🚀 go-pugleaf

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


>[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.

It should be a simple matter for you to state why this occurs,
shouldn't it? Why don't wives have the expectation that a man will
take their name at marriage if it is nothing more than a sign of love
and respect?

>: >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.
> 

No I don't think you are glad. I think you think I'm a feminist bitch
on wheels. That's okay. Just remember that I don't start these little
catfights, Matt. I simply make sure you understand that I WILL finish
them. I other words, before you start calling me names, you might want
to see if you've written something that deserved my attitude.

>: >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.

No I didn't. You've attempted to twist it that way, but I have this
feeling that you are one of those people born without a humor bone. I
said that it's possible to show respect for your spouse in ways that
don't require a visit to the DMV. That is not the same as saying that
my determination of what encompases respect is linked with my personal
convenience.
> 
>[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.

Suggest a methodology. I'm a woman, I talk to other women (probably
more than you do) I get a feeling. Do you have any more support than I
do for your assertions? I didn't think so.

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

See above. Additionally, been there, done that.
<snip>

>: 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. 

What does meeting the right kind of men have to do with the fact that
there is no disrespect implied by not automatically taking a man's
name at marriage? Why shouldn't a woman refuse? What motivation does
she have to change her name other than the importance that YOU place
upon it?

> 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.

I never discuss marriage issues with someone unless I find them worth
marrying. 

>: <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. 

So you think that taking your name is so important that if a wonderful
woman came into your life and said that it was important to HER that
she be able to retain her own identity within the marriage just as you
would, then there would be no marriage? See, I find that to be a
rather unequal situation. I wouldn't want to be in a marriage where I
wasn't an equal, where I wasn't given the same respect that my partner
expected.

> That being 
>the case, it's too bad while this country still legislates relative 
>freedom of religion and belief.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this sentence.

>: >[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. :)

It hasn't anything to do with elitism. Class exists in this country
whether you like it or not. I believe that upper middle class women,
those who are married to professionals or are professionals themselves
are the first to retain their birth names. From there it works its way
both up and down for various reasons.

>: <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.

But you've already stated above that it would be a divisive issue
between you. If you knew she didn't want to take your name at
marriage, you would have stopped dating her long before she became
your fiancee. 

>: >: 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.

I hate to tell you this at this late date, but we've been speaking in
generalities, not specifically about you and your girlfriend. Yes, YOU
need to have someone whose morality matches yours. Believe it or not,
so do I. That's beside the point. The point is that not taking a man's
name is not intrinsically disrespectful. YOU are attaching that notion
to the action  because of your belief system. You are assuming
something which is not in evidence. I am not assuming that your future
wive expects to be your chattel. I am taking you at your word that you
consider taking your name to be a sign of respect. However, I am also
pointing out that if that's all that it was, then both parties would
do it in equal numbers. Both parties make pledges at the altar after
all. Despite your protestations to the contrary, logic says that there
is more to the changing of names than simple respect.

> 
>: 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.

You're right. It would indicate that you were marrying a person who
considers herself to be your equal instead of a part of you. It is an
entirely different mind-set than I would guess you are accustomed to
dealing with. However, it doesn't imply disrespect, simply
self-respect.