Poll: Not taking husband's name still controversial -- but should it be?

About the slap in the face... not only shouldn't husbands see it as one they should realize we can just as easily consider it a "slap in the face" when they want us to drop our own name.

#2.1: "...they should realize we can just as easily consider it a "slap in the face" when they want us to drop our own name."

Excellent point! Great thinking!

elbet if the guy is a multimillionaire not one single women wouldn't take his name. For fear of not getting her chunk of his fortune when she dumps him!!!

Then his last name must be 'Ignoramus' because he didn't get a pre-nup, so of course no one wants that last name!

Here in KY, when you marry, you are required by law to get a driver's license in your husband's name, thereby enforcing the 'social code' that a wife must take her husband's name. Years ago, I went to court to take back my maiden name after I married, because legally, my name was my married name, and using my maiden name was not legal for signing contracts, etc.

This time, I just took my husband's name and dealt with all that hassle. We have a son together, and it does make it easier, socially-- but I think it is silly to have to stick with the custom.

elbet if the guy is a multimillionaire not one single women wouldn't take his name. For fear of not getting her chunk of his fortune when she dumps him!!!

That might be true, but you notice celebs often keep there first and last name.. regardless of marriage. That being their name is basically a trademark in a way now. I personally would want my wife to have my last name... same as my kids. Call me a traditionalist as well I suppose. Wouldn't be a deal breaker though. Although people do those funky hyphenated last names now. lol.

Yeah, seriously. There's nothing wrong with a woman not taking her husband's name. In fact, in many places it's normal, like China.

Not sure if China is a good model for much of anything :D

Really? I hope you're kidding...

Since China is a much older society than Europe and certainly the US, I would think their traditions have worked quite well for them. I may have problems with some of the exports but I do not blame the country. But that is a whole other story.

For those who are not aware, the Native Americans were a matriarchal society. It is difficult to trace ancestry of some tribes as the names are from the mother.

I like the team idea and I thought once it would be neat for a new couple to create their own name and both change to it. But the social reality of how extended family would treat that left it a fantasy when I got married, my wife took my name without any prompting and never looked back that I'm aware of.

I disagree. Cultural mores differ and for many Asians, this is not the case and the wife does not take the husband's name though the children do and these couples are very committed-much more it seems to me than Western Caucasian couples that divorce and have the old patriacharical property practice of the wife taking the husband's name.

My parents hyphenated my last name when I was born (both had kept their own names), and I actually derive a huge source of identity from my combined last name. I feel like I have a part of BOTH of my parents, which I think is much more centering than if I just had my father's.

You name them whatever the hell you want to name them. They can always change it later themselves if they don't like it. Consider the Scandinavian tradition of the first-born male child taking the first name of the father, adding "son" or "sen" to the name and using it for their last name. <firstname> Nelson was the "son of Nels." So in the same family the first born male kid was always different from the father's name. Girls were similar. A name is a name. No biggie.

Also consider the issue of marriage later in life. My second wife was single for 50 years. Pretty arrogant of me to think she has to take my last name. If she wanted to - fine. Since she didn't - fine. Love to pieces all the same!

The idea of keeping one's name doesn't give me a moment's pause. Neither does the hyphenation of a name. But I'm a little unclear about the rules.

*If a generation of children carry hyphenated names and marry, what are their kids' last names? Example: John Alpha-Beta marries Jane Gamma-Delta, is their son named Johnny Alpha-Beta-Gamma-Delta? If not, what is it?

*A hyphenated address makes address awkward. For intuitive reasons, a speaker will try to avoid saying a last name that he isn't comfortable pronouncing. The same seems to be true with names that are really long, or cases where it isn't clear where the last name begins (like Lee Myung-bak, president of South Korea - "Lee" is the last name). If one's last name is Jingleheimer-Schmidt, is the speaker compelled to address the whole, or is it acceptable to just address him as Mr. Schmidt? I think I know the answer (that it is only acceptable to address the whole form), but why do I continue to second guess?

I could consult Emily Post, I guess. But since at least some people here have the type of names in question, it seems to make better sense to ask for help. Anybody want to set me straight?

Thanks.

But I'm a little unclear about the rules.

Check out the Rule Book of Life - page 36. 8^) <sarcasm>

Steech, when I married my husband, I just tacked his name on to my maiden name. So, instead of being Joan Lynn Fontaine, I became Joan L. Fontaine Guggenheimer. No hyphen, just an extra name.

My post above explains state law here in KY, but it is likely different in other states. :-)

((((((((((((Steech)))))))))))) Hope all is well for you!

Anybody want to set me straight?

There's plenty of people here who would be willing to do that lol

Dowser... you are perfect to answer his * #1.... what are the kids' names?

no?..... I really was curious how that would work with the kids.

That's what my best friend did Division! Her husband doesn't care and completely understands why she made that choice.

She made that choice because she had made a name for herself professionally prior to meeting her husband. So, to change her name would have been a potential loss of business.

Perhaps it is society that needs to cahnge and not any woman's name.

Easier ID of a family; sounds like sheer laziness to me. Families are made by love and responsible adults, not name forcing on a woman.

Why shouldn't the husband/kids take the woman's name?

School systems make the mother/father names important or difficult for enrollment.

mstanley...

one of my children carries MY last name... and his father lives with us and is right this second sitting next to me! so don't tell ME that he won't know his paternal family!

Children should get the last name of their father

LOL. Yeah, I'm going to carry a pregnancy, give birth, and then give it HIS name...not bloody likely.

LOL. Yeah, I'm going to carry a pregnancy, give birth, and then give it HIS name...not bloody likely.

Ah, kaviaq, remember, the children as well as the wife belong to the "man of the house." After all, he's the sole provider, the king of his castle, and they owe their very lives to his gener...

Sorry, had to go throw up.

I am not sure that we want to hold Massachusetts up as a positive role model for much of anything.

I am not sure that we want to hold Massachusetts up as a positive role model for much of anything.

Lowest divorce rate in the country, for years running. They're doing something right.

they only have 80 residents! lol

Sorry, nope. 15th largest state by population.

oh jeez... it was a joke.

ruthlessmoose,

Those 80 residents are the only ones that don't immediately vote for someone named Kennedy. <G>

Edit: forgot the 's' on ones

ha!.... now THAT's a good joke lol

I guess I am one of those out dated Neanderthal's that thinks a woman should take her husband name when she joins his house hold.

See, there's the problem... What is it that makes it "HIS" household?

Rainkiss, you are so right.....My ex-husband moved in with me and so did my current partner of 23 years......

I got married in 1983, and when I filed our joint tax return I listed myself as taxpayer and him as spouse, afterall, I was the ONE with the INCOME.....IRS told me I couldn't do it that way....I wrote back and said if they looked at the W-2 they would see that I was the taxpayer.....If I were to get remarried (very doubtful) I would NOT take his name.

#9: "This question is all about self-absorbed narcissism and nothing more"

Um-hmmm... and I think we all know who is the self-absorbed narcissist here...

RainKiss,

In response to you question: I my case. The fact that my wife was still living with her mother when we got married for one and two: The fact that she moved into the my house after we got married. So by simple semantics, she left her "family" and joined "mine", or we made "ours", depending on how you want to look at it. So the fact that he owned it made it "his" I would guess.

Again, this is also a tradition/cultural reference or wording. Language is that way you know. Without a cultural/historical reference point, it can become meaningless. In Western culture, Women left their families' homes and went to those of their husbands, (I.E. the distasteful idea of a woman "marrying up", as with Cinderella or other Fairytales.); or into a home they made themselves.

What is you point exactly?? You don't like the language?? You want to rewrite it or change definitions because YOU don't like them? Because it somehow makes YOU "feel" oppressed??

I really don't care who takes whose name, i.e. she takes his, or he takes hers, but should be one or other, not this hyphenated crap. My wife just added my family name to hers and our daughter have my family name. She's pretty traditional too. That was the way she wanted it FYI.

The Fact that you are from Mass pretty much says it all. Any state where they elect an alcoholic murder to the senate for over 25 years really has the "moral high ground" to stand on.

Ah, but in my case, and in many others, my husband and I bought a home together. It's "OUR" household, not his, not mine. I've only got the one marriage to draw an example from, but I can go back to my parents... They married, lived in military housing for awhile, then built a home on some property back before I started school. It was "their" house, not Dad's or Mom's.

My point, exactly, is that the wording you used is an excellent example of how some people view women, as either possessions or add-ons to a man's household. The language doesn't need to be rewritten, the definitions don't need to be changed, it's the automatic assumption that a woman is the "lesser" member in a marriage.

Me, I don't feel oppressed, when my husband and I married, he told me he didn't care if I took his name or not. We fooled around with a few ideas, but I did wind up taking his name.

The Fact that you are from Mass pretty much says it all. Any state where they elect an alcoholic murder to the senate for over 25 years really has the "moral high ground" to stand on.

Charming. For the record, I'm not FROM Massachusetts, nor do I live there, that's just where we married. Beautiful state. That you're resorting to attacking me based on a state I mentioned lets me know how much weight to give to these and any future posts you make. "!"

Rainkiss,

My most humble apologies for mistaking that you were from Massachusetts instead of just married there. I'm from states that have residency requirements for marriage licenses. I will agree that parts of Mass are beautiful, but parts of it are very ugly, distasteful or hypocritical. I did not intend it as a direct "attack" against you as much as a "bait" coment, if you follow. I have met those that see this as a central womens rights/equality issue on level with right to vote or abortion. We know how passionate people can/did get about those toptics

I guess I am one of those out dated Neanderthal's that thinks a woman should take her husband name when she joins his house hold. Even though I have two daughters and no son's the "carry on the family name".

Yes, you are. No doubt about it.

htdjpf, you invited a lot of abuse on yourself with your comments. Frankly, I admire your candor, if I am a little disappointed by the use of the word "femi-nazi." Seriously, what year is it?

One of your points is about the technical challenge of a cumbersome or qualifier-needed last name in an irreversibly technical society. Records are increasingly electronic, and most systems have character limits for entry. While most important databanks are generous with those characters, it does mean that one cannot draft a name that goes on indefinitely - though his sense of entitlement may say the establishment should be flexible and accomodate his whim. And a lot of common names are actually quite long ("Washington," for example). Two names of that type conjoined might not fit in the entry field of many an automated device.

Also interesting is the way you you call attention to "progressives" for their tendency to utilize the hyphen, despite the prophesy that enlightened philosophy would mandate we slim language, not expand it. From the standardization of English spelling at the end of the 19th century to Esperanto to Newspeak, the intelligentsia have traditionally been all about condensation. Yet they name their kids fantastic amalgamated names. Interesting.

The thing I find incongrous though, is that you're arguing for a great Anglican leveling of the American name, yet your Newsvine handle is unpronounceable. You must be a very complicated person. To each his/her own.

While we're being honest, though, I regretfully admit some Neanderthalia of my own. My wife was a divorcee when we married. She had kept her ex-husband's name following the divorce. While I would not have minded if she'd kept her maiden name, I would have been quite put off if she'd kept another man's name. There's no logical reason to do so of course, and she didn't. But it suggests that no matter when one was born or how "progressive" he thinks himself, there is still a lingering trace of ownership to be found in the last name.

To other readers, please don't get me wrong. I'm embarrassed by the possessive tinge I described. But we do seem to be being honest here. Anyone have any thoughts?

I can see where your wife keeping her ex-husband's name would bother you. Unless there was a professional reason for it i. e. she's a doctor and has practiced under this name for 20 years, that's a bit insulting.

#9.8: "Anyone have any thoughts?"

I guess that people need to work out for themselves exactly how they want to play the name game. When a couple marries, it should be up to them to decide, mutually, whose name(s) go where.

I wonder how it would work if, for example, each spouse keeps his/her original name, and then subsequent children receive the last name of the father, if a boy, or the mother, if a girl? I'm not saying I advocate this, but just tossing it into the mix to be pondered.

Bottom line, I think names are something a couple need to work out between themselves. It really is no one else's business.

I do think that, because our names become so thoroughly a part of so much data (Social Security, jobs, medical records, credit cards, passports, car titles, home titles, voter registration, etc.) people really should consider the consequences if, someday, they need to change their name. It is a nightmarish undertaking... this ain't the 1800's any more, and I'm guessing it will get worse before it gets better.

This is yet another example where the liberal "progressives" are trying to destroy human culture and traditions and rewrite history, to fit their views on what they believe society "should be" with them in control of course.

I don't think it's political at all. I'm not politically conservative, but I would not marry a woman who insisted on keeping her name after marriage. Sharing a last name is not unlike wearing a wedding ring - it's a social convention that indicates that you are married.

This is yet another example where the liberal "progressives" are trying to destroy human culture and traditions and rewrite history, to fit their views on what they believe society "should be" with them in control of course.

Really? C'mon, don't try to make everything political.

Human culture and traditions -- um, so Chinese culture and traditions aren't human now, just because women keep their last names?

give me a BREAK~ HIS household? my fiancee moved into MY household. even when we build a new house... it is NOT 'his' it is "OURS". and 'femi-nazi'? good lord, what year IS this anyway? now because i've kept my name, i'm a nazi. sheeeeeeeesh that's good logic. and if you came to my home, 9 times out of ten you'd find me in an apron, baking and taking care of my kids. yeah, i'm a real FEMI NAZI all right. you, sir, are such a stooge.

"...a woman should take her husband name when she joins his house hold."

Yes. I felt blessed when my husband even let me sleep in the house let alone join his household. As long as I cooked, cleaned and addressed him properly he treated me well most of the time.

Oh, wait. No, he moved into my house which I owned before I married him. Silly me! We call it our house.

Sharing a last name is not unlike wearing a wedding ring - it's a social convention that indicates that you are married.

Ok, next topic then. What's the deal with married women who refuse to wear a wedding band? I run into it all the time in my travels and in my workplace. My workplace is about 95% female with nearly 400 employees. Most of my clients tend to be women as well. A fair number of them are married but do not wear a wedding band. The fact that they are married only comes up in conversation if something causes it to come up in conversation. Is the lack of a wedding band false advertising? Do they think they can interact better if others don't know that they're married? I know I feel naked leaving the house without my wedding band. My wife probably wouldn't object if I went without it (as long as I didn't make a habit of it), but it is part of who I am and I feel that it's reasonable for anyone I interact with to know that I'm married.

My husband has his left middle and ring fingers severed at the first joint. He tries to wear a wedding band, but sometimes it's painful for him or it slips off. My dad severed his left ring finger completely shortly after he and Mom married. My dad wore his wedding ring on his keychain. I've suggested this to my husband, but he would rather wear the ring when he can and leave it on the nightstand when he can't.

I think wedding bands used to be 24k or so, and so many are still 14k. This is too soft for a working woman. I had mine in 10k and, after loosing a sapphire from another ring, stopped wearing the engagement to work. Even the 10k would be a problem at times with getting caught on something or slipping off. I believe housewives of old only wore their wedding rings when going out and not while doing housework. Now that women work various jobs outside the home, perhaps their rings are too precious (expensive) to be worth losing or getting mangled. Or maybe they want to be treated as a coworker instead of a married woman.

Or maybe they want to be treated as a coworker instead of a married woman.

I've wondered about that too, but what does it mean to be treated "as a married woman"? Do my coworkers treat me differently as a married man? Definitely. If a group of coworkers (mostly women) are going to lunch together the single males might be invited to come along but the married males would not. Does the same kind of thing happen with married women? Is it good or bad to be treated differently in the workplace based on marital status?

As a female, I might get hit on more for an affair because I was married, therefore safe from pregnancy, forced marriage, and child support? Or, if I was single, for a relationship that might become long term? Women may exclude you from lunch plans out of respect for your wife and your marriage. I went to lunch with a male coworker when we were each married, and my boss(older female) said it didn't look right for me to do that. I guess it was OK for the other guy to go with me.

Married women may be treated as dumb little housewives/mommies while a single woman may be career driven, independant, competition.

As a female, I might get hit on more for an affair because I was married, therefore safe from pregnancy, forced marriage, and child support?

Interestingly enough, I get hit on much more by married women than by single women, especially by older married women. Young, single women see the wedding band and it's about as effective a repellent as garlic against a vampire. Older, married women see the wedding band and the next thing I know I'm being invited to join them for lunch.

I went to lunch with a male coworker when we were each married, and my boss(older female) said it didn't look right for me to do that. I guess it was OK for the other guy to go with me.

One of my married female coworkers is good friends with another coworker, a single guy who is about 5 years her junior. My older female coworkers talk about it often and say it looks improper even if there's nothing going on. I do have to wonder if they would say the same or worse if an older married guy was friends with a younger single woman. I also have to wonder how much of the dynamic that I see in my workplace is attributable to the fact that we are 95% female.

Older, married women see the wedding band and the next thing I know I'm being invited to join them for lunch.

Maybe they see you as 'safe'. I can say that while single or married, the fact that a guy is married seems to make me fell more comfortable or at ease around him. The mental dialogue goes something like, "he's taken, so he's not looking to score or anything", so I don't feel the need to be on guard all the time.

My older female coworkers talk about it often and say it looks improper even if there's nothing going on

In my opinion, that just sounds like jealousy to me. I've always gotten along quite well with men that I work with. I work in a predominately male industry, so I've had lots of experience with it. It's prompted the same reaction from some female coworkers, particularly those with confidence issues. Those females with a solid self esteem have no problem with it, and they're generally the same way...they like having friends.

Want to do lunch next Tuesday, Div? hehe

At 95% female I would think any vampiress would risk death by garlic. Cougars will attack any younger male and marriage means nothing. It's all about fresh young meat. And they LOVE to flirt even if they have no intention. Young, single women know more of what they want and it usually is not a married man.

Older women like to click their tongues at what looks improper all the while wishing they had the nerve to do the same. These women have better fantasies than the cougars.

Hey, 2scents, I saw him first! ;-)

*pouts and leaves* Okay......

:)

No, no, don't go away! I'll take him to "lunch" Monday and you can have him Tuesday.

Leftovers? Well....it IS Div! okay! hehe

Now, now, settle down....

What did I say about cougars? Young.........Fresh.........Meat!!!!!!!!

Nah, just kidding. I made it a rule very early on not to mess with a married man. You're safe. Besides, being a recluse, you would have to come here and you can't get here from there.

What's the deal with married women who refuse to wear a wedding band?

I don't wear one. My entire wedding cost less than $100.00. No rings, only two witnesses. Nice. I have enough jewelry anyway and I don't feel the need to advertise my marital status to strangers.

Quite honestly, I would have had second thoughts about going through with the wedding given his insistance... and would be thinking about kicking him to the curb with half his stuff for telling me what my name isn't.

That... or I'd tell him that, since he feels he gets to choose MY name, then *I* get to choose his... Sally, maybe...

Quite honestly, I would have had second thoughts about going through with the wedding given his insistance.

And I would have the same advice for him.

IN:

you GO girl! not only did i keep MY name? my newest child carries my last name instead of my finacee's. and he thinks it's a beautiful homage to my deceased father! if you feel that strongly (i do too, obviously) don't you back down...

And I would have the same advice for him.

Why is that? She took his last name, just wanted to keep her own as her middle name? She was willing to compromise, he's being the twitwad by continuing to harass her about wanting to keep her old name as part of her new.

Any time a person says that something is a deal breaker if you don't do as they want, is a red flag to potential abuse. I wouldn't marry her if she won't take my name? That is not love nor respect, it's domination. I, personally, will not deal with ultimatums, at least in the way the demanding person expects. There is always a third option.

If a woman wants to take the man's name, but keep her own for professional reasons or continuity, the best is to add his name at the end of hers so she has 4 names. I would do it socially not legally but that's me. Femi-Nazi LOL

Any time a person says that something is a deal breaker if you don't do as they want, is a red flag to potential abuse.

You said it. My husband doesn't and wouldn't pull that crap with me, and I don't pull it with him. The "do what I say or else" is a giant flag saying, "what I want is more important than what you want." Not a good basis for a marriage.

So, if the woman is the "breadwinner" in the family, and makes the higher income, does the man have to change his last name?

So you think that $71.00 per week for childsupport is excessive? Maybe that's why he never paid it! Try, just try raising a child on $71.00 per week, hell daycare was more than that. Health insurance for a dependent is $45.00 per week, and I know he's supposed to pay that, but since he doesn't guess who does. School lunch and metro bus to and from school, more than $26.00 per week. So IF I got childsupport I'd have spent it on health insurance and school lunch, I still haven't feed him at home, or bought any clothes, or helped cover the mortage payment, utilities, school events, pizza parties, birthday parties, normal school aged activities.

Let's run this up the scales of justice......not taking his name vs not taking his money to raise his children......yep seems pretty equitable to me (last line is sarcasm)!

Will he get custody of the children in the divorce? Will he get child support? Will he get "palimony"? And notice that I didn't say "should he", but rather "will he" because we all know that, by a landslide, the courts react favorably to the women in divorces. God help the man whose wife earns more than him if he's trying to get custody.

The female-breadwinner-type marriage has no historical standards of behavior to use as a basis. In that less than common event, the parties can do as they choose. How they choose to handle that case is up to them, because, like I said, there isn't a long history of traditional behavior behind that situation on which to base your actions. Are you trying to dictate to them what he should do simply because she makes more money?

There are exceptions to every rule. To use the exceptions as the foundation for changing the rules is asinine. It's the traditional marital roles that are the situation for the vast majority of marriages in this country. If a woman wants to keep her name for any of the reasons stated above (too difficult to change/change back, doesn't want to lose her identity, etc.) then I, as the potential husband, would have no choice but to question her long term commitment to me and to the marriage. How could I not!?! If we're to be married "'til death do us part", what's a couple of hours of paperwork to get the name changed and a few bucks to get a new passport that you're supposed to keep for 30, 40, 50 years! What does it say about your ability to look and plan for your future together when you can't let go of the past?

Perhaps women get custody of the children more often than not, because many men don't just leave the marriage, they leave the children.....someone has to take care of them. In my case, it wasn't a difficult decision for the judge to make, since he didn't show up for the divorce hearing.

KJ, I'm sorry for your situation, but you obviously made a poor choice in husbands. I don't know anything about your situation, his salary, where you live, etc. so I can't determine whether 502.67 per month (including health coverage) would be a fair amount for his share of the child rearing expenses, assuming you could collect it. I would recommend you file charges on the scumbag and either make him fork it over or put his ass in jail! It's guys like that that make it harder on the rest of us. BTW, to your point of a husband doesn't just walk out on the marriage, he leaves the children: can you imagine the manhunt and Amber alerts that would go off if a husband turned to his wife and said, "I don't want to be married to you anymore. The children and I are leaving?" So, it's not completely fair to say that a) only men leave marriages, and b) he's leaving the children (what choice does he have?).

jpipkins-

And if my future husband won't change his name to mine, can I not also question his commitment to me and our relationship, as you would question your future wife's?

Time and society are changing. There are some legitimate reasons for not changing one's name and they are not all selfish reasons. Some are just plain practical.

It is a major pain in the butt to change your name in this day and age. It is no longer 1950 when the only thing you really had to worry about was your social security number, if you even had one.

Now, approximately 75% of women ages 25-54 work outside of the home. They have their own careers, make their own money, and quite often own their own home. This is a huge change in society.

And yes, society changes. Just because something is a tradition, doens't mean it must stay around and continue to be followed. At one time it was a tradition for marriages to be arranged with the bride (especially) and the groom having little to no say in the matter. It also used to be tradition for the consummation of the wedding to be witnessed. I could go on and list dozens more.

Not every tradition needs to stay. Maybe it's time for the antiquated notion of changing a person's name at marriage also needs to change.

and people wonder why the divorce rate is skyrocketing!!! I'll take tradition. You sound like you are divorced or at least will be eventually.

The female-breadwinner-type marriage has no historical standards of behavior to use as a basis.

Not so. It happens all the time. Why does it need a "standard of behavior to use as a basis."? A basis for what? The wife earns more than the husband. That's all there is to it.

and people wonder why the divorce rate is skyrocketing!!! I'll take tradition.

Actually the divorce rate rose steadily until the 1980's and has generally been stable since then. In large part the spike in the 1980's was attributed to the advent of the "no fault" divorce in most states. Prior to then the only valid grounds for divorce were for adultery, cruelty, abandonment, imprisonment, and so forth. With the "no fault" divorce more couples got divorced for "irreconcilable differences" than any other reason.

I hate to tell you but it is not all about security for the woman any more. When I married my first husband, I made more money (not by much but I did) and I was the one with the medical, dental and life insurance benefits. I did take his name because that was tradition but when I got remarried, I did not take my new husband's name. By your standards, my first husband should have taken my name since he was the one gaining more than me. I did not change my name the second time more for the reason that is is a true hassle to change all of that information. You have to contact social security, all of your creditors, etc. It should be each individual's choice and I don't think there is a state in the union these days that does require a name change.

i am not changing my name... and it's NOT because of a possible divorce... it's because my name is as important as HIS! and MY fiancee not only understands this, but supports it. together we are excited about our future, a future that will only end when one of us dies... hopefully at a VERY old age. until then, we love each other totally and completely... so don't give me that old garbage about me being any less devoted to him.

You want all of the protection and security that marriage provides without giving up anything.

What century are you writing from??!! I married my husband because I love him. I make more than twice his salary, so I don't need his financial support. We are a family because we love each other. I have a professional career and three college degrees in my name...why on earth would I consider changing my name to his? What an archaic concept.

You want all of the protection and security that marriage provides without giving up anything.

I guess I never thought of marriage in terms of protection and security. Financial protection and security or because a man is in the home it's personal protection and security? I don't understand the concept of giving up something in order to marry. It's not Lent. Other than the single life, I really don't think either me or my husband has had to give up anything but maybe I just don't understand the comment properly.

I think a guy who feels threatened because his wife won't take his last name is the kind of guy women might want to think twice about marrying. It shows an inability to change, an inability to work things out, a need to control, and a definite view of the wife as "property", and, at the very least, a little boy who wants to get his own way.

What other roles does he believe women should have that he'll push? Nah. Just asking for trouble. Pass him up for someone with the cojones to marry a woman who isn't afraid to express her views.

Who told you life is fair?

That's all you got out of that? The last three words? If you are a man you have nothing to worry about. If you are married, you only have to watch your wife stress over getting old documents. Or you could just tell her to forget about renewing her drivers license. She doesn't need to go anywhere without you.

What's in a name anyway?

a name is everything - it's your identity - it's what makes you...you. your name is what defines you, and who you are.

as for me, I would never force my wife to change her last name, she volunteered to change it (as did several of my ex-girlfriends too for some reason). these are also career women, who have their own identity and uniqueness. i would not want to be with a woman who solely wanted to be a stay-at-home mom (not that anything is wrong with that).

women that are able to establish their own independance will prove to be far more successful (both financially and romantically).

however, typically, a team can be more successful than a collection of two individuals.

you sound awesome, jaker... but just because i'm keeping my name it doesn't mean that we're not a team tho! in fact, we're a LARGE team... my ex, my fiancee, my fiancee's ex and i are ALL part of the most important team of all... co-parenting...

i sure like, tho, that you wouldn't force your wife to take your name... and i have NO problem with women that do... why do they have such a problem with me???

that is a very large team (but I guess not too uncommon in today's society of the extended family).

the good side is that you've got additional resources to help with the kids. however, the negative side of that is now you've got too many cooks in the kitchen. but if you are able to manage, and raise your children well, more power to you.

as for folks having a problem with you not changing your last name, I would imagine that it is due to one of two reasons:
1.) they are very traditional, and were raised traditional - thus any behaviors outside of their norm would be deemed to be rebelious
2.) they still feel that woman's success is measured by her social status (they also feel that a man's success is measured by how much money he makes)

Only 43% of first marriages end in divorce or separation within 15 years. More than half of all divorces happen within the first 2 years of marriage. I'm sure a large part of that divorce rate within the first 2 years is because people get married for the wrong reasons or decide to divorce at the first major problem. One of the mistakes that I often see couples make is getting married and then immediately having kids. I think it's prudent to get to know each other as a married couple for a few years before kids enter the picture.

I have to blame some of that 2 year divorce thing on the wedding, not the marriage. And though the girl wants the wedding, the guy proposes so they are both at fault. Couples have to set goals and $20,000 for a wedding and $10,000 for honeymoon would make a great down payment on a starter home.

I agree, DbZ, that the couple should spend some time married before having children, even if they lived together before. Each step is adjustment and growth and should be allowed to mature.

The daughter of a friend of mine (most of my friends tend to be older than I am for some reason) just spent $38,000 on the wedding and honeymoon. That doesn't include money that my friend pitched in to cover some other expenses that came up. Sure, the wedding was lavish, but was it really necessary? Something much more modest could have been done. My parents got married 45 years ago for $40. My wife and I got married 13 years ago for around $120. I guess frugality runs in the family. Two years after getting married we were buying our first home.

Both of my marriages were performed at the courthouse. I just couldn't justify the cost.

it's sad, isn't it kik? and as for weddings? well, i HAD to have mine in a church (my own personal beliefs) and i spent... drumroll... almost $100! lol... i guess if you HAVE to have a lavish wedding, do it, but um... 38K? wow.... nice downpayment on a house, or retirement fund, if you ask me! (but then, i'm terribly cheap too! ) haha....

I don't think any one was objecting to tradition but to the insistence by a few that it has to be that way. If I look on my female doctor's wall at the diplomas and degrees and I see Mary Jones but my doctor is M. Susan Smith... how do I know she is qualified to treat me? How do I know she is the same person? During some of the training for one part of my working life, I started with my 1st husband's name, married my second husband and took his name, divorced him and reverted to my maiden name. My certificates were in 3 different names!!! Young women of today should keep their maiden name for professional reasons and use their husband's for social.

I don't think any one was objecting to tradition...

You don't?

Buckeye, tradition or not, in my case-- I had practiced under my maiden name for 20 years. To lose the ability to keep my maiden name would have hurt my business due to the loss of name recognition. When I married the second time, I had a job, not my own company, and it was easier to do.

Some women have very good reasons to keep their maiden name. For example, if a man's name sounds very strange for them, (like my good friend Hazel Smith who married Art Hazel to become Hazel Hazel), or that may have a 'jokey' connotation. And example of this is another lovely woman that I knew named Ophelia, her married name was Ophelia Self. After 50 years of marriage and all the jokes, she, at age 68, changed her name back to her maiden name, Ophelia Davis. Mrs. Davis was of my Grandmother's generation, born in 1888, and was as traditional as they came.

It isn't always the most practical solution.

my sister would have rather DIED than NOT take her husband's name... and my mom (of course, that was a long time ago too...) was just as excited to take my dad's. i didn't... and you're RIGHT!!! no one should CARE so long as ur own hubby's ok with it! i totally understand why people WANT to take their hubby's name... i just don't get why i get BASHED and told i'm a feminist cuz i didn't! feminist? lol... i'm more a becky homecky type

Buckeye, traditions change over time. Women work more now than ever before. They don't go to college to find a husband. They earn degrees and have careers. They are authors, doctors, lawyers, governors and senators and heads of state, CEOs of large corporations. Maybe you would not marry a woman with an equal or higher status than yours, I don't know. Maybe you make enough to support your household so your wife can be a stay-at-home mom. But I don't believe that tradition is a part of the equation. If you would not marry a woman you profess to love, only because she won't take your last name, I have to question is it is tradition or domination.

I don't need a man to take care of me or protect me. I want a partner to share my bed, my home, my everyday life. I want someone to walk beside me, not in front of me, nor behind me. Someone who will feel equally comfortable in our shared work, our quiet time and separation. I can take care of myself and that is not traditional, at least not for the last 30-50 years.

I would have to disagree... I think that tradition is MOST of the equation. Who cares if the woman makes more? If my wife made 100K a year and wanted me to stay home and be a house-husband...... Hells ya!! You go make that money honey! Just buy me a couple xbox games while you're out lol I honestly have no idea where that tradition of name-taking is rooted from... but I followed it. And I don't think that the name thing has anything to do with the divorce rate in America. It's all about people not understanding what LOVE really is, and our incredible ability to not take personal responsibility and have real commitment.

I don't think it has so much to do with the divorce rate so much as the remarrying rate. As far as personal responsibility, I started my own separite credit during my first marriage and kept seperate credit with the second. I also had joint which I had to cancel on the second marriage before he ruined my rating. That is personal responsibility. I had it, he didn't.

Sounds like me and my wife. She had great credit until we got married lol REALLY it was cuz of her lupus and not being able to work all of a sudden.... but to the untrained eye..... it looks like my fault lol

My sympathies, ruthless. My sister has lupus and it's quite debilitating.

I'm sorry you're both going through that, ruthless.

It happens. the most tragically humorous part of it is that when she tells people the timeline of the lupuis vs our relationship. We started dating in oct 2006.. she was diagnosed with lupus aug 2007... i proposed march 2008 and we were married june 2008. And a lot of people, upon hearing this info.... ask "wow.... and he still stayed with you even after you got lupus???" What kind of terrible peice of trash person would you have to be... lol

ruthlessmoose, These last few comments have changed my whole view of you. It was mostly based on politics. You are a sweet guy after all. I'm really glad to know that.

You are a sweet guy after all.

Yes, he is! :)

:D huzzah!

Ya... when I talk about politics... I tend to be a real dick sometimes lol I DO have crazy conservative views on a lot of stuff... and i try to make sure I admit that while I will discuss politics... I'm so not politically minded and don't know how a lot of it works.... what are ya gonna do? LOL

Other than that stuff... I'm just a real super guy. ;D

Ya... when I talk about politics... I tend to be a real dick sometimes lol

Yup me too! And I'm not even a guy LOL.

I get stubborn (imagine that) and forget to be nice to those with crazy conservative views. I'm fierce in my compassion for those who need help. Other than that, I'm just an old she-mule living out in the woods, trying to make use of what I have.

one of my friends still call me by my wife's maiden name lol cuz it sounds funny

What is it moose? I don't remember if you have told us or not ?

her Maiden name is Spohn (pronounced like spawn).... so I would have been Sean Spohn lol

Spohn...I have never even heard of that last name before. It is very unusual....

so I would have been Sean Spohn lol

ROFL....oh nooooo.

but i have a kid with my ex... how could i EVER ask my child to change his last name? he has his dad's last name and is proud of it... my fiancee might love him as his own, but he's got his OWN dad!

It should be a choice for a child of a previous marriage. No rule is absolute.

Quite simply, every person should have the right to be called by whatever name they select. If your friend William prefers to be called Bill, and you know it, what do you call him? It's a matter of respect.

A man who demands a woman change her name is not showing her the respect she deserves.

I call him brent

#25: "When I went to get a passport, I had to produce both marriage certificate and divorce decree (stating that I was legally allowed to reverted back to my previous name) to prove that I was the same person. These documents had to be the originals and I had to let them have them. They did mail them back to me, but I worried about them getting lost in the government quagmire."

Yes! I went through that very hassle! Fortunately, I had all the documents, and, also fortunately, they were mailed back. But, it was a hassle (I kept my married name because by the time I was divorced, I was too known in too many places to make reverting to maiden name practical). But, because my married name was not the one on my birth certificate, I had to provide marriage and divorce papers to prove I am who I say I am. And, that is just for getting a passport.

My roomie recently reverted back to her maiden name, and so far it has taken her 6 months to get all docs in order... and things keep cropping up that she didn't even consider. If people simply kept the names they were born with, no one would have to undergo these horrible tangles of red tape (and expense).

2scentsworth: my roomie got the ball rolling for her name change by using Legal Zoom (online). It is cheaper than going to a private attorney, and she was thrilled with the way that site worked (and actually worked with her to accomplish her goals). You might want to tell your friend at work...

I'll tell her tomorrow! Thanks!

Here is my experience with this issue. I was engaged to a woman after we had been together for a little over 2 years. Her family was very progressive, and her and her mother held some feminist ideas. Now I may be a little old fashioned but here is what transpired: She was in school to be an engineer. As a professional, she had already began to become acclimated in the company she was working for in college. Of course, she was using her name as she was born. When we talked about getting married the issue came up that she did not want to change her name. I had some problems with this because: there are three branches of my family name. In my branch, I am one of two men who is left to carry on our name. The others have daughters, and my cousin and I are the only two left to have a son to carry our name forward. I have alot of pride in my family and my families history, and wanted very much to be able to pass my name on to a son one day. She refused this idea, and said that it was opressive to her as a woman to be expected to take my name. I suggested leagally changing her name but using her maiden name professionally as many women do, I had no issue with that whatsoever. Again she refused. Her solution was to give the children both our names, hyphenated, her last name was a long one, and when they turned 18, they could choose which name to use. I claimed this was a bad idea, since a daughter would most likely change her name eventually when she got married. Also I thought badly of this idea because, one it may be difficult for a child to learn such a long last name and understand why they have such a name, and second, it would be wrong to put them in the position of having to choose a name, and hurt one of thier parents feelings in the process when that time came. After she found out what I actually did for a living, and that couple with the differences in opinion on said issue of names, she eventually became very upset with the relationship, and we agreed to break off the engagement and end the relationship. So as you can see, I think this can be a very important issue, one not to be taken lightly. As an old fashioned guy, I would prefer to have my wife take my name, because she is proud to marry me and happy to take my name as hers, along with the fact that I would like very much to carry on my family name. So twoscents, as you can see, i think that is an issue with hyphenated names. Hello to you btw, and things are going well here. Getting some wetwork done in the morning (while you are probably asleep), wish us luck. :)

Freedom Fighter Forever, I understand your pride and desire to carry on the family name but there is no guarentee that you will have a son. It is an important issue as if the two can not agree on this there will be other problems.

Freedom Fighter, in both of my marriages (second was HUGE short-lived mistake!), I took the guys names. 'Should' I choose to marry again, I'll probably do it again.

But, it's difficult a transition. It is very odd to become someone else/have a different identity overnight. I can't tell you how many checks I had to tear up because I signed the wrong name! lol

The choice should be agreed on by both those involved. It's a partnership and should be shared decisions.

lbcot! :)

++++++

there is no guarentee that you will have a son

That is so true SWMM!, One of my brothers has two girls and really wanted a boy, but they didn't want but two children.

I see your point, and yes it is no gaurantee that I would have a son. I am sorry to hear that you have had to deal with 2 divorces, and yes I have heard many stories of checks with the wrong name on it, lol. I was just wanting to share my experience with the matter. As you said, it must be a shared decision, and it resulted in no partneship at all. Thanks for yours and Mule's replies. Careful as always.

Oppresso de Liber