... arranged marriages are tradition. I think marriage is about love and I think you should be able to change your name. Procreation is passing on lineage, names shouldn't be as important as procreation to you if you are worried about lineage.

that was rather dam well articulated Mr. Brown! =D

I'm definitely hearing that!

but y'know I wonder how melodramatic all this individualism is when maybe the guy just hated the fact his own last name sounded like a european toilet

buday is supposedly the guy's last name. Look at it. I bet you he took a lot shite in school for that =P lol ...and maybe he figures just losing it in a "romantic" gesture is as good a way as any. or maybe it's as shallow or as vain as a move in social climbing perhaps, who knows what side of the tracks he came from =P

And for once I get to laugh at one of Liberal's comments. lol

I don't mean to get rude but why the hell does everyone keep using John and Jennifer's last names to create their hybrid name. Brangelina and TomKat both use each actor's respective first names. Johniffer is the only name that would make sense in this new Hollywood hybrid naming game.

I haven't actually done the research yet, but in my eight years of living in Sri Lanka, I think at some point people must have joined last names. Otherwise they couldn't *possibly* have been able to come up with the name "Piyadasahewawitharana". It's a name that combines several common Sri Lankan surname prefixes and suffixes, and which graces a building in a town called Nugegoda. This may be what happens after just a few generations of name combining. It might be worth thinking of the children and grandchildren before combining long names!

BooksBrown, it is so rare to have someone agree with me on current. I need to celebrate this and frame it.

In any case, if someone believe that as humans, we are spiritual beings first and that only our physical body will die, then we are deeply connected to our ancestors and our descendants.

When I look at trends I can see that there is a force that push some people to end their lineage. First it was contraceptions, then abortions, then homosexual lifestyles. Many people are ending their lineage.

Meanwhile especially religious families want many children.

What does that mean ?

...my girlfriend would love this...it'll save her getting the double barreled name!! lol!

Another case of a california kook's plight to self neuter. Who cares...

Soleil,

You bring up an interesting point; most modern citizen's of the West have the mistaken notion that they are radically independent and free. As a consequence they are eager to separate themselves from the bondages of tradition and authority and instead wish to stand autonomous. I think the problem with this impulse, as expressed in actions like refusing to take your husband's last name, is it painfully divorces people from the cultural histories that have formed the bulk of their person. You are no more an individual than a wave that crashes on the shore...its no more clear where an individual wave begins and ends as is clear where individuals and family/cultural history begins and ends.

I see these decisions as symptomatic of an inflated sense of individualism and anti-traditionalism.

The man carries the seed. This is why we use the family name of the father for that new family. The wife joins the lineage of the husband.

We do not exist alone independant of our lineage.

If a family has only daughters, the father can make a request to his future son in law 's father who may have several sons if he would accept for his son to take his future wife's family name.

In the USA, we do not seem to care much about lineage and extended families expecially since the "me generation".

That wouldn't work for me. My would-be-husband's name is also Joe. So we would have identical names. Can you imagine the confusion?

Who cares what Hollywood does? Their marriages don't last anyways.

I think that people should be able to use whatever name they please once they become married. Personally, I want to keep my last name. Out of 9 grandkids, my brother is the only one with the grandfathers name so he would be the only one to carry on the name. I want to carry on my family's name too.

Plus my Mother's maiden name has died out in our family. There were only two sons with the last name Thomas and both died about 14 years ago, so once my Mother's Father and hi brother die the name will be dead too. (Blood-wise because I know Thomas is a fairly common last name.)

Like the added spice,please no guns,a cool and intelligent explanation, staying single is a fantastic adventure,for a rattling story in love!??

I've considered this for the longest time. My last is ugly in comparison to my fiancee's. The only draw back is moving from the beginning of the alphabet to the end.

The fee thing is nuts

I changed my name when I got married and if I had the chance for a do-over, I wouldn't. It has been 3 years now and I'm still correcting my name on documents. What a pain!

But if that's what floats your own boat, then by all means go for it!

YES!!!! MY HUSBAND CAN BE A THE BRUCE TOO!!! IT'S TIME TO REDD THE THRAPPLE THEN AND GET ALL SCOTTISH ON YOUR BUMS!
I like the idea of keeping last names traditional. It's nice. But my mom's real Finnish last name was changed in her grandparent's time to a Jewish one at Ellis island. This was true of a great number of Finns since no one could pronounce their names, I suppose. That's bad for tracking. And my husband's last name wasn't his birth name either. I think this is GRRRREAT!

I think those whom belong to the Cherokee tribe (or some native american) get the womans last name.

I can see the argument. I think the tradition of changing Ms. to Mrs. is to show that she's married and off limits. It's a possesive type thing.

Leeza. . . that's not such a bad idea. . .

Leeza it's your birthday. Happy birthday Leeza.

sorry, had to do it.

when i get married, i want my husband and i to BOTH change our last names and create a NEW and IMPROVED last name.

Hey, even if you want to officially be nammed Ima Weiner...It shouldn't matter. In a country where freedom of speech is so important, and it's legal to call people whatever you want...Shouldn't you also be able to call yourself anything you want?

I think doing "whatever the hell they want" is the right the Bijan's and the ACLU won for us all...

If Ben Bateman marries Jessie Johnson, perhaps their last name should just be Bateman-Johnson.

Or perhaps people should just be able to do whatever the hell they want.

I did not think there would be such a problem if my male spouse is to take on my last name. I could recall myself telling everyone that I am not giving up my last name, because, one, I love it. two, I want to keep my family name going. three, the thought of "i have to" take on my husband's last name and our children has to have my husband's last name angers me, and why can I have the choice or my husband and i have the choice of whose name should go on.....

standards need to change!

Hmm... I think that it would be cooler if me and my wife were to come up with our own entirely new name. You know, I think I'll run it by her when the time comes...

wow...that sux

Well said. I guess part of who I am, is a person who staunchly stands up for principles, which is one of the reasons my husband loves me. I have to give him credit where credit is due, he's been very understanding about me not taking his name (even though I know he'd like me to).

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.'
From Romeo and Juliet.

So, in the spirit of that I took my husband's name because I love him and wanted to. Had I decided not to he would have loved me anyway. Which is why I love him.;-). It isn't the name that makes you, it is who you are. Sounds sappy, but it's true.

Exactly, what's in a name....but if there's a principle to be fought over. Also, it's a question of what marriage is about. Is it a joining of two equals, or the domination of one person over another?

Labels are useless to the blind.

That was the position I was in as a writer with a pen name. Still, as a feminist, I also recognized the system was very out-dated and was not something I wanted to participate in or perpetuate in any way.

Not taking your husband's last name isn't always a political statement. What if you already have an established career under your name? Do you really want to risk losing everything you've built up because Jane Doe has built up a great reputation, but nobody knows Jane Smith--and nobody realizes that she used to be Jane Doe?

I think it's about the issue of equality. The system had simple mechanisms in place for women to adopt their partner's names, but not vice versa, which is unacceptable in this day and age.

I'm not sure I'd be down with a woman who wouldn't take my last name. While I agree that every person has a fundamental right to 'identify themselves as they please', making a political point at the expense of marital tradition seems misdirected.

I'm sure we can identify several practices grounded in sexist, racist and classist presuppositions but have since lost their racist and sexist bite. Why call anybody Mr. or Mrs. at all, doesnt this imply a caste system or at least have its history in class based society? And on and on.

If my wife seriously told me that she didnt want to take my last name, I would reply "Seriously? You want to make a political point about 'women as property' in the context of our marriage?

If you can legally change your name to a "stage" name, what's the big deal about taking your spouse's name?

Personally, I was 35 when I got married and had built an entire career and repuatation on my name... why would I sabotage myself by changing my name?

How does the soon to be Mrs Vader feel about this?

One of my best friend's sister hand her husband take her name. Wasn't such a big deal in Pennsylvania.

When I get married, I may just change my entire name to Darth Vader.

Just goes to show that there are double standards on both sexes since it's obvious discrimination that men have to pay more than women.

Binarysunset he COULD have paid to change his name, they were objecting to the fact that when women take their husband's name there is no fee.

I sure would be Mr. Jolie.... oh wait this was a generalization? Man that poster got me all excited...

I think we live in an era where tradition is completely ignored by the mainstream anymore. This is not a bad thing, this is how we evolve socially and intellectually.

Since marriage in many countries is more of a legal agreement than a religious one, (i.e For the joinning of property and ownership rights etc etc..)
Its perfectly fine for couples to not change names or the man to change to the woman's either or.

Old standards are just that, Old, and for the most part ridiculously unnecessary.

I think marriage is over rated anyway. Tax breaks aside..

wow how ridiculous and sexist!

Anyone should be able to take anyone's name. We live in a capitalist country, if you can pay for it, you can do it.

I think the issue with combined names is that you lose a lot of history--what happens several generations down, when someone wants to trace their ancestry only to hit a dead end when look for a Mayerston when they should be looking for an Aniston and a Mayer.