Taking the man''s name

[alexah]

----------------
On 10/20/2004 10:21:43 AM verticalhorizon wrote:

Ok... I can respect a woman for not changing her name... but it's a bit foofy for a guy to change his name.
----------------

I will respectfully disagree as to the 'foofiness' of a man changing his last name. IMHO I think it takes a strong man to do so in light of other guys thinking he's 'foofy'

Edited to add: I still don't know if I'm taking his name - he doesn't have a preference as to whether I should or shouldn't & I haven't yet decided what to do?

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 10/20/2004 10:13:23 AM verticalhorizon wrote:

As a guy, I'm happy to see a good number of women keeping their names. Just from a 'pain in the arse' perspective, who would want to go through all that?

--

I want to mention that not taking his name can be *more* of a pain in the arse. It can be very confusing to other people about your status & the status of your children. Also, it's a clear line for Social Security, legal documents, etc.

I really haven't given it much thought. Though it was hard for me after all those years to legally change my name. I did it so that the IRS wouldn't red flag our returns. I have some forever friends that still refer to me & introduce me by my maiden name. It's not big deal. And, in my profession everyone calls my hubby Mr. F&I to the point that he puts this on his name tag when there isn't security issues. I like his name better & my new name is quite nice as it exists now.

BTW, I *HATED* my middle name.

 

[ame]

Im going to hyphenate it for a few months after marriage for work but will take his completely when we are married. Its going to take a few months for my email and stuff to filter correctly, and for my clients to get it all figured out. We haven't printed me more than a hundred business cards so I wouldn't get stck with a bunch of non-married ones.

 

[ChooChoo]

I'm with Reena on this one - I HATE my last name (it's uglee and difficult), and I can't wait to change it, just because of that. If I liked my maiden name, I would keep it, no question - I dislike the whole tradition, but I'm going to use it in my favor. I'm going to make my miaden name legally my middle name but just put it down as an initial.

 

[treysar]

Wow - you can make your maiden name your middle name? Is it difficult to do? I guess I will consider that. My last name is very special to me, and I am 1 of 4 sisters, no boys to carry it on. I may consider naming my first born son my last name, but FI is a III, so we will probably name our first boy his name, the 4th.

Tough decision, but i respect every answer.

 

[gingerBcookie]

I'll be keeping my last name professionally and legally but socially take his name. So I'll be Dr. maiden name and Mrs. hubby's name.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 10/20/2004 12:37:51 PM treysar wrote:

Wow - you can make your maiden name your middle name? .----------------

You can name yourself moonunit if you wanted to - oh wait that's already taken.

You have to change your name with the social security office. I had to bring a copy of my marriage license. You have to have a reason to change & that was mine. But, really, anything goes. If you don't plan on changing it at all, then you don't have to do anything. If you hypenate, I believe you have to go to SS office.

 

[elepri]

My mom never took my dad's name, i don't think anyone was ever confused about her or her children's status. I'm keeping mine for many reasons both personal and professional. Although i have to say, if my and his last names sounded well together, we'd consider using both. Unfortunately, that would be a very long and awkward combo. Oh and he told me when we got engaged he didn't want me to take his name because he also thinks it's a silly tradition. Guess that's why i'm marrying him.

 

[MrsFrk]

Along these lines- I know a couple who picked a NEW name to be their surname. Not his last name, not hers, not a combo of the two. Struck me as kind of odd, but it works for them. It was years ago, I forgot about it until this thread got me thinking on the last name thing. What's funny is that they both had somewhat long, difficult for the general public to get right names (Hoogenbaden and Grgich), I think they were both happy to pick a more melodic, easy to spell surname.

 

[Nicrez]

My sister and her husband considered the whole name change thing together, as his name is a very tough non-vowel name... but eventually they kept their names.

I suppose to each his own, but to me marraige is a give and take, and I don't mind giving up my name for all the diamonds I will be taking...

...just kidding....

 

[sevens one]

I didn't have much of an identity when I got married, so I took hubby's.
I only recently changed it legally for tax purposes.

(boy if I only knew then what I know now!

)

 

[goldengirl]

I will be taking his name.

For one thing, I do not like my last name because I do not like the man it came from.

It is neither my father's or my mother's name, maiden or married, but my mother's father's name, who I have met exactly once and said less than ten words to. He is not a decent man and he treated my mother very badly when she was young. Unfortunately, he is the only person besides my aunt (and I) that have This Name. So I will be more than happy to throw it out the window as quickly as possible in order to sever any perceived relationship with him.

But even if I didn't mind my name, I would still take his. I don't see it as changing ownership, but as creating a family unit. Kinda like saying, Rebekkah Maidenname is one of the Maidenname family, but Rebekkah Marriedname is part of the Marriedname family. You know that whole "a man shall leave his family and cleave unto his wife" bit, and how to have a successful marraige each partner has to have their spouse as their first loyalty (spouse before your parents!)...well, I believe that having a family unit name helps to create us as a family unit in other people's minds. Maybe, it is a sign of the shift in my loyalties. Or something.

Could he take my name? Sure, I guess. I'm taking his because it's tradition to do so. I'm kinda traditional.

But nobody will be "giving me away" at my wedding...not because I think it's hogwash (which I do), but because I have too many parental figures and it would just be too easy to get somebody's feelings hurt.

 

[fancyrock]

We want so much to be HIS woman, HIS sweetie, HIS wife, why not take his last name? As much as I like my first and last name, I think I would be taking his after we wed and wear it proudly.

Since I don't have a middle, I might keep my maiden name as a middle name. Hmmm, i'm not sure i like the sound of that... it doesn't flow nicely together. Oh never mind....

 

[jodstr2]

I changed to his last name.

 

[EdSkinner]

All women should take the husbands last name and serve him as he see fit. Anything else is an aboomanation to Jesus Christ. God Bless George W. Bush and the Republican party, the party of God.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 10/19/2004 8:29:37 PM Camellia wrote:





Taking on a husband's name historically was to indicate that the woman was a part of his goods and chattels. Prior to marriage she belonged to her father. Do we as women really want to perpetuate this notion? Women have been able to vote for the last 100 years, women have access to university educations which were once denied to them, women own property in their own right, need I go on? ----------------

I also feel very strongly on the issue, except I feel EXACTLY the opposite. I am proud and honored to take my husband's name.....and I did take his name. In fact, I was at the social security office the day after we got home from the honeymoon to do so!

There were many barbarisms that occurred in the early history of our nation that just don't apply now. That doesn't mean that we have to toss the good with the bad. In those days, it was proper for a man to hold the door open for a lady, and I'd hate to see that gentility cease.

Who says modern has to make changes for the sake of change? Modern isn't always better. When I was a child, kids could safely trick-or-treat without an adult chaperone. I never went to school thinking I'd be shot while there. If that's considered "progress" or "modern", then I'd suggest that newer isn't always better.

All of the rights you describe above are *rights* that women now have a *choice* to exercise....a choice, not a duty. Just because women now have the right to own property doesn't obligate every woman to own property in homage to those who secured that right for her.

I'm sorry, but the act of taking my husband's name...to ME....doesn't "perpetuate the notion of women as chattel." I truly believe that asserting yourself doesn't have to come at someone else's expense.

Frankly, I'm quite secure in my identity that I don't feel the least threatened in taking on a new name. I cannot imagine feeling as though I am somehow less of myself just because I've changed my name. If my name had been Debbie instead of Al, would I be any different than who I am? Of course not. If someone mistakenly calls me Lisa instead of by my given name, does that make me any less myself? Surely not.

Identity is who you are, who you project, what qualities you bear.....not what you're called. Identity is somewhat overrated anyway.....people grow and change throughout life. If you live it well, you're growing and changing all the time as experiences you have shape you and how you think. That's a lifelong process, so identity is a fluid and adaptable thing.

I'd about guarantee you that all of my friends would vouch for the fact that I'm just as brassy today as I was under my maiden name....and they all still recognize me for who I am. Oh, except that I'm happy beyond belief, content in a way I've never been content, and am likely a much warmer version of myself. To me, those sounds like steps in the right direction.

I beginning a new phase of my life....one that delights me, and one that I still relish with childlike disbelief because I thought it had passed me by. I am now part of a team. He honors me in a million different ways, and I'm happy to honor him by taking his name. I consider it a privilege, not an obligation.

 

[reena]

----------------
On 10/20/2004 7:38:33 PM HAMMER wrote:

All women should take the husbands last name and serve him as he see fit. Anything else is an aboomanation to Jesus Christ. God Bless George W. Bush and the Republican party, the party of God.----------------

hammer, i truly hope this is meant to be some sort of strange joke.

 

[sevens one]

----------------
On 10/20/2004 7:38:33 PM HAMMER wrote:





All women should take the husbands last name and serve him as he see fit. Anything else is an aboomanation to Jesus Christ. God Bless George W. Bush and the Republican party, the party of God.
----------------

HAMMER TIME!

 

[Jennifer5973]

----------------
On 10/20/2004 7:38:33 PM HAMMER wrote:

All women should take the husbands last name and serve him as he see fit. Anything else is an aboomanation to Jesus Christ. God Bless George W. Bush and the Republican party, the party of God.----------------

What?

 

[Nicrez]

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH HAMMER...ooops, I mean Al!!! (Hammer, don't hurt 'em!)

Well said Al, and I absolutely agree with your your words.

 

[Momoftwo]

Marriage is about commitment to the other person and it is a tradition, as well as a lifetime commitment, just like taking your husband's name. It is a choice, but it's a choice most women do make. As "modern" as people want to think they are, they're really pretty traditional when it comes to marriage and family. It's so far down on the list of important things when it comes to marriage, it's just one of many changes that occurs. Both people make compromises all through marriage. This can be one of them. It has to work for both involved. I speak from 20+ years of a happy, successful marriage. The name thing just isn't that big of a deal. You can use your maiden name profesionally and change your name legally. The only things you need to legally change it for are public records, like licenses, income taxes, social security, mortgages, but you can call yourself anything you want outside of those kinds of things. I'm the oldest of 3 girls and my father is the only son, but none of us kept our maiden name as our last name. One did as her middle name, but that's just her middle name. There was no pressure and my dad didn't care. It's just a name. It doesn't change who we are.

 

[Rand_alThor]

nic,
Does this mean that after we get married you can change your username to Mrs Rand_Althor??

 

[reena]

nan: LMAO!

yeah hammer, don't hurt 'em! (2 legit)

 

[chrono]

Yes, I agree it is a choice, so why don't more men take their wife's last name? Why not the other way?

Firerock,
What about HIM wanting so much to be HER man, HER sweetie, HER husband, why not take her last name?

I'm not saying it's the right or wrong thing to do but I do so love to think out of the box and do things differently once a while.

 

[Nicrez]

hey Chrono... just being a

's advocate:

In that case, why don't men wear white tuxes for weddings as a standard? Why don't men and women have joint wedding showers, instead of a "bridal" shower...or "Jack and Jill" parties instead of bachelor parties? Why don't men wear something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue? These are all little traditions (at least here in the US) that mainly women take part in. Some men HAVE done some of the above, but again, it's usually NOT the tradition.

Tradition means just that. That most people follow these little things, there are always those who are "untraditional", and they keep things interesting. By the way, I worked with a woman whose husband changed his name to HERS, because she had a very prominent name, that it was actually beneficial to take on for his own business... But honestly, it's not considered normal, since lineage is often determined by the male and it would seem like her HUSBAND was from that lineage, and not her, and it's too confusing...

But let us know when you change your name...We'll all celebrate the changing of the tides!!!

 

[chrono]

I don't have a problem with men wearing white tuxes for weddings as a standard either. I really don't. I have seen some and I think they look pretty spiffy. No problems with joint bridal or separate showers for both parties too. I'm not bothered at all by your suggestions or find it strange so I must be the odd ball around here.

For my family, we trace our lineage by the male AND female sides, so our family tree is really huge because none of my female ancestors changed their last names. I guess this means my family must be pretty unusual then because there is no confusion for us.

Nah... Sorry to disappoint but I doubt I'll be changing my name anytime soon. Unless I get a honker of a 20 carat assher

(which, by the way, will only happen in my dreams).

 

[sevens one]

Hey Chrono,
20 cts would make any gal traditional, eh?

 

[fancyrock]

Chrono,


I have no problem with him taking MY last name. I think that would be an interesting change, but the problem is he doesn't look a bit Chinese at all. He is as white as American apple pie!!

Mmmmmm......








*~*~* Dare to dream..... and dream BIG (20ct kind of big)*~*~*

 

[chrono]

Firerock,
But what about you having a Caucasian name when you are clearly Chinese?

(Please don't take this the wrong way because I'm just teasing, okay?)

Hey, if I'm gonna dream, I might as well go all out and dream big, right? A 5ct asscher is fine but isn't a 20ct better? Remember the tire advertisement from a while back, wider is better? Well, in this case, bigger is better.

 

[JCJD]

HAMMER -
If you truly believe in what you posted and aren't simply trying to get a rise out of some people, please see Collosians 3:18-19,

18: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19: Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.

Please note that this instruction on the marital roles of Christian husbands and wives, as written by Paul to the Collosians, is a two-part deal. Wives must be subject to their husbands, AND husbands must love their wives and not be harsh with them in order for their marriage to bring glory and honor to God. Collosians 3 goes on to lay out the roles of children and their parents, and then workers and their bosses. Each party in these three core human relationships has a Christian duty to the other party. Contrast this with the covenant that God cut with Abram (Abraham); in this covenant, or binding agreement, only God is held accountable for the fullfilment of the covenantal promise (because God put Abram into a deep sleep and God cut the covenant with him by himself). So you see, God's covenant with the children of Abraham has single-party obligations - God's obligations; husband-wife, parent-child, and boss-servant relationships all have DUAL-party obligations according to the Bible, but nowhere have I read Jesus or anybody else in the Bible giving instruction on whether or not a woman or man should change her or his last name when they marry! (Notice also that in both the Old and New Testaments, peoples' names changed when they began a relationship with God: Abram-Abraham, Sarai-Sarah, Saul-Paul...). Therefore, I must conclude that your assertion about "abominations to God" is unfounded in the biblical text.

And in reference to ANY political party and their "godliness" or whatever you want to call it, please refer to Matthew 5:38-42 if you want but one example of the wealth of biblical evidence that Bush, as well as most if not all presidents, has made unChristian decisions as president of the USA (I daresay, they may actually be *gasp* political decisions!! Blasphemy I know...).

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; 40 and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; 41 and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you."

Well, it seems to me that a *pre-emptive strike* on Saddam Hussein goes against Jesus' words in 5:39, while 5:42 certainly does not support a reduction in welfare benefits... But alas, you can come to your own conclusions about what is and is not befitting a Christian life. Just keep John 14:12 in mind while you interpret Jesus' message.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father."

(edited a bit...)