🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>TarlaStar wrote: 

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

>[snip]

>: >I've yet to see you demonstrate -how- the reasons are no longer 
>: >relevant.  You make assertions.  Now support them.
>: 
>: I have. The only reason for taking the name of your spouse is to show
>: that you have joined his/her tribe. Since that is no longer a relevant
>: reason, there is no cause for women to give up their names at
>: marriage.

>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.

>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
carry on the tradition?

> You presume a mindset on the part of men that don't view the world 
>through your men-are-neanderthals glasses and then rail against your 
>personal creation (perception of reality).  You act shocked when others' 
>view and commentary don't quite match up with your (perhaps intentionally) 
>uniformed perception of reality.

You are presuming many things not in evidence. Listen, Mathew, I've
been on Usenet a long time now. I am very precise in my language
usage. 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.
>  
>: >: The need to show that a female is giving up membership in
>: >: her own tribe and taking up membership in another is no longer
>: >: necessary.
>: 
>: >Non-sequitur.  The marriage and taking the surname of the husband in no 
>: >way excommunicates the lady from her own family.  Taking the name of the 
>: >husband does not imply that the wife forsakes her family.  You're 
>: >building strawmen here:
>: 
>: I never said that it implies that the female forsakes her family. I'm
>: trying to point out that since we no longer function as tribes with
>: alliances etc. that we no longer need the identification process that
>: taking a man's name at marriage used to provide.

>Tribal memebership just simply isn't 'on par' with a golf membership.  

And someone implied that it was?

>One is a life-long matter of participation and support, the other is 
>merely participation as long as it entertains you.  If you really see 
>marriage as being that casual and feelings-based, then God help us. 

Are you retarded or just playing a very close troll? When one gave up
membership in one's own tribe to join another, it was very serious
business. 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.

>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.

>: >I said:  taking the surname of the husband identifies you with him for 
>: >         the reasons previously mentioned.
>: 
>: But you never explained WHY it is only the female that is asked to
>: give up her name. Why the female is the only one that is asked to be
>: deferential, respectful etc.

>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?
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?

> 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?
*****
Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
Juicy; a Proud jism schism of the Church of the SubGenius. 
Worshipping Juicy Retardo and "Connie" Dobbs since 1986.
*****