IRONCHEF wrote:
FallenMorgan wrote:
IRONCHEF wrote:
You only take her name if you get married if you're into organized crime or something...or you don't wear the pants in the family.
Here's my question for you:
WHY do we assume that the man is the one who's so damn worthy of getting his name passed on? What if someone came from a long line of child abusing, wife beating assholes, and the woman's family is nice as hell? Personally I don't give a shit about family legacies and whatnot, and frankly, why do we think men who take the woman's last name are pussies or people who hate their families?
If a woman wants to take her partner's last name, it's just fucking fine, but not if a man wants to. My dad is crazy about all this shit - he has the idea in the back of his head that oneday I'll be a great, sickeningly traditional husband and father, which is pure bullshit.
Also, I disagree with the "wears the pants" phrase. It implies the traditional husband and wife roles and bullshit like that.
Yikes, just being a funny guy here. And for what it's worth, I'm not "traditionalist" like you're assuming I am. If it's a big deal to the woman, then you should discuss it, or otherwise just follow tradition. It IS assumed for many/most couples to just take the man's name, but doesn't have to be..and there's the sign that some couples fought over it with the advent of hyphenated names which shows how pathetic a couple is that they can't pick a last name...
THe "wears the pants" jibe was a joke denoting that the man lost the argument between which name to assume after marriage. I happen to be a geneologist and I appreciate the tradition of the man's name carrying on, and yes, people to consider familial legacies and the judeo-christian idea of "honoring your parent's" as commanded...which despite wide belief does not mean to obey their command, but bring honor to them and their name by your own actions with that name...or so say the scholars who know the old languages.
Oh my god I feel like one of those women who sue for sexual harrassment over a boob joke someone told at her office, oh god, I'm sorry.
There was a good reason why he took her last name. She came from a family with no boys, and she wanted her father's name to go on, and the guy had a bad relationship with his father, so it would be silly for him to want to continue his family name. I just really wonder though, what are the logical reasons for the man's last name automatically passing on?
It comes from an idea that women are the lesser partners in a relationship, and must be "branded" with her husband's name to signify that she is no longer a member of her family, but a member of HIS family, although it may not be the case now. It just looks that way to me, when a couple's female child doesn't have their surname, because she got married. I personally don't care about the family legacy stuff, but I can see a problem when a couple has only girls: the main branch of a family's name will simply die out if they stick to traditional crap.
Even if two people aren't married, when they have a baby, IF they do, they normally give the child his or her father's surname. Bullcrap. And even if a family has two girls and two boys, that is NO excuse for a girl's last name being thrown out the window.
