🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
 
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.
  

: 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.

[snip]

: You are presuming many things not in evidence. Listen, Mathew, I've
: been on Usenet a long time now. 

Thanks for the info.  I've benn on USENET a goodly time myself. :)
 
: 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 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.

[snippage]

: Are you retarded or just playing a very close troll? 

Who's getting emotional now? ;)


: When one gave up
: membership in one's own tribe to join another, it was very serious
: business. 

Which, I believe, I pointed out.  It seemed to me that you vacillated 
between it being serious and casual.  Thank you for clarifying your 
viewpoint (opinion) a bit more.


: 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.


: >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.

[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.

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.


: 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.

: > 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.

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