[TheSlayer]

Second such article recently. First the jezebel article written by a man saying how men should take it up the ass and this one is also written by a man arguing that men should consider changing their names when they get married.

The "man" in question is:

Quote:

William MacAskill- William MacAskill (formerly William Crouch) is an ethicist at Oxford and Princeton. He is the founder and president of 80,000 Hours, an ethical careers advisory service.

Quote:

But why should that mean that the woman takes the man's name in heterosexual marriages? Why should the man not take the woman's name or, as my fiancée and I have chosen to do, both choose a new name? (We've gone with "MacAskill", her maternal grandmother's maiden name. When I tell people I'm changing my name, I've met raised eyebrows, confusion, or aggressive questioning. No one's batted an eyelid when she's told others the same.)

Quote:

As with so many gender-biased traditions, this one has pretty disturbing roots.

Link to the article: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive...ed/273718/

Some girl posted this on her facebook and had many men and women agreeing with her.

I think this is the new reality where instead of feminists and women pressuring men, it is men who are encouraging other men to turn-in their 'man' card.

[Aliblahba]

My favorite comment so far:

Quote:

While we are at it, lets get rid of the antiquated notion of men buying engagement rings (which is clearly just "good faith money/skin in the game" leftover from an environment of female economic dependence). Why on earth men are expected to buy women rings (when everyone has loan debt and when, in the younger generation, women outearn men) bears some explaining. What are men buying?

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive...ed/273718/

[Soma]

But why should that mean that the woman takes the man's anal penetration in heterosexual marriages? Why should the man not take the woman's dildo anally or, as my fiancée and I have chosen to do, both anally penetrate each other? (When I tell people I'm getting pegged, I've met raised eyebrows, confusion, or aggressive questioning. No one's batted an eyelid when she's told others the same.)

As with so many gender-biased traditions, this one has pretty disturbing roots.

[Hades]

I hope his granddad rises from the grave and slaps him upside the head.

[GameTheory]

is this Beta?

[TheSlayer]

(03-05-2013 05:15 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

My favorite comment so far:

Quote:

While we are at it, lets get rid of the antiquated notion of men buying engagement rings (which is clearly just "good faith money/skin in the game" leftover from an environment of female economic dependence). Why on earth men are expected to buy women rings (when everyone has loan debt and when, in the younger generation, women outearn men) bears some explaining. What are men buying?

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive...ed/273718/

The best rated comments are against the article but support both men and women keeping their names or both hyphenating their last names.

[Roosh]

So he changed his last name to that of another man (her dad). Whoo that's really fighting the patriarchy.

[Lemmo]

On the bright side, this just makes it easier for me to put people in the sub-human category. When I come across a "man" who has changed his last name, I know to avoid contact with him, his wife, his friends, etc.

[Excelsior]

Quote:

Men Should Consider Changing Their Last Names When They Get Married

[Alpha Hunter Zero]

Correct me if Im wrong but biblically speaking didn't God make man in HIS image? Wasn't a woman made from a man's ribs? Wasn't man made to be the stronger vessel? In society isn't a man regarded as the breadwinner and leader of the household? In order to reproduce doesn't a man have to drill a woman's pussy with his cock like a jackhammer in order to deposit his sperm? In relationships is it not the man who risks rejection and humiliation when making the first move 99% of the time? The list goes on but if we as men have to have all this burden and responsibility then the least a woman can do is change her last name during marriage. Just saying....

[kenny_powers]

The man can take his wifes last name under these conditions :

1. No need to spend 3 months salary on a ring. No ring needed.
2. Wife is the primary wage earner - better yet, man stays at home
3. No prenup
4. In case of divorce man gets half of the wifes money, the house, plus alimony payments
5. After divorce, man changes his name back.

Do any women agree to these terms?

[Matt3B]

There's an Austrian woman at work who has kept her father's name instead of her husband's. She was complaining some time last month about having to spend a fair bit of money on sorting documents out about keeping her name but changing her marital status.

I asked her why she hasn't taken her husband's name, that it would've saved her a lot of agro, and was met purely with "it's my choice and he agreed, that I just don't want to change my name. It's what I'm known as" and I asked her what the point of getting married was if she's not taken her husband's name. Was I met with a logical reasoning? Of course not. She told me with the majority around me agreeing with her that "things are different these days" and to "get used to it".

"Why should I have to change it?"

I said it's a tradition that goes back hundreds, if not thousands, of years and what makes people think that for all that time it was wrong. No logical answer.

Funnily enough the only woman that agreed with my point of view is happily engaged to an alpha male and has even taken his surname when they're not due to get married until next November.

[Lemmo]

(03-05-2013 07:59 PM)MattC Wrote:  

There's an Austrian woman at work who has kept her father's name instead of her husband's. She was complaining some time last month about having to spend a fair bit of money on sorting documents out about keeping her name but changing her marital status.

I asked her why she hasn't taken her husband's name, that it would've saved her a lot of agro, and was met purely with "it's my choice and he agreed, that I just don't want to change my name. It's what I'm known as" and I asked her what the point of getting married was if she's not taken her husband's name. Was I met with a logical reasoning? Of course not. She told me with the majority around me agreeing with her that "things are different these days" and to "get used to it".

"Why should I have to change it?"

I said it's a tradition that goes back hundreds, if not thousands, of years and what makes people think that for all that time it was wrong. No logical answer.

Funnily enough the only woman that agreed with my point of view is happily engaged to an alpha male and has even taken his surname when they're not due to get married until next November.

Yeah, things are different these days. Marriage is becoming more laughably one-sided in favor of women and as a result fewer men are going to make such a stupid decision to get married. The result will be that fewer women like her will have to bother worrying about changing their name since no sap will offer to marry them. At this stage, the more of an obvious joke marriage becomes, the better. More men will be warned.

[Sailor]

It seems things are really changing...many young women i worked with here and in Uruguay did not want to take their husbands names.In Brasil this tradition has been criticized lately,but also,nobody expects a man to take his wife's name even if it is legally possible since years ago

[kbell]

Hyphenated names already piss me off. This is even worse.

[Kickb]

I'll consider it for 2 seconds before I dragon whip her in the face

[Sailor]

(03-05-2013 08:08 PM)kbell Wrote:  

Hyphenated names already piss me off. This is even worse.

Here in South America everybody has at least a double name

[TheSlayer]

(03-05-2013 07:38 PM)kenny_powers Wrote:  

The man can take his wifes last name under these conditions :

1. No need to spend 3 months salary on a ring. No ring needed.
2. Wife is the primary wage earner - better yet, man stays at home
3. No prenup
4. In case of divorce man gets half of the wifes money, the house, plus alimony payments
5. After divorce, man changes his name back.

Do any women agree to these terms?

Agreed. On top of that most women still expect the man to go down on one knee to "propose" to them. How come that's a tradition that's still acceptable?

[mental]

This reminds me of Roissy's Beta of the Year award where the husband actually fought the legal system so he could take his wife's last name!

[Kitsune]

If I ever get married, my wife-to-be will take my last name.

"But honey, I don't like the idea of changing my name after all these years."
"Oh, that's funny, because I don't like the idea of changing my marital status after all these years."

Ultimately, a woman's demands can always be one-upped because otherwise you simply don't give her anything she wants.

[Hades]

I'm not playing devil's advocate because I still think this is stupid, but I have heard of one exceptional case where I'd at least let the wife keep her name. I think it's a pretty cool story.

This one dude who used to work at my college took his wife's last name because she was the last in a very long line of Lithuanians/Germans who used to be emissaries of Peter the Great and greater dukes besides. They have a pretty fascinating and fairly well documented history going back about seven hundred years, where they used to be pagan tribesmen and they'd raid villages. His father-in-law is this gigantic gray-bearded Gandalf-looking dude who was born just before WWII ended and speaks about five languages. He moved from post WWII Germany at about fifteen years old, and he's been in the States long enough to have picked up a pretty good American accent. What I thought was most interesting is that from what I understand about the father-in-laws stories is that his patrilineal history only has like three generations between now and the 1700s because his forefathers had kids well into their 70s.
His daughter and son-in-law did a search for quite some time for other family members who might have continued the patrilineal bloodline but turned up nobody, as they likely fought and died for the Nazis.
The husband's last name was Smith.

[Lemmo]

(03-06-2013 04:00 AM)Hades Wrote:  

I'm not playing devil's advocate because I still think this is stupid, but I have heard of one exceptional case where I'd at least let the wife keep her name. I think it's a pretty cool story.

This one dude who used to work at my college took his wife's last name because she was the last in a very long line of Lithuanians/Germans who used to be emissaries of Peter the Great and greater dukes besides. They have a pretty fascinating and fairly well documented history going back about seven hundred years, where they used to be pagan tribesmen and they'd raid villages. His father-in-law is this gigantic gray-bearded Gandalf-looking dude who was born just before WWII ended and speaks about five languages. He moved from post WWII Germany at about fifteen years old, and he's been in the States long enough to have picked up a pretty good American accent. His daughter and son-in-law did a search for quite some time for other family members who might have continued the patrilineal bloodline but turned up nobody, as they likely fought and died for the Nazis.
The husband's last name was Smith.

But it seems kind of pointless unless they give the wife's name to the kids.

[Hades]

(03-06-2013 04:04 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

But it seems kind of pointless unless they give the wife's name to the kids.

True, and from what I understand that was the agreement. Unfortunately I heard they divorced about eight months ago and had no kids. Kind of a shame.

[Hooligan Harry]

(03-05-2013 07:59 PM)MattC Wrote:  

There's an Austrian woman at work who has kept her father's name instead of her husband's. She was complaining some time last month about having to spend a fair bit of money on sorting documents out about keeping her name but changing her marital status.

I asked her why she hasn't taken her husband's name, that it would've saved her a lot of agro, and was met purely with "it's my choice and he agreed, that I just don't want to change my name. It's what I'm known as" and I asked her what the point of getting married was if she's not taken her husband's name. Was I met with a logical reasoning? Of course not. She told me with the majority around me agreeing with her that "things are different these days" and to "get used to it".

"Why should I have to change it?"

I said it's a tradition that goes back hundreds, if not thousands, of years and what makes people think that for all that time it was wrong. No logical answer.

Funnily enough the only woman that agreed with my point of view is happily engaged to an alpha male and has even taken his surname when they're not due to get married until next November.

The wife took the husbands name because he essentially "owned" the family and was responsible for its care and safety, including all the family contracts. The marriage contract was between a husband and her father where he agreed to care for her, while she would provide him with children of his own. In the event of divorce, the children would remain in his care. It was a legal requirement for wills, property, etc. Your name was a major, major thing legally.

Its used to be a contract, nothing romantic about it. Women had to take the mans name as a result of a mans liability to her.

[Celtic]

It's amazing with feminists and marriage. You'd think marriage would be a good enough deal for women. It starts with the man expected to shell out thousands on an engagement ring and her parents funding the wedding, with her expected to contribute nothing. She gets the right to any kids from the marriage, half of your assets, and permanent income support for you. In return, she doesn't give up anything- She can walk away at any time not only without penalty but be rewarded for doing so.

You'd think they could leave this well alone, but no, they want to do everything they can to make marriage humiliating for the man.