You have no argument. So now you are just purposefully being an ass. Got it.
Should a wife take your last name when you get hitched? And why?
- Thread starter Jenesis
- Start date
What do you mean I have no argument?
-For many people, taking the man's last name is standard practice.
-If a woman is reluctant to take a man's last name without solid reason, Why not question her commitment.
-70% of divorces are initiated by women.
-Women are given the legal right to financially castrate a man during a separation.
Am I lying?
Last edited:
we're ages from that tradition...like I said...not all women should be doing that anymore...and those who do...they do it for their own volition to show commitment to the relationship...no one should be forced to marry someone...if she takes his name, it should be voluntary...and if he marries her after the fact, it's his choice, if the guy cancels the wedding because the woman won't take his name, maybe because he also feels the women doesn't show commitment...every person feels different and has different outlook...you can't generalize it...but yeah...it's stupid to follow tradition from medieval ages...taking on a guys name isn't what a lady should be worried about when marrying a guy...
In many countries outside of Western Europe and the English speaking world it’s actually traditional for women to keep their original family names after marriage (I.e. Islamic nations, Spanish speaking countries, China, Korea, Vietnam). In Quebec it’s also required by law for women to keep their names after marriage.
And yet you have guys here saying that no last name change means she is somehow not committed, I don’t get that thinking. How does that show she is not committed? Aren’t her vows a commitment? Does a vow say she will change her last name?
Im not asking you directly, but apparently these questions are just being argumentative as oppose to challenging in order to find the root issue. Because it is not this apparent lack of commitment.
For many people, taking the man's last name is standard practice. Again why? Why is it standard practice?
-If a woman is reluctant to take a man's last name without solid reason, Why not question her commitment. How does that show lack of commitment? She is agreeing to marrying, is that not enough commitment? And if not, what more does the man do to show his level of commitment, equal to hers?
-70% of divorces are initiated by women. Has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about.
-Women are given the legal right to financially castrate a man during a separation. 100% lying. If you can’t work the law, that is your problem, but the law is equal. Running from your kids, doesn’t get you off the parenting hook. And that is not castrating a man, that is holding him accountable for his duties as a father.
I believe a lot of the differing attitudes are culturally specific. In the West some might consider a woman who keeps her own name to be showing disrespect or disloyalty to her husband. But in Islamic or Confucian societies, the opposite might be true, a woman who abandons her family’s name might be seen as disrespecting her father and her blood/clan.
I believe both traditions have their roots in patriarchy to some extent but it’s just a matter of which patriarch in question takes precedence, the husband or the father.
Last edited:
For many people, taking the man's last name is standard practice. Again why? Why is it standard practice?
-It's something people did a long time ago and it became the norm for some.
If a woman is reluctant to take a man's last name without solid reason, Why not question her commitment. How does that show lack of commitment? She is agreeing to marrying, is that not enough commitment? And if not, what more does the man do to show his level of commitment, equal to hers?
-If a woman comes from a culture where this is not normal, or She has an established professional name (like a Doctor), or the guy she's with has a shady past, then I would 100% agree with not taking the last name. I'll also throw in if you have a very foreign last name.
Other than those reasons, it wouldn't make sense to me why she would be against it. Just saying it's a hassle to get the documents changed is a weak excuse. It doesn't cut it.
70% of divorces are initiated by women. Has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about.
-The number show Women are not committed to marriage as much as men. Which can be added to the previous answer.
Women are given the legal right to financially castrate a man during a separation. 100% lying. If you can’t work the law, that is your problem, but the law is equal. Running from your kids, doesn’t get you off the parenting hook. And that is not castrating a man, that is holding him accountable for his duties as a father.
-So in all, what you are saying is the man is needed. The man has a role in the family and just because he doesn't have the biological part to birth a child, it doesn't make him any less.
Can you tell me where in this thread I ever said that a father did not have a role in the family? And I said he did not have anything to do with work in carrying and birthing a child. You have been saying that a child must take a father’s name and have yet to answer why. I offer that the last name should to the mother based on her being the bearer of the child. You are free to show why the father is more deserving the wife.
And at least now you have some examples of why a wife doesn’t need to change her last name, so why can’t the “standard” just be changed. How does a wife who doesn’t change her name because of professional reason love her husband any less then the women who doesn’t want to change it for personal reason like she doesn’t want to lose her family name?
Right here
A woman doesn't have to do anything, but if her ideologies on a family doesn't align with the man's why shoehorn this marriage and family?
Find someone you align with.
There's lots of things we used to do as "standard" practice that we no longer do.
Sure, it's certainly your right to question if she won't take your last name. It's also her right not to do so. So it's your choice whether to let something like that stand in the way of a relationship or not. I'm sure you can find examples where the woman does or does not take the husband's name yet the relationship is still successful.
The fact that 70% of women initiate divorce doesn't tell us much. What at is the root cause of the divorce? Emotional distress, physical abuse, etc. etc.
There's no such thing as a legal right to financially castrate a man during a separation. The only thing you have a legal right to if you head to court is a fair trial. That doesn't mean you have the right to a particular result. Just that you have the opportunity to state your case, present your evidence and be heard.
A colleague of mine recently went through a divorce and represented himself. I don't know the specific details, but he said he was able to get some concessions (child support, visitation, etc.) from her because some of her "facts" were outright lies.
You just said it is standard practice and that if a woman doesn’t do it, it shows lack of commitment, and as soon as I challenage that with other examples that you used yourself for exception, now you want to play this card???? LOL , like i said before, you are being an ass, and I am done with you.
What examples? You just deny everything I say and just ask more "why" based questions.
It does show a lack of commitment. Let's flip it: If a woman ask a man to take her name and he is very reluctant, Is it not fair for the woman to question his commitment to the relationship and how far it will go?
Example: woman who has built a professional career does not have to take his last name. How is she more committed to her husband then the woman who doesn’t want to lose her family name? Both are not changing it, so how is one less of a commitment over the other?
Do you want me to answer or are you done with me? 'Cause I can answer.
She is more committed because the reason goes beyond ideology and emotion. A doctor's name is their brand, so it makes sense not wanting to lose that brand recognition in the community. Her reason is different from someone who's main point is "I want to challenge the system." That don't even sound attractive.
So basically I was right and have been all along, it is purely emotional security for the man and nothing more. Now I am done.Do you want me to answer or are you done with me? 'Cause I can answer.
She is more committed because the reason goes beyond ideology and emotion. A doctor's name is their brand, so it makes sense not wanting to lose that brand recognition in the community. Her reason is different from someone who's main point is "I want to challenge the system." That don't even sound attractive.
If understanding a person who has built a medical practice from the ground up is an emotional decision to you, then yes. I'm purely emotional.
