🚀 go-pugleaf

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

Wrong; there are practical reasons, as I've stated previously.  They have 
nothing to do with mindless habit.  You may not see or choose to believe 
there are pratical reasons, but that's your choice.  What I've got a 
problem with is how you attempt to apply your perception of reality to 
everybody and expect lots of "Yeah, uh-huh, your assertions _must_ be 
reality, and everyone else is a blind, uneducated lemming."

[snip] 

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

And neither are you, BTW, however, my observation still stands.  In amm 
my years, the majority of American society I've encountered doesn't hold 
to your assertions about what wife taking the husband's name means.

[snip]

: >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.

Well, it's time you educated yourself further to understand why this is 
and why it's not at all the issue you seem to think it is.

[snip]

: >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?

More arrogance and delusions of grandeur.  I'm glad you're convinced 
you're so much more advanced than the rest of us Baptist-hugging neophytes.
 

: >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.

See previous post.  You equated determination ofrespect with whether or not 
something inconveniences you is some manner :e.g. having to visit the 
DMV due to name change.
 
[snip]

: >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. 

That's your postive assertion generalization).  Prove it.


: They don't think of it as any sign of respect and love. It's just 
: tradition.  
 
Another unsupported assertion.  Prove it to me.

: I would suspect that
: many women change their names because they think they HAVE to by law
: or something.

Well, this sits a bit better with me, if only b/c you admitted that this 
is your supposition.


: 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.  

Perhaps these women don't question the tradition b/c they don't view it 
as you do and they're quite satisfied w/ what practising the tradition 
means to _them_.


: 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. 

Again, I suggest you haven't met the right men.  I'd want to know why the 
lady refuses.  The kind of lady I'm looking for would very likley get 
issues like this settles very early on in the relationship, much like my 
fiancee and I did.


: <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. 

Perhaps that assumption is wrapped up in what is hopefully a mutual 
understanding and adherence to a certain morals/belief set.  That being 
the case, it's too bad while this country still legislates relative 
freedom of religion and belief.

: >[snip]

: >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.

Pardon me, I guess my elitism comment coverd that w/o any further 
elaboration.  The "intelligence is proportional to formal education" 
argument won't work with me. :)

: <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.

Yes, that's a distinction to be made, perhaps, but not an issue to be 
divisive about for my fiancee and I.

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

[snip]

: 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. 

Only as you and perhaps some other "ahead of their time" women and men 
view it.  See my previous comments about belief/moral sets matching.  My 
fiancee and I started dating by determining where we both stand on 
everything that mattered about faith and belief and principle.  We 
settled such things about what meaning we attach to things like the wife 
taking the husband's name for the get-go.  We determined and settled 
those things immediately.  Both of us are pretty set-in-our ways people.  
neither of us expects a change from what we've told each other (it's 
wonderful how consistency helps a relationship!).  Any change, including 
her refusing to take my name would make me question why she's made a 
fairly big shift b/c of the meaning attached to doing that.
 
 
: 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.

Part of our belief set includes constantly standing in front of the 
public and claiming the same (as it will for me).


: 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 above...I've gone over this before.  Not doing this would indicate 
much more than merely a small personal preference.

[snip]

: >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.

Right, I'm not expecting -you- to respect my beliefs.  I do expect you to 
take me at my word though (since you can't possibly know me otherwise) 
and accept what I tell you my fiancee's and my motivations to be as the 
truth.  

: >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. 

Believe what you wish.  

Your perception of my motivations doesn't make it reality.


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