Based on an earlier question about women taking a mans name in marriage.?

Question

I saw women complaining about this earlier in several posts. They feel that this is an archaic tradition. Guess what. So is marriage. How many of you women that are against taking a mans name in marriage are against marriage ? Thats what I thought... Therein lies the fundamental problem with feminism.

To keep it in perspective.

Women in marriage

Have to take a man's family name.

Men in marriage

Have to be the one to propose

Pay for the rings

Concede all the details of the wedding to the woman

Spend as much on a wedding that he is only a part of to say "I do", as he would on his dream car.

Answer 1

Marriage is archaic, but it is a tradition that one must participate in if one wants the benefits that come with it such as automatic propriety to children in the event of one parent's death, the right to medical decisions in the case of emergency, the the benefit of health insurance, social security benefits, tax breaks, ect.

Taking a man's last name has none of the attached benefits to either party in the marriage.  You are also making the assumption that every woman wants a hugely elaborate wedding...I wanted to go to the JP.  It was my husband who was crushed by not having the "wedding" so we compromised and had an elaborate reception.  We paid for it jointly.  I choose matching plain bands for our wedding rings...he refused the plain bands saying "We aren't going to cheat ourselves like this".  He choose to include a gorgeous stoned ring, which I will admit only I wear, but since we payed for it from a joint account...he certainly didn't front all the money for it.

The point I'm trying to make is that quite a few people have the "princess wedding" idea in their heads and while that certainly might be true for some people, real life rarely works that way.  Take in the whole picture and you'll find that many, many, many people do act and react to life differently than the stereotypes living in your head.

Answer 2

I also think marriage is an archaic tradition, and it's now just as optional as taking the man's last name.

Answer 3

I answered the other question too.

This one's a little differnt so I'll answer differently.

If you like the traditional wedding scenario and want to get married - DO IT.

If not ... DON'T!

Who the heck cares? it's your life and you get to do whatever the blang you want with it. You only live once (at least according to most philosophies LOL - 'nother can o' worms...) Tradition is only as important as you want it to be.

Answer 4

Marriage is for women.  Simple fact.  Every year it legally and socially gets tilted further in women's favor.  

It's a huge liability for men.  If she's a decent woman, thus doesn't initiate a divorce out of the blue and take half your stuff, then you make it through without any losses.  But that's all a man can hope for, just to not lose - there is no winning.

A woman, on the other hand, has it totally flipped.  She has all of the power.  She can get married to you, risk nothing, get a ton of attention, a ring, and a ceremony.  Costing a small fortune.  And then at any moment, without any good reason, can leave, take half your stuff and just find another man to mooch from all while living off your money (alimony payments).

Marriage is not needed to live a happy life together.  But many women want it to trap a man and obtain the legal ability to take away half the stuff he's worked for.  Marriage is not for love, that's easy enough to see.

Taking the name is part of joining the family.  But we already know that feminism (not the ideal feminism, I mean real feminism) is anti family.

Answer 5

This is a very outdated opinion. Do you always follow traditions?

True equality would be if as many men were taking their wife´s last name as women vice versa. There is another important thing about it: the family name shows you who is the official head of the family. Traditionally the husband was expected to be in charge, but things are changing while many women are already outearning their men and taking the initiative in many important family matters. So alpha females may expect that their fiancé would be ready to take her last name in the marriage.

My wife took my last name when we married more than 10 years ago.  Today she is wearing the pants, and we would like to change back, taking her name.  But the law does not allow ti revise a decision once taken. Regrettable !

Answer 6

if a woman doesn't want to take her husband's name, that's up to her. If a man doesn't want to marry a woman who won't take his name, that's up to him. Some people have a good reason to change or not change their name--but if her reason is that she's concerned about what a pain it'd be to change it all back again later, he shouldn't marry her in the first place.

As for "who" spends "what", who cares? It all ends up in the same piggybank anyway......

Answer 7

Marriage isn't one size fits all.  Different rules apply for different couples- and that's okay! Just as long as you agree with your (future) spouse- what the h**l does it matter to you what we think on this board?

Answer 8

When you marry a man, you will take his name. It means that you two are now one. By not taking his name, you are not one. You are two people living together.

Answer 9

TRADITIONALLY the bride's family pays for the wedding.. not the groom.. so you can't say that is a traditional downfall of getting married for the groom.

It's very common now.. I agree.. but not traditional

I'm taking my husband's name because I'm closer to his family than to mine.. but it's silly to say that it is a trade off.

Nothing you listed equated to having to change your name.

Besides, most men choose not to be an active participant in wedding planning.

EDIT: My dad's not "giving" me "away".  That is a tradition that I made very clear I wanted no part of.  No where in my wedding is there any mention of anyone owning anyone else.

You are not making very strong arguements.

Answer 10

You don't have to follow those things. My aunt proposed to my uncle. Then she took his last name. Not a big deal.

I'm keeping mine when I get married. Because its sweet as h**l and I'm all thats left of my father- the only boy in his family. I've told this to guys in the past, and if they didn't merely respect that, they said they'd take mine. That'd be nice, he'll do what he wants.

I find the idea of planning a wedding an absolute nightmare. Men usually don't even want to do this. For good reason.

Your opinion seems to put money before family. Men had to pay for things because traditionally, men made the money. Women gave up a big part of their identity to men. So if women are making money, then men shouldnt have to pay for everything and everyone can keep their names if they so desire. Life's too short for silly social rules.

I want my husband and I to be best friends above anything... not have a "system".

Answer 11

Sorry. Who is complaining?

Men don't "have to be the one to propose." I proposed to my husband, on bended knee, with a ring, on his birthday, in the garden at the Getty Museum. You assume that things are imperative which are not imperative. They are socially decided, like men passing on their family name when *no* *one* *can* *ever* *possibly* *argue* * that* *women* *don't* *do* *more* *work* *to* *create* *and* *raise* *children*.

Sounds like you're the one complaining and I'm the one stating, unapologetically  and clearly, the simple facts.

If a man wants to marry a woman who earns as much or more than he, who includes him in the wedding preparations, who does not value him for money, who loves him because he is a good person and not because he is useful as a wallet, then a man can *choose* to do so. The fact that so many men don't and instead choose women who just want money is not the fault of feminists. Own your stuff man.

Nothing you have complained about here merits your name being passed on. If you want to legitimately pass on your name, turn yourself into a woman.

And by the way, are you purposely ignoring what women in marriage really do? Is that all women do, take the man's last name, then they sit there, inert, like a vase on the shelf. Are you out of your mind? I can't even begin to school you about this. It would take a lifetime.

Edit: And now I will post my earlier post, which you are, no doubt, complaining about:

If someone can give me one good reason why children should be named after their fathers, I'd like to hear it. Several men on this post expect from women something they wouldn't be willing to give them. Double standard, eh? Just a bit. The idea that men should pass on their names to children they are not capable of creating comes from the false belief that women were "soil" a mere vessel for the active seed of the father. We now know that this belief could not be farther from the truth.

Actually this question is at the root of patriarchy. It is why women are considered less important than men. Men "can" pass on the family name, women "can't." Let's set something straight here. Women can do everything men can do but men can't do everything women can do. That's a fact. Children are formed of the mother. Sure, both parents contribute 50% of the *nucleic* DNA, but the female always carries and births the child. Right there, before the kid is even born, the woman has done way, way more work to bring that child into the world. This alone should be enough to merit female lineage, but there are more reasons.

Women not only contribute as much nucleic DNA as men do, but they do much more work to create and raise children than men. Additionally, there is something called mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that is passed down through the mother. Mitochondria are the organelles that allow us to breathe oxygen and use it in the cellular respiration process (aka the Kreb's Cycle) to create ATP which is the stored form of chemical energy that allows us to be alive. If the mother does not pass on this DNA the zygote never even becomes two cells. It has no way to make the energy it needs to live.

That's how fundamentally important women are and that's why men should not be allowed top pass on their names. It's an illegitimate tradition based on a belief that is false. When men can be women, then they can have the legitimate right to pass on their names. Until then they should take their wife's name if they want to have the same name as their kids. Maternal lineage is real. Paternal lineage is a fabrication perpetuated through lies, coercion, bribery, and force.

I know a lot of men are going to be all upset about this. It's interesting how adamantly they want to deny women their names, and their birthright (the historical recognition for children). If a man wants to pass on his name he can invent something, build something, discover something, write something, you know, do something. That's fine. If the child wants to take on the father's name because the mother was absent, etc., then that's fine as well, they can do so at 18.

As long as women are contributing more DNA, carrying pregnancies, giving birth, taking a cut in earnings, and dealing with all the other work of motherhood, then they deserve rightful credit for it.

By the way, the reason so many men will hate this post is because they know that their male privilege is based on the idea that they own "the family jewels" the ability to pass on the family name. In reality that was illegitimately stolen from women and men have no right to it. Period.

  

Source(s):

mtDNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondri...

tracing ancestry with mtDNA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthal...

Matrilineal Succession, the oldest known system of humanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineal

Matrilineal Descent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineal

Answer 12

Since it really doesn't interfere with anyone's rights, shouldn't that be left to the couple to decide?  Why should what you want affect me......

After all I know several women who proposed, we used my mothers engagement ring (his grandmother donated their wedding rings), our wedding was small and since my MIL did not have a daughter - she planned the wedding, I paid for.   He had his dream car.

Answer 13

yeah, all take and no give, this is many women these days.

the problem with many feminists is that they cannot see their own double standards. i don't know what it is, why they can't process the fact that equality is a two way street but they can't.

Answer 14

Today there are many women making as much money or even more as their husbands.

I prefer not to put a mans name on me because he can put his name on our house, our cars and all of our property (as so can I) . I am not property I am a human being.

While I grew up my step father raised me while I carried the last name of a man that didn't see fit to even pay child support when my mother was single and working two jobs to make ends meet. I have also been married and divorced. I am set on keeping my name the way I have it now. ( I legally changed my name not to even carry my fathers last name).

We believe in symbols and the sharing of a name is a lovely gesture. However I will not ever take anothers name as mine in any part. It is really difficult to change your name back after a divorce, Then you show your school records in one name, then a work reference in another name & in the event of remarriage there is that period of the maden name and then the new married name on referances. I say keep it simple, share your love, your lifes, your everything but keep your name. Best wishes.

Light & Love,

Answer 15

I agree completely.  Seeing only one side of an "archaic" tradition is completely pointless.  

I could go on, but I'd just be re-iterating your point exactly.  So I'll just give you a star instead.

Answer 16

They keep the traditions they like but reject the ones they don't.  Why don't you ever hear the name keepers offer to pay for half the diamond engagement ring cost at 1.5 months salary?  

Why don't you ever hear them reject the wearing of rings since they show ownership, just like the name change does (or so they say).  Is it because they like ownership when they benefit?

They pick and chose when they like patriarchy and when they don't.

Answer 17

Traditions change all the time. Marriage can represent something quite different these days to what it used to represent. Or would you prefer everything to be exactly the same as five hundred years ago, for tradition's sake?

Rules aren't set in stone. I would be quite happy to be the one to propose if I wanted to get married, and I would also expect both of us to wear rings (paid for by us both), both of us to organise the day itself (I hate organising events anyway), and pay for it together.

Answer 18

It seems like you are ranting more than posing a question but I'll pretend you asked something.

Only tradition dictates women take the mans name. That doesn't mean it has to be right.

And as for men paying for the rings why not this.

Both pay because when in marriage everything is 50/50 anyway. Why not start it off equal?

But it don't have to be that way either.

It should be up to both parties on what they want to do and it's no ones else's business what they do or how they do it.

Answer 19

Marriage in itself, is as obsolete and useless as the argument is. There are no more rules of engagement on the battle field unless you are American, no rules of marriage unless you are a man, and no reason for either. Never again will I fall prey to either of these two evil institutions that serve no purpose, gain no benefits, and kill the lives of so many.