marriage

[Sis Who Swears]

Does that make a difference? I'm adopted, but my family is my family, regardless of genetics (And I'm a geneticist! :) )

Oh no! I'm sorry! I didn't mean to imply that they are not my family or that anyone who is adopted is not. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I very much consider my brother and sister and any adopted child the same as me family wise. As you correctly do. :grouphug:

However, in my case, my mom was The Only person who 'got' me and that had a lot to do with us having several of the same genetic 'issues'. My siblings and I are so very different and don't really get along (especially now, but that's a whole bunch of crap that I don't care to get into).

I kind of feel like I'm the only person left on this earth like me or who will ever really understand me.

Also my mom absolutely adored all of her grandchildren but I know she was dying for one from me that would share some traits of my father's who she never got over as he died so suddenly at such a young age.

For me this feeling is worse now that she's gone too. But this is starting to leech into the 'to have or not have kids' thread and THAT'S a whole 'nother can of worms as well, for me anyways. :)

Sorry for the threadjack, I just felt that I should publicly clarify that I don't feel adopted people are any less part of the family than non-adopted ones.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

The only people who care about this subject are aristocrats and feminists.

[The_BlauerDragon]

The only people who care about this subject are aristocrats and feminists.

Really? Does that include the Feminist Aristocrats (or would it be more correct to say Aristocratic Feminists?)?

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Indubitably Mr Dragon.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

The only people who care about this subject are aristocrats and feminists.

I bet you'll find a lot of people who call themselves neither who will get incredibly worked up about it. Generally when their name is the one not being taken. (Or given, in the case of children.)

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Then they must be closet aristocrats (in the metaphorical sense, of course).

[Starkess]

For example, I would have no issue with my wife keeping her name, or hyphenating it with mine, or taking mine. That's up to her. Myself and my children, OTOH. I'd like for them to have her maiden name as a 2nd middle name (or maybe even as an only middle name). If she doesn't want that, it is not a MUST. I do want them to have my surname though. I will also be keeping my own surname. If she even mentions any alternative to that, I'll see it as a sign that we were not meant to be together. I've ended otherwise great relationships for less. That's just me though. I will not even begin to say that would be the right choice for anyone else.

What makes them any more your children than hers? You would really break up with someone for having an opinion about what names to give a child she bears?

I would never ask her to change her name. Yet, for some reason... when it comes to children, I feel that this is one of those areas where I feel the need to break before I bend the knee. It may be some left-over instinct from the caveman days telling me that I need to mark my territory, I don't know. I just feel that it is incredibly important. Important enough to be a deal breaker.

If you feel something so strongly and yet don't have a single logical rationale for it...IMO that's a pretty red flag for some sort of subconscious or societal "ism" at work (racism/sexism/etc).

[Renasko]

The way you phrase your question underlines the entrenched sexism at the base of this whole discussion. "Willing to not have the woman take their name." Willing! As if it was any of his fucking business.

The way I phrased my question was the most apt way in relation to this thread. Go back to the first post, tzanth.

For men specifically, or same sex couples, would you be unwilling to take your wife's/partners name?

[The_BlauerDragon]

What makes them any more your children than hers? You would really break up with someone for having an opinion about what names to give a child she bears?

What I was trying to say is that it's an issue for me, if her feelings are strongly contrasted then I see no point in continuing the relationship until it becomes a hurtful thing. I would never want to impose my will upon the woman that love anymore than I would want her to impose her will upon me. What's wrong with being honest? Why go into a relationship on false pretenses and wait to spring the controversy at a later time? That's not fair to me, it's not fair to her, and most of all it's not fair to the hypothetical child in this situation. So why do that? Why not just be upfront and honest? If she and I are never going to be able to see eye to eye on a subject like this, then why would I want to string her along and waste her time (not to mention emotional investments)? What kind of selfish monster would do such a thing to someone that they cared for?

If you feel something so strongly and yet don't have a single logical rationale for it...IMO that's a pretty red flag for some sort of subconscious or societal "ism" at work (racism/sexism/etc).

I disagree, therefore I am proprietor of an "ism" franchise? Is that it? Sometimes feelings are not rational. For me, it may be selfish pride (or it may be a psychosis, as you suggest), but I would want my children to have my name (and preferably hers too). Does that make me evil? If so, then I guess I am the "ism" you seek to label me with. In a situation where both names cannot go on (which would only really arise if she were against giving them both names), I would choose my own. My wife/partner/soul-mate/other-half would know that about me long before we ever crossed the point of no return regarding children.

I have the feeling that I may have unwittingly made myself the perfect vessel for you (or someone else here) to project a fiery stream of seething hatred upon. If that is the service that I can provide to you, then so be it. Feel your Anger. Let loose your Hatred. Go on. Get it off your chest.

[angie]

Shedding the name, to me, was tied up in something I needed to do in order to reject the influence that history had on me. Putting it that way sounds silly actually but it was important to me.

And this is similar to the reason I'm now in the process of going back to my real name.

On a side note, I'd read somewhere that in Virginia people can go back to using their maiden name (hate that term btw) at any time without doing anything official but that going through the courts makes it easier with the DMV, SSA, etc.

[Starkess]

I have the feeling that I may have unwittingly made myself the perfect vessel for you (or someone else here) to project their seething hatred upon. If that is the service that I can provide to you, then so be it. Feel your Anger. Let loose your Hatred. Go on. Get it off your chest.

Seething hatred? :rofl:

I just was struck reading your posts how very proprietary you feel about "your children" and that not only did you consider it a breaking up point (rather than something to work through), but you didn't have any actual reason at all. You're not even trying to justify your self-referredly "caveman" tendencies. To me, that's societal sexism at work and I'd like to think I could to give you some food for thought about it. To you, my pointing it out is "seething hatred." So our discussion isn't gong to do anyone any good.

[Frosty]

Kay Fury - guys pushing it out and naming it - so I can name my own terds then? lol

[The_BlauerDragon]

Seething hatred? :rofl:

I just was struck reading your posts how very proprietary you feel about "your children" and that not only did you consider it a breaking up point (rather than something to work through), but you didn't have any actual reason at all. You're not even trying to justify your self-referredly "caveman" tendencies. To me, that's societal sexism at work and I'd like to think I could to give you some food for thought about it. To you, my pointing it out is "seething hatred." So our discussion isn't gong to do anyone any good.

Very well. You have my apologies. Perhaps the tone of your message struck me as being far more hostile than you intended. I can forgive and forget. If you can do the same, I would look forward to seeing what you may have to say. Help me to understand your position and you may find that I can be quite pliable (maybe not as much as you might hope, but pliable none the less). Who knows, you may end up actually saving some future romance of mine from certain death.

As for the Caveman thing, it was partially an inside joke. My High School Mascot was The Caveman, and the town that I grew up in could not have picked a more apt representation of their level of social and intellectual sophistication.

Kay Fury - guys pushing it out and naming it - so I can name my own terds then? lol

You don't do that? I thought that all men did that already??? :lol:

[ohmahgaw]

wow, just got to check the thread out, and so many replies.

I have looked through them all, and I am now in quite a foul mood

this makes me pessimistic about men in general after reading some of these responses.

Are we, as a culture, STILL obsessed with keeping women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen makin 'sammiches'?

i have yet to see anyone give a LOGICAL reason for why a womans children shouldn't take her name...after all, theres a 100% chance that if a woman conceives and delivers a child, its hers biologically. For the man however, that takes a blood test, for 100% accountability i mean, before DNA tests, there really was no way of knowing 100% unless you kept her locked up in a cage.

I'm not trying to imply that a child is more of the mothers than the fathers, but why do most men seem to think that they need to 'mark' their children?

I can see a man not wanting to change his name, for the same reasons a woman would not want to change hers, but why is it such a stigma for a woman to NOT want her name changed and why do men feel emasculated by having to change their name?

the term emasculated to me is a sexist idea in and of itself

anyway, I'm thoroughly depressed now. I hope there are men out there who wouldnt mind, and i hope to meet one someday, though fromt he look of this board, probably won't happen =(

btw sorry for the typos, I have a special computer function that corrects my spelling (i have dysgraphia) but im on a dif computer right now

[Altherion]

i have yet to see anyone give a LOGICAL reason for why a womans children shouldn't take her name...after all, theres a 100% chance that if a woman conceives and delivers a child, its hers biologically. For the man however, that takes a blood test, for 100% accountability i mean, before DNA tests, there really was no way of knowing 100% unless you kept her locked up in a cage.

I'm not trying to imply that a child is more of the mothers than the fathers, but why do most men seem to think that they need to 'mark' their children?

Think about it for a little bit and you'll realize that you've answered your own question.

Also, I don't see why you are upset: there are plenty of people in this thread (both men and women) who agree with you. It's a function of culture. Some have the children take the names of both parents, some take the father's name, some take whichever name has been spread to a lesser extent to date -- the world's societies differ significantly on this matter.

[angie]

i have yet to see anyone give a LOGICAL reason for why a womans children shouldn't take her name...after all, theres a 100% chance that if a woman conceives and delivers a child, its hers biologically. For the man however, that takes a blood test, for 100% accountability i mean, before DNA tests, there really was no way of knowing 100% unless you kept her locked up in a cage.

I don't know, but this reminded me of my sister's situation. Her two children each have different fathers and each kid has its fathers name. Although my sister was married to one of the fathers she never changed her name. So, basically, there are three last names within her household of three.

[King Nobody]

My family was fairly important in Scotland a long time ago. Not like, important as in the entire country would have known them, more important like city wide, and just general upper class people. We had a couple titles for quite a while but they're discontinued now, they were Barons, which is the lowest you can go on the peerage. Before that there was a Baronet, which is more of an honorary title, above most knighthoods. In general we just have a pretty cool history that my family is pretty proud of, even though we're really far detached from the main line.

My last name is extremely uncommon and I, like my family am pretty proud of it. I would definitely want any kids I ever had to have the name. I don't really see myself getting married though so I doubt it would be an issue. If I did get married my wife could obviously keep her name if she wanted, I would prefer if she took my name, but it wouldn't be something I would really "expect" her to do, and definitely wouldn't be something I would argue with her over. I wouldn't hyphenate my name either, I just don't like the idea of having two last names, maybe if I had a single syllable last name and the two names went well together, but I don't.

I'm not terribly sympathetic to the men who want to pass their name on to their progeny, either, given that that's a uniquely male expectation (in the West at least) and just reeks of privilege.

Just curious, what name usually passes on to the children in other cultures?

[Lord of Oop North]

the world's societies differ significantly on this matter.

It is worth noting that for the majority of societies across the globe, for the woman to lose her name and be replaced with her husbands, is definitely not the norm. This entire thread is very ethnocentric, and I think that we need to keep this in perspective.

[Ormond]

i have yet to see anyone give a LOGICAL reason for why a womans children shouldn't take her name...after all, theres a 100% chance that if a woman conceives and delivers a child, its hers biologically. For the man however, that takes a blood test, for 100% accountability i mean, before DNA tests, there really was no way of knowing 100% unless you kept her locked up in a cage.

I'm not trying to imply that a child is more of the mothers than the fathers, but why do most men seem to think that they need to 'mark' their children?

OK, I don't get the above part of the argument. It would seem to me that it could precisely be because men do not have "100% assurance" that a particular child is theirs why some of them want the child's surname to reflect their parenthood. Men logically ARE the sex that needs more "marks" for their children since they don't give birth.

Men who are trying to deny that a particular child is theirs often go the other way, actively trying to prevent mothers from giving their name to a child who they think isn't theirs biologically.

Note that this could also be a motive for giving children the surname from the father's side of the family from the mother's perspective. In cases where the mother really needs help from the father in raising the children, she has a motive to convince him in every way possible that the child is his, including giving it his name. And it's only been in recent times that most women in most cultures have had the luxury of reliably being able to support children without the help of at least one other adult.

About 1/6 of the world still doesn't have hereditary surnames. But I think it is the case that in the huge majority of the cultures that do, the child's "primary surname" is considered one that came from the father's side of the family. That's a separate issue from the fact that many non-Western cultures don't have wives take husband's surnames.

In Iceland, where surnames are not hereditary but are formed from a parents' given name with -son or -dottir added, the great majority of children still get patronymics based on the father's name. There are a few matronymics based on the mother's name. I'd love to see research on whether the % of Icelandic kids who get matronymics has increased over the past few decades.

[2241]

wow, just got to check the thread out, and so many replies.

I have looked through them all, and I am now in quite a foul mood

this makes me pessimistic about men in general after reading some of these responses.

Are we, as a culture, STILL obsessed with keeping women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen makin 'sammiches'?

Really? I thought that given the cultural precedent in question here, most of the guys' responses were fairly open-minded. Not all, certainly, but most. I was actually surprised at the number of men who said they would consider taking their wife's last name, or not ask her to take his. I do wonder how many of these opinions would change once it actually came time to make that decision, but the willingness to at least consider it, however flippant, at least suggests a level of open-mindedness on these boards that seems to be at a higher level that society in general.

i have yet to see anyone give a LOGICAL reason for why a womans children shouldn't take her name...

There is no logical reason that a woman's child shouldn't take her name. It is up to the couple in question to decide which last name a child should take.

...why do most men seem to think that they need to 'mark' their children?

Why not? Although I find the use of the word 'mark' a bit pejorative, I don't think that the reason a man might want his child to bear his last name is any less valid that the reason a woman might want the same (I'm ignoring the "you didn't carry or deliver the child" argument for now, but I'll address it later).

...why do men feel emasculated by having to change their name?

That's a bit of a generalization; certainly not all men would necessarily feel emasculated if they had to change their last name. One individual did suggest that he would feel that way, however, so I'll try to address it. Keep in mind that I don't know him, so I can only speak as to my opinion.

However much we might try to espouse complete egalitarianism and equality on a forum such as the internet or in an academic debate, in the real world people have to contend with the culture and traditions that they have grown up with. Is that always fair? No. Is that always right? No. But it is reality. This is not a cop-out, it is not an excuse for any weakness, chauvinism, whatever - perceived or real. It is simply a fact. We are all a product of the values we have learned. If a man is raised to believe that his wife should take his last name upon marriage in keeping with the traditions and customs of his culture, and that it is absolutely right and proper for this to happen, then of course it would be very foreign, jarring, and uncomfortable (i.e., emasculating) for him to do the exact opposite of what the traditions he was raised with say is proper.

Nobody should extrapolate from this that I am arguing that all traditions, however oppressive, are acceptable. I don't believe this at all. I do not believe, for example, that any man has the right to beat or kill his wife if she displeases him, which has a strong historical precedent and is still present in particular cultures. I am simply saying that if a person is raised to believe deeply in a certain tradition or value, it is naturally going to be very difficult for him or her to suddenly (or even gradually) accept that it might not be right. Not impossible, simply difficult. That change would have to be fostered and nurtured; it can't be beat into somebody (so to speak), or it will never truly "take." Let's assume that in individual does come to change his mind about the values he or she is raised with. That person is still going to have to contend with his or her family, community, and culture who still maintain those values. Again, is it fair? Is it right? No. But it is reality. I am not speaking about marriage or naming customs in particular any longer, but in very general terms. It is not fair to judge a person as weak for having difficulty going against the traditions and customs that form such a vital part of their understanding of themselves and their place in society. I'm not saying that anyone here has done so, I'm simply making a point.

anyway, I'm thoroughly depressed now. I hope there are men out there who wouldn't mind, and i hope to meet one someday, though fromt he look of this board, probably won't happen =(

I may be an idealist, but I don't think it'll be as hard as you think. Let me give you example, expanded from my first post in this thread.

I am currently engaged (although I am not sure how much life the engagement has left in it :(). I do not insist that my fiance takes my last name. I am perfectly happy with whatever decision she chooses in that matter. In fact, she finds it very frustrating that the only guidance I will give her on the question is that I think she should do whatever makes her happy when it comes to keeping her name, taking mine, or hyphenating. I've told her that if she wants to hyphenate, I will do the same and add her last name to mine. She has never asked me to take her last name, or even if I would be willing to consider it. If she did, I would say no. Not out of any sort of any sort of chauvinism, but simply because I am proud of my last name, such as it is, it forms a vital part of my identity (I've had it since before I was born), and I feel it would disrespect my family to abandon my name in favor of another - which is exactly why I would never ask anyone to sacrifice what I consider a critical part of their identity on my behalf. If my fiance chooses to take my name I would be deeply honored, but I will not ask her to do so. For various personal reasons, the question of what last name to give a child, should we have one, has never come up.

I certainly do not think I am unique in the fact that I do not consider my (possibly) future wife a unique individual with every bit as much the right to keep her unique identity as I have. I have to believe that if this opinion is not the majority, or even a large minority, it is certainly present in more instance than you might think. :)

As far as the "you didn't carry or deliver the child" argument, I've always preferred to assume that it is offered tongue-in-cheek, with a bit of a wink for good measure. But to those who offer it as a legitimate argument, I would simply say that it is no more fair for a woman to invalidate a man's desire to have a child bear his name based on biological capacity than it is for a man to invalidate a woman's desire to have a child bear her name based on cultural tradition. It should be a equal decision, made between equal partners. However, as I have said a couple of times in this rambling post, there is the ideal, then there is reality. Which sucks.

/rant off :)

I'm not telling anyone that their beliefs, attitudes, or perceptions are wrong in any way. If I have at any point given that impression, I apologize, as that was not my intent. I am simply offering my perspective based on what I've seen and read in this topic, and based on my personal experiences and beliefs.

:)

***edited a couple times for clarity***