🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6nanhq$l2c@enews3.newsguy.com>,
  !!!bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar) 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.

I am suprised at you Ms. Starr.  As an anthropologist surely you know that
many cultural norms serve no "practical purpose".  As too being borne of
slavery, you have not quoted a single source to support this claim.



>
> >: 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.

And neither are you Ms. Starr

>
> >: 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.
>
Some do.  My Brother took his wifes name.


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definitions that they no longer represent the commonly accepted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

So your views are the future?? Thats a bit arrogant of you isn't it?


>
> >: 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.


Again the arrogance of your posts Ms. Star.  I strongly urge you to take a
step back and examine yourself to find the source of your incredible
arrogance, hostile attitude, and frequent profanity (though not in this
particular post)

>
> >: >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.

You would suspect... but have no data to support that assumption.

>
> 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.


How many cased of such a refusal generating a hostile response from the male
do you know of?


>
> <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.
>

I don't think a woman keeping her name is necessarily disrespectful.  However
since it is a common custom that causes no harm to anyone and there is really
no reason to change it.....


> >[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.

Its hard to tell with your postings what is sarcasm and what is genuine
arrogance.

>
> >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.
>
Your would imagine but have no data to support your claim?



> <snip to the chase>
>
> >: 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.


There is the point.  You don't respect anyone or anything.  In your arrogance
you feel justified to insult and trivialize everyone around you.

>
> 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.
>

Again that attitude.  You cannot understand that two people can exchange views
with no winner and looser.
>


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum