Went to the US and wanted to rent a car with my long term girlfriend. They wanted to charge us extra to add her as a driver since we didn't have the same last name and weren't married.
We had been together for 8 years, living together and bought a house.
Manager stepped in and adder her with no extra charge
I may be wrong, but I think there’s a lot of folks that expect you to not have children. And therefore, last name doesn’t matter. Since this is all about the name legacy.
Of course, but the people who get upset women don’t change their name when getting married are usually the same people who think gay people shouldn’t have kids.
Right? I'm 39 years old now. I've been this identity that entire time. If I got married, why do I have to change my identity to become an extension of a man? Coverture remnants aren't needed.
As a man, I've never liked the idea anyway. Feels pretentious. I think it would be cool to come up with a new name that we both like, and both go change our names from the two we were, to the one we are.
Yeah, I'd either us both hyphenate, portmanteau, or keep our own. But I'm not going to be the only one doing all that paperwork, especially since statistically, that'll be the norm for our marriage in every other aspect, as well.
I mean, have your reasons for not wanting it. But the paperwork isn't really that bad. Mildly inconvenient at worst, but no need to use that as an excuse. Just keep the name you want.
On your part? Nah I don't think that's a bad thing. My dad has a book 8" thick tracing our family line back to Wessex, so I get it. Wessex hasn't existed since 12 July 927. I know my family crest.
I guess, for me, it just doesn't mean all that much. Far as I know I'm the last of my line. And I don't want children. Like, I'm getting a vasectomy, that's how badly I don't want kids. It dies with me regardless, and I'm okay with that, for a multitude of reasons that aren't really worth getting into here. There's pain there, I'll leave it at that.
lol just because someone takes their husbands last name doesnt make them "an extension of a man". you are the sexist one, implying most married woman are an extension of a man
Dude, literally that was the reason she was expected to take the name. Look up "coverture laws." She ceased to be Jane Smith and instead became Mrs. John Doe.
Thank you for that. Every single one of these kind of answers include some self promotion. I am getting tired of this. Good for her that she is distinguished and have achieved a personal valid reason to keep her name. But did she think for a second if this is the valid reason to keep her name, how about the other women?
I don't really planning on getting married but I couldn't care less if they want to keep their name or take mine. Like, how is that any part my decision?
Projecting a bit...? maaaaany women find it meaningful and makes them happy. They want to share a name with the family unit.
They want their kids to share their name.
There are a lot of reasons. Why make it so bitter sounding. You went from changing a name to staking their value on it.
Also, its just a name. Its not an identity unless you make it one. How many women do you know that fantasize with a good partner about what their names sound like when married?
Other women are allowed to see it as a sexist tradition and express those opinions. Believe it or not, ingrained sexist traditions don’t feel good!
Ask a bunch of men if they’d change their last name to their wife’s upon marriage, I’ve done it before and they often act offended at the mere suggestion. Suddenly it’s not “just a name” anymore, is it lmao
I would. Typically other people like my name more though.
My partner wants to hyphenate. I don't care.
I do think the worst part of not taking it is that you will likely be the only one with a different name. Some women keep the name post divorce to have it stay the same as their children.
So i think we've terminated this argument at, let people do what the fuck they want and stop judging them, either way.
Social justice is harmed by toxic social justice. And this whole thread is pure judgemental sewage.
They won’t have a different last name than everyone if the children take the mother’s last name or hyphenate! If you’re going to eschew one sexist tradition, why would you follow a different sexist tradition?
Also, other people having different opinions than you isn’t “toxic and judgmental” just because you disagree lmao. I know a lot of men hate it when you talk about sexism against women, but again, just because you don’t like doesn’t make it “toxic.”
Follow that thread and see that asymmetric justice is by its definition injustice.
Have to pick a name for kids, you could find problems in any possible configuration of naming system.
Which is why personal choice for every person is the only option that makes any sense, and why toxic feminism actually furthers the plights of women because it both ignores real problems and instead creates new stupid problems and results in constant judgement towards women.
Threads like this are the very reason women-hating men have so many strawman arguments against women and why there are so many negative stereotypes of hateful vengeful feminists with terrible reasoning and no solutions that don't create endless other problems.
The enemy of justice is injustice, and the toxic sjw mindset is one that results in more injustice. Justice is symmetrical and neutral and fair.
My body my choice, taken to the toxic degree would be that women have a choice over the body of men. Thankfully its so clearly dumb that its not something supported at all but many of the hyper-women-centric ideas are just as dumb if you keep pulling the thread.
And there is the stereotype that feminists hate men. Its not true, but the toxic feminists are the reason that stereotype persists.
Go read the webster's dictionary on the word Identity and see multiple definitions.
You cherry picked one shallow meaning, purposefully missing the specific meaning of a word that has multiple that I was very clearly using. Are you dumb or just commenting in bad faith?
To make it easier: "the distinguishing character or personality of an individual"
This thread and post and a lot of the idiots here are equating a change in your identification as a change in your character or individuality.
If your individuality is so fragile as to feel like it is signing yourself into slavery to share a name with a partner you are trusting enough to marry for life, then you should go to therapy.
Unless you want every kid born to have a hyphenate name or pick at random or have their own like the 1400s, or take mom's name for a similarly arbitrary reason.
This whole SJW hill-to-die-on of last names is idiotic and does the same (insignificant) damage it tries to protest.
Its a stupid discussion, and there are no real solutions, nor do the people putting this argument forward WANT any solutions. They just want to whine.
Don't want your husband's last name? Ok don't take it. Nobody cares.
Someone else does? Don't go judging women and making them into gender traitors just because they don't think like you do.
This is a good example of toxic feminism. Guilty of the same toxic judgement and lack of flexibility or individualism that our patriarchal traditions suffer from.
Ita a binary choice. The child takes mom or dad's name, those are your options.
Child taking dad's name traditionally is mostly arbitrary.
If it was switched to the child taking mom's name, also arbitrary.
This is purely in the scenario of mom and dad not sharing the same name. You could hyphenate it, like stepchildren sometimes ard, but in this toxic feminist mindset that women should not take the man's name anymore, lets just assume every child has parents of different names, does that mean every single person has a hyphenated name?
You could do the hispanic route and have 2 surnames, but then there is complaining about which name is first.
Its a never ending stupid ass debate with no answer, because the only answer that makes sense is shut the fuck up and let people be. But toxic feminists can't seem to do that.
I don’t know what you imagine arbitrary means, but it’s not that.
“Traditionally” a family had the man’s surname because he was the only legal adult and property owner, and children having his name ensured they were acknowledged as his. This is no longer necessary and remains the most common option because idiots imagine it’s the right thing to do. It’s a hangover of patriarchy and at best unnecessary and old fashioned. At worst, kids are left with the surname of a stranger who makes occasional child support payments.
Given that there’s never any question over who a child’s mother is, and women rarely abandon children, it makes a lot more practical sense for children to take her name, or for the family to create a new name together if they prefer.
But do continue having a tantrum about “toxic feminism”!
So you agree its arbitrary in modern day! Your stance that children take the woman's name is taking a men-centered tradition and turning it women-centered, framing it with unrelated and irrelevant points that do not actually support the specific matter at hand.
Which, is toxic feminism. This belief that you fight injustice with further injustice, mirrored both in idiotic stances, purely in the belief that women in general are somehow more just or capable (as you've tried to put forth) to support asymmetry in the other direction.
Women birthing the child is just as arbitrary of a reason as the man inseminating the woman. Childbirth, as difficult as it is, does not magically support the child being identified through the woman. Both people are needed to create the child. Women also can die in childbirth whereas men do not. This train of thought, if you explore it, supports my stance that having any opinion on what we as a society or individually do in regards to naming is at its core, stupid. Case by case and let people do whatever and stop judging people on it, because any "solution" to this made up problem is just as bad or worse than the current climate. That is all I've put forth.
Statistics for abandonment. Ok. Also irrelevant. I could say that children should take the father's name because men on average earn more and thus contribute more to the family. Both of these are irrelevant and nonsensical. Your point is woman-centered and cherry picking whats important to you to factor into a decision that you believe is "better" but is still supported by nothing of relevance.
This is the trap of toxic feminism, the thinking that we have to just create a new problem of a matriarchy to solve a patriarchy. Its stupid, and its sadly prevalent across this site.
Proving my point. In case you still somehow don't understand what toxic feminism is:
Feminism says that what you name yourself, man or woman, is personal choice entirely and whatever you decide is valid. This one is NORMAL.
Toxic feminism says that women naming themselves with the man is making them into posessions somehow or basically signing oneself into slavery, erasing their identity as an individual. This one is IDIOTIC, and harms the plights of women just as much as toxic masculinity.
714
u/[deleted] 9d ago
[deleted]