🚀 go-pugleaf

TarlaStar (!!!bmyers@ionet.net) wrote:
: mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew William Damick) wrote:

[snip]

: >I don't think a even hammer would be effective for getting these thoughts 
: >through to you:
: 
: >o  you said the only reason for taking the man's name was merely formal 
: >   ID, alliance, and tribeal membership shifting, or something to that 
: >   effect.
: 
: I said that the practice of taking a man's name came out of the
: tradition changing tribes/making alliances through marriage. That is
: the source of the tradition.

But you also said that the only reason for doing so was blind consignment 
to that practise, totally dismissing the idea that those practising that 
tradition had reasons of their own for doing it, quite apart from coerced 
concession of rights and respect that you percieved inherent in this 
practise.


: >o  I said this may have been true many years back (e.g. the Dark Ages), 
: >   but is not applicable now, especially to American society, despite your 
: >   protestations and unbased assertions that your interpretation of The 
: >   Reason (tm) is exclusively the one you decide upon.
: 
: Oh it's not just me, did you think I pulled that idea out of thin air?
: It's pretty standard in anthropology.

I'm not denying where the practise's origins came from.  What I'm 
disagreeing with is your perception that the women taking the man's name 
has only the original meaning attached to it.  Practises and the reasons 
for them change with time.  Your refusal to recognize that is unfortunate.


: Just because you have changed the original meaning behind the
: tradition to suit yourself, doesn't mean that its origin has changed a
: bit.

IBYM:  Just because the meanings of the traditions have changed with 
time...etc.  I'm not arguing its origin, just your claim that it's 
original meaning is still the only valid explanation for it today.


: >: adopt their spouse's name. How do you escape the mindset, when you
: >: carry on the tradition?
: 
: >Again, you assume that carrying on a tradition can only be carrying the 
: >the tradition as you define it to be, rather than how the continuers 
: >define it for themselves.
: 
: Yes, I know what you'd LIKE it to mean. But the facts are these:
: 1) the tradition evolved from a time when women were treated as
:    possessions.

I'm not denying this.  What I am denying is that, today, American society 
just does not hold this view of what marriage and the wife adopting the 
man's name is.

: 2) Men who claim that it's a sign of love and respect, never seem to
: behave in the same way that they expect their spouses to.

Then I wager you haven't met the right men.  Call it 'shameless 
advertising,' but I encourage you to come attend my church for awhile so 
you can see several hundred examples of men loving, respecting, and 
behaving in the same way that they expect their spouses to.
 

: >: I am very precise in my language usage. 
: 
: >It's you precision I'm contending with.  You so limit and simplify 
: >definitions that they no longer represent the commonly accepted 
: >defintions.  I contend that your world view just doesn't match up 
: >mainstream society and that your railing against things based on your 
: >generalities just makes you angrier.
: 
: I contend that you are clinging like some cranky three-year-old to a
: tradition which has no value in the current world. 

Provided that the commonly accepted meaning is the "taking the man's name 
only reflects the bygone practise of asserting male dominance" then 
you're right.  However, times, they are a-changing. IOW:  Your definition 
is just not eh commonkly accepted one.  Get with the times.


: If you weren't
: hanging out with a bunch of Baptists, you'd probably meet dozens and
: dozens of women who are married but who keep their own names. 

Here's a shocker:  I don't hang out w/ a bunch of Baptists. :)


: It's
: much simpler to show respect in ways that don't require a visit to the
: DMV.

Wow!  You live a pretty small self-centered life if your definition and 
determination of respect is wrapped up in whether things cause you some 
sort of minor inconvenience.
 
[snip]

: >In fact, you may have not said "I think" or "I believe" or words to that 
: >effect.  Rather, you make brash assertions (e.g.: taking the man's name 
: >can only ever be for the purpose alliance and mere identification) and 
: >then refuse to support and evidence your claims w/ present-day examples.
: 
: Present day examples of what? A woman who keeps her own name? I AM
: one. 

Present day examples of women who take their husbands name only b/c they 
are exchanging tribal membership, only b/c they are -blindly- following 
an old practise.  You haven't shown them to me.  The basis of your 
castigation  of the tradition and it's practitioners is dependent on the 
practitioners being blind or having the same ancient mind-set of 
women=property.  


: Please don't add words to my precise language. I very rarely use
: words like "only" and I'm pretty sure I haven't used it in this
: thread.

Pardon me.  You make brash assertions and then deny that there's any 
other reality than yours.  Hence: 'can only ever be.'  Your assertions 
and denial of 'competing' ideas sets up your absolute.

: >: Are you retarded or just playing a very close troll? 
: 
: >Who's getting emotional now? ;)
: 
: I'm sorry, I'm not emotional, just sorta stunned at the levels of
: incomprehension you seem to display. I honestly couldn't tell if you
: were serious or not.

I _do_ have a hard time understanding why you refuse to believe that the 
meanings and reasons for carring out an old practise actually do change 
with time.

[snip]

: >The difficulty here is that language (that is common usage) doesn't 
: >reflect this change in the way you claim or want it.  Most folks getting 
: >married in Western cultures -still- tend to adopt the husband's surname 
: >for themselves.
: 
: Well did you think it was going to happen in one or two generations?
: It takes time for language to catch up with cultural change. Words
: that surround basics (sun, man, air etc.)  and kinship take the
: longest to change. The point is that more and more educated women are
: keeping their own names after marriage. Soon enough that will filter
: down to lower-class women and eventually even Baptists.

That was pretty elitist of you.  Your cultural change is -still- a fringe 
thing (e.g., it's not evident of a majority or a minority that's ever 
increasing).  Perhaps I'm just not in the right part of the counrty to 
see this ever-growing multitude of educated, enlightened women that 
believe that takning their husbands name is merely an assertion of male 
dominance you tell me are out there.
 

[snip]

: >Well you guess wrong.  You limit yourself to only your perception and 
: >then project your opinion (excuse me, 'view') on others and declare to 
: >them that they are unwittingly or blindly following what is only some 
: >long-gone tribal custom.  You absolutely refuse to believe that someone's 
: >choices could actually reflect what they tell you they do.
: 
: I believe that's what you think you're doing, so to some extent it is.
: However, you're refusing to see the bigger picture which is that you
: are participating in an outmoded behavior based on a tradition of male
: dominance.

This is your claim so that you may rail against those who happen practise 
in a behavior that you refuse to believe is motivated by anything other 
than male dominance.  Open your eyes!  It's just -not- the case.

[snip]

: I'm reading all of it, I'm just not responding to all of it.

You don't seem to be absorbing all of it [read: you rail on some 
statements while ignoring the rest of the post].  You're working hard at 
ignoring the context in which I've posted things so you can keep 
repeating your "Taking the male's name is merely practising outmoded male 
dominance customs" drivel.

[snip]

: But you don't prefer her enough to take her name, do you? 

Fortunately, you are not the determiner of what qualifies preferring her 
enough.  I'm not (and either is the majority) here to meet your choice of 
standards.  We meet (and she certainly exceeds) each other's standards 
esp. when it comes to preference of each other.

: And you wouldn't prefer her quite as much if she refused to take yours, 
: would you? 

Knowing what we both believe and practise, I'd have to have some serious 
talks with her to find out why she wouldn't want to take my name.  That 
is, if she were refusing to take my name, it would be quite the opposite 
of what she's lead me to believe about her and what I've observed of 
her.  Besides, hypothesizing about 'what ifs?' is pointless, b/c I 
wouldn't be seeking after someone that wouldn't want to identify w/ me in 
this way (all arguments about business notoriety acknowledged and 
previously addressed).


: See...that name means quite a bit to you, so much in fact, that
: you would never consider giving it up, even if she asked you to, but
: you think that a woman should toss hers out just to show how much she
: respects and loves her husband.

You're implying a triviality to adopting the husbands name and 'giving' 
up her own that I never did.  This is nothing so casual and flippant.  
Shame on you for presuming that of me or my fiancee w/o knowing me!


: >: You have no desire to show her that you prefer and defer to her? You
: >: don't have such a great love that you wish to be identifed and
: >: connected to her? Does she know this?
: 
: >I did not say that.  See above and below.  I am saving myself to give to 
: >her and no other.  I will accept the dual servant-leader role of the 
: >husband described in God's Word.  That is what I expect and what my 
: >fiancee expects.  It's also what we fervently believe and will vow to 
: >each other and to God.

: Then do it. Hell, I have no problem with the two of you dressing like
: Mickey and Minnie Mouse for the rest of your lives, just don't knock
: those who don't want to live in Disneyland.

There you go attempting to trivialize those things dear to me.  I'm 
merely explaining to you how I (and my fiancee) view it and why.  I'm not 
attmepting to proselytize you to my or my fiancee's traditions.  Show me 
where I've denigrated your view by telling you your views are childish 
and fantastical (except to point out that your perception of my 
motivations are -wrong- and don't fit the majority of American society).

[snip]

: >Well you asked about what my love for my fiancee entails.  Hers is such 
: >that she wants to take on my name.
: 
: And she'll be doing all the same things that you do; committing,
: promising, taking care of the well-being of the family, bearing the
: family and then to top it all off like a moldy cherry on a fat-free
: sundae...she gets to give up her name and submit! Whoo-hoo!

It seems to me that my communication skills are lacking pretty severely 
or else you just refuse to accept the idea that my motivations for 
practising certain customs aren't those you claim they are.  All this 
ever-lengthening discussion seems to accomplish is provide you with a 
platform to parrot your 'females are repressed in any and all cases by 
such things as taking the husband's name' agenda.  All it does is give 
you an outlet to take others' words out of context so that you may then 
decry them.

You're not seeking intelligent conversation.  You are merely repeating the 
same questions and same assertions as to what my motivations (and every 
other to-be-married/married man's motivations) are in the female taking 
the male's name despite what I tell you my motivations are and despite a 
lack of evidence to support your claims of every man hanging onto 
out-moded assertions of male dominance.

You and I have down-graded this to an "are!  Are not!" discussion and I 
frankly tire of it.




-- 
=== Matt "The ThighMaster" Damick ===========1610==  NC State  
=== mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu =======================  Chemical
=== Theoretical Perfect World Engineering, Ltd. ===  Engineering