![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When we got married, I asked hub if he cared if I changed my last name to his or not. He did not. I asked him if he was willing to change his last name to mine, and he was not. So I figured if he didn't want to bother with it, I didn't either- we weren't planning to have kids so I couldn't really see any practical reason in it, and I'm lazy.
However, according to this article, that makes me a 'shrieking feminist' feigning insult by throwing hub's name back at him, and he puts up with it because he is 'brainwashed'. I don't truly love and admire my husband, and furthermore:
Now, I could understand the position that some women like the idea of taking their husband's name- yay for them. However, to imply that not doing it means you must not really love him or be attracted to him is a complete load of shit (as is the notion that it's important to the husband, for that matter). The author goes on to argue that if women were so strong, why are they so worried about something as trivial as clinging to their maiden name? If your name matters so little to your identity, then why the insistence to change it, and further that the woman always has to be the one to change it? Maybe the noble husbands described in the article have egos as fragile as the author accuses the wives of if they have to make her change her name. I don't even think of it as my 'maiden' name; I think of it as my name. My 'maiden' status did not change when I got married. Depending on how you look at it, it either changed when I was in high school or I'm still a 'maiden' today. So, I call bullshit!
Like I said, it's not that I think it's a useless custom no one should follow. But I have yet to hear a good reason for a couple to do it aside from "it's a nice tradition" which is totally a matter of opinion. This idiotic author can't accept that without painting the lazy such as myself as harpies who don't really love their husbands. Give me a break.
However, according to this article, that makes me a 'shrieking feminist' feigning insult by throwing hub's name back at him, and he puts up with it because he is 'brainwashed'. I don't truly love and admire my husband, and furthermore:
Women who choose not to take their husband's surname after marriage are not sexually attracted to them, and will likely be the one to initiate divorce.
When a woman feels metaphysically submissive to a man, when she admires all the masculine qualities he exhibits and deems him worthy of submitting to, sexually speaking, she will gladly become "his" and take his name. This is the essence of femininity.
If she doesn't feel this way, if she marries someone who doesn't sweep her off her feet romantically, she will likely stubbornly defend her "identity" and try to convince her husband that taking his name would somehow affront her selfhood. Aside from the obvious question - if you aren't totally in love with him, why did you marry him? - the issue raises serious doubts about the sincerity of those who advocate this new fad.
Now, I could understand the position that some women like the idea of taking their husband's name- yay for them. However, to imply that not doing it means you must not really love him or be attracted to him is a complete load of shit (as is the notion that it's important to the husband, for that matter). The author goes on to argue that if women were so strong, why are they so worried about something as trivial as clinging to their maiden name? If your name matters so little to your identity, then why the insistence to change it, and further that the woman always has to be the one to change it? Maybe the noble husbands described in the article have egos as fragile as the author accuses the wives of if they have to make her change her name. I don't even think of it as my 'maiden' name; I think of it as my name. My 'maiden' status did not change when I got married. Depending on how you look at it, it either changed when I was in high school or I'm still a 'maiden' today. So, I call bullshit!
Like I said, it's not that I think it's a useless custom no one should follow. But I have yet to hear a good reason for a couple to do it aside from "it's a nice tradition" which is totally a matter of opinion. This idiotic author can't accept that without painting the lazy such as myself as harpies who don't really love their husbands. Give me a break.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Aug. 15th, 2005 10:00 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: Aug. 15th, 2005 10:13 pm (UTC)From:I took my first husband's last name. Gee, didn't seem to help any ;P
it reminds me of a couple I used to be friends with. They decided that they would both use a hyphenated form of both last names, for the reason that the gal was a college professor and he was a nurse (again, that whole establishing careers and credential sort of thing)... she had no problems doing this, however... he had everyone and their mother asking him why in the world he was wanting to change his name; it wasn't like it was required or anything (!)
no subject
Date: Aug. 15th, 2005 10:43 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: Aug. 15th, 2005 10:46 pm (UTC)From:Everything a woman values most in life can be directly attributed to her husband's penis.
Bwahahahaha! OK, that's flat amusing.
no subject
Date: Aug. 16th, 2005 02:30 am (UTC)From:That comment alone flays open the underbelly of ignorance. Even in the realms of psychology it is known that names have a relevance to development.
no subject
Date: Aug. 16th, 2005 03:02 am (UTC)From:Also, if only charlatans think names are important, why is the author making such a song and dance about a woman taking her husband's name. Doesn't that make him a charlatan (as well as an idiot)?