[rhino]

"DEAR ABBY: I'm thinking about marrying my longtime boyfriend, but I'm hesitant because he wants me to change my last name. I want to keep my maiden name as my mother did. Most of the women I look up to in my life kept their names.

My boyfriend says my wanting to keep my name tells him I am not committed. He says he'd be really hurt if I did it. I feel that retaining my name is the ultimate in female empowerment. The tradition of women changing their last name goes back to when we were treated as property and not educated. What do you think I should do?

-- FEMALE FIRST, WIFE SECOND"

[deuce]

(01-20-2014 11:46 AM)rhino Wrote:  

Most of the women I look up to in my life kept their names.

The flag, it is red!

[rhino]

Also, the issue of wife adding her husband's last name to her existing one is no compromise either because according to some hyphenation is also a direct "f*ck you” to a man’s masculinity… because it elevates his father-in-law’s manhood over his own."

But this question is passe these days as the culture doesn't rest in place. With all the pussyfication, emasculation and hipsterization in America the pendulum has probably gone the other way, and in no time it will be lesser men who'll need to change their last names to accommodate their wives' wishes. I'm seeing it already happen. And it's the worst sight to see.

[Glock]

He is nuts if he marries her.

[Akula]

(01-20-2014 12:06 PM)rhino Wrote:  

Also, the issue of wife adding her husband's last name to her existing one is no compromise either because according to some hyphenation is also a direct "f*ck you” to a man’s masculinity… because it elevates his father-in-law’s manhood over his own."

But this question is passe these days as the culture doesn't rest in place. With all the pussyfication, emasculation and hipsterization in America the pendulum has probably gone the other way, and in no time it will be lesser men who'll need to change their last names to accommodate their wives' wishes. I'm seeing it already happen. And it's the worst sight to see.

Friend of mine actually did this. His mother was appalled as was I. No wonder we're not really in touch anymore.

[RockHard]

(01-20-2014 12:06 PM)Consul Wrote:  

He is nuts if he marries her.

^ That. I used to think it wasn't a big deal, but experience has shown otherwise. The name change is a big deal.

Also, he's nuts if he marries a chick who actually writes to Dear Abby.

[rastignac]

(01-20-2014 12:06 PM)rhino Wrote:  

With all the pussyfication, emasculation and hipsterization in America the pendulum has probably gone the other way, and in no time it will be lesser men who'll need to change their last names to accommodate their wives' wishes. I'm seeing it already happen. And it's the worst sight to see.

The formula is simple, in America the women are the men and the men are the woman. All trends go in that direction.

If more men, push against hyphenated naming, allowing women to retain their father's last name and now taking the wife's father's name, it would be a tangible statement. Maybe the return of the patriarchal name to establish the new family is the first battle.

The point made about the fiance's name: that it is actually her father's name is a one that is usually not brought up. For a woman to retain the last name she got from her father seems... patriarchal. To take your husband's name is declaration of independence from the patriarchy of the family you were born into and the establishment of a new household.

My ex kept her last name. She remained in the orbit of her father's family. I didn't understand the importance of that early battle. It set a psychological precedent.

[Private Man]

Look at it this way, she's likely keeping her father's name.

I'll bet she doesn't see it that way.

[Haig]

Hey, that is a definite red flag for me also she doesn't seem that interested in marrying him

"I'm thinking about marrying my long term boyfriend" not "I'm wanting to marry my long term boyfriend".

Women always benefit more from marriage and it's referred to her big day, not their big day etc so she is wanting it all her own way without compromising with her boyfriend.

Men have no business getting married in this current climate. far too dangerous.

[rastignac]

"Female first, wife second" is am interesting formula. We should play with it.

To get married means, "spouse first, individual second". Spouse means you are giving up your interest to the interest of the married union. That is why you lose half of the fruits of your labor when you are a spouse after the termination of the union. It does not matter who made the money or who spent the money.

It also means, "spouse first, individual second" for an extended period beyond the contract. If the union is dissolved (divorce) your spouse is still are entitled to a share of the fruits of your labor (alimony) potentially for life. In the case of children it means giving up the right to manage the family unit (finances, life decisions) but continuing to have an obligation to support financially.

Back to the formula, a man going into a marriage saying I am "a man first and a husband second" is delusional given the current legal framework. He would be attacked far and wide for not manning up. The truth is he is before the law a husband first and a man second... even after a divorce where he will be in many repsects a divorcee first and a man second. (I was shocked that all forms insisted that my marital status was now "divorced" and not "single": "divorcee first, man second."

But being a husband does not really give a man any rights. He has no right to sexual relations with his wife, no right to have children with his wife. She is an individual and can do what she wants. He has no right to demand sexual exclusivity. Every right a man acquired by being a husband historically has been eliminated in recent history. Want children: you need to negotiate it with your spouse. Want sex: you need to negotiate it with your spouse.

Only a woman who takes on no obligations by getting married could envision being "a woman first and a wife second" and tout it... because - as long as she is marrying up - she is giving up nothing except nominally the opportunity cost of not having or searching for a richer husband. Of course in fact, she can look on the sly while she is in her starter marriage.

If men were able to secure wives who made more money than they did, they would arguable gain the same benefits. Of course women seem less inclined to marry dow than men. In this they are smarter. If men are the new women in America, they would be well served to use their sexual capital to only marry up. Are you handsome and 24, marry a rich older career woman (who wants a boy toy) as you are getting established. Start cheating on her after you get bored. At a legally and financially optimal time, dump her. Basically the current structures encourage the "worst" behaviors of the past, with the genders simply being reversed.

Men giving a woman their name should be considered a gift.

Getting married? The issue of your wife taking your name... consider it your first "relationship game" test.

[Suits]

(01-20-2014 12:49 PM)rastignac Wrote:  

"Female first, wife second" is am interesting formula. We should play with it.

To get married means, "spouse first, individual second". Spouse means you are giving up your interest to the interest of the married union. That is why you lose half of the fruits of your labor when you are a spouse after the termination of the union. It does not matter who made the money or who spent the money.

It also means, "spouse first, individual second" for an extended period beyond the contract. If the union is dissolved (divorce) your spouse is still are entitled to a share of the fruits of your labor (alimony) potentially for life. In the case of children it means giving up the right to manage the family unit (finances, life decisions) but continuing to have an obligation to support financially.

Back to the formula, a man going into a marriage saying I am "a man first and a husband second" is delusional given the current legal framework. He would be attacked far and wide for not manning up. The truth is he is before the law a husband first and a man second... even after a divorce where he will be in many repsects a divorcee first and a man second. (I was shocked that all forms insisted that my marital status was now "divorced" and not "single": "divorcee first, man second."

But being a husband does not really give a man any rights. He has no right to sexual relations with his wife, no right to have children with his wife. She is an individual and can do what she wants. He has no right to demand sexual exclusivity. Every right a man acquired by being a husband historically has been eliminated in recent history. Want children: you need to negotiate it with your spouse. Want sex: you need to negotiate it with your spouse.

Only a woman who takes on no obligations by getting married could envision being "a woman first and a wife second" and tout it... because - as long as she is marrying up - she is giving up nothing except nominally the opportunity cost of not having or searching for a richer husband. Of course in fact, she can look on the sly while she is in her starter marriage.

If men were able to secure wives who made more money than they did, they would arguable gain the same benefits. Of course women seem less inclined to marry dow than men. In this they are smarter. If men are the new women in America, they would be well served to use their sexual capital to only marry up. Are you handsome and 24, marry a rich older career woman (who wants a boy toy) as you are getting established. Start cheating on her after you get bored. At a legally and financially optimal time, dump her. Basically the current structures encourage the "worst" behaviors of the past, with the genders simply being reversed.

Men giving a woman their name should be considered a gift.

Getting married? The issue of your wife taking your name... consider it your first "relationship game" test.

Ya, what modern women keep forgetting (thanks to the numerous forces fueling their fantasies about being eternally special and desirable) is that a man marrying them is a matter of him committing a significant act of submission.

There are significant advantages to staying single for a man. Other men (who aren't completely blue-pill brainwashed) will regard him enviously as a free eagle and those who lack the world's most amazing wife (does she even exist) will quietly yearn for his freedom.

For women, not getting married at a comparable age to her peers is a huge step down and the proper way to reward a husband for his act of submission is to respond with submission.

Anything that a woman can give a man in the context of a marriage are things that he wouldn't even need outside of a marriage, except perhaps regular sexual servicing.

[EisenBarde]

Poor bastard.

If I were to marry, this would be non-negotiable, with the one exception of her being some sort of published professional.

All the lamest people I've met have hyphenated names, I distrust them.

[Saga]

Quote:

The tradition of women changing their last name goes back to when we were treated as property and not educated.

Imbecilic drivel...but it's nothing surprising, feminists are uniformly benighted when it comes to basic historical knowledge. In reality, upper-class women have been educated since the time of the Pharaohs at least, and the overwhelming majority of men who've ever lived have never gotten within shouting distance of an education. I suppose "the ultimate in female empowerment" doesn't include opening up a book.

(01-20-2014 12:09 PM)Akula Wrote:  

Friend of mine actually did this. His mother was appalled as was I. No wonder we're not really in touch anymore.

Yeah, that's pretty awful. I'd probably react the same way.

[CaliforniaSupreme]

I'd only allow this if I get married to another doctor or something, to avoid confusing mail and stuff lol.
Bullshit in any other situation.

[Suits]

Solution: Don't get married.

[Tuthmosis]

I remember having this conversation, in a hypothetical sense, with an ex once. It went something like this:

Tuthmosis: ...well, if we were to get married, you would take my name, right?

Girl: No. Well, yes. I would take it unofficially. I would use it in my email and among my friends and at work and stuff, but I wouldn't change my license or paperwork. That's a pain in the ass--and expensive.

Tuthmosis: Yeah, me too. I would marry you unofficially. I would tell my friends and stuff that we were married, but I wouldn't go through all that paperwork. I agree: what a pain in the ass! If you want, we can get "married" this instant [pointing at the sidewalk].

It was one of the greatest shut-the-fuck-up moments of my life.

[atahualpa]

Yea this is huge red flag. It says everything about how a marriage will go.

My favorite response to this sort of thing: "So why take your dad's name, why not use your mom's?" Ends the conversation every time. And is very revealing. It's all about daddy (in a lot of cases), not about empowerment or equality or whatever the hell they claim. It is about remaining daddy's girl, and not giving the husband the same kind of respect.

But really if you even need to say anything then you should not marry. Even if you convince her to take your name, this is indicative of how everything will go that involves her showing respect to you as a man. You will have to keep 'convincing' her to respect you for the rest of your life.

[rastignac]

Could it be that much of feminism is simply the glorification of the patriarchal father daughter relation? Is a single daddy's girl making her way independently in the world without a man (besides her father) actually an extension of "patriarchy"? Daddy pays for education, helps out with rent, buys her a car to get started?

Is a women refusing to change her name actually submission to the existing "patriarchy"? To the support the "patriarchy" has given her?

We should refer to a woman's "maiden" name - which is their father's name - as their patriarchal name.

[teh_skeeze]

(01-20-2014 02:44 PM)rastignac Wrote:  

Could it be that much of feminism is simply the glorification of the patriarchal father daughter relation? Is a single daddy's girl making her way independently in the world without a man (besides her father) actually an extension of "patriarchy"? Daddy pays for education, helps out with rent, buys her a car to get started?

Is a women refusing to change her name actually submission to the existing "patriarchy"? To the support the "patriarchy" has given her?

We should refer to a woman's "maiden" name - which is their father's name - as their patriarchal name.

Nice thought, but in my experience, feminists have daddy issues. Usually absent, sometimes abusive.

[atahualpa]

(01-20-2014 05:35 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

Nice thought, but in my experience, feminists have daddy issues. Usually absent, sometimes abusive.

Alas, the last name problem is ubiquitous, it is an issue even with non-feminists and FINOs and cafeteria feminists.

Many of the serious feminists I've encountered are from intact families where daddy tried to empower them, an extension of being daddy's little princess.

[StrikeBack]

Quote:

The tradition of women changing their last name goes back to when we were treated as property and not educated.

So is the tradition of women keeping their last names e.g the ancient Chinese. It's because of polygamy, so people could differentiate between the various wives. Couldn't call all 5 of them Mrs Liu (instead, they are Lady X, Lady Y, Lady Z etc.), and then the extra 7 concubines only added to the confusion...

And having no last name? That was for slaves who were... treated as property and not educated.

Feminist bitches stuck between a rock and a hard place on this lol

[Bad Hussar]

(01-20-2014 02:44 PM)rastignac Wrote:  

Could it be that much of feminism is simply the glorification of the patriarchal father daughter relation? Is a single daddy's girl making her way independently in the world without a man (besides her father) actually an extension of "patriarchy"? Daddy pays for education, helps out with rent, buys her a car to get started?

Is a women refusing to change her name actually submission to the existing "patriarchy"? To the support the "patriarchy" has given her?

We should refer to a woman's "maiden" name - which is their father's name - as their patriarchal name.

That's an interesting angle. We all know younger women who claim to be "independent", but daddy is paying the bills, so are nothing of the sort. Or in some cases in a limited number of true "welfare states", the population at large is paying her bills.

I suppose for a woman getting married could be viewed as moving from one daddy to a new one. Like you say, women with certain issues may have a hard time making the shift. It is a (very) rare woman indeed who doesn't have some "daddy" in the picture. Even if said daddy is just the state providing her with welfare level subsistence...

As for changing names. Outside of an extremely limited number true professional women who have built high-flying careers as high powered lawyers and so on under their birth name there isn't much reason for a woman to object. If she objects the man (if it is important to him) should object to the marriage at all.

[The Beast1]

This is a metric by which to marry a girl. I've said it to a few women that if my girlfriend wouldn't take my last name I would call off the engagement.

It's a number 1 thing on my list and the ULTIMATE shit test to perform on your girl. There is only one right answer and that is, "I will take your last name and be PROUD of it!"

[Glock]

The following point has been made in part above, but it deserves further mention: there is no way for a woman to avoid taking a man's last name. Women who keep "my" last name are in reality keeping the name of their father -- a man.

By keeping her father's name and rejecting her husband's, she is merely prioritizing her blood relationship with one man (her father) over her marital relationship with a different man (her husband).

What does it say about feminists that they would be willing to keep the name of their father but not their husband? In my view, it shows their misgivings about the institution of marriage, rather than demonstrating any real "independence" from men.

[Veloce]

(01-20-2014 01:27 PM)EisenBarde Wrote:  

Poor bastard.

Nah, he's a pussy and going about it the wrong way.

Her quote, "...he'd be really hurt if I kept my name"

The way to approach this situation is to tell your girl, "I'm a man in my prime, and I'm making a sacrifice by hitching up with you. If you want to live under MY roof and reap the benefits of being with me, then both you and our children are going to take my name."

Boom. Simple. If she refuses, move on. There are more than enough women in this world that respond positively to dominant men.

You guys getting into this thing of, "Well if she's keeping her name it's still the name of a man so it's illogical", it doesn't apply. That's logic, remember?

Women never stop with the shit tests and this is one of them. The guy was dead in the water before she even sent this letter to Dear Abbey. You guys are on here talking about what a cunt this chick is but it's men that are allowing them to behave this way.