🚀 go-pugleaf

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

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

>[snips and snails, etc.]

>: >Provided that taking the man's name was only to ID the wife w/ her 
>: >husband, you might be right.  However, your over-simplified and limited 
>: >definition just doesn't align with rality and how many others in this 
>: >country view the wife adopting the man's name.
>: 
>: I couldn't care less about how others view the adoption of a husband's
>: name. And my "over-simplified and limited" definition has yet to be
>: countered with anything aside from opinions and emotionally charged
>: statements regarding respect and deference....on the part of the
>: female only.

>Based on what you said above, it seems to me that you either don't read 
>the entire follow-up before responding, or else you refuse to read for 
>content and context.  See below (in my quoted text) where I speak about 
>what I believe the role of the husband to be (sacrificially loving his 
>family).  I don't know about you, but to me, that at the very leats 
>implies my preference and respect for my wife.


>: >You asserted that the wife takes the man's name only to ID herself with 
>: >that guy and for reasons of alliance.
>: 
>: >I refuted that by pointing out the vast majority of American society 
>: >(relevant b/c that's the one we're both in, being in the USA and all) 
>: >doesn't operate under Dark Ages fuedal-clannish mindset you'd like us all 
>: >to. 

>: You did? Wow, I musta missed that one too! I don't particularly want
>: anyone to operate under Dark Ages feudalism, but you seem to want to
>: carry on the traditions of said Dark Ages by continuing to have women
>: adopt their spouse's name. How do you escape the mindset, when you

>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.
> 
>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.

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

>: 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.
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.


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

>: I say exactly what I intend and any presumptions are yours and
>: yours alone. If you go back and read what I've said, in fact, I have
>: only asked questions for the most part and pointed out some
>: differences between world views. I have not given opinions about men
>: and women, Neandertal or otherwise.

>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. 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.

>[snippage]

>: 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.

<snip>
>: Marriage was business, alliance, and public declaration
>: thereof. In the 20th century in westernized countries we have forsaken
>: the use of marriage as a political/social alliance between groups and
>: have turned it into a partnership of equals joined by love and common
>: interest. It's been that way for about 50-75 years now. It was only a
>: matter of time until the language began to reflect that change.

>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.


>: >Giving up tribal membership (to join another) was essentially forsaking 
>: >your former tribe.  The problem here is that mainstream American society 
>: >just isn't working with the tribal mindset.  My contention is that I'm 
>: >not wokring from a tribal mindset either, despite your persumption that I am.
>: 
>: I am not presuming anything. I am guessing that since you expect your
>: wife to take your name that you are participating in a tradition that
>: is based in tribal behavior that is no longer relevant whether you
>: know it or not.

>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.

>[snippety]

>: >For me, it's not that I'm asking my fiancee to give up her name so much 
>: >as she's doing it voluntarily for reasons of perference and deference for 
>: >me.  Her love for me is such that she wants to be identified and 
>: >connected with me.
>: 
>: But you don't feel that the same behavior is necessary on your part?

>Again, I point out that you do not take into account the entire body of 
>my post when responding.  Get into that habit, and we'll manage to cut 
>down of the sheer volume of our exchanges.

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

>Trust me.  Even being engaged, I want as many folks as possible to 
>identify me with my fiancee and vice versa.  The same will hold true when 
>we're married.  My prefence is and will ever be for her.  My respect and 
>desire (preference) for her was more than evident the first time I asked 
>her out on a date.  She'll attest to that.  Even more, my desire and 
>prefernce and respect for her ever grows as we grow closer, as i get to 
>know her better and better.  I thank God for that.

But you don't prefer her enough to take her name, do you? And you
wouldn't prefer her quite as much if she refused to take yours, would
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 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.

>: > Equal in importance here is that my role as a husband 
>: >requires that I love my wife (and children, when they eventually happen) 
>: >sacrificially as Christ loved/loves the Chruch.  This isn't about mere 
>: >feelings.  I'm making a conscious choice to do my utmost (including 
>: >sacrificing myself) to see to the physical and spiritual well-being of my 
>: >family.  I will commit-promise-vow before God and man to do this until I 
>: >die.  I'm not taking on a talking possession.  I'll be taking on the task 
>: >of putting my wife and future children before me b/c of my love of God 
>: >and for her.
>: 
>: That's just dandy, but what does it have to do with surnames?

>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!