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

true american wrote:

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.

Like when she was a child raised in her father's house with her father's name?

She has completely accepted that a last name is based on patrilineal descent, from her father, and his father and so on. She is not being independent, she is simply acting as a male heir would.

If she did not want any part of the whole process she would recognize this and not have any last name, instead keeping her first.

You see the whole thing is, names are all named by and for men, by and large, and if they are named for women, it is because of that woman's patrilineal lines and association. Such as the Carolina's or Virginia, or Maryland, or Elizabethtown.

The whole name thing is a man's game completely, by taking your father's name you're still playing the game. If you were honest in your thinking and action, you wouldn't have any surname at all, and instead take on a metaphorical name based on an emotion or some other cultural identity.

The fact that you fail to understand this just illustrates my point more clearly in your hypocrisy. Either take your Husband's name or have a name based on no surname.

Huh, I'm a woman and I agree with the previous poster. There IS a weird, creepy feeling about keeping your father's name once you're married, absolutely.

I'm about to get married this summer and I will take my husband's name, no hyphen or weird stuff, just his name, and I'm happy to do so.

I wasn't specifically singling you out. Your husband probably is great, I can't confirm or deny, but again you illustrate my point that a woman chooses her husband, thus she decides what her Children will and will not learn, be, and do.

That was my point about culture...perhaps you missed it? If you reread I said that women make the cultural difference. I was also generalizing men somewhat to help illustrate this. Men don't choose their wives like they used to, when names mattered. Surely you understand the roll you play and you understand this?

woman to be married wrote:

Huh, I'm a woman and I agree with the previous poster. There IS a weird, creepy feeling about keeping your father's name once you're married, absolutely.

I'm about to get married this summer and I will take my husband's name, no hyphen or weird stuff, just his name, and I'm happy to do so.

I guess I would disagree here. My current name (I'm not married yet) is not my FATHER'S name, it's MY name. That's how I see it.

BTW, I also said I would be changing my name when I get married and will be very happy to do so as well. I really like the idea of one family having one last name.

Thomas Gregory Smith-Jackson wrote:

I wasn't specifically singling you out. Your husband probably is great, I can't confirm or deny, but again you illustrate my point that a woman chooses her husband, thus she decides what her Children will and will not learn, be, and do.

That was my point about culture...perhaps you missed it? If you reread I said that women make the cultural difference. I was also generalizing men somewhat to help illustrate this. Men don't choose their wives like they used to, when names mattered. Surely you understand the roll you play and you understand this?

Right, I know you weren't singling me out, don't worry about that. I should have said "us" instead of "me" but I didn't want to speak for all women so I could only use my experience here.

You mention that I illustrate your point that a woman chooses her husband and so decides what her children will and will not learn, be, and do. Doesn't it work the other way too? Doesn't a husband choose a wife and so decides what his children will and will not learn, be, and do? I think it cuts both ways here.

And I just don't get why you say women make the cultural difference. Explain it to me again. (Honestly, not being snide, just want to understand your ideas, and thankful that what I first read into it isn't actually what you think!)

In all honesty, and I am being perfectly honest here, when a man chooses a wife...

He's probably thinking more of how she ranks on a scale of 1 to 10.

While admirable males will be thinking less about the 'looks' of their wife, they will still do it.

Men and Women are quite different in this regard, and again I hate generalizing but:

Men: Look for attractiveness of their wife primarily, and this is a general trend. Many studies prove this to be true.

Women: Look for other characteristics in their husband, primarily his intelligence, social upbringing, wealth, charm and so on.

Again, I don't want to say your husband chose you because he knew you would read them Beowulf and style your and his clothing (I assume you purchase the clothing) after those worn in Greater Saxony, over your Bust size, but the case is that likely your appearance had more to do than you realize in his courting you.

All men are this way, to some degree or another. If you were ugly would your husband think the same way of you, or is that just what he tells you?

This is why men pass on the names, and why women pass on the culture. It was what we as people are suited for in our individuals rolls. If not for a perversion of culture in modern times by socialists bent on automatons as a species, this would be well recognized, in fact many are recognizing it on their own. As a woman you have your own strengths and weaknesses apart from a man. This is the way things are, the way we evolved as a species. I try not to fight evolution/god's will, or whatever you wish to call it.

INRI Rex Judaeorum, in his name.

FYI, not married yet, so can't quite answer some of your questions...

I agree that in general, men and women look for different things, and that's been supported over and over in studies. Basically what I'm saying is of course you can't deny evolution/God, and evolution/God did make males the more "dominant" gender, but I don't think that necessarily leads to the cultural norm of women taking their husband's name any more than it necessarily leads to a cultural norm of men working and making the family's living and women staying home to raise the kids. My point is that we easily discard male evolutionary/God-willed "dominance" when it comes to the latter issue, but not so much when it comes to the former. The man working to support the family/woman staying at home to raise the kids is a male-dominance norm that has been discarded; the woman taking a man's name when she gets married is a male-dominance norm that has not been discarded. And I wonder why; I think it's intriguing.

You are a women, the feminine. You create culture. Women create societies.

Women have more impact on the culture of their children, Men more on their functioning within it.

In a well rounded family it is often difficult to tell which provides which, as the family structure blends so well between masculine and feminine.

However this is because men and women have opposite qualities that allow them to work in harmony when together, to build on each others strengths.

But women are responsible for culture. The Rabbinical school is that to be a Jew your mother must have been a Jew. For very good reason. This is widely accepted world wide...for instance Muslims hold women to a high moral standard because it is acknowledged in the Quran that women determine culture, and a pure woman creates a pure culture. Asian societies share similar values, as do tribal African and Native Cultures. India. Puritan. Mormon. The message is the same.

I'm not saying this is a religious point, but its a cultural one. A society with neglected women is not a society at all. Once a civilization neglects its women, it falls. Look to Rome. Look to Greece. Look at Babylon. Look at our country today. We as a society are neglecting women, believe it or not with feminism and feminist ideals such as taking your father's name. Why take any surname then if you can not take your husbands? Let him pass on the name, and you the culture, as you have evolved to do or been willed to do.

solution: paper-rock-scissors

Please defend the statement "You are a woman, the feminine. You create culture. Women create societies." I disagree with this.

But say for the sake of argument that this is true. What does this have to do with a woman not taking her husband's name?

You mention "taking your father's name." Look, a woman in this situation is not *taking* her father's name. She is *not taking* her husband's name. Most of all she is *keeping* her name. There are very big differences here. Do you see this or no?

So as humans, we evolved so that men pass down names and women cultures? Nope. We evolved so that men are more dominant than women, but we did not evolve so that men pass down names. That would only hold true if men passed down names in all human cultures around the world, which they don't, so it can't be true that being human means men have to pass down names. It is a purely cultural phenomenon.

We evolved our societies yes, if you read Stephen Hawkings latest statement how we design our societies is the next great step in human evolution.

So, if you are offended by the statement 'You are the feminine' and all that, I assume you'd want to be referred to as masculine? I can understand your husband picking you on cultural reasons instead of looks!

Ha, where the heck did I say I was offended by you saying I was feminine? I just said I disagreed with your remark that women create culture. Even if I were offended by that (why would I possibly be though? I'm a woman; I AM feminine), it would not automatically follow that I'd want to be referred to as masculine. Your logic is just plain faulty.

I think you do too much assuming. I'm still waiting to hear what any of this has to do with a woman changing or not changing her name, assuming you recognize the differences I enumerated above since you gave no indication to the contrary.

Also, if you read what I said, nowhere did I say that human societies have not evolved.

What I did say is that according to your male-dominance hypothesis, societies would have evolved so that men work to support the family and women stay home to raise the kids. It would follow in this type of situation that the woman would take the name of the man. I'm wondering why the first situation has changed but the second hasn't.

Could you please actually respond to my substantive remarks rather than beat around the bush? It seems to me that your thoughts on this are all over the place but your logic doesn't follow. (Or, at least, you haven't presented it on letsrun. It might be there, and I am open to the possibility, but you just haven't convinced me yet.)

You are one clear-minded, smart debater!

Well done, true american! (albeit I don't like your username so much, but that would be another thread...:-)

Please tell me you're not writing off those giants of human civilization because they neglected women!

Secondly, I disagree that only women create culture.

Lastly, what about creating culture makes one subordinate? I think it's a more important role. I guess I'll have to take my wife's name if I get married now. Once our son marries, he'll of course not cling to his mother's name and will take the name of his wife.

With that said, I'm a status quo guy. More simple, less emasculating for the guy.

What??? = Trueamerican

seriously do you need to congratulate yourself that much?

yes. If I didn't constantly reassure myself, my ego would deflate and my argument would be proven false...

in short...I am a poor loser that resorts to petty tactics on an anonymous message board because my ego is so small that its practically nonexistant.

I am a shame on women everywhere, I gorge myself with food in the bathroom then throw it everywhere when I'm done, and I'm afraid my bf will leave me for a prettier woman. The only reason I've gotten somewhere in life is impressing men who make decisions.

But don't be fooled, this is why my children should have my name instead of my husbands. Women are powerful, women are strong. Women can throw up all the food they eat in the bathroom.

Only one letsrun could there be such a ridiculous thread.

And the bit about DNA is just the icing on the cake. Hilarious.

My wife and I know plenty of people who kept their last names upon marriage. There's no confusion at all. It only confuses people who have a very rigid social view.

Besides, it's none of your business.

Consider taking Anthro 1 (if you're a student) or getting a used textbook (if you're not).

Most of what you've written is complete rubbish.

"All cultures?" Yikes.

"The ancient world?" Um, do you really think the ancient world was undifferentiated?

"by nature?" Don't know where to start with that one. It's just a little more complicated than you seem to think.

I wouldn't marry a woman who didn't take my last name. I've never heard of a non-celebrity that didn't take the man's name. I'm the man, she takes my name, and thats that.