🚀 go-pugleaf

I don't really believe that "class" has anything to do with degree
attainment.  You probably think Slobadon Milosevic, the Serbian butcher, an
MD and poet, has "class".  Senator Joe McCarthy, of the Red Scare fame, was
a US Senator and lawyer - lots of "class" there.  I am sure I can go on but
you get the point.

easttom@redriverok.com wrote in message <6n9g44$q8r$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>> : 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.
>
>>
>
>Hmm I work at a University where the Dean of arts and Letters (With a Phd)
>and his wife (Also a PhD) are both Baptist, in fact he is a Baptist Deacon.
>Oh, and one of the professors of Business Information Mgt (With a PhD) is
an
>ordained Baptist Minister.  Lets also not forget the head of the Physical
>Sciences department (PhD in Nuclear Physics) is also a Baptist.
>
>They will all be really suprised when they see that they are less than
"lower
>-class"
>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

> : 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.

>

Hmm I work at a University where the Dean of arts and Letters (With a Phd)
and his wife (Also a PhD) are both Baptist, in fact he is a Baptist Deacon. 
Oh, and one of the professors of Business Information Mgt (With a PhD) is an
ordained Baptist Minister.  Lets also not forget the head of the Physical
Sciences department (PhD in Nuclear Physics) is also a Baptist.

They will all be really suprised when they see that they are less than "lower
-class"


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

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.

>: 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.

>: 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.
 

>: >: 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?

>: 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.

>: >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.

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. 

<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. 

>[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.

>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.

<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.

>: And you wouldn't prefer her quite as much if she refused to take yours, 
>: would you? 

>Knowing what we both believe and practise, I'd have to have some serious 
>talks with her to find out why she wouldn't want to take my name.  That 
>is, if she were refusing to take my name, it would be quite the opposite 
>of what she's lead me to believe about her and what I've observed of 
>her.  Besides, hypothesizing about 'what ifs?' is pointless, b/c I 
>wouldn't be seeking after someone that wouldn't want to identify w/ me in 
>this way (all arguments about business notoriety acknowledged and 
>previously addressed).

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. 

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.
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...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're implying a triviality to adopting the husbands name and 'giving' 
>up her own that I never did.  This is nothing so casual and flippant.  
>Shame on you for presuming that of me or my fiancee w/o knowing me!

Then tell us why you haven't considered giving up your name in favor
of hers? If you took her name, you'd be identified with her just as
you expect her to desire to be identified with you. The result would
be the same, it's just a matter of who gives up the name...right?

>: >: 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.

>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.

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. 

On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:59:24 GMT, !!!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.
>
Who cares what name he/she takes?

As far as I'm concerned the logical thing
to do would be both giving up their old
name and taking up a new name, that way
they both give up something and then they
have to agree on a new name. If they can't
agree on a new name, that's it, they can't get
married.

<----DGAS about the name thing at all

In triangle.general, ellensmith <ettaP@swbell.net> uttered forth:

: As far as I'm concerned the logical thing
: to do would be both giving up their old
: name and taking up a new name, that way
: they both give up something and then they
: have to agree on a new name. If they can't
: agree on a new name, that's it, they can't get
: married.

A close family friend is getting married this weekend, and it turns out 
that she and her new hubby are combining thier last names for an entirely 
new identity. 

That's the way to go, IMHO.

-jeni-

-- 
jrgrant2ateosdotncsudotedu

i've been looking for a savior in these dirty streets / looking for a savior
underneath these dirty sheets / i've been raising up my hands / drive
another nail in / just what GOD needs / one more victim / --Tori Amos
                                                             [ jeni grant ]

TarlaStar (!!!bmyers@ionet.net) 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.

Wrong; there are practical reasons, as I've stated previously.  They have 
nothing to do with mindless habit.  You may not see or choose to believe 
there are pratical reasons, but that's your choice.  What I've got a 
problem with is how you attempt to apply your perception of reality to 
everybody and expect lots of "Yeah, uh-huh, your assertions _must_ be 
reality, and everyone else is a blind, uneducated lemming."

[snip] 

: I don't believe that you are the spokesperson for American society.

And neither are you, BTW, however, my observation still stands.  In amm 
my years, the majority of American society I've encountered doesn't hold 
to your assertions about what wife taking the husband's name means.

[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.

[snip]

: >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.
 

: >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.
 
[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.


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

: I would suspect that
: many women change their names because they think they HAVE to by law
: or something.

Well, this sits a bit better with me, if only b/c you admitted that this 
is your supposition.


: 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.  

Perhaps these women don't question the tradition b/c they don't view it 
as you do and they're quite satisfied w/ what practising the tradition 
means to _them_.


: 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.  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.


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

: >[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. :)

: <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.

: >: 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.
 
 
: 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.

[snip]

: >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.

Right, I'm not expecting -you- to respect my beliefs.  I do expect you to 
take me at my word though (since you can't possibly know me otherwise) 
and accept what I tell you my fiancee's and my motivations to be as the 
truth.  

: >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. 

Believe what you wish.  

Your perception of my motivations doesn't make it reality.


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

On 30 Jun 1998 15:44:23 GMT, jrgrant2TR@EETeos.ncsu.edu (jeni grant)
wrote:

>In triangle.general, ellensmith <ettaP@swbell.net> uttered forth:
>
>: As far as I'm concerned the logical thing
>: to do would be both giving up their old
>: name and taking up a new name, that way
>: they both give up something and then they
>: have to agree on a new name. If they can't
>: agree on a new name, that's it, they can't get
>: married.
>
>A close family friend is getting married this weekend, and it turns out 
>that she and her new hubby are combining thier last names for an entirely 
>new identity. 
>
>That's the way to go, IMHO.
>
>-jeni-
No I don't mean a combo.

I mean a whole new one,  nothing
like their old one. At least it would
give them something to do and they
could find out if they had a creative bent.

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

Matthew William Damick wrote:
> 
>  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.

You talked about whether she would take your name not before you started
dating? Excuse me, but that seems a bit premature to me. Suppose you
hadn't discussed that particular issue before you started dating.
Suppose you had dated and then after you asked her to marry you she had
said, "I will, except I don't want to be named Damick". Even if you felt
her reasons were frivolous, would you have broken up with her over
something as trivial (IMO) as that?

Just wondering
Ken

In triangle.general, ellensmith <ettaP@swbell.net> uttered forth:

: No I don't mean a combo.
: 
: I mean a whole new one,  nothing
: like their old one. At least it would
: give them something to do and they
: could find out if they had a creative bent.

Well, that's sorta what I meant. If I remember correctly, they are 
combining last names (Barton and Dzuris) to come up with Bazuris. 

-jeni- 

-- 
jrgrant2ateosdotncsudotedu

i've been looking for a savior in these dirty streets / looking for a savior
underneath these dirty sheets / i've been raising up my hands / drive
another nail in / just what GOD needs / one more victim / --Tori Amos
                                                             [ jeni grant ]

>Ken Denny wrote:
>> 
>You [M.W. Damick] talked about whether she would take your name not 
>before you started dating?

Oh yes, it's commonplace nowadays to sit down and make sure you
agree (or agree to disagree) on every point that may come up in your
future with a possible spouse.  After all, you want to make sure that
you wouldn't want to be suprised by such things as:
  1) your wife likes listening to Yanni ("Yawn-ee") once in a while
  2) Even if you can get around the local ordinances, it is not
     acceptable to set up a personal target practice firing range in
     the back yard.
  3) Vacation does not consist of taking a day off to drink beer in
     the back yard.

All of these things, including who are acceptable friends and where
you are going to retire, must be addressed before the first date.

:-)

Ryan
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::  Ryan Maas  Apex, NC  ::  Good judgement comes from experience.  ::
::  maas @ pagesz . net  ::  Experience comes from bad judgement.   ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;

Ken Denny (kennethd@nortel.com) wrote:

[snipped my words]

: You talked about whether she would take your name not before you started
: dating? Excuse me, but that seems a bit premature to me. 
 
You're entitled to your opinion, Ken.  Both of us declared to each our 
intention in dating was to find a mate, from the first.  Both of us 
declared our faith to each other, from the first.  Call it weird, call it 
premature.  Some of us just have different styles and goals in dating.


: Suppose you
: hadn't discussed that particular issue before you started dating.
: Suppose you had dated and then after you asked her to marry you she had
: said, "I will, except I don't want to be named Damick". Even if you felt
: her reasons were frivolous, would you have broken up with her over
: something as trivial (IMO) as that?

Like I said before, I'm not going to deal w/ hypotheticals, b/c I haven't 
the experience or the use for conjecture like that.  I've got my concerns 
addressed, as does my fiancee.  I already said if things were to change 
(name-adoption being one possibility) I'd have to ask why [read: hold 
conversation and -shre- feelings].  I'm expressing my feelings on the 
issue and how I view the wife taking her husband's name.  I do not have 
to validate it to anyone except, perhaps, my fiancee.  I defy anyone who 
attempts to trivialize that which I'm sincere about and I defy anyone who 
tries to project motivations for my actions on me that I did not 
explicitly say I had. 

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

I just jumped into this conversation, and it seems to be a rather heated one.
 I don't really understand why such a personal choice is such a HOT topic.
However, I have pretty strong feelings about my own name.  It is MY NAME. I
don't think I should have to take another name if I get married, and I will
choose not to.	I personally don't see how someone could change the name
they've lived with their whole life previously, and I don't want to do it. 
Of course, there will be those who don't mind, or don't think they have a
choice who will decide to go with the husband's name.  And of course, there
will be those who have horrible maiden names they need to get rid of :o)

And contrary to what Matt said, I do believe that this is beginning to be an
issue with a lot of couples... it is not just the 'fringe' of society.	ON
the other hand, I think that there are a lot of men who have just not
considered the possibility that someone would NOT want to take their name (as
evidenced by reactions to this conversation with previous boyfriends).	I
think that men out not to require the name change for the new bride.  It
should be a gift, if given at all.

The real question here is not whose name is changed, but when/if children are
brought into the family, should they have to take the father's name?  That's a
good application of that combo-name, or the new made-up name.



Cheers,
Steph:o)

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

jeni grant wrote in message ...
>A close family friend is getting married this weekend, and it turns
out
>that she and her new hubby are combining thier last names for an
entirely
>new identity.
>


I wonder if they'll keep the combined name when they divorce in a few
years.

Tom Gauldin, Raleigh NC
-NetMeeting   ils.four11.com,   Live Birdfeeder Action
ICQ 7022136     fax (919) 676-1404
ftp://ftp.mindspring.com/pub/users/scoundrl/home.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Here's to the land of the Longleaf Pine,
The Summerland, where the sun doth shine,
Where the weak grow strong, and the strong grow great,
Here's to Downhome, the Old North State.

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.

jeni grant wrote in message ...
find out if they had a creative bent.
>
>Well, that's sorta what I meant. If I remember correctly, they are
>combining last names (Barton and Dzuris) to come up with Bazuris.
>
I know of at least on occasion when a normal couple did this.  The
problem was that the fellow married a woman with the same first and
middle name as his own sister.  To eliminate the confusion of having
two women with the same names, he and his bride changed their name to
a combination.

Tom Gauldin, Raleigh NC
-NetMeeting   ils.four11.com,   Live Birdfeeder Action
ICQ 7022136     fax (919) 676-1404
ftp://ftp.mindspring.com/pub/users/scoundrl/home.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Here's to the land of the Longleaf Pine,
The Summerland, where the sun doth shine,
Where the weak grow strong, and the strong grow great,
Here's to Downhome, the Old North State.

Ken Denny wrote in message <359926B5.881@nortel.com>...

>You talked about whether she would take your name not before you
started
>dating? Excuse me, but that seems a bit premature to me. Suppose you
>hadn't discussed that particular issue before you started dating.
>Suppose you had dated and then after you asked her to marry you she
had
>said, "I will, except I don't want to be named Damick". Even if you
felt
>her reasons were frivolous, would you have broken up with her over
>something as trivial (IMO) as that?
>
I suspect that this is an artifact of a more mobile society.  In the
old days, you typically married someone you knew since childhood.
Heck, I've known my wife since kindergarten.  Her dad owned the lumber
yard, and my dad was one of his best customers.

I suspect strongly that if a study was done on divorce, that it would
show a correlation between the length of time a couple knew each other
prior to marriage and marital success.  The longer "courtship" period
gives both people time to recognize the plusses and minuses of the
other, their beliefs and how they react to different situations.

If I were in charge of the world, I would require that couples live
together for at least three years before being permitted to marry AND
that they live as married people for another three before being
permitted to have offspring.

Tom Gauldin, Raleigh NC
-NetMeeting   ils.four11.com,   Live Birdfeeder Action
ICQ 7022136     fax (919) 676-1404
ftp://ftp.mindspring.com/pub/users/scoundrl/home.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Here's to the land of the Longleaf Pine,
The Summerland, where the sun doth shine,
Where the weak grow strong, and the strong grow great,
Here's to Downhome, the Old North State.

Thomas Gauldin (scoundrl@mindspring.com) wrote:
: jeni grant wrote in message ...
: find out if they had a creative bent.
: >
: >Well, that's sorta what I meant. If I remember correctly, they are
: >combining last names (Barton and Dzuris) to come up with Bazuris.
: >

The good thing about this it will drive the white power rangers nuts
trying to decide if the name is Jewish or not.  :-)  I am for anything to
send them into distraction.

-- 
Wes Dukes
Help eliminate usenet constipation by pruning quoted text.  Thank you.

In triangle.general, Thomas Gauldin <scoundrl@mindspring.com> uttered forth:

: I suspect strongly that if a study was done on divorce, that it would
: show a correlation between the length of time a couple knew each other
: prior to marriage and marital success.  The longer "courtship" period
: gives both people time to recognize the plusses and minuses of the
: other, their beliefs and how they react to different situations.

I don't know about other religions, but in Wicca, a couple is supposed to 
live together for a year and a day before getting married. Always thought 
that that was a good idea -- make sure you can live with a person before 
you marry them.

-jeni-

-- 
jrgrant2ateosdotncsudotedu

i've been looking for a savior in these dirty streets / looking for a savior
underneath these dirty sheets / i've been raising up my hands / drive
another nail in / just what GOD needs / one more victim / --Tori Amos
                                                             [ jeni grant ]

East, are you trying to distract attention with your trival posts 
from Ga's real problems?
Ga schools are 49th in US, US schools on the bottom of world schools. 
Atlanta is the crime capital of the US, the civilized world,
Politicians and fat cats are breeding criminals and fornicating sluts 
in Atlanta that terrorize the area. 
Building more, more prisons is a downer. 
Vote for politicians who will give our young people a chance to make 
Ga the culture state of the union. We can compete with any state, not 
just the region. 
Do something!
proctors

There is nothing you can do!  Do you have 30-40 million dollars?  Only about
1% of the nation has that kind of money.  They are the ones who rule us.
Sure some of us vote, but who can we vote for....the ones with the money,
backed by money.  Do you think a political party is going to back someone
that will shut off the gravy train.  Absolutely not!  Look at our federal
government....they always vote down and squash campaign reform.  There was a
time when the federal government meant civic duty, but has now become a
professional career with the political "corporations" holding sway.

Bitch, moan and groan, and post messages all you want to.  The only thing
accomplished is a momentary release of frustration.  Nothing will change.
If you are lucky enough to live another 50 years compare then and
now....nothing will have improved.

proctors@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
<6ni0lu$6fh@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>
>Do something!
>proctors

Jim, you say nothing will change. Things have changed since I grew up 
in Ga. I was so proud of my home state, The Empire State of The 
South.
Why are Ga schools 49th in US, US schools on the bottom of world 
schools? Other southern schools are not much better.
Why is ATLANTA the crime capitaL OF THE US, THE CIVILIZED WORLD? 
Other southern cities are not far behind.
Our forefathers founded our once great country by braving the 
tommyhawks of savage indians to give us a christian nation. You say 
nothing will change. You can change things by standing up to those 
politicians, and pastors who have sold our beautiful state, and our 
youth to personal greed.
Do something. Learn the issues and vote!
proctors

Haven't you beat that old dead horse enough?
You people whistle while Rome burnes. Aren't there any, many, 
Georgians who care that our beautiful state is spiraling down with 
the other southern states so rapidly?
Our schools are on the bottom of world schools, our teens are on a 
treadmill of self destruction, Atlanta is the crime capital of the 
US, the civilized world with other southern cities not far behind.
Don't you care? If you are not the solution, you are the problem.
So I repeat myself but your minds are going in circles.
Learn the issues, the positions of politicians and VOTE
proctors

Jose, you live in a beautiful state where I spent many happy days.
On the Steffi Graf tour on the Romantic Road in Germany, I ran into 
the same problem. Our young couples, our most valuable assets, did 
not 'have time for politics.'I had my work cut out: "Evil comes in 
when good fails to act."
By the end of the tour, they were convinced they must return to their 
homes all over the US and vote.
A bonus for me, "You are our role model. We want to be like you."
You can make a difference. 
The young and young at heart must make a difference.
Vote those politicians out who don't put our interests before their 
greed.
proctors

More women are getting college degrees than men.
Brains, not brawn are important today. 
Ga young and young at heart women are going to turn things around by 
voting for politicians that will give us good schools, a safe, 
beautiful Atlanta and clean up our beautiful state. Why don't all 
young and young at heart southern women get busy?
proctors

proctors@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: More women are getting college degrees than men.
: Brains, not brawn are important today. 
: Ga young and young at heart women are going to turn things around by 
: voting for politicians that will give us good schools, a safe, 
: beautiful Atlanta and clean up our beautiful state. Why don't all 
: young and young at heart southern women get busy?
: proctors

Please remove triangle.general and nc.general from  your 
Newsgroups & Followup-To: headers, proctor.  This is getting old and is 
not relevant to tri.gen or nc.gen.
 
-- 
     | Chemically |  H A Z - M A T T  | Live! From ThighMaster Central! |
     | Engineered |     /_\ /_\       |           mwdamick@eos.ncsu.edu |    
     | For Your   |        O          |         mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu |
     | Protection |       /_\         | Better Living Through MR Fluids |

TarlaStar wrote:
> 
> mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew William Damick) wrote:
> 
> >[snip]
> 
{big old hairy snip, having to do with women keeping "birth name" or
taking husband's name at marriage}
> 
Just two quick points:

One, TarlaStar, although in some ways I agree with you, and you do make
some good points, there is one small thing you have forgotten.  Your
birth name was (in all likelihood) given to you by the man your mother
was married to (I am not saying "your father" simply to point out that
only the mother is always KNOWN, not that your mother's husband was not
your father), having given up her own "birth name", (you see the trend
here, I am sure).  Therefore, perhaps you should take on your mother's
"birth name", oops, there's that little problem again.  It's a long
chain you're bucking, but your heart is definitely in the right place. 
Maybe we should all go with made up names, or change to a matriarchal
structure, since there is, again, no doubt, ever, as to the mother. 
(and please, nobody get technical on adopted/abandoned babies)

Two, Demick, your mind is so obviously closed to any but your own
viewpoint that you are rather boring in your reiterations.  Maybe if you
tried looking outward and or forward, you would not have so much trouble
understanding (if not appreciating) other's opinions.  It is not so much
which opinion you hold that is ridiculous, but that you cannot sensibly
argue a point, but simply keep saying "that's the way it is".  Remember,
at one time, so was sleeping in a cave.

(btw, how did you make out on the seat up/seat down issue before that
first date?)

Leah Closson <puck@flash.net> wrote:

>TarlaStar wrote:
>> 
>> mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew William Damick) wrote:
>> 
>> >[snip]
>> 
>{big old hairy snip, having to do with women keeping "birth name" or
>taking husband's name at marriage}
>> 
>Just two quick points:

>One, TarlaStar, although in some ways I agree with you, and you do make
>some good points, there is one small thing you have forgotten.  Your
>birth name was (in all likelihood) given to you by the man your mother
>was married to (I am not saying "your father" simply to point out that
>only the mother is always KNOWN, not that your mother's husband was not
>your father), having given up her own "birth name", (you see the trend
>here, I am sure).  Therefore, perhaps you should take on your mother's
>"birth name", oops, there's that little problem again.  It's a long
>chain you're bucking, but your heart is definitely in the right place. 
>Maybe we should all go with made up names, or change to a matriarchal
>structure, since there is, again, no doubt, ever, as to the mother. 
>(and please, nobody get technical on adopted/abandoned babies)

It would make more sense for us to take our mother's names, but since
I already HAD a name when this subject came up, I thought I'd just
stick with was was there. I understand that it's a patronym but you
have to start somewhere.

Leah Closson (puck@flash.net) wrote:
: TarlaStar wrote:
: > 
: > mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew William Damick) wrote:
       ^                                      ^
: > >[snip]

: Two, Demick, your mind is so obviously closed to any but your own
       ^^^^^^
That's d-A-m-i-c-k (with an 'A', no 'e'; see above).  :)

: viewpoint that you are rather boring in your reiterations.  

This thread effectively died weeks ago.  Did you only now get to it or did 
your news server only now catch up?


: Maybe if you
: tried looking outward and or forward, you would not have so much trouble
: understanding (if not appreciating) other's opinions.  

If by appreciate you mean "be aware of," then trust me, I've got no 
problem there.  If you equate appreciate with respect, then no, I don't.  
All I have to do is accept the fact that others hold a differing 
viewpoint.  I don't have to appreciate=respect it.  As cold or heartless 
as it sounds, that's the long and the short of it.  I'm not on this 
planet to tolerate your viewpoint or Tarla's.  I'm also not here to give 
others (or myself) warm fuzzies in the course of discourse. It is 
entirely possible to have a discussion and not adopt another's view.  I 
think both Tarla and I recognized that we would not agree with the 
other, regardless of the words used. 

It's not for lack of understanding that I continued on w/ Tarla so much 
as it was a strong disagreement with her assessment of my motivations.  
She asserted absolutes (having to do with 'the  man's' motivations) 
which she:
  
1] Couldn't offer support for, except by restatement (if that's support)

2] Decided that the motivations dictated by her absolutes applies to 'all 
   men,' including myself.
 
3] Effectively told me I was blind, ignorant or lying b/c I was 
   maintaining a practise with all the intelligence of a lemming and that 
   there couldn't possibly be any other way of looking at it.
 
: It is not so much
: which opinion you hold that is ridiculous, but that you cannot sensibly
: argue a point, but simply keep saying "that's the way it is".  

For me, that -is- the way it is.  That's all the basis I need.  I 
don't hold beliefs contingent on others' validation of them as logical or 
sensible.  I don't assert beliefs for others' acceptance of me.   

There's a reason I went looking for a certain mate/spouse/wife-to-be:  I 
wanted someone who not only complimentd me, but faced things much the 
same way I would, believed as I did.  My way is not necessarily your way 
and obviously not Tarla's.  There's a very good reason why I didn't seek 
out someone like Tarla and she didn't look for someone like me:  
compatibility.  Some things are well worth sacrificing your claim to 
having it 'your' way.  Others never will be.  

What I want Tarla (and you) to recognize is that what my fiancee electing to 
take my name (and my obvious support and desire for that) entails and is 
predicated by is much much more than simple custom-maintenance.  Our 
decisions for keeping up with this custom stems from our personal 
deep-seated beliefs.  That you must accept.  You don't have to like it or 
respect it or tolerate it.  Nevertheless, that is my viewpoint/belief and 
that's the end of it.  Yeah, I would like everyone to hold my belief 
set.  Do I expect that will happen?  Not in a billion years.
  

: (btw, how did you make out on the seat up/seat down issue before that
: first date?)

My momma learned me right good.  I raise the seat to do my business and 
then promptly put in back down in consideration of a lady's convenience 
and comfort. :)

-- 
     | Chemically |  H A Z - M A T T  | Live! From ThighMaster Central! |
     | Engineered |     /_\ /_\       |           mwdamick@eos.ncsu.edu |    
     | For Your   |        O          |         mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu |
     | Protection |       /_\         | Better Living Through MR Fluids |