# losing your identity



## weird

Hola, esto es algo que no puedo entender.

¿Por qué en algunos paises la mujer pierde su apellido al casarse y adopta legalmente el del marido?

¿Cómo puede ocurrir esto es países tan desarrollados como EEUU?

¿No sufren las mujeres una pérdida de identidad?

Mi profesora de inglés no quería decirme su apellido de soltera.

Si después de casarme hubiera tenido que utilizar el apellido de mi marido, me habría sentido que formaba parte de las propiedades él.

¿Podéis explicarmelo?    Muchas Gracias.

Saludos confusos.


----------



## Artrella

Gracias a Dios, en ARgentina yo sigo teniendo mi apellido.  Y eso figura en mi matrícula profesional y en todos los documentos legales.  Ni siquiera en mi matrícula puse " XXX de ZZ".  Yo soy mía, no " de ZZ".  Bueno, en caso de una herencia... podría ser no?
Yo tampoco entiendo como en países como USA o Irlanda las mujeres pierden su apellido.  Es bastante raro.


----------



## belén

Weird, creo que esta pregunta es interesante pero que si la ponemos en inglés tendrá más posibilidades de que los posibles "implicadas" puedan darnos su opinión  También he cambiado un poquito el título para que cupiera en ambas lenguas. 
Así que aquí va mi traducción, sorry about the mistakes:



			
				weird said:
			
		

> Hi, this is something I can't understand.
> 
> Why in some countries the woman loses her last name when she marries and she legally adopts her husband's?
> 
> How can this happen in countries as developed as the United States?
> 
> Don't these women suffer a lost of identity?
> 
> My English teacher didn't want to tell me her single's last name.
> 
> If after I got married I would have had to use my husband's last name, I would have felt as I were another of his properties.
> 
> Can somebody explain it to me? Thank you very much.
> 
> Confused greetings


----------



## VenusEnvy

Weird: Muchas mujeres son de acuerdos contigo. Por eso, ellas no cambien sus apellidos. No es necesario, es decir que no es un ley. Pero, sí, es una tradición. Y, aunque EEUU es una pais tan desarrollado, todavia existe ideas y opiniones muy anticuados. Espero que me entiende . . . .  El piensemento es que es un signo de respecto (cuando le mujer deja su apellido). Unos piensen que ellas deberían sentir orgullosa para acquirir el nombre de su marido. Es la opinion de alguna gente. Al mismo tiempo, en eses dias, lo mayoria de las camareras, enfermeras, y maestras son mujeres. Estas tradiciones son dificilies para romper, por desgracia. 
Pero, lo bueno es que hay mujeres que no hacen eso. Hasta he oído de los hombres que dejan sus apellidos y toman los que sus mujeres (Pero, es muchísima raro). ¿Qué piensan los demás?

Weird: Many women agree with you. That's why, some women don't change their last names. It's not necessary, that is to say, that it isn't a law. But, it is a tradition. Although the United States is such a developed country, dated ideas and opinions still exist. I hope you understand what I'm saying. The idea is that it's a sign of respect (when the woman gives up her last name). Some think that women should feel proud to acquire their husband's last name. This is the opinion of some people. But, at the same time, these days, many of the waitresses, nurses, and teachers are women. These traditions are hard to break, unfortunately.
But, the good thing is that there are many women who don't do this. I have even heard of some men taking the last name of their wives (However, this is VERY rare).  What do others think?


----------



## VenusEnvy

Belen: the translation for "apellido de soltera" is maiden name.


----------



## VenusEnvy

weird said:
			
		

> Si después de casarme hubiera tenido que utilizar el apellido de mi marido, me habría sentido que formaba parte de las propiedades él.



Esto es triste, pero cierto. Es algo que mujeres aquí tienen que tolerar. Así es.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Camaradas, 





> ¿Cómo puede ocurrir esto es países tan desarrollados como EEUU?



La pregunta implica que EEUU es un país desarrollado en todos los sentidos, y no lo es.

Os voy a contestar en mi idioma, porque si no, tardaría muchas horas en explicar mi perspectiva...

It is custom and neither more nor less than custom. The good news is that in recent decades the custom is beginning to crack and crumble. Until the 1960s, most people never even noticed that there might be anything wrong with a woman's loss, not of *her* identity, but of her parents' last name, which was, in fact, only her father's last name. 

That was how it had always been. It was not questioned. Beginning in the late 1960s, and continuing until today, a growing number of women choose to keep their own last names. That is, they keep, in most cases, their fathers' last names. It may be a generation or more before a woman chooses to keep either her mother's last name, her father's, or both.

A large number of younger women are now aware that they have a choice, and many choose not to relinquish their own names. I expect this trend will continue, until a majority of women do not adopt the name of their spouse.

I am surprised that the majority of women in this country have not yet decided to keep their names when they marry. Personally, I just don't 'get it'.

Here is a more vexatious cultural question: Assuming that some day soon most women will not relinquish their names, what will the children be called? If they are to keep both parents' last names, as my sons do, then what will the subsequent generation do?

Example: John Branch and Elizabeth Steeple marry. Their offspring are named Edward Branch Steeple and Doris Branch Steeple.

Doris Branch Steeple marries the son of Marylin Stone and Nick Cooper, Robert Stone Cooper. They have a child, the grandson of John and Elizabeth and Marylin and Nick.

With total respect for the names of all four grandparents, what should the child use for a last name or names? We have no cultural precedents for this. 

Your advice will be helpful, as my sons have two last names, one belonging to their maternal grandfather and their mother, the other from my father and me. Should they wed women from similarly enlightened or confused parents, the naming conventions suggest the loss of between two and three of the last names when my first grandchild may appear!

Abrazos,
Cuchu


----------



## belén

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Belen: the translation for "apellido de soltera" is maiden name.




Thank you ! I was going crazy with that! I knew my translation was totally wrong but I couldn't remember the right one...


----------



## cuchuflete

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Esto es triste, pero cierto. Es algo que mujeres aquí tienen que tolerar. Así es.


Hola Venus,
No hace falta aguantar esta situación.  Se puede seguir con el mismo apellido.  Mi mujer lo hacía conmigo y con su segundo esposo.

abrazos,
Cuchu


----------



## VenusEnvy

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hola Venus,
> No hace falta aguantar esta situación.  Se puede seguir con el mismo apellido.  Mi mujer lo hacía conmigo y con su segundo esposo.



I'm sorry, I tend to get carried away with such issues. I wasn't necessarily commenting on women keeping or changing their names, but more on feeling like property, or owned. 

Pardons.


----------



## Philippa

Hi weird!
¡Qué tema interesante! En Gran Bretaña (por lo que sé) muchas mujeres usan su apellido de soltera en sus trabajos/vidas profesionales porque si son muy conocidas por un nombre no sería fácil cambiarlo.

All my married (female) friends appear to have changed their surnames in all areas to their husbands' names. As for my feelings about it, when I got married I felt the surname change was part of the fun of being called Mrs rather than Miss and just all part of the commitment-when-you're-getting-married thing. I have never thought of it as becoming part of my husband's property in any way! Plus I swapped an annoying surname for a slightly better one!!

Weird, si quieres, intentaré traducirlo...
Saluditos
Philippa


----------



## Everness

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I tend to get carried away with such issues. I wasn't necessarily commenting on women keeping or changing their names, but more on feeling like property, or owned.
> 
> Pardons.



A biblical spin to your comment. Just bear in mind that this was written 2,000 years ago when women didn't feel like property: they were property! 

*1 Corinthians 7 (NIV)
*

*Marriage *

    1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of selfcontrol. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.



In keeping with your post Everness, I would like to add parts of an essay I had to do for English Literature last year which dealt with Courtly Love.

Siguiendo con la temática de tu post Everness, me gustaría agregar partes de un ensayo que tuve que hacer el año pasado para Literatura Inglesa, el cual trataba del Courtly Love

_To the Church, love between spouses is possible and thus it encourages husbands to love their wives as "Christ loved his Church".  Nevertheless it is worth mentioning that "the love" fostered by the Church goes hand in hand with male mastery(of course! it is like this nowadays, imagine in those times!). Consequently, wives should submit themselves to their husband's authority unquestioningly, in the same way as *"Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord"*.  Apostle Peter summarizes the medieval conception of women in this phrase *" The head of the woman is the man"*  (> sorry I needed that facie).  Needless to say, this is in total accordance with medieval.. guess what?...yes ... *antifeminism!!!*_


Para la Iglesia, el amor entre esposos es _posible_ y de esta manera se alienta a los maridos a amar a sus mujeres como "Cristo amó a su Iglesia".  Sin embargo, es importante mencionar que "el amor" fomentado por la Iglesia va de la mano con el _"dominio masculino"_ (por supuesto! esto es igual que en el presente, imagínense en esos tiempos!)  Consecuentemente, las esposas deberían someterse a la autoridad de sus maridos sin cuestionamientos, en la misma manera en la cual *"Sarah obedecía a Abraham*, *llamándolo Señor".  * El apóstol Pedro resume la concepción medieval de la mujer en esta frase *"La cabeza de la mujer es el hombre"*  (> perdón, pero necesito esta carita).  No hay necesidad de decirlo, esto está totalmente de acuerdo con ...adivinen qué.... el _*antifeminismo* medieval!!!_


----------



## lauranazario

I am SOOOOOOO glad to be living in the 21st century and NOT in Biblical times!
I was born a Nazario, continue to be a Nazario and will die a Nazario... with my last name proudly displayed on a headstone someday, somewhere.   

Saludos,
LN


----------



## cristóbal

Nunca he pensado que el cambio de apellido por la novia es una pérdida de identidad o que significa que se convierte en propiedad de su esposo.  A mi me da mucha pena que las mujeres creen eso.    No soy ningún machista, y si a mi mujer (si es que un día tengo) le gustase quedarse con el apellido de su padre, a mi no me molestaría... pero tampoco creo que si a ella no le importa que eso significa que quiere ser mi propiedad.  

_I've never thought that the bride changing her last name is a loss of identity o that it means that she becomes the property of her husband.  It pains me to no end that women believe that.  I'm no machista, and if my wife (if it happens that one day I have one) would like to keep her father's last name, it wouldn't bother me, but nor would I think that if she doesn't care that that means she wants to be my property._

En España o en EEUU, el apellido "de la mujer" se pierde al final y al cabo.  Cuando nazcan los hijos (en una familia hispana), se pierden los apellidos de las madres de los padres de los hijos.  O sea, las abuelas pierden.  "El dominio del hombre" (o como quieras llamarlo) se nota igual.  Pero es que un apellido es eso, un apellido... representa una familia, un linaje, y no una persona o su identidad.

_In Spain or in the US, the last name of the wife is lost in the end.  When the children are born (in a hispanic family), the surnames of the mothers of the parents of the children are lost.  In other words, the grandmothers lose.  The "dominion of the man" (or however you want to call it) can be seen equally. But it's that surname is that, a surname.  It represents a family, a lineage, and not one person or his identity_.

:shrug:


----------



## cuchuflete

During my first 'aventura' of living in Spain, and trying to learn a little of the language,
I rented a tiny room in the apartment of a very wise elderly lady in Santander.
Much of what she said to me was expressed in aphorisms and folk sayings.

I'll never forget one of the first things she taught me:

El hombre reina, la mujer gobierna.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## weird

cristóbal said:
			
		

> En España o en EEUU, el apellido "de la mujer" se pierde al final y al cabo.  Cuando nazcan los hijos (en una familia hispana), se pierden los apellidos de las madres de los padres de los hijos.  O sea, las abuelas pierden.  "El dominio del hombre" (o como quieras llamarlo) se nota igual.  Pero es que un apellido es eso, un apellido... representa una familia, un linaje, y no una persona o su identidad.
> 
> _In Spain or in the US, the last name of the wife is lost in the end.  When the children are born (in a hispanic family), the surnames of the mothers of the parents of the children are lost.  In other words, the grandmothers lose.  The "dominion of the man" (or however you want to call it) can be seen equally. But it's that surname is that, a surname.  It represents a family, a lineage, and not one person or his identity_.
> 
> :shrug:



Hola, 

En España no se pierde el apellido de la madre, primero porque para identificarnos usamos los dos apellidos. 

Yo soy ASM (S por mi padre y M por mi madre) y siempre tengo que identificarme así, en todos mis documentos aparece el apellido de mi padre y de mi madre.

Mi marido es EJR y yo, ASM:  por lo tanto mi hijo es EJS (lleva mi apellido, que aunque era el de mi padre, lo comparte con el del padre de mi marido)

Además, en España podemos, si queremos, cambiar el orden de los apellidos.

Se hace mucho en madres con hijos de dos padres diferentes, para que todos tengan el primer apellido igual, por lo que el apellido de la madre no se pierde.

No digo que sea machista utilizar el apellido del marido, lo que me extraña es la pérdida de identidad.

Yo he nacido ASM, ha sido mi nombre siempre. No podría ser AJ, puesto que J, el apellido de mi marido, de su padre, hermanos, sobrinos, etc. no me dice nada, es algo extraño para mi. Yo pertenezco a la familia S y pase lo que pase en mi matrimonio siempre seré ASM.

Saludos cordiales.-     Amparo de los Santos (por mi padre) y Méndez (por mi madre)


----------



## cristóbal

No digo que se pierda el apellido de la madre, sino que se pierde el apellido de la abuela.... a ver, un ejemplo.

José González Muñoz se casa con Carolina García Marín
sus hijos tendrán el apellido "González García" ¿no?
pero bueno, cuando Luisito González García se casa con Carmen Pérez Vázquez, sus hijos tendrán el apellido "González Pérez" ¿no?  Así que, ¿qué pasa con los apellidos de las abuelas de los hijos de Luisito y Carmen?, (Carolina y la madre de Carmen)... pues, se pierden.  La familia García ya no tiene descendencia ni la familia Vázquez... las cuales siendo las familias de las madres.  Por lo tanto, como he dicho, al final--o sea, dos generaciones después--el apellido de la familia de la madre se pierde.  




			
				weird said:
			
		

> Hola,
> 
> En España no se pierde el apellido de la madre, primero porque para identificarnos usamos los dos apellidos.
> 
> Yo soy ASM (S por mi padre y M por mi madre) y siempre tengo que identificarme así, en todos mis documentos aparece el apellido de mi padre y de mi madre.
> 
> Mi marido es EJR y yo, ASM:  por lo tanto mi hijo es EJS (lleva mi apellido, que aunque era el de mi padre, lo comparte con el del padre de mi marido)
> 
> Además, en España podemos, si queremos, cambiar el orden de los apellidos.
> 
> Se hace mucho en madres con hijos de dos padres diferentes, para que todos tengan el primer apellido igual, por lo que el apellido de la madre no se pierde.
> 
> No digo que sea machista utilizar el apellido del marido, lo que me extraña es la pérdida de identidad.
> 
> Yo he nacido ASM, ha sido mi nombre siempre. No podría ser AJ, puesto que J, el apellido de mi marido, de su padre, hermanos, sobrinos, etc. no me dice nada, es algo extraño para mi. Yo pertenezco a la familia S y pase lo que pase en mi matrimonio siempre seré ASM.
> 
> Saludos cordiales.-     Amparo de los Santos (por mi padre) y Méndez (por mi madre)


----------



## weird

Si, tienes razón, los apellidos de los abuelitos maternos se pierden para utilizarlos como identificativos de la persona, aunque los llevas colgando... 

Saludos   

Fdo: Amparo de los Santos Méndez  Infante Zufía Fernández Sporrín Barrios Pérez


----------



## Everness

Artrella said:
			
		

> _To the Church, love between spouses is possible and thus it encourages husbands to love their wives as "Christ loved his Church". Nevertheless it is worth mentioning that "the love" fostered by the Church goes hand in hand with male mastery(of course! it is like this nowadays, imagine in those times!). Consequently, wives should submit themselves to their husband's authority unquestioningly, in the same way as *"Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord"*.  Apostle Peter summarizes the medieval conception of women in this phrase *" The head of the woman is the man"*  (> sorry I needed that facie).  Needless to say, this is in total accordance with medieval.. guess what?...yes ... *antifeminism!!!*_



You have all the right to be frustrated and even pissed with the way Christian churches (with very few exceptions) have treated women for thousands of years. 

My point is that I Corinthians 7.4 was a revolutionary statement at the time it was made. *The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.* It's like Paul was saying, "Women, even the one you are married to, aren't objects to be sexually or otherwise used.  You and your wife belong to each other."

This and other NT passages had the enormous potential to turn around thousands of years of oppression and exploitation of women in the name of God. Here's another one: Galatians 3.27.-28
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. *28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.*   29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It's true that there are other texts like the ones you quoted. Los fariseos oraban cada mañana: “Te doy gracias, oh Dios porque soy judío y no gentil; hombre y no mujer; libre y no esclavo”. I'm not here to defend the Bible. However, Paul, who most of my female friends consider the typical male chauvinistic pig, was onto something. The problem was the following generations of Christians theologians and ethicists. Their ideologies spoke louder than the Bible, and the final feminist liberation movement happened without and not within the church.


----------



## cristóbal

Everness said:
			
		

> Their ideologies spoke louder than the Bible, and the final feminist liberation movement happened without and not within the church.



Which is a shame, because it could have been done with a lot more dignity than it was.


----------



## Everness

cristóbal said:
			
		

> Which is a shame, because it could have been done with a lot more dignity than it was.



The worst thing is that there are still Christian groups who use, or better said, abuse the Bible to justify emotional, verbal, physical and sexual abuse against women. Little by little we are moving away from oppressive patriarchal social structures to more just and humane ones that emphasize equality between women and men. My point is that the seed of the the women liberation movement was planted 2000 years ago in humankind's conscience by an accomplished machista. The Lord works in mysterious ways!


----------



## cristóbal

Accomplished machista?  Boy, if only you understood sound Christian doctrine the way you think you understand feminism.


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> My point is that I Corinthians 7.4 was a revolutionary statement at the time it was made. *The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.* It's like Paul was saying, "Women, even the one you are married to, aren't objects to be sexually or otherwise used.  You and your wife belong to each other."
> 
> This and other NT passages had the enormous potential to turn around thousands of years of oppression and exploitation of women in the name of God. Here's another one: Galatians 3.27.-28
> 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. *28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.*   29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.




Everness, you've discovered a positive atom in the whole universe.  And I am glad that someone had been intelligent as to see things clearly.
However, I always remember something someone told me (though I'm not sure it is true) Chinese people threw baby-girls from the heights of the hills, because they were born "women".


----------



## Everness

cristóbal said:
			
		

> Accomplished machista? Boy, if only you understood sound Christian doctrine the way you think you understand feminism.



I'm always open to be educated by someone more knowledgeable than me! If you want to separate person from behavior, be my guest. The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum. That's why it's so believable and attractive. I am able to criticize Paul and still believe in the Bible as God's revelation. Believing in God doesn't amount to intellectual suicide, at least in my dictionary. Paul reflected the mores of his time and I have no problem with that. To his credit, he went beyond that and planted in his writings the seed of human liberation in many different levels.


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> I'm always open to be educated by someone more knowledgeable than me! If you want to separate person from behavior, be my guest. The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum. That's why it's so believable and attractive. I am able to criticize Paul and still believe in the Bible as God's revelation. Believing in God doesn't amount to intellectual suicide, at least in my dictionary. Paul reflected the mores of his time and I have no problem with that. To his credit, he went beyond that and planted in his writings the seed of human liberation in many different levels.




I think this is going beyond the original subject in this thread.  It is very debatable what you say Everness, I think Nietzsche would not agree with your point of view.  Maybe we can open another thread on the Bible issue??


----------



## Everness

Artrella said:
			
		

> Everness, you've discovered a positive atom in the whole universe. And I am glad that someone had been intelligent as to see things clearly.
> However, I always remember something someone told me (though I'm not sure it is true) Chinese people threw baby-girls from the heights of the hills, because they were born "women".



You have a point. Throughout history, only matriarchal societies didn't exploit or abuse women. Did they do it at the expense of men? Well, at least they got a break from systematic exploitation! Women got the short end of the stick for thousands of years and the church didn't do a good job in changing the tide.


----------



## Everness

Artrella said:
			
		

> I think this is going beyond the original subject in this thread. It is very debatable what you say Everness, I think Nietzsche would not agree with your point of view. Maybe we can open another thread on the Bible issue??



Thank you for the reminder! I'll refrain from further comments that go beyond the original subject. Como los monos, siempre me voy por las ramas! Volviendo al tema antes que arda Troya, one of my best friends (of the male species) adopted his wife's last name and now has a hyphenated one (su apellido-el apellido de la mujer).


----------



## cuchuflete

Recommended reading for this subject:

Madariaga, Salvador de. The sacred giraffe, being the second volume of the posthumous works of Julio. London: Martin Hopkinson & Co., 1925


----------



## Everness

_This American Life_ is perhaps the best program on public national radio and on English-speaking radio stations in general. And Ira Glass is definitely the most intelligent, witty and warm host you'll ever meet! I just listened to one of the most entertaining and insightful programs they ever aired and it's indirectly related to our topic. I think it was a repeat from last week entitled: _The Sanctity of Marriage_. If you have an hour to spare, you won't be dissapointed! 


Here's the link:

http://www.thislife.org/


----------



## lainyn

Hello Everyone,

I've been reading this thread with great interest, and while I can agree with the general logic behind all these posts, I just wanted to add something:

All of my life, I have looked forward to the day I get married and take on my husband's last name. I can't really explain why, but it seems symbolic of "two becoming one" and all of that. Also, for those of us who dislike our current family names, it's a pretty good opportunity for improvement. To me, taking on my husband's last name will be a sign of love and devotion, and yes, dare I say it "leaving my parents' house and coming into his house". As you can see, I'm not much good as a feminist, although I do have very strong opinions in favour of other feminist ideas. I remember spending a lot of time writing out my name with the last name of my "crush". 

All this considered, if I fall in love with a man who has a horrible surname, I might be tempted to keep my own, which is perfectly fine the way it is. 

-Lainyn


----------



## weird

lainyn said:
			
		

> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I've been reading this thread with great interest, and while I can agree with the general logic behind all these posts, I just wanted to add something:
> 
> All of my life, I have looked forward to the day I get married and take on my husband's last name. I can't really explain why, but it seems symbolic of "two becoming one" and all of that. Also, for those of us who dislike our current family names, it's a pretty good opportunity for improvement. To me, taking on my husband's last name will be a sign of love and devotion, and yes, dare I say it "leaving my parents' house and coming into his house". As you can see, I'm not much good as a feminist, although I do have very strong opinions in favour of other feminist ideas. I remember spending a lot of time writing out my name with the last name of my "crush".
> 
> All this considered, if I fall in love with a man who has a horrible surname, I might be tempted to keep my own, which is perfectly fine the way it is.
> 
> -Lainyn



Hello Lainyn.  Thank you, very much!!

It is what I want to know.   The opinion of someone who has her husband's surname. 

I'll try to understand your feeling from your point of view. Although I disagree.

Bye.-  Thank you, everybody as well.-


----------



## VenusEnvy

Weird: I don't want you to be confused. I understand from lainyn's post that she is not yet married. But, plans on taking her _future _ husband's last name (unless his it utterly horrible!)   

Lainyn: Thank you sharing your story and opinion with us.


----------



## Phryne

weird said:
			
		

> Hello Lainyn. Thank you, very much!!





			
				weird said:
			
		

> It is what I want to know. The opinion of someone who has her husband's surname.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to understand your feeling from your point of view. Although I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Bye.- Thank you, everybody as well.-






Well, weird, search no further. I decided to keep my husband's name. It's funny because I consider myself quite a feminist. But, that day, when I was asked how I would like to be called, I didn't think of it as a loss, but as if I gained something extra. I'm not quite sure why I did it. Perhaps because I was starting a new life in a different country and I felt compelled to reinvent myself. Maybe because I also felt that by doing so my hubby and I will become part fo the same "family". Or maybe because I have an unpronounceable last name and a very unusual first name for an American person which made me think that it would make things easier for everybody. After all, I lost my first name anyway. I'm not MJ anymore, I'm merely M, and J. is my middle initial! Should I say that I lost my identity because nobody calls me MJ anymore?  Also, all legal papers from country, passport, ID, etc, recognize me with the name I was born with.


----------



## Rebecca Hendry

In Britain it is still relatively common for women to take their husband's surname when they get married.  My mother did it and I plan to do it myself.  For me it is not a feminist issue at all.  

It is becoming increasingly common for women to perhaps create a double-barelled surname, thus retaining their own surname and just adding on her husband's too.  So if Miss Smith marries a Mr Brown she would become Mrs Smith-Brown.  It can be a bit of a mouthful though.

What I will consider doing though is perhaps keeping my own surname for professional purposes.  A lot of women prefer to continue working under their maiden name even if under all other circumstances she uses her husband's surname.


----------



## el alabamiano

Hola weird: Creo que le toca a la mujer decidir y, lo que es más, que aun los niños de adopción tienen derecho a elegir. Durante la niñez de mi hijastro, yo nunca le pedía que lo adoptara, sino que cuando tenía 8 años, me lo solicitó. De eso forma, el no sufrió una pérdida de identidad por fuerza y creo yo que hicimos el tipo de atadura más natural.


----------



## yolanda_van huyck

Hola, yo aparezco aqui con el apellido de mi marido y, realmente, es el unico sitio en el que lo uso, porque ya habia otro usuario registrado con mi nombre... Aqui en España sigo conservando mi apellido de soltera, pero cuando me llega una carta de Bélgica, me ponen el apellido de mi marido; tampoco me voy a meter con sus costumbres, yo sigo siendo yo!!!


----------



## weird

¡Muchas gracias a tod@s!,

Vuestras opiniones me han ayudado a entender mejor la cuestión.

No he querido en ningún momento decir que adoptar el apellido del marido fuera un asunto "machista". Simplemente me intrigaba saber cómo se siente la mujer que lo hace y, por lo visto, no sufre pérdida de identidad sino orgullo e ilusión.

¡Me parece estupendo!   

Saludos cordiales.-


----------



## ITA

Desde siempre este mundo ha tenido sociedades patriarcales,entonces no es dificil la respuesta a la pregunta de por qué la mujer pierde su apellido al casarse.Creo que en algunos casos es voluntario y en otros no tiene opción.
Desde Buenos Aires ITA XXX de........ NADIE.


----------



## Everness

Sylvia Plath's poetry is always relevant when it comes to men and names.

*Mad Girl's Love Song*


"I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead;
I lift my lids and all is born again.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)

The stars go waltzing out in blue and red,
And arbitrary blackness gallops in:
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.

I dreamed that you bewitched me into bed
And sung me moon-struck, kissed me quite insane.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)

God topples from the sky, hell's fires fade:
Exit seraphim and Satan's men:
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.

I fancied you'd return the way you said,
But I grow old and I forget your name.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)

I should have loved a thunderbird instead;
At least when spring comes they roar back again.
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)"


----------



## mzsweeett

lainyn said:
			
		

> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I've been reading this thread with great interest, and while I can agree with the general logic behind all these posts, I just wanted to add something:
> 
> All of my life, I have looked forward to the day I get married and take on my husband's last name. I can't really explain why, but it seems symbolic of "two becoming one" and all of that. Also, for those of us who dislike our current family names, it's a pretty good opportunity for improvement. To me, taking on my husband's last name will be a sign of love and devotion, and yes, dare I say it "leaving my parents' house and coming into his house". As you can see, I'm not much good as a feminist, although I do have very strong opinions in favour of other feminist ideas. I remember spending a lot of time writing out my name with the last name of my "crush".
> 
> All this considered, if I fall in love with a man who has a horrible surname, I might be tempted to keep my own, which is perfectly fine the way it is.
> 
> -Lainyn


I very much like the way you express yourself Lainyn.  I share similiar views.  
I have been married for a handul of years. I took no second thought when asked by which name I would be called. I immediately said my hubby's surname. To me it didn't have to do with my name or his sounding strange or poor or anything like that. It was about the union that was created. 
Funny thought though......when we went for our marriage license application, we had to go to the Clerk of Orphan's Court to do so. On the form it said _Adoptive Surname_!! Funny the idea of going to orphan's court and my husband adopting me, ergo the reason for my name being changed!!! I made an off color joke about it to him. What a day that was!!
Have a great day all!!

Sweet T.


----------



## zebedee

Everness said:
			
		

> Sylvia Plath's poetry is always relevant when it comes to men and names.
> 
> *Mad Girl's Love Song*
> 
> 
> "I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead;
> I lift my lids and all is born again.
> (I think I made you up inside my head.)
> 
> The stars go waltzing out in blue and red,
> And arbitrary blackness gallops in:
> I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.
> 
> I dreamed that you bewitched me into bed
> And sung me moon-struck, kissed me quite insane.
> (I think I made you up inside my head.)
> 
> God topples from the sky, hell's fires fade:
> Exit seraphim and Satan's men:
> I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.
> 
> I fancied you'd return the way you said,
> But I grow old and I forget your name.
> (I think I made you up inside my head.)
> 
> I should have loved a thunderbird instead;
> At least when spring comes they roar back again.
> I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.
> (I think I made you up inside my head.)"



I've read the poem 3 times but don't quite see the relevancy between it and the discussion in course about the custom of changing surnames upon marrying.
Can anyone enlighten me?

zeb


----------



## Pennyblack

weird said:
			
		

> Hola, esto es algo que no puedo entender.
> 
> ¿Por qué en algunos paises la mujer pierde su apellido al casarse y adopta legalmente el del marido?
> 
> ¿Cómo puede ocurrir esto es países tan desarrollados como EEUU?
> 
> ¿No sufren las mujeres una pérdida de identidad?
> 
> Mi profesora de inglés no quería decirme su apellido de soltera.
> 
> Si después de casarme hubiera tenido que utilizar el apellido de mi marido, me habría sentido que formaba parte de las propiedades él.
> 
> ¿Podéis explicarmelo? Muchas Gracias.
> 
> Saludos confusos.


 

Hi Weird,

in Italy, women keep their maiden name after their marriage.
The husband's surname does not appear in any woman's ID card, passport, etc.

I am not married, and my surname sounds funny and un-feminine in italian, but I would never ever change it!!!!!   

It is part of my identity, and I feel that my personality would not be quite the same if I did not have to "defend" my surname from the other kids'jokes when I was at school....!

And it is an heritage from my family, too.

I lived in the UK for awhile, and once I asked to a british friend whether she would change her surname into her future husband's one. She told to me that she would do so, because she was planning to have children, and the children would feel uneasy otherwhise, having to explain to their mates the reason why their parents have different surnames.

I believe that this tradition of changing women's surnames will be lost in a few decades, but it will take longer in the countries where changing surname @ marriage is still very common. 

salu2

PB


----------



## Maryjomg

Hi all,
Could anyone please tell me why do women have to change their surname into their husband's when they get married?
It is possible to get it just next to your surname?
I know for most of you this sounds a bit silly, but we don't do it in Spain, so I don't know if there is a legal reason for that. I don't know why women have to lose their family name, that is like losing their own identity. Does anyone agree? 

*Mod Edit: This thread has been merged with another on the same topic that was opened in April, 2005.*


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Maryjomg said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> Could anyone please tell me why do women have to change their surname into their husband's when they get married?
> It is possible to get it just next to your surname?
> I know for most of you this sounds a bit silly, but we don't do it in Spain, so I don't know if there is a legal reason for that. I don't know why women have to lose their family name, that is like losing their own identity. Does anyone agree?



As I understand it, in the United States, women don't _*have *_to change their name when they get married and many do not these days.


----------



## vince

Unlike what the general anti-feminist sentiment in today's society wants you to believe, the situation is getting worse, not better:



> According to a recent study by Harvard economics professor Claudia Goldin, based on Massachusetts birth records, the number of college-educated women in their 30s keeping their name has dropped from 23 percent in 1990 to 17 percent in 2000.


To me, it is a feminist issue whether to keep the last name. Many women say that they want to change their last name to show their dedication to their husband, that they will be part of the same family. Do they not realize that this is a completely one-sided change? Have they thought that maybe their husband feels just as dedicated and devoted to her and she is to him, so that he should change his name?

Then some women say they like the allure of being called "Mrs.". Notice here that a woman's maturity is based on her marital status. She comes of age when she gets married. A woman's marital status is so important that it must be indicated in the woman's salutation. Whereas a man's title stays fixed from childhood to old age regardless of whether or not he is married. Here are three names, guess which one(s) of these people are married: Mrs. Chong, Miss Jones, Mr. Ahmed. The first is married, the second is not, the third, who knows? He's a MAN, so it's not his defining attribute.  As for whether it garners any more respect, I have much greater respect for the title "Dr." than I do for the generic title "Mrs.".
The feminists invented a title for women who do not want their name to define their marital status: "Ms." Use it.

There is no reason for the woman (instead of the man) to change her name other than pure tradition, tradition based on woman being property, which at the time of marriage, is transferred from the father ("giving away the bride") to the husband, from one man to the next.

Women, thank the 20th century feminists, if it wasn't for them, if you married John Smith, you would now be called Mrs. John Smith.


----------



## GenJen54

Part of the problem is that society (and government) have yet to "catch up" with, or even attempt to accommodate those of us wishing to keep our names. Because of this, it is sometimes easier to give in and comply than keep fighting the fight.

I chose to hyphenate. I wanted my husband's last name, yet at the same time, I am the "last" in my generation with my father's last name and it was important to me as a female that my family name be preserved. 

Unfortunately, the database planners who develop software for official government forms, etc., as well as government workers themselves, don't appreciate this format. I was told flat out by my local driver's licence bureau that hyphenates are not accepted on the "system," even though my name is listed as such on my social security card.

Despite several protests, I am almost always forced to "choose" between my maiden name and my married name, and am therein categorized as Mrs., even when I insist upon being Ms. Jennifer Blank-McBlank (names changed to protect the innocent).

Even our utility companies only "list" one name on the bill. The default is to my husband's name. On a recent mortgage application, my husband was automatically defaulted as the primary applicant, even though I was the only one of us who had had a mortgage before. 

Until the "rest" of society, including business and government, accommodates for individual circumstances, we will continue to be pigeon-holed into the role of Mrs.


----------



## maxiogee

Maryjomg,
Hiya from South Dublin.
I've just posted this on the other thread belen mentioned, but I'm posting it here also as you may have already been there and may not go back.


My wife and I took each other's name. She was McC.. and I was O'G.... We are both Mr & Mrs McC.. O'G.... _(edit—> We recently celebrated our 23rd wedding anniversary, so what follows is old. Our only child is 20 and knows that what he does upon his marriage, should one happen, will be his decision. He can keep one, or the other, or both or take his wife's should he so desire - he has our blessing. )

_ Everyone who learns of this says (sooner or later) "I didn't know you could do that!" I reply, "Neither did I, I just did it."
When I tried to get the Revenue Commissioners here to accept my double name as eacily as they accept my tax, they declined. No other organisation has had a problem with this arrangement - even the Passport Office. They got my first passport application form (some time after our marriage) and my birth and marriage certificates. Not one question was asked and my passport arrived with both name on it.

I did this because I had long been a believer that it was daft to require/expect/ask one party to automatically change yet never to even think that the other ought to.
Many people who hear the story say "I wish I'd done that." but you can tell by the tone of voice that they don't mean it - and you can prove it by saying "You still can." That always raises an eyebrow or two, and there's a hasty "em, yeah, but, there's bank accounts and the mortgage and the children's names and… and… ". I just say "Yeah." and leave it.
Some people just got no bottle!


----------



## vince

Who changed the title of this thread? When I revisited this thread, I thought it was about losing one's 'ethnic-national' identity. I found the previous title to be more descriptive of the actual subject.


----------



## GenJen54

Hi Vince,

The two threads were merged. Both are on the subject of a woman losing her "identity" (her name) after she marries. 

The question posted by the first thread (in April, 2005) is:





> ¿Por qué en algunos paises la mujer pierde su apellido al casarse y adopta legalmente el del marido?
> 
> ¿Cómo puede ocurrir esto es países tan desarrollados como EEUU?
> ¿No sufren las mujeres una pérdida de identidad?


The question posed today is:





> Could anyone please tell me why do women have to change their surname into their husband's when they get married?
> It is possible to get it just next to your surname?



Hope this helps.


----------



## emma42

Vince in Post #46 says it all re whether or not a woman taking her husband's surname is a feminist issue.  Of course it is.  It was purely a matter of property transference (and still is, in some ways).  I do understand "wanting to show devotion to your husband" etc, but I'm afraid that wanting to do this by taking his name is a "little girl's" getout.  it may seem nice and make some women feel secure, but, really, one just has to grow up.  Think of all the awful things women have fought against toward gaining some sort of equality and then consider how pathetic it is to not even bother to challenge this surname matter.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:
			
		

> Vince in Post #46 says it all re whether or not a woman taking her husband's surname is a feminist issue.



Indeed!  

Shouldn't her daddy's name be good enough for her!


----------



## jinti

I took my husband's last name when I married him. I was asked what last name I wanted to use, and I chose his.

_Tomé el apellido de mi marido cuando me casé con él.  Me preguntaron cuál apellido quería usar, y eligí él de mi marido._

Why?   _¿Por qué?_

1. I liked it a lot better than my maiden name. There were endless jokes about the maiden name....  
_1.  Me gustó su apellido mucho más que el mio.  Se burlaron tanto de mi apellido de soltera......._

2. My identity was never based on my last name. You can call me by my first name, maiden name, current last name, nickname, or WR Forum name, and none of that will make me feel that my identity is compromised or changed in any way. "A rose by any other name..." and all that.    I'm me.
_2.  No baso mi identidad en el apellido.  Me puedes llamar por mi nombre, apellido de soltera, apellido actual, nick, o nick de WR Forum, y nada de eso me hará sentir que he perdido la identidad.  "Una rosa, de llamarse por otro nombre, ¿no olería igual de dulce?"  Yo soy yo._

3. Why is my father's last name so much better than my husband's? They're both men's last names, and they're both my family now.
_3. ¿Por qué vale más el apellido de mi padre que él de mi marido?  Los dos son apellidos de hombres, y ahora los dos hombres son parte de mi familia._

When my mother got married, she gave up her middle name (which was rather ugly) and started to use her maiden name as her middle name, and my father's last name as her last name. Some of my friends kept their maiden names; some didn't. 
_Cuando mi madre se casó, dejó de usar su segundo nombre (en este país solemos tener dos nombres de pila, y el segundo de ella era bastante feo) y empezó a usar su apellido de soltera como segundo nombre, y el apellido de mi padre como su apellido.  Algunas de mis amigas se quedaron con sus apellidos de soltera, otras no._

For those who feel this is a feminist issue, isn't feminism about women having choices? That would include the choice to take their husbands' names if they wish.
_Para los que creen que ésta es una cuestión feminista, ¿el feminismo no se trata de la libertad de elección de la mujer?  Eso debe incluir la elección de tomar el apellido de sus maridos, si quieren._


----------



## jinti

weird said:
			
		

> Mi profesora de inglés no quería decirme su apellido de soltera.


 
Te puedo ofrecer una explicación posible: En EEUU, especialmente en el pasado no se solía usar el apellido de soltera, y por eso, era y aún es -- aunque ya está cambiando -- común usarlo como respuesta a las preguntas de seguridad que hacen las compañías de crédito o bancos para asegurar la identidad de una persona que llama por el teléfono o en linea:  _¿Cuál es el apellido de soltera de su madre?_  Es algo que mucha gente no sabría de ti, y aunque se pregunta él de tu madre, no el tuyo, se entiende que alguna gente lo consideran una cosa privada.


----------



## vince

jinti said:
			
		

> I took my husband's last name when I married him.  I was asked what last name I wanted to use, and I chose his.
> 
> Why?
> 
> 1.  I liked it a lot better than my maiden name.  There were endless jokes about the maiden name....
> 2.  My identity was never based on my last name.  You can call me by my first name, maiden name, current last name, nickname, or WR Forum name, and none of that will make me feel that my identity is compromised or changed in any way.  "A rose by any other name..." and all that.
> 3.  Why is my father's last name so much better than my husband's?  They're both men's last names, and they're both my family now.
> 
> When my mother got married, she gave up her middle name (which was rather ugly) and started to use her maiden name as her middle name, and my father's last name as her last name.  Some of my friends kept their maiden names; some didn't.


 
1.) seems to be the only valid reason you have, since reason 2. and 3. work perfectly well for arguing why your HUSBAND should have changed his name to yours. There's no such thing as a "man's last name" in English.



> For those who feel this is a feminist issue, isn't feminism about women having choices? That would include the choice to take their husbands' names.



In your case, if 1.) was the overriding reason, then okay, there's a logical reason to change your name. But if you make choices based on sexist traditions, here's what I have to say:

Feminists fought to give women additional choices, choices beyond those that reflected an asymmetrical relation between man and woman. It's not feminism's problem that some women choose not to enjoy the hard-earned freedoms that feminists fought for decades and decades full of sweat and rejection and humiliation. Just don't say that you "support equal rights for men and women" if you do not take advantage of them.


----------



## vince

jinti said:
			
		

> Te puedo ofrecer una explicación posible: En EEUU, especialmente en el pasado no se solía usar el apellido de soltera, y por eso, era y aún es -- aunque ya está cambiando --



podrías aclararme lo que está cambiando?

si intentas decir que es el porcentaje de mujers que siguen usando su apellido de soltera, creo que te equivocas, de hecho, el porcentaje está disminuyendo. lee el post que hice más arriba .


----------



## jinti

vince said:
			
		

> 1.) seems to be the only valid reason you have, since reason 2. and 3. work perfectly well for arguing why your HUSBAND should have changed his name to yours. There's no such thing as a "man's last name" in English.


 
Sure, he could have. He didn't. Whatever. That doesn't mean my reasons 2 and 3 suddenly become invalid.    It just means that he didn't choose the same direction I did.  And frankly, I don't blame him.  It really wasn't a very nice last name.  



			
				vince said:
			
		

> Feminists fought to give women additional choices, choices beyond those that reflected an asymmetrical relation between man and woman. It's not feminism's problem that some women choose not to enjoy the hard-earned freedoms that feminists fought for decades and decades full of sweat and rejection and humiliation. Just don't say that you "support equal rights for men and women" if you do not take advantage of them.


 
It's not a choice if I _have to_ stick with my maiden name. It's a choice if I get to pick what I want to do.  

And I don't quite get why I can only support equal rights for men and women if I keep my maiden name. That's quite a logical leap. 

It's never been an issue between my friends, my family, my husband and me, although some of them have made different choices. What I support is the right to choose. But you know, we have bigger fish to fry.  I have had significant problems based on sexism in my life; frankly, to me squabbling over someone's _*choice*_ (and yes, I agree that it's a nice change nowadays that it _is_ a choice) of a last name just doesn't rank.


----------



## jinti

vince said:
			
		

> podrías aclararme lo que está cambiando?
> 
> si intentas decir que es el porcentaje de mujers que siguen usando su apellido de soltera, creo que te equivocas, de hecho, el porcentaje está disminuyendo. lee el post que hice más arriba .


 
Disculpa, no me he expresado bien. Primero, estaba pensando en la generación de mi abuela, la de mi madre, la mia, y la de mis hijos (cuando los tenga  ). El porcentaje de mujeres que siguen con su apellido de soltera es mucho más alto en mi generación que en las previas.... Pero segundo -- y es a ésto que me referí -- el uso de la pregunta _¿cuál es el apellido de soltera de su madre?_ no es tan común como era, pues ahora veo más variedad en las preguntas de seguridad: _¿en cuál calle vivía cuando era niñ@?,_ por ejemplo. Puede ser que lo del apellido de soltera no se considera tan secreto ahora ya que las recié casadas de esta generación pude elegir si van a seguir con él o cambiarlo.


----------



## vince

jinti said:
			
		

> Sure, he could have. He didn't. Whatever. That doesn't mean my reasons 2 and 3 suddenly become invalid.    It just means that he didn't choose the same direction I did.  And frankly, I don't blame him.  It really wasn't a very nice last name.



By invalid I mean those aren't reasons why women should change their last name instead of men, they are just general reasons for anyone.



> And I don't quite get why I can only support equal rights for men and women if I keep my maiden name. That's quite a logical leap.



my argument was not as simple as you're claiming. What I said was that you can only support equal rights if you exercise them, unless you have logical reasons why you shouldn't exercise them that do not include ones based on sexist traditions.

Let's say that a certain woman claims she supports women's right to vote. But she herself does not vote. Is her claim bogus? No, if there is a logical reason, like she lost her ballot registration, she's too sick to go to the ballot box, etc. But if she's not voting because she believes that it's not "lady-like" to get involved in politics, then her claim to support women's right to vote makes no sense. In the case of keeping maiden names, Your reason #1 is a logical reason, you made your choice due to it, that's fine, (most) feminists won't get angry at you. Another poster gave the reason that state bureaucracy makes it extremely hard. That is also a logical reason, which would not prevent her from claiming to support equal rights. But if the main reason is "following (sexist) tradition", then you couldn't claim to be supporting equal rights.



> But you know, we have bigger fish to fry.  I have had significant problems based on sexism in my life; frankly, to me squabbling over someone's _*choice*_ (and yes, I agree that it's a nice change nowadays that it _is_ a choice) of a last name just doesn't rank.



Just because there are more important issues doesn't me we cannot engage in serious debate about it


----------



## vince

jinti said:
			
		

> El porcentaje de mujeres que siguen con su apellido de soltera es mucho más alto en mi generación que en las previas...



quiz'a en el pasado, pero como lo dije antes, este hecho no tiene nada que ver con la situacion de hoy, el porcentaje de mujeres que siguen con su apellido de soltera ser'a mucho m'as BAJO en la proxima generacion que en la actual.


----------



## KateNicole

I'm sorry if this has already been brought up, but a lot of women in the United States take their husband's name upon marriage so that the whole nuclear family shares the same last name.  Some find that to be more simple.  I don't consider myself submissive by any means, but if I ever get married, I'll probably take my husband's name because I would like to have the same last name as my children.  Even if I hyphenate their last names, they still wouldn't have the same exact last name as both my husband and I.  I don't know why, but having grown up in the US, that is just what I would want.  It's personal preference, and it's not forced upon anyone here, even if it is tradition.


----------



## vince

KateNicole said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if this has already been brought up, but a lot of women in the United States take their husband's name upon marriage so that the whole nuclear family shares the same last name.  Some find that to be more simple.  I don't consider myself submissive by any means, but if I ever get married, I'll probably take my husband's name because I would like to have the same last name as my children.  Even if I hyphenate their last names, they still wouldn't have the same exact last name as both my husband and I.  I don't know why, but having grown up in the US, that is just what I would want.  It's personal preference, and it's not forced upon anyone here, even if it is tradition.


Again, your argument does not apply to the issue of whether women in particular might want to change their last name, your arguments apply for both men and women. Has it ever occurred to you that your future husband might like to have the same last name as his children, and could do so by changing his last name to yours?
An alternative is for both you and your husband to change to a hyphenated last name, so that the children will have hyphenated last names, and they can decide later on in life what their last names will become when they get married.

When I hear arguments like this it dismays me that a lot of women have the attitude that they are the only ones who have to change in a marriage, that the man can stay the same. Living the way he was when he was a bachelor. Name change issue? Woman's problem. Baby needs attention? Woman's problem. Things like single women in their early 20s who vow to stay home to take care of future kids because "kids need a parent's love".  WHERE IS THE FATHER IN ALL OF THIS? Does he not have any responsability to his kids beyond paying the bills? The marriage you dream of is not an equal marriage.


----------



## KateNicole

vince said:
			
		

> The marriage you dream of is not an equal marriage.


First of all, it was not an argument. It was a comment. It wasn't meant to be persuasive. Furthermore, the original question reads:¿Por qué en algunos paises la mujer pierde su apellido al casarse y adopta legalmente el del marido? , to which I gave a possible answer from my perspective--so I would argue that what I said _does_ apply. Whether or not you agree with it is a different issue. At any rate, I don't see what there is to disagree with in my post. I didn't say women should or shouldn't change their name--I simply gave a reason why many do it. I didn't bring up the possibility of a man taking his wife's name because I was speaking of US tradition, not alternatives. The question asks why this happens, not ways in which to prevent it. 
It's a non-issue for me because there's no law here in the US that says a woman must change her name. Yes, of course my husband could change his name and take mine. I don't want him to. I'm just used to US tradition, and I have the right to like it. What I choose to do with my last name has nothing to wo with "the marriage of my dreams" being equal. It's _my _last name, and if I _choose_ to change it, it doesn't mean that my husband is governing me, and has absolutely nothing to do with what type of responsibility he would have to our children.


----------



## KateNicole

vince said:
			
		

> When I hear arguments like this it dismays me that a lot of women have the attitude that they are the only ones who have to change in a marriage, that the man can stay the same. Living the way he was when he was a bachelor. Name change issue? Woman's problem. Baby needs attention? Woman's problem. Things like single women in their early 20s who vow to stay home to take care of future kids because "kids need a parent's love". WHERE IS THE FATHER IN ALL OF THIS? Does he not have any responsability to his kids beyond paying the bills? The marriage you dream of is not an equal marriage.


 
What you have to consider, Vince, is that many women _prefer_ to stay home with their children, and it doesn't make them weaker for doing so. I am college educated, extremely independent, and _fierce--_fierce in the sense that if you cross me (man or woman) I will fight like a pitbull to defend myself and have absolutely no problem standing up to any man, be it my boss, my boyfriend, or whoever else to defend my opinions, desires, needs, rights, etc. But guess what? If I get married and have children and my husband is able to support our family on his salary alone, I will most definitely stay at home with my children BECAUSE I WANT TO. There's no shame in that. 

Also, as far as men working to pay the bills for the children, I also find that to be an _incredible_ display of devotion. It's nothing to be scoffed at. My father worked 60-70 hrs a week plus travel when I was younger, and he put almost everything he made towards my clothes, my food, my extracurricular activities, my weekend entertainment and my college education. It was always my brother and me first, and then him if anything was left over. And on top of it all, I still had great quality time with him every night when he came home 

If men and women want to reverse that, then hey! As long as both jobs get done and at the end of the day everyone's satistfied.


----------



## vince

I'm not arguing against you personally, it is your decision whether or not to give your own personal reasons behind your choice. But that's not what this discussion is about. It's about why women do it in general (since it is not obligatory). Since I do not know you personally, any reasons you provide (by your discretion, you have the right) I treat as general reasons women might give, unless they can only apply specifically to you.

Here are some questions, they are not directed to you specifically though you may answer them if you so desire:

 Why would you (or any woman) not want your husband to change his name and take yours? What if he does not like his last name?

What do you lose if you do not uphold this tradition? Are you any less of an American? Less of a woman? Would you gain something sentimental (remember to think from the man's perspective as well) if you do change your last name?

My opinion (you have the right to ignore it if you wish) is that tradition should always yield to logical reasoning unless tradition is more practical.


----------



## KateNicole

Vince, my first post in this topic _did_ say why some women do it!   I won't say "women in general" because I can't speak for all women.  Did you read it? LOL (not being atagonistic, but kind of confused as to if you read it carefully.) I know many women that wanted the same last name as their children, which is why they changed their name at marriage. Also, many women with children do not go back to their maiden name upon divorce in order to keep the same last name as their children.


----------



## KateNicole

vince said:
			
		

> Here are some questions, they are not directed to you specifically though you may answer them if you so desire:
> 
> Why would you (or any woman) not want your husband to change his name and take yours? What if he does not like his last name? I would rather take my husband's last name because that is what is most _normal_ to me. I wouldn't strongly object to my husband taking my name, but I find that to be strange. Not wrong or bad, just strange.
> 
> What do you lose if you do not uphold this tradition? Are you any less of an American? Less of a woman? Would you gain something sentimental (remember to think from the man's perspective as well) if you do change your last name? I wouldn't change my name upon marriage to feel more American; I would do it because that is a custom that is _normal_ to me here in the US when a woman gets married. To me it's as normal as a bride wearing a dress. Sure, I could wear a pant suit at my wedding, but I'd rather wear a dress, and I'd also rather change my last name than keep it. Let me point out though that I don't have anything against a woman keeping her name. Like I said, it's just not an issue for me.
> 
> My opinion (you have the right to ignore it if you wish) is that tradition should always yield to logical reasoning unless tradition is more practical.


To me, the logic in changing my last name is to have the same last name as my husband and children. And yes, the same could be achieved if my husband took my name instead, but that's just not the tradition where I live. It doesn't bother me in the least, but I can definitely see how it could perplex people from other countries that did not grow up with this tradition.


----------



## vince

If it's post #61 then no, those arguments are not gender-specific.
 I don't see "_prefer_ence to stay home with their children" and ""so that the whole nuclear family shares the same last name" are reasons that only women could give. I still see the fact that women bring these up as proof that they view raising a family as something they must have sole responsability over.

What I DID NOT say:
- it is wrong for women to want to care for their kids at home 
- it is wrong for women to want their family to have the same last names 
- it is wrong for men to be the sole breadwinner of the family, and being the breadwinner is an easy job 

What I DO say:
- men might want to stay at home and care for their kids 
- men might want to change their last name to their wife's so that kids could have the same last name as the parents 
- women can also be the sole breadwinner 
- making money can be the responsability of both parents 
- cleaning diapers, singing lullabies, teaching kids their ABCs can be responsabilities of both parents 
- if the woman wants to stay at home and let the man make all the money because she makes much less than the husband, then it's fine that she stays and does not necessarily mean she's against gender equality 
- if the woman wants to stay at home and let the man make all the money even though she makes more than him, she likes her job more than he does, and he likes taking care of kids, solely because it's tradition that the woman stays at home, then the woman is not for gender equality 
- if the man has a bad last name and wants to change it to the woman's, but the woman says no  for the sake of tradition, then the woman is not for gender equality 
- if the woman has a bad last name and wants to change it to the man's and she does, then this doesn't make the woman submissive or anything. 
- if i say it is wrong you have the right to disagree, and you have the right to continue doing whatever you do as though I hadn't said anything


----------



## KateNicole

Vince, 
The point is that I answered the _original_ question, and I thought my answer was pretty gender-specific.  I was talking about women. And there's no right or wrong answer!! The original poster wanted to know reasons why this can happen, and I offered one. I don't recall where he/she demanded a 100% gender-specific reasoning that justifies the custom.

(I'm assuming that by a gender-specific reason, you mean one that could only apply to a woman, and not to a man?)


----------



## danielfranco

As far as I can tell, in the USA women change their last name upon marrying for no reason other than custom. It's not the law. It's just the most convenient time to change your legal name free of charge (no court fees, no social security administration fees, no lawyer fees, no accountant fees [to merge your personal possessions], etc.), if that's what you want. I'm not sure but for all I know, if you wished, you could change your name to Juana la Cubana without many objections...


----------



## vince

ok now i am confused. what does the title of the thread "¿Por qué en algunos paises la mujer pierde su apellido al casarse y adopta legalmente el del marido?" translate to? Isn't it "Why in some countries does the woman lose her last name upon getting maried and legally adopts that of her husband?"

I interpret the question as gender-specific. Giving a non-gender specific answer wouldn't make sense. It would be as if someone asked, "Why is French hard while Spanish is easy?", and I answered, "because Romance languages have so many conjugations to memorize".

That certainly explains why French is hard, doesn't it? But my argument wouldn't answer the question since it applies to both French and Spanish.


----------



## KateNicole

It says
Why in some countries does the woman lose her last name when she marries and legally adopt that of her husband? 
I gave a reason why some women do that. The reason was that some women would prefer to have exactly the same last name as their husband and their children. But apparently it's not specific enough for you.
Where is the problem?
The fact that the the man taking his wife's name could achieve the same result doesn't invalidate my answer. In fact, it probably only confuses the original poster more, considering the fact that such a thing hardly ever happens. I have never heard of such a case in the US in my life, although I'm sure a few exist.


----------



## vince

It would only confuse if we take for universally granted the very big assumption that men changing their last name is absurd and absolutely out of the question, not to be considered.


----------



## KateNicole

Vince, you really do bring up interesting points about why a man doesn't change his name; I just don't see what it has to do with this thread. The question seeks possible reasoning behind something that is customary in the United States, not reasons why it _doesn't_ make sense. I'm sure someone unaccustomed to this tradition could make up a thousand reasons as to why it _doesn't_ make sense on their own.
I really think you need to start a new thread . . . 
You'll have more people to debate with than little ol' me and you'll probably get some interesting opinions.


----------



## vince

who said your opinions aren't interesting? This thread's posts including yours have inspired me to make a signature, which I think ties in with women believing they are free  to make all the choices they want (such as changing their maiden name), when in fact this is just an illusion due to society's traditions. It also ties in with a host of either things, including racism in the U.S. (are African-Americans truly equal now?), gay rights, and even the current War on Terror.

Perhaps I will start a new thread, but I am too tired to think of such a thing right now. Good night


----------



## maxiogee

vince said:
			
		

> Just don't say that you "support equal rights for men and women" if you do not take advantage of them.


*
What tosh!*
I support many things I don't take advantage of —> most notedly the concept of "Sport for all" which was promoted by our government here many years ago. I'm asporty, I don't do it, and I rarely watch it, and even more rarely attend it. That doesn't mean that I don't support the concept.

I support equal rights for men and women, but I don't have to take advantage of some of the rights women have in our society just to prove that.


----------



## natasha2000

weird said:
			
		

> Hola, esto es algo que no puedo entender.
> 
> ¿Por qué en algunos paises la mujer pierde su apellido al casarse y adopta legalmente el del marido?
> 
> ¿Cómo puede ocurrir esto es países tan desarrollados como EEUU?
> 
> ¿No sufren las mujeres una pérdida de identidad?
> 
> Mi profesora de inglés no quería decirme su apellido de soltera.
> 
> Si después de casarme hubiera tenido que utilizar el apellido de mi marido, me habría sentido que formaba parte de las propiedades él.
> 
> ¿Podéis explicarmelo? Muchas Gracias.
> 
> Saludos confusos.


 
Hola,

Creo que se trata más de la tradición que de las leyes. 
En mí país, y estoy segura que lo mismo ocurre en EEUU y en todos los países donde existe la tradición que las mujeres aceptan el apellido de su marido, es una costumbre hacerlo, y las mujeres lo hacen pque casi TODOS lo hacen, y no pque se ven obligadas.
Cuando me casé, me quedé con mi apellido, pero igual yo no soy un ejemplo clásico, ya que me he casado con un español, y en España, la costumbre es al revés. Os aseguro que era muy gracioso cuando le dije a mi futuro marido que "lo siento pero no quiero coger tu apellido", por el simple hecho de que un nombre serbio con un apellido español suena horrible, y por otro lado, no me daba la gana de cambiar todos los documentos. Podéis imaginar primero su sorpresa, y luego la mía, cuando se sorprendió el, diciéndome: "Y por qué quisieras llamarte como yo?"

Pero por otro lado, tengo amigas que se quedaron con su apellido, otras han añadido el apellido de su marido, y otras han cambiado el apellido. Según la ley, tienes derecho de hacer con tu apellido lo que te da la gana. 

Así que no estaría de acuerdo que "las mujeres tienen que aguantar esta injusticia", no me acuerdo quién lo dijo....


----------



## Maryjomg

So, after all this, I just want to make sure that I understood everything. Then, let's say that my husband's surname would be "Ireland" and mine "España", so he would have to take my surname after his surname if I want the kids to have my surname too? I mean, I would like my children to have both surnames, same as we do it in Spain, so they would be called 
" (First Name) Ireland España" ? Is that possible?

Thanks again.


----------



## KateNicole

Mary, living in the US you could give your children the last name Ireland-España.  Your could also give them the name España-Ireland, although when we hyphenate chidlren's last names heres, we usually put the father's first.  There area also women that only give their children their own last name and not the father's at all, but it seems to me that this is usually done if the father is absent.


----------



## natasha2000

KateNicole said:
			
		

> Mary, living in the US you could give your children the last name Ireland-España. Your could also give them the name España-Ireland, although when we hyphenate chidlren's last names heres, we usually put the father's first. There area also women that only give their children their own last name and not the father's at all, but it seems to me that this is usually done if the father is absent.


 
Same in Serbia.

The tradition is one thing, and completely other thing is what people are allowed to do and what they do.

I have a friend who added her husband's name to her own, and their child also has two surnames. It is unusual, but it is possible to do it if you want. 
The thing is that women continue taking her husband's surname is that it is not so complicated as if she kept her name. All members of one family have the same surname. If now one family tries to embrace Spanish custom, nobody will forbid them, but it will be unusual because all members of the family would have different surnames, so many questions and misunderstandings would arise in some certain situations...

Just imagine the other way around... Imagine I wanted to take my husband's name. Wouldn't it be awfylly unusual in Spain? Nobody would forbid me, but I would encounter many questions instead or at least wierd looks... 
It is just a matter of what people are used to do in some certain place...


----------



## Maryjomg

Just imagine the other way around... Imagine I wanted to take my husband's name. Wouldn't it be awfylly unusual in Spain? Nobody would forbid me, but I would encounter many questions instead or at least wierd looks... 
It is just a matter of what people are used to do in some certain place...[/quote]

Actually, I don't care about the weird looks or if it is unusual or not, that would not be a problem for me.  Anyway, being different is not that bad, that's what makes us special and unique .  I respect every single  custom/habit in this country I'm living now, but that doesn't mean that I have to stick to all of them and not feeling Spanish anymore, cause that what I am,  as the thread says, I don't want to lose my Identity just because (someday) I'll get married to someone with a different nationality.


----------



## natasha2000

Maryjomg said:
			
		

> Just imagine the other way around... Imagine I wanted to take my husband's name. Wouldn't it be awfylly unusual in Spain? Nobody would forbid me, but I would encounter many questions instead or at least wierd looks...
> It is just a matter of what people are used to do in some certain place...


 
Actually, I don't care about the weird looks or if it is unusual or not, that would not be a problem for me. Anyway, being different is not that bad, that's what makes us special and unique . I respect every single custom/habit in this country I'm living now, but that doesn't mean that I have to stick to all of them and not feeling Spanish anymore, cause that what I am, as the thread says, I don't want to lose my Identity just because (someday) I'll get married to someone with a different nationality.

[/quote]

You're completely right. But we all know that people are different, and some of them do mind wierd looks, and other are simply, lazy or something third... 
Of course you are free to do whatever you want, and according the feelings you have. If it happened that you marry one day someone with different nationality, you will have to cope with more than one cultural difference, not only this question of changing the name. And then, the most important thing is mutual understanding and respect for the culture of the other one. In some things you will do as "they" do, and in some things, he/she will do as "your people" do... 

I posted to this thread because it seemed to me that the one who put this question thinks there is some kind of law or that women are obliged to take the husband's name, which is absolutely not true, and that is why I felt that this should be explained.

I also think that it isn't about losing the identity, it is just how you Spanish (and South American) people interprete this custom like this, since it is completely opposite of what you are acustomed to do.
It is not question which is better or worse. It is just that we are simply - different.... 

I will give you an example: It is just the same as the question of bull fights and "encierros". This is YOUR tradition, and nowadays in Spain you will find a lot of people who are against it, of course, just as in my country or in the USA or France or wherever where women keep their surname. But you will also find even more people who simply cannot imagine Spain without bull fights (just as there are still women who take the husband's name). If this weren't true, how can you explain so many people in Pamplona each year? I don't see that toreros are losing their audience, neither. But if you ask ANY person who is not Spanish, they will tell you they simply do not understand why the hell someone has to kill the bull or even worse, to run in front of the bull... But this is the point. This is your tradition and you grew up with it. (I refer to Spaniards in general, not only and particularly to you)

The beauty of the world is diversity. We should try to learn and understand different ways of others, before we judge anything.


----------



## maxiogee

Maryomjg, I'm going to respond off-board in a PM regarding the naming of our child.

I'm not really going to say anything I haven't already said, but I'm going to go into details, and I hope other foreros won't mind me leaving the forum to do this.
If anyone thinks they would like details they can PM me.


----------



## badgrammar

In my first marriage, way back when, I hyphenated my name.  Didn't want to "lose my identity", etc., and at the time I had no plans on having children.  My experience was that it was confusing and not entirely worth the hassle to have two names. 

When I married again, I happily took my husbands name.  Because I am anti-feminist? A doormat? No.  Because I wanted to.  Because it simplifies things, and it is also a token, although it be a traditional one, of love (in my culture).  According to some, this is a puerile little-girl fantasy thing, and once a woman really grows up and gets over that, she will naturally see the sense in keeping her maiden name.

Ladies and gents of the jury, I would kindly suggest that if the trend of taking your husband's name is coming back into vogue, there is a good possibility that it's because many women today are confident anough in their own achievements to not feel threatened by taking on their husband's name, if they want to.  

They don't have to, of course.  

In the same way I do not feel belittled by enjoying a man opening a door for me, or any number of gentlemanly behaviors.  I am confident enough in my own strengths and capabilities to go beyond the idea that by allowing that, I somehow play into a male-domination game.  I find the very idea quite silly.  

I don't believe feminism in any way obligates a woman to lock herself OUT of all aspects of traditional gender-roles.  It allows her to choose which aspects please her, and which do not.  Some would seem to believe that equality of the sexes means we should acknowledge no differences between men and women, and that we should all, men and women, go out of our way to avoid any and all "traditional" gender-related behaviors in order to prove we are "equal"... even if it goes against our personal choices and preferences.  

IMHO, it's a load of ...!  It's just as manipulative to tell a woman "You have to go work even if you'd rather take care of your kids" as it is to tell her "You have to take care of the kids, even if you'd rather go work."  Trying to dictate to women what they should or should not do according to a new set of "feminist" rules is just as awful as when women had to follow traditional male-dominated (masculinist?) rules.  Yeesh.  It seems so simple:  Both men and women should be able to excercise individual choices and enjoy self-determination.

So I guess someone like Vince, upon meeting me and finding out that I took my husband's name when we married, will be lead to the conclusion that I am a submissive anti-feminist.  Yikes!  

Oh well, life will go on...


----------



## emma42

Hi badgrammar.  I appreciate your well-argued views in post #84.

However, it still cannot be denied that the taking of one's husband's surname on marriage, is "tradition" and one  based on a male-dominated society. 

 You may be able to "choose which aspects"  of traditional gender roles "please" you, but mainly women cannot. 

As for "dictating to women what they should or should not do" - not I!  I am simply arguing my point of view.


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> Hi badgrammar. I appreciate your well-argued views in post #84.
> 
> However, it still cannot be denied that the taking of one's husband's surname on marriage, is "tradition" and one based on a male-dominated society.
> 
> You may be able to "choose which aspects" of traditional gender roles "please" you, but mainly women cannot.
> 
> As for "dictating to women what they should or should not do" - not I! I am simply arguing my point of view.


 
I totally agree with badgrammar. 

Emma, you say" it still cannot be denied that taking of one's husbands name is a tradition base don a male dominated-society". Yes, I cannot deny it, but... Is this really so important? The point is that women chose by their own will if they will do so or not, and if they chose to do it, they shouln't be labeled as submissive. It is their choice. Let them be their choice. They shouldn't be ordered neither by men nor by feminists. Their decision should be respected.

In your secon parragraph, you say that badgrammar can chose, but many women cannot. True, too, and very sad one. But this thread was asking mainly about women in the US, and badgrammar is the US citizen, like many other women that posted here. The questiono f equality of genders in general is another issue to analyze, but not in this thread.

PS: I also posted in this thread because as far as taking names of one¡s husbands is concerned, I feel identified with US women, since in my country is the same.


----------



## emma42

So you totally agree with me as well, Natasha!


----------



## emma42

Natasha, you can say "*in*equalities".

I know you keep trying to drag us (or me!) back to the original question, but I think the extension of the discussion is inevitable and relevant.  Might be wrong, but as I am not a Mod, I don't have to think _that_ much about it!


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> Natasha, you can say "*in*equalities".
> 
> I know you keep trying to drag us (or me!) back to the original question, but I think the extension of the discussion is inevitable and relevant. Might be wrong, but as I am not a Mod, I don't have to think _that_ much about it!


 
thanks. Inequalities. 

Me neither.... But then, I will feel bad if they erase everything you've said, since everything you've said is so painfully true....


----------



## vince

maxiogee said:
			
		

> *
> What tosh!*
> I support many things I don't take advantage of —> most notedly the concept of "Sport for all" which was promoted by our government here many years ago. I'm asporty, I don't do it, and I rarely watch it, and even more rarely attend it. That doesn't mean that I don't support the concept.
> 
> I support equal rights for men and women, but I don't have to take advantage of some of the rights women have in our society just to prove that.



Don't put words into my mouth. I never said that everyone who doesn't take advantage of all their rights means they don't support them.

I said that if you support equal rights, then unless you have a logical reason not to, you should be taking advantage of them.

If logical and practical reasons dictate that a woman should keep her last name and have the man change the last name, for example if the man doesn't like his last name and the woman likes hers, and the bureaucracy to change names is not too troublesome, then the woman should keep her last name. If she insists on changing her last name despite all the logic and reasoning, solely because of sexist tradition, then this is not supporting a right.


----------



## zebedee

emma42 said:
			
		

> Natasha, you can say "*in*equalities".
> 
> I know you keep trying to drag us (or me!) back to the original question, but I think the extension of the discussion is inevitable and relevant.  Might be wrong, but as I am not a Mod, I don't have to think _that_ much about it!


There certainly is a lot to be said on the subject if the discussion is extended to wider parameters. However Natasha's right, this thread is just for the maiden name/married name change in different cultures.

How about opening up a new thread with the points you and Natasha have come up with between you so the discussion can be continued? Like for example "equality of genders" "biological gender rôles"or something?


----------



## emma42

But, Zebedee, do you simply want people to say things like "Yes, in Estonia a woman usually takes her husband's name"?  That's not a discussion, is it?

The taking of a husband's (or, indeed, a wife's) surname is inextricably linked to the question of sexual equality in many many countries, is it not?  So, I'm not going off topic, am I?


----------



## zebedee

emma42 said:
			
		

> But, Zebedee, do you simply want people to say things like "Yes, in Estonia a woman usually takes her husband's name"?  That's not a discussion, is it?
> 
> The taking of a husband's (or, indeed, a wife's) surname is inextricably linked to the question of sexual equality in many many countries, is it not?  So, I'm not going off topic, am I?



No, not at all, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you're going off-topic. I'm inviting you to open another thread with a wider title because there's SO much interesting stuff to be said about this topic in a much broader spectrum and you & Natasha have come up with lots of intersting things to say right at the end of this thread. Of course, if you want to, I mean...


----------



## emma42

(Laughing) OK, Zebedee.  I understand you now.  Why don't you?


----------

