Ladies, it's 2009: should a woman take her husband's last name?

Yes, she should take her husbands name... the other option is to keep her name, which just happens to be her father's last name...

Joe Smith marries Sarah Jones. They don't change their names. They have a child, Mike. Mike can use a new amalgam, like Mike Smines or Mike Joth. That prevents the last name from growing and growing.

They're mixing DNA, so why not a few letters?

I didn't change my name. I would if I felt like it, but as another poster said, I really like my name. Unlike other posters, I think CHANGING your name is really confusing. You lose track of people more easily when they change their names.

For kids, they can take their dad's name. No confusion, no problem.

I vote Mike Smones or Mike Joith

Off the Grid wrote:

Chinese people do not change names when they get married. The child takes the father's name.

You should ask yourself, "What purpose does it serve?"

Are you an idiot? women regularly take their husbands names in China and almost every culture in the world.

The reasons are many, the man is the head of the household, in all cultures. The woman is part of a transfer from her father's household to her new husband's household. Is it outdated in some forms, yes. But its a tradition held since antiquity.

For genetics, the male Y chromosome is supposed to have an underlying surname attached to it. This was done for patrilineal descent in the ancient world, because it was very important who you're daddy was and which patrilineal line he descended from. This is used in all cultures to determine heredity, in Royal bloodlines, and in the laity. It is also used to determine hereditary title.

Is it important who your mother is? Of course, but its more important who the father is. This is because by nature a man can impregnate any woman he wants and not provide for them. Women can thusly be impregnated by any man of any standing. Heredity is used because for cultures to survive from usurpers/rapists/barbarians. The last name is used to provide order, and by women looking to give up that process they are giving into barbarism and incivility.

I think things can stay ordered even if a married woman doesnt change her name.

Jen wrote:

I kept my last name, though it's certainly not for everyone, nor do I necessarily advocate it as such. For me, it came down to any number of things, but primarily, I like my name--it was the name I was born with, the name I've lived with my entire life, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Would any of you be willing to change your name in marriage? If it's a question of what to name the children, why not take your wife's name, and name the children that?

ditto. i didn't get married till i was older. i officially didn't change my name but at times, i'll go by my husband's last name just to make it easier in social situations.

lol wrote:

I think things can stay ordered even if a married woman doesnt change her name.

Its still their father's name. They are simply keeping their father's name transferred from his father, and his father, and his father.

In fact, its a form of hereditary incest to keep one's father's name on the part of a woman, and not take her husbands. Its as if saying "I think my father was a better man than you and I'd rather have his name as if he was my husband more than yours" That is literally what it says. Name should have no bearing on a woman, it is simply an object used by radical feminism to promote feminist ideology which doesn't even make sense.

Look at the Y Haplogroups and the Mitochondrial Haplogroupds in genetics. The Mitochondrial DNA all comes from the same woman, our Genetic Eve. The Y chromosome, however has several descendents which we trace back to.

The Y is also more fragmented and branches much more than the Mitochondrial, which is more based on groupings than branchings. In the ancient world, and even today, the Mitochondrial DNA would remain much the same despite usurpation by new Y chromosome, after Y chromosome from successive wave of conquests, plunder, and rape.

For a woman to even take a name, any name other than a first name, is to acknowledge this process. If anything women should have only one name and not even participate if they want to be feminists about it. Keeping the male name of their father implies that are accepting one form of male tyranny for another. It is barbaric, and the fact 'intelligent' women do it, shows you how uncivil the feminist movement really is.

Women hand off much more important knowledge and beliefs to their children, not names. They do this by picking the father, and teaching their oral family history, and in many cases, the religious beliefs that go along with it.

By feminists choosing to focus on the name, they give that up and focus on being male. Who is to be female then? What is to happen to culture handed down for thousands of generations, of oral tradition? Feminism would destroy that, as men are incapable of handing down this feminist quality. Men are stupid, I know I am one. The name keeps it easy for us. By women taking that path, you destroy culture.

frozen north wrote:

I didn't change my name. I would if I felt like it, but as another poster said, I really like my name. Unlike other posters, I think CHANGING your name is really confusing. You lose track of people more easily when they change their names.

For kids, they can take their dad's name. No confusion, no problem.

This is actually really interesting. Most people have no problem with the wife not changing her name, but automatically assume the kids will take the dad's name. Why the father?

I know it's rooted in culture (when I marry, I'm changing my name and my kids will have the family name, read the dad's name, too), but it has such underlying male-dominance roots that I'm really not comfortable with it. I like having one family name though, which is why I'll do it, but guys, how would you like to feel cultural pressure to change your last name to the woman's last name when you marry? I'd be interested in that perspective too.

Thomas Gregory Smith-Jackson wrote:

By feminists choosing to focus on the name, they give that up and focus on being male. Who is to be female then? What is to happen to culture handed down for thousands of generations, of oral tradition? Feminism would destroy that, as men are incapable of handing down this feminist quality. Men are stupid, I know I am one. The name keeps it easy for us. By women taking that path, you destroy culture.

I'll give you points for creating a truly fringe argument and trying to present it with a serious face.

No one gives a rip about this except for the socially retarded. You can call yourself Pocahontas for all I care.

Yes, they do. Many people look at women who don't take their husband's name as weird. By the Black, Jew, Mormon, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, or other. It is looked at as weird. Our media does not focus on it as much because its not 'politically correct'.

Exactly, because you are a women and you are better at teaching your children culture and oral tradition than your brute of a husband, who is only suited for passing on his name. This is the ultimate ideal of the feminine, to be above base objectivity such as a name.

It would be no different than trading one form of male tyranny for another. But the obvious point is that a man does not take his wife's father's Y Chromosome, he takes his own father's thats who genetics work. The name is based on this.

Often times a male's patrilineal line will be greater and more telling of the man than his non-patrlineal line. Like Father, like son. The name carries this observation from antiquity. A Great man often has a great son, not always, but often was the case. Great women are more common than great men btw...because if it wasn't for Great women we wouldn't have cultural uniqueness we have today.

Feminism is designed to destroy culture. It was designed by Socialists in New York who want to remove all individualism and human history, and create one world in the process, one language, one people.

True Feminism would do the opposite, it would promote culture, individualism, and cherish differences in humanity. A true feminist would have one name, and not even participate in completely male dominated business of passing on names. The very nature of passing on a name is male oriented. Fundamental flaw of Feminism.

Tommy:

you're either a great troll, or a nut. Names on the Y-chromosome huh?

Brad ONeil - SR - Coe College wrote:

Tommy:

you're either a great troll, or a nut. Names on the Y-chromosome huh?

Uh...do you know how the Y chromosome works? Surname groups usually have the same Y chromosome or closely linked Y Chromosomes.

Its also the root of dynastic inheritance. Being of several Royal bloodlines I was taught this at a young age. All monarchies are based on who your father was, for all Regnants. In the cases when a Queen Regnant sits in the thrown it is because of strong Patrilineal royal lines in her family. Europe and most of the world have extremely strong male primogeniture, as the King, was head of the military, and usually his brothers and cousins were generals/knights/leaders within it. This formed concrete national groups as all of the leaders and many of the soldiers/Knights that defended it shared a common male ancestor. This 'blood' bond held nations together. This practice happened all over the world, in all cultures, in all races, and all religions.

In the cases where a female is to be Regnant, the male lines are already present to provide this blood bond with the leaders of the country. In addition, when the Female Regnant sits, she often takes a consort who is a cousin of her father's and shares that common male ancestor. In honor of the former King however, the Queen shall remain Regnant as the only or first descendant of the former King. Usually her first Male descendant shall become King. The vast majority of the time the Patrilineal descent is so strong that the Monarch is not questioned, weather male or female.

We can take the current case of the British Monarchy, HRM Elizabeth II became Queen because HRM Edward VIII abdicated the thrown to marry a cousin of mine. In this case, Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip are both 2nd cousins once removed, and 3rd cousins, through several lines.

The Ottoman rulers shared the same practices, as does the House of Saud, The Japanese Monarchy, and many other Monarchies all over the world. Your father's line is very important, the most important part in your title and inheritance. There are few exceptions, but they are notable when they occur.

For more on the European Peerage check out this website:

The Mormon genealogies are also very good for most Americans in finding their roots. If you are African American many share the same Y Chromosomes as whites.

Hopefully I've been helpful in illustrating why surnames are so important.

Dar Dar Winks wrote:

um, men are dominant. it is a fact like evolution.

Yes, of course, but in this day and age, in striving for gender equity, we try to minimize this dominance in social situations. In most other areas of our social norms, the roles of men and women have been converging. Yet this is one norm that does not seem to be converging. There are stay at home dads and working moms, but the overwhelming majority of women still take their husband's name. I have never heard of a case of the other way around. And I find this interesting.

To Thomas Gregory Smith Jackson, who told me "you are a women and you are better at teaching your children culture and oral tradition than your brute of a husband, who is only suited for passing on his name. This is the ultimate ideal of the feminine, to be above base objectivity such as a name. "

I actually find this pretty insulting (but I'm not insultED; I really don't get insulted so don't play the sensitive woman card on me). I can't choose a better husband than a brute and the only thing my husband would be good for is passing on his name? Come on, give me some credit, I have better taste than that. I am no radical militant feminist, but I do find your view to be really insulting to the vast majority of men who contribute much more to a marriage and their children than their name.

I hate it when women have hyphenated last names. It's like they're saying, 'Oh look! I got married!'

It seems pretentious to me. Farrah Fawcett popularized it with Farrah Fawcett-Majors. I think it has run its course (hopefully).

Track Fan wrote:

Yes. Once a woman marries she loses all independence and her birth name is no longer part of her. She must now sucome to being the subservant slave that marriage is based on.

this is right, actually, despite the sarcasm.

Very interesting point.The idiotic women on this thread who "love their (dads') name very much" have indeed committed hereditary incest.

Thomas Gregory Smith-Jackson wrote:

In fact, its a form of hereditary incest to keep one's father's name on the part of a woman, and not take her husbands. Its as if saying "I think my father was a better man than you and I'd rather have his name as if he was my husband more than yours" That is literally what it says.

I still see a great number of marriages with problems with women that just feel they must keep their last name.

Thomas Gregory Smith-Jackson wrote:

In fact, its a form of hereditary incest to keep one's father's name on the part of a woman, and not take her husbands. Its as if saying "I think my father was a better man than you and I'd rather have his name as if he was my husband more than yours" That is literally what it says.

No it doesn't, it just means my name since Day 0 has been Jane Doe. I am Jane Doe. And just because I'm married, that's not going to change who I am at the core, and it's not going to negate the last 30 years of me being Jane Doe. It has absolutely nothing to do with the father.

Also, your logic fails. If the woman is rejecting the notion of taking a husband's name when she marries, why the heck would keeping her original name imply that the father is more of a husband?? She has completely rejected the whole premise that a last name indicates which man you're with.

I really didn't think views like yours existed any more. It's rather frightening.