🚀 go-pugleaf

mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew William Damick) wrote:


>TarlaStar (!!!bmyers@ionet.net) wrote:

<snip long reiteration about how meanings have changed in the
tradition of taking a man's name when you marry>

I acknowlege that many people consider it a sign of respect for their
husband if they take his name. HOWEVER, there is no practical reason
for continuing the practice. It was born out of a practice of slavery
and continues out of mindless habit.

>: 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.

I don't believe that you are the spokesperson for American society.

>: 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.

Sure...except for one little thing...they don't take their wives names
at marriage.
 

>: >: 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definitions that they no longer represent the commonly accepted 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.

I prefer to be ahead of the times. Why should I step backwards just to
be with you?

>: 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.


I suppose it might be considered as such if what you assert were true,
but it's not so it ain't.

>: >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.  

They're everywhere. Most women take their husbands names because
that's what you DO when you get married. They don't think of it as any
sign of respect and love. It's just tradition.  I would suspect that
many women change their names because they think they HAVE to by law
or something.

The basis of my castigation is not simply because practitioners are
abiding by some outmoded practice of female slavery, but because many
women do not question the tradition and most men expect you to follow
it.  Then when you refuse,  they act as though you were being
disrespectful. There is no disrespect automatically implied simply by
the refusal to take another's name at marriage. 

<snip>
>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.

I don't have a problem understanding that. What I have a problem with
is the assumption that a woman who keeps her own name is somehow less
respectful and loving of her husband than one who give up her own
identity at marriage and takes on HIS identity. 

>[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.  

It was sarcasm.

>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.

I would imagine that it's more a class issue than a regional issue.

<snip to the chase>

>: 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.

That's right, you meet each other's standards but...the standard that
the two of you determine which shows that she loves and respects you
includes the taking of your name, and the standard that YOU meet does
not.

>: 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).

Right here we get to the crux of it. You have automatically determined
that the refusal to take your name is a slap in your face instead of a
desire to be identified as one has always been. You give negative
meaning to something which has no intrinsically negative meaning. 

Do you think that the refusal to take on your identity is tantamount
to not wanting to identify with you? That's ludicrous. She stands in
front of her friends and family and claims to want a life with you.
She lives in your home, bears your children, wears a ring (if she so
desires) introduces herself as your mate, and yet, simply because she
likes her own name, wants to keep a little part of herself for
herself, then you consider that a desire to not identify herself with
you.

>: 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!

Then tell us why you haven't considered giving up your name in favor
of hers? If you took her name, you'd be identified with her just as
you expect her to desire to be identified with you. The result would
be the same, it's just a matter of who gives up the name...right?

>: >: 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 sorry, but I don't have to respect your beliefs. I simply have to
tolerate them.

snip]


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

Yeah, I'm betting it's because you're not winning it.