last names

[kasia]

do any of you find something inherently unequal about wives having to take the last names of their husbands? even if we are "permitted" to keep our maiden names, we'll still be known as "mrs. [husband's last name]". why shouldn't they take our last names? or our kids? why not leave it up to the couple? and if it's just an issue of practicality and efficiency - isn't that a small price to pay for equality?

[applehead]

well, isn't it up to the couple???

[YuheiCarreau]

Well, my mom kept her name, and my sisters will probably do the same. But in the end, they're still taking on a man's name; the only difference is that the one they take is their father's.

I despise people who hyphenate their names, though. That's just a cruel thing to do. Think about their grandkids - if they have a son, the grandkid will have a hyphenated last name but it won't have his mother's last name in it; if they have a daughter and she marries, will she carry on the tradition and have a double hyphen, or keep her hyphenated last name that has nothing to do with her husband's and childrens' names?

[teaz0r]

i don't mind taking
my husband's name,
as long as it's not a pansy
assed last name. or
else i'm keeping mine.

[ism]

Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 03:28 AM
do any of you find something inherently unequal about wives having to take the last names of their husbands? even if we are "permitted" to keep our maiden names, we'll still be known as "mrs. [husband's last name]". why shouldn't they take our last names? or our kids? why not leave it up to the couple? and if it's just an issue of practicality and efficiency - isn't that a small price to pay for equality?
You get the engagement ring.

[teaz0r]

Originally posted by ism@May 7 2003, 02:54 PM
You get the engagement ring.
http://pressurize.net/images/ring2.jpg

[kasia]

Originally posted by applehead@May 6 2003, 11:35 PM
well, isn't it up to the couple???
but having the entire family take the wife's maiden name is not common. i'm not even sure if it will be socially accepted.

and the engagement ring thing...more proof that women are bought and become the property of the man.

[teaz0r]

Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 03:11 PM
and the engagement ring thing...more proof that women are bought and become the property of the man.
modern day dowry.

i mean my indian girlfriends
still give their husbands
dowry. the last one that got
married bought a car and a
house for the husband.

would that be considered
as the man becoming a
property of the woman?

just culture and traditions no?

[tapestrybabe]

after my parents divorced...
my mom too back on her last name... yet still keeping the last name of my dad... i guess so in order to feel connected to us kids... so instead of just hinnen... she hyphenates it with hughes-hinnen...

my dad's second wife... the wife has NEVER took on my dad's last name... alt, they never plan on having kids together... so i dun know how that would change things... if they did have kids tho... and as for the whole engagement ring set up... from my understanding... they both received an engagement ring... and later on... they used that same ring as their wedding ring...

[lethal]

One of my classmate's brother-in-law changed his last name to his wife's. She is Swedish and they moved to Sweden to live, so I guess they figured it would be easier to go with her last name as a family name. Of course, the immigration people in Sweden gave hima hard time because all his records and documents had his "maiden" name on it, so they were wondering if he was really who he claimed to be. After all, "no man" changes his last name to his wife's...something to that effect was their reasoning.

[kasia]

i mean - it's an arbitrary rule that the family name is the husband's name.

why not take the name of whoever has a higher salary? or something like that?

[Chester]

Originally posted by kasia@May 6 2003, 11:28 PM
why not leave it up to the couple?
It is up to the couple.

I have friends who have pondered both changing their names to a completely new synthesis of their names. I've known people who both changed to a hyphenated combination.

I have a friend from Sweden who has a pretty unique last name. She doesn't have a brother and feels strongly about her responsibility of continuing the line.

And so this is her condition for marriage: she has no problem changing her last name, but their children must carry her maiden name.

She's cool that way.

Personally, I wouldn't change my name nor hyphenate it. But, at the same time, I wouldn't ask my wife to change her's.

But, at the same time, my children will carry my name...

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chester@May 7 2003, 10:37 AM
It is up to the couple.

I have friends who have pondered both changing their names to a completely new synthesis of their names. I've known people who both changed to a hyphenated combination.

I have a friend from Sweden who has a pretty unique last name. She doesn't have a brother and feels strongly about her responsibility of continuing the line.

And so this is her condition for marriage: she has no problem changing her last name, but their children must carry her maiden name.

She's cool that way.

Personally, I wouldn't change my name nor hyphenate it. But, at the same time, I wouldn't ask my wife to change her's.

But, at the same time, my children will carry my name...
what about your kids? and when people refer to you as a couple, should they use your last name or hers?

i wouldn't mind being referred to as mrs. daniel wu. but at the same time, i would expect that he wouldn't mind being refered to as mr. kasie lee. sounds foreign. but equality is foreign to us.

[ChinaLama]

either way, women lose since their maiden name is their father's last name. yay...patriarchy!

i think the only way to solve this is for every family to have a new last name for each generation, mutually agreed by husband and wife, and then neither husband or wife should take on the others' last name. :)

[kasia]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@May 7 2003, 10:56 AM
either way, women lose since their maiden name is their father's last name. yay...patriarchy!
that will only be for the short run.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 06:57 PM
that will only be for the short run.
but it all traces back to a man in the end. "your" last name, which would be your mom's, is actually your grandpa's or whatever. so maybe we should just get rid of continuous last names and let people create them anew. or do it the arab way, "son of..." or "daughter of..." first name.

[kasia]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@May 7 2003, 11:04 AM
but it all traces back to a man in the end. "your" last name, which would be your mom's, is actually your grandpa's or whatever. so maybe we should just get rid of continuous last names and let people create them anew. or do it the arab way, "son of..." or "daughter of..." first name.
it's okay if it has its roots in sexism. so long as sexism isn't perpetuated. right?

[DragonKnight]

Heh, I remember this one Japanese drama in which the groom decided to take the wife's last name so that bride's family line (in terms of family name) will not end.

I personally think its a couple's decision. I know one of my Spanish teachers had the name Cardenaz-Diaz. She made a comment on how one is her's the other her husband's. Then she busted out how she could give a rat's ass about her husband's last name. :lol:

[Fireblade]

Why not have the couple create a new last name? One of my friend's parents decided to create a new last name, instead of trying to decide which name got to stick to who. If you're starting a new life, why not a new last name? I imagine that if it came to that, I would do it whenever I got married.

[Chester]

Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Chester@May 7 2003, 10:37 AM

But, at the same time, my children will carry my name...
what about your kids? and when people refer to you as a couple, should they use your last name or hers?

Mine -- because they'll carry my last name.

This obviously isn't set in stone especially since I tend to prefer headstrong women, so who knows? But that's my default opinion on the subject.

i wouldn't mind being referred to as mrs. daniel wu.

I would. I think that construction is idiotic and unnecessarily patronizing...

but at the same time, i would expect that he wouldn't mind being refered to as mr. kasie lee.

...as that would be.

The whole issue of last names shows how deeply sexism lies in the most innocuous of traditions, but just like the tradition of men being expected to spring for the engagement rock, it doesn't bother me terribly much.

Of course, this is probably because I won't need to change my name.

I guess, while I believe in the general principle of gender equality, there are still some archaic male prerogatives that I will accept.

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chester@May 7 2003, 01:49 PM
Of course, this is probably because I won't need to change my name.
i think that just about says it all.

how do other women on this board feel? And if you don't care, why not?

[Elizabeth A.]

Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 02:28 AM
do any of you find something inherently unequal about wives having to take the last names of their husbands? even if we are "permitted" to keep our maiden names, we'll still be known as "mrs. [husband's last name]".
Of course it's inherently unequal! It was once a symbol of a woman becoming, quite literally under the law, the property of her husband.

And anyone who still calls you Mrs. after you specifically tell them that you have not changed your name is a TWIT!

[YuheiCarreau]

When my father's parents got married, her family made them promise to give one son their family name - Abe - to continue the family line ('cause my grandma's family was kinda aristocratic, and my grandpa was just a country bumpkin). But he never had any kids. My grandma tried to get my parents to do the same thing with me, but they said no (good thing too, since I'm the only male child).

I suppose the only way to make things truly equal would be for the couple to make up a new last name (I saw a gay couple do that on one of those MTV documentaries), but then you'd have a hell of a time tracing your lineage. I think it's cool for the woman to keep her last name, but a lot of women want to have the same last name as their kids. My mom has a lot of trouble when she takes us to get our passports and things like that because her name doesn't even match our ethnicity.

Didn't the ancient Koreans used to make the man take the woman's name?

[tapestrybabe]

Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 06:38 PM
i think that just about says it all.

how do other women on this board feel? And if you don't care, why not?
my last name is hinnen...
and i wouldnt mind taking on a last name
of my husband if it was like shin or something like that...

[BeTheReds]

Korean women don't change their names when they get married.

So even if you did marry a Mr. Shin, it would be really strange if you became Mrs. Shin.

Get married to a Korean dude and change your last name to Kim, regardless of what his last name is.

[tapestrybabe]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@May 7 2003, 08:08 PM
Korean women don't change their names when they get married.
too bad...
i would change it anyways, depending on the last name...

[tapestrybabe]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@May 7 2003, 08:08 PM
Korean women don't change their names when they get married.

So even if you did marry a Mr. Shin, it would be really strange if you became Mrs. Shin.

Get married to a Korean dude and change your last name to Kim, regardless of what his last name is.
:/ sometimes you make things so difficult...
i just thought it would be neat just taking on a korean last name...
but its not written in stone that i would... cuz like yeah, come to think of it...
i can always take back my korean last name that i already have...
but i kinda like having the last name hinnen tho... cuz of its ties with my family...
so like whateverz...

[Uncle Tat]

Originally posted by DragonKnight@May 7 2003, 02:54 PM
Heh, I remember this one Japanese drama in which the groom decided to take the wife's last name so that bride's family line (in terms of family name) will not end.

I personally think its a couple's decision. I know one of my Spanish teachers had the name Cardenaz-Diaz. She made a comment on how one is her's the other her husband's. Then she busted out how she could give a rat's ass about her husband's last name. :lol:
Was the groom whipped?

Sure sounded like his wife had the penis in the family...

[iris]

I also think it's up to the couple and whatever they want their children's last name to be. In my family, we have many boys so I don't feel the "burden" of carrying on the last name.

Personally, I don't care either way. My last name begins with "Y." I'd like to move up the alphabet.

[YuheiCarreau]

Originally posted by Uncle Tat@May 7 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by DragonKnight@May 7 2003, 02:54 PM
Heh, I remember this one Japanese drama in which the groom decided to take the wife's last name so that bride's family line (in terms of family name) will not end.

I personally think its a couple's decision.  I know one of my Spanish teachers had the name Cardenaz-Diaz.  She made a comment on how one is her's the other her husband's.  Then she busted out how she could give a rat's ass about her husband's last name. :lol:
Was the groom whipped?

Sure sounded like his wife had the penis in the family...
It wasn't common in feudal Japan, but it did happen from time to time. One of those political things that only rich people really worry about...

[kasia]

Originally posted by Uncle Tat@May 7 2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by DragonKnight@May 7 2003, 02:54 PM
Heh, I remember this one Japanese drama in which the groom decided to take the wife's last name so that bride's family line (in terms of family name) will not end.

I personally think its a couple's decision.  I know one of my Spanish teachers had the name Cardenaz-Diaz.  She made a comment on how one is her's the other her husband's.  Then she busted out how she could give a rat's ass about her husband's last name. :lol:
Was the groom whipped?

Sure sounded like his wife had the penis in the family...
she had the penis because....he took her last name? you're asking if he was whipped because he took her last name? are you implying that most women are whipped?

[himura-dono]

no, but women are prescribed to be giving enough, but still dominant enough to make his woman take his name.

[YuheiCarreau]

Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Uncle Tat@May 7 2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by DragonKnight@May 7 2003, 02:54 PM
Heh, I remember this one Japanese drama in which the groom decided to take the wife's last name so that bride's family line (in terms of family name) will not end.

I personally think its a couple's decision. I know one of my Spanish teachers had the name Cardenaz-Diaz. She made a comment on how one is her's the other her husband's. Then she busted out how she could give a rat's ass about her husband's last name. :lol:
Was the groom whipped?

Sure sounded like his wife had the penis in the family...
she had the penis because....he took her last name? you're asking if he was whipped because he took her last name? are you implying that most women are whipped?
Objection! Leading the witness! Habeas Corpus! Corpus Christi!

[deez nuts]

and once again:

i don't care if my wife keeps her last name. but, i think it'll be uber moist for me to take her last name. female equality and empowerment doesn't come at the cost of male emasculation.

and why the hell would i take her last name?!?!?!?! mebbe it if it was cool or something...like hunglo.

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 7 2003, 06:45 PM
and once again:

i don't care if my wife keeps her last name. but, i think it'll be uber moist for me to take her last name. female equality and empowerment doesn't come at the cost of male emasculation.

and why the hell would i take her last name?!?!?!?! mebbe it if it was cool or something...like hunglo.
why would it be 'emasculation'?

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 7 2003, 06:45 PM
and once again:

i don't care if my wife keeps her last name. but, i think it'll be uber moist for me to take her last name. female equality and empowerment doesn't come at the cost of male emasculation.

and why the hell would i take her last name?!?!?!?! mebbe it if it was cool or something...like hunglo.
why would it be 'emasculation'?
the same reason your wondering why you should take your husband's name or why a woman should take her husband's surname not vice versa. if i don't require my wife to take my last name. she shouldn't require me to take her last name.

admit it, kasie, you just want your guys eating out of the palm of your hands and whipped. j/k!

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 7 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 7 2003, 06:45 PM
and once again:

i don't care if my wife keeps her last name. but, i think it'll be uber moist for me to take her last name. female equality and empowerment doesn't come at the cost of male emasculation.

and why the hell would i take her last name?!?!?!?! mebbe it if it was cool or something...like hunglo.
why would it be 'emasculation'?
the same reason your wondering why you should take your husband's name or a woman should take her husband's surname.

admit it, kasie, you just want your guys eating out of the palm of your hands and whipped. j/k!
i actually don't see why we need last names at all. and i don't think it's completely unacceptable for a woman to take a man's last name. i just don't think she should be coerced - whether by law or by informal sanctions by society. if she does decide to take it, i don't think that she is stripped of her rights - if she herself has decided to - it must be her independent decision. same can go for men.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

A submission of sorts. The whole reason you take the name of the husband is a traditional way of identifying the allegiance of the family. If the woman owns the allegiance, then you're kind of unmanned, aren't you?

Yeah. I like my name. She doesn't have to take it, but I think the kids should have my name. The children should know the names of the man who'll beat them into fearful submission.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 7 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 7 2003, 06:45 PM
and once again:

i don't care if my wife keeps her last name. but, i think it'll be uber moist for me to take her last name. female equality and empowerment doesn't come at the cost of male emasculation.

and why the hell would i take her last name?!?!?!?! mebbe it if it was cool or something...like hunglo.
why would it be 'emasculation'?
the same reason your wondering why you should take your husband's name or a woman should take her husband's surname.

admit it, kasie, you just want your guys eating out of the palm of your hands and whipped. j/k!
i actually don't see why we need last names at all.
i agree...

kinda like prince, cher etc etc

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 7 2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 7 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 7 2003, 06:45 PM
and once again:

i don't care if my wife keeps her last name. but, i think it'll be uber moist for me to take her last name. female equality and empowerment doesn't come at the cost of male emasculation.

and why the hell would i take her last name?!?!?!?! mebbe it if it was cool or something...like hunglo.
why would it be 'emasculation'?
the same reason your wondering why you should take your husband's name or a woman should take her husband's surname.

admit it, kasie, you just want your guys eating out of the palm of your hands and whipped. j/k!
i actually don't see why we need last names at all.
i agree...

kinda like prince, cher etc etc
we don't have last names in this forum and we're doing just fine.

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@May 7 2003, 06:50 PM
A submission of sorts. The whole reason you take the name of the husband is a traditional way of identifying the allegiance of the family. If the woman owns the allegiance, then you're kind of unmanned, aren't you?

Yeah. I like my name. She doesn't have to take it, but I think the kids should have my name. The children should know the names of the man who'll beat them into fearful submission.
so the rule should be to take the last name of the meaner person.

[ChinaLama]

fuck names. just give people license plates.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by kasia@May 8 2003, 02:53 AM
so the rule should be to take the last name of the meaner person.
so your kid WILL take your last name after all.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by tapestrybabe@May 8 2003, 09:48 AM
:/ sometimes you make things so difficult...
i just thought it would be neat just taking on a korean last name...

Legally change it then.

Make your current last name your middle name.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by kasia@May 7 2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by VBKao@May 7 2003, 06:50 PM
A submission of sorts. The whole reason you take the name of the husband is a traditional way of identifying the allegiance of the family. If the woman owns the allegiance, then you're kind of unmanned, aren't you?

Yeah. I like my name. She doesn't have to take it, but I think the kids should have my name. The children should know the names of the man who'll beat them into fearful submission.
so the rule should be to take the last name of the meaner person.
Well, I guess the tradition goes back to the old paternalistic property regimes, don't they? It made sense to do that back then. Who did stuff belong to? Who was the default head of the household? The man. It just makes things easier to identify.

I don't really have problems with hyphenating the names. Still, I think that if I'm going to raise the goddamn kids and support their noisy asses, they'd better carry on my family's name on. My dad didn't work himself to death just to have his name completely forgotten by his spolied-ass twinkie grandchildren.

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@May 7 2003, 07:32 PM
Still, I think that if I'm going to raise the goddamn kids and support their noisy asses, they'd better carry on my family's name on. My dad didn't work himself to death just to have his name completely forgotten by his spolied-ass twinkie grandchildren.
i feel the same way.

[tapestrybabe]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@May 7 2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by tapestrybabe@May 8 2003, 09:48 AM
:/ sometimes you make things so difficult...
i just thought it would be neat just taking on a korean last name...

Legally change it then.

Make your current last name your middle name.
hehe...
i dont own a birth certificate or anything like that...
but like on my naturalization records...
my full name IS actually spelled out...

toni joy kim sung ja hinnen :)

[ChinaLama]

yeah, this is America. Can't Korean Americans create their own cultural practices rather than slavishly follow old traditions?

[SunWuKong]

kasie, just marry someone with your surname.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by tapestrybabe@May 8 2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by BeTheReds@May 7 2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by tapestrybabe@May 8 2003, 09:48 AM
:/ sometimes you make things so difficult...
i just thought it would be neat just taking on a korean last name...

Legally change it then.

Make your current last name your middle name.
hehe...
i dont own a birth certificate or anything like that...
but like on my naturalization records...
my full name IS actually spelled out...

toni joy kim sung ja hinnen :)
Sung Ja Toni Joy Hinnen Kim

Well do whatever you wanna do.. :)

Sung Ja is a beautiful name...

[applehead]

i think it would be superficial.
if my children took MY last name
because i'm the only child of my parents,
in order to keep the family name alive.
regardless of their last name,
they're still who they are.

[golden_buns]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@May 7 2003, 08:31 PM
yeah, this is America. Can't Korean Americans create their own cultural practices rather than slavishly follow old traditions?
I didn't even change my name for a spanish one. I love my Korean name :D

[iris]

Originally posted by applehead@May 7 2003, 11:53 PM
i think it would be superficial.
if my children took MY last name
because i'm the only child of my parents,
in order to keep the family name alive.
regardless of their last name,
they're still who they are.
I totally agree Meena, hence why I don't care.

It's just a name. There are no laws stating I have to take my husband's surname or that my children have to have his last name. If later on, my daughter wanted mine, she can have it. Screw the census.

[lethal]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 12:44 AM
kasie, just marry someone with your surname.
My parents had the same last name. They are not related though...no jokes please.

Generally Vietnamese women do not change their names when they get married. Vietnamese-American women may.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@May 8 2003, 02:17 AM
My parents had the same last name. They are not related though...no jokes please.

Generally Vietnamese women do not change their names when they get married. Vietnamese-American women may.
same with chinese women, they don't change their names when they get married. however, say, if Jaymee Ong marries me, she won't change her name, but she'd also be known as Tam Tai Tai (my surname is Tam), which is the same thing as Mrs. Tam.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@May 8 2003, 02:17 AM
My parents had the same last name.  They are not related though...no jokes please.

Generally Vietnamese women do not change their names when they get married.  Vietnamese-American women may.
same with chinese women, they don't change their names when they get married. however, say, if Jaymee Ong marries me, she won't change her name, but she'd also be known as Tam Tai Tai (my surname is Tam), which is the same thing as Mrs. Tam.
bla bla tai tai isn't used often in Commie China, cuz we're all tongzimen. :) People are just Xiao this or Lao that for the most part.

[lethal]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@May 8 2003, 02:17 AM
My parents had the same last name.  They are not related though...no jokes please.

Generally Vietnamese women do not change their names when they get married.  Vietnamese-American women may.
same with chinese women, they don't change their names when they get married. however, say, if Jaymee Ong marries me, she won't change her name, but she'd also be known as Tam Tai Tai (my surname is Tam), which is the same thing as Mrs. Tam.
In Vietnamese, everyone goes by their first name.

So my dad is "Bac Lac" since his first name is "Lac." I'm "Anh An" since I am An. If I get married, my wife's title would be "Co An" regardless of what her name is. But people who knew her before she got married can call her by her own name, "Co Khanh"

Umm..this is really confusing...nevermind.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@May 8 2003, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@May 8 2003, 02:17 AM
My parents had the same last name. They are not related though...no jokes please.

Generally Vietnamese women do not change their names when they get married. Vietnamese-American women may.
same with chinese women, they don't change their names when they get married. however, say, if Jaymee Ong marries me, she won't change her name, but she'd also be known as Tam Tai Tai (my surname is Tam), which is the same thing as Mrs. Tam.
In Vietnamese, everyone goes by their first name.

So my dad is "Bac Lac" since his first name is "Lac." I'm "Anh An" since I am An. If I get married, my wife's title would be "Co An" regardless of what her name is. But people who knew her before she got married can call her by her own name, "Co Khanh"

Umm..this is really confusing...nevermind.
so what do "Bac", "Anh", and "Co" mean? are they names or are they titles?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@May 8 2003, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@May 8 2003, 02:17 AM
My parents had the same last name. They are not related though...no jokes please.

Generally Vietnamese women do not change their names when they get married. Vietnamese-American women may.
same with chinese women, they don't change their names when they get married. however, say, if Jaymee Ong marries me, she won't change her name, but she'd also be known as Tam Tai Tai (my surname is Tam), which is the same thing as Mrs. Tam.
bla bla tai tai isn't used often in Commie China, cuz we're all tongzimen. :) People are just Xiao this or Lao that for the most part.
eh, i would argue that this was only so, before and during the cultural revolution. it's really not like this anymore. well, people still call each other xiao this or lao that, but the tai tai title is back in usage.

[kayla]

i agree wiht SunWuKung. My mom didnt take my dad's last name, but she's also known as Ching Tai Tai. It's more like taking on a new title. I'm definately gonna keep my last name. I like it. And if I changed it, it just wouldnt seem fitting. Less individualistic maybe?

But when/if I have kids, my second son will definately have my last name. I come from a family of all girls and being the oldest, it feels like an obligation. But not a burden.

Inheriting your husbands last name seems more like a western cultural tradition.

[lethal]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@May 8 2003, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@May 8 2003, 02:17 AM
My parents had the same last name. They are not related though...no jokes please.

Generally Vietnamese women do not change their names when they get married. Vietnamese-American women may.
same with chinese women, they don't change their names when they get married. however, say, if Jaymee Ong marries me, she won't change her name, but she'd also be known as Tam Tai Tai (my surname is Tam), which is the same thing as Mrs. Tam.
In Vietnamese, everyone goes by their first name.

So my dad is "Bac Lac" since his first name is "Lac." I'm "Anh An" since I am An. If I get married, my wife's title would be "Co An" regardless of what her name is. But people who knew her before she got married can call her by her own name, "Co Khanh"

Umm..this is really confusing...nevermind.
so what do "Bac", "Anh", and "Co" mean? are they names or are they titles?
Titles.

Bac is a man of your dad's generation who is older/higher than your father.

Anh is a man of you generation who is older than you.

Co is a woman of your mom's generation who is younger than your mom.

The damn title system is too damn complex. These are just some simple ones.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by ChinaLama@May 8 2003, 02:26 AM

bla bla tai tai isn't used often in Commie China, cuz we're all tongzimen. :) People are just Xiao this or Lao that for the most part.
eh, i would argue that this was only so, before and during the cultural revolution. it's really not like this anymore. well, people still call each other xiao this or lao that, but the tai tai title is back in usage.
damn capitalists and feudalists. :P i think this was true up till the 80s at least, cuz my parents left china in the 80s and my mom is unused to being called tai tai or calling others tai tai.

[kasia]

Originally posted by iris@May 7 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by applehead@May 7 2003, 11:53 PM
i think it would be superficial.
if my children took MY last name
because i'm the only child of my parents,
in order to keep the family name alive.
regardless of their last name,
they're still who they are.
I totally agree Meena, hence why I don't care.

It's just a name. There are no laws stating I have to take my husband's surname or that my children have to have his last name. If later on, my daughter wanted mine, she can have it. Screw the census.
that's missing the point. informal sanctions play as much of a role, if not more, than formal sanctions.

and i disagree with meena's argument that it's superficial. take a look at some of the guy's comments. taking our last name would "emasculate them". they want their kids to have their last name our of respect for their fathers have done. if it's superficial, why would they care?

i also believe that some women are reluctant to care too much as a result of coercive love. holding traditional beliefs - patriarchal beliefs - is positively reinforced in our society. no guy wants a girl who cares too much about equality. and no girl wants to turn guys away.

here's a bit about this from an old thread:
"the same, i believe, can be applied to the current situation of women. sometimes i really believe that the institution of marriage is what continues this oppression. from the time we are young, we have been socialized to believe that our one goal, really, is to find the right mate. (note: this goal is not as high on a guy's priority list as it is for women.) even when we're not looking for husbands, subconsciously we know that is our goal, and we act in a manner that we think would best please men. our current society--to this day and age--moreover, rewards and punishes women in accordance to whether they are complacent with this system. one obvious example of punishment is the way in which many guys shy away from girls that are feminists. all feminists ask for is equality--and some men treat that as though it is a disease or something. most girls pick up on this and when posed with the question about whether they themselves are feminists--which, in truth, is only asking if they would prefer not to be treated as doormats--they declare that they most definitely are not *or* they say something to the effect of, "i believe in some feminist thought but i'm not a butch." since when did voicing a desire for equal rights make one a homosexual?"

the easier way out - which most of us choose to take - is to rationalize. we don't like to feel that we're oppressed but at the same time we don't want to fight for equality and turn guys away. cognitive dissonance, for you psych people. thus, we rationalize and say, "oh, it's not a big deal anyway. it's just a name."

but it's not. it's symbolic of the heirarchical structure.

[applehead]

Originally posted by kasia@May 8 2003, 11:04 AM


and i disagree with meena's argument that it's superficial. take a look at some of the guy's comments. taking our last name would "emasculate them". they want their kids to have their last name our of respect for their fathers have done. if it's superficial, why would they care?

i don't read the guy's posts on threads like this.
they're idiots.
and they talk out of their ass most of the time.
i didn't even take victor's post
seriously.
no offense victor

Still, I think that if I'm going to raise the goddamn kids and support their noisy asses, they'd better carry on my family's name on. My dad didn't work himself to death just to have his name completely forgotten by his spolied-ass twinkie grandchildren.

that would hold true for your wife too.
i don't know why you should be so special.

[kasia]

Originally posted by applehead@May 8 2003, 11:13 AM
that would hold true for your wife too.
i don't know why you should be so special.
hahaha. yes. exactly.

[applehead]

oh man.
vic's going to get soooooooo pissed off.

[ChinaLama]

I don't think Vic is arguing that his family name has to be the exclusive family name, just that it should be a part of the family name, so it's not excluding his wife at all. I mean, you could have a Kao-xx, or an xx-Kao, or whatever, too.

gee people stop making all of us men sexists. :P

[kasia]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@May 8 2003, 11:24 AM
gee people stop making all of us men sexists. :P
you all are. you can't help it.

except for john stuart mill. and ab. and my dad.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by kasia@May 8 2003, 07:25 PM
you all are. you can't help it.
just like you can't help being a bi--- never mind, don't want to prove your point. B)

[kasia]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@May 8 2003, 11:27 AM
just like you can't help being a bi--- never mind, don't want to prove your point. B)
yeh, see. *points at chinalama* that's what i mean.

[Chester]

Originally posted by applehead@May 8 2003, 11:13 AM
that would hold true for your wife too.
i don't know why you should be so special.
You can look at it this way. You can also look at it in the sense that a woman doesn't subject herself to social censure or ridicule if she changes her last name. And a man's children not bearing his name...that is a bit too evocative of being cuckolded.

I'm not claiming that any of this is right or fair -- I don't think anyone is -- but it is the way it is. If a woman were to change her last name or have her children take her partner's name, the only ridicule she'd come under would be emanating from hyper-shrill Dworkinesque extremists, and who gives a rat's ass what those harpies have to say, anyway?

Anyway, there really is no truly equal way to address the issue -- not any practical ones.

Someone has to concede their "interest" on this issue, or it just won't work out. I don't think the male is automatically more deserving of name rights, but they've got to go to one or the other, and one rocks the boat less.

Which is unfair. Obviously and egregiously so and to continue down the line of tradition just reinforces its legitimacy. I won't argue with that.

But, again, unless you get into impractical and socially-imprudent solutions, someone is going to get the short end of the stick on this one.

So then, in my mind, the question is how to compensate for this. My pragmatic approach would be to figure out how to balance the decks in other ways.

[deez nuts]

applehead and kasie. one of you go make my dinner and the other go fetch my slippers and a beer. yes, i'm a sexist pig.

kas, just admit it. you just want it your way or the highway. i like my thinking of not requiring my wife to change her last name nor am i gonna change my last name to her last name.

you should pull a rosie o'donnell: adopt an asian orphan and have the kid take your last name while you ponder the whole marriage and free love issue.

hahaha this whole thing is really bothering you ain't it? don't like the name kasie oh? i'm sure it'll grow on you and you'll grow to love it.

[iris]

Originally posted by kasia@May 8 2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by iris@May 7 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by applehead@May 7 2003, 11:53 PM
i think it would be superficial.
if my children took MY last name
because i'm the only child of my parents,
in order to keep the family name alive.
regardless of their last name,
they're still who they are.
I totally agree Meena, hence why I don't care.

It's just a name. There are no laws stating I have to take my husband's surname or that my children have to have his last name. If later on, my daughter wanted mine, she can have it. Screw the census.
that's missing the point. informal sanctions play as much of a role, if not more, than formal sanctions.

and i disagree with meena's argument that it's superficial. take a look at some of the guy's comments. taking our last name would "emasculate them". they want their kids to have their last name our of respect for their fathers have done. if it's superficial, why would they care?

i also believe that some women are reluctant to care too much as a result of coercive love. holding traditional beliefs - patriarchal beliefs - is positively reinforced in our society. no guy wants a girl who cares too much about equality. and no girl wants to turn guys away.

the easier way out - which most of us choose to take - is to rationalize. we don't like to feel that we're oppressed but at the same time we don't want to fight for equality and turn guys away. cognitive dissonance, for you psych people. thus, we rationalize and say, "oh, it's not a big deal anyway. it's just a name."

but it's not. it's symbolic of the heirarchical structure.
Originally posted by applehead @ May 8 2003@ 1:13 PM
i don't read the guy's posts on threads like this.
they're idiots.
and they talk out of their ass most of the time.
i didn't even take victor's post
seriously.
no offense victor

A woman has no problem with it because she is in an equal relationship. In that instance, it shouldn't matter and society shouldn't force her to care about a superficial issue. A good relationship includes equality and compromise.

My boyfriend and I have had this conversation and he couldn't care less whether he took my last name or I took his because both of us think it's just a name. To us, we have more important things to discuss regarding our future than what last names our children carry. The issue of surnames is not a power struggle for us though it may be for others.

[applehead]

Originally posted by Chester@May 8 2003, 11:50 AM

You can look at it this way. You can also look at it in the sense that a woman doesn't subject herself to social censure or ridicule if she changes her last name.
i think it would be pretty cool
to meet a guy who took his
wife's last name.
i won't ridicule him.
but maybe it would be because
i'm a woman.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by applehead@May 8 2003, 02:13 PM
that would hold true for your wife too.
i don't know why you should be so special.
Most of the women I meet don't care, so I figure I'll get my way as far as the kids. I could give a fuck less what she chooses to name herself. I figure if it's the same name of the woman I fell in love with, that shouldn't be so bad.

And if she is as messed up as me as far as obligations to paternal figures go, we'll talk it out. Maybe we'll hyphenate. The kid can always change the name. There are ways to compromise.

[MellowDrama]

I've told my gf that if we get married I could care less what she does with her last name, keep it or change it it's her choice, but that the kids get my last name, and she can pick the first name(s). Fair compromise I think.

My parents said they don't care, either, if my gf does change her name or my brother's soon-to-be-wife changes her's, even though my mom did change her last name to my dad's, as long as the grandkids have our last names, and the first names can be pronounced fairly easily :lol:

Names are kind of a weird subject in my family, cuz there's a chance that my last name might be "made up." :o But still, a younger brother of my dad's, one of my uncles, allowed his kids to take his wife's last name, depriving our family of a name-carrier (only 5 of us), which royally pissed off some of my family. [The fact that she and my uncle subsequently divorced shortly after the kids were born may have had something to do with it too :unsure: ]

On my mom's side, I have an uncle (he married into our family) who changed his name. Well, he basically changed his whole identity because he went AWOL and was (is) on the run! So 2 of my little cousins have totally fake last names. And another branch of her family has different names, because that branch comes from a bastard son of my great grandfather! :P

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@May 8 2003, 03:04 PM
all feminists ask for is equality--and some men treat that as though it is a disease or something. most girls pick up on this and when posed with the question about whether they themselves are feminists--which, in truth, is only asking if they would prefer not to be treated as doormats
so by putting this in this thread and trying to relate it to the surname issue, are you trying to say that if men require that their children take their surnames, then they're treating their wives like doormats?

[seoyeanluvhoi]

as the first born of the only boy in my dad's family [so that means my dad was the only male born and he only had girls :huh: ]
uh anyways....so if i get married and my kids use their "dad's" last name, then our family clan's names thing is gone...do you know what i mean?

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 05:02 PM
so by putting this in this thread and trying to relate it to the surname issue, are you trying to say that if men require that their children take their surnames, then they're treating their wives like doormats?
if this is what kasie is trying to get at. ain't no thing. i can just as easily find other alternate means to treat my wife like a doormat.

[applehead]

Originally posted by seoyeanluvhoi@May 8 2003, 04:42 PM
as the first born of the only boy in my dad's family [so that means my dad was the only male born and he only had girls  :huh: ]
uh anyways....so if i get married and my kids use their "dad's" last name, then our family clan's names thing is gone...do you know what i mean?
yeah. so your point is... you want your
future children to take YOUR last name?

[ism]

Originally posted by kasia@May 8 2003, 03:04 PM
that's missing the point. informal sanctions play as much of a role, if not more, than formal sanctions.

i also believe that some women are reluctant to care too much as a result of coercive love. holding traditional beliefs - patriarchal beliefs - is positively reinforced in our society. no guy wants a girl who cares too much about equality. and no girl wants to turn guys away.
I agree.

From now on, women do not try to figure out how much money a guy makes, do not expect an engagement ring, and do not expect a guy to work. Men will no longer expect women to take their last name.

[Elizabeth A.]

Originally posted by ism@May 8 2003, 10:40 PM
I agree.

From now on, women do not try to figure out how much money a guy makes, do not expect an engagement ring, and do not expect a guy to work. Men will no longer expect women to take their last name.
I have absolutely no problem with this.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 8 2003, 09:52 PM
if this is what kasie is trying to get at. ain't no thing. i can just as easily find other alternate means to treat my wife like a doormat.
:lol:

damn. i want to be able to go to Home Depot and buy a doormat that'll cook, clean, take care of the finances, basically run the household, etc.

[himura-dono]

Originally posted by ism@May 8 2003, 07:40 PM

From now on, women do not try to figure out how much money a guy makes, do not expect an engagement ring, and do not expect a guy to work. Men will no longer expect women to take their last name.
:)

ism, THE TRUTHSAYER!

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 9 2003, 01:09 AM
:lol:

damn. i want to be able to go to Home Depot and buy a doormat that'll cook, clean, take care of the finances, basically run the household, etc.
all at the bottom bargain basement price of taking her last name and allowing future progeny to do the same. sounds like a sweet deal to me.

holla back here, if you think this is a sweet deal:

http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?ac...=ST&f=12&t=8495 (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=8495)

[kasia]

Originally posted by himura-dono@May 9 2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by ism@May 8 2003, 07:40 PM

From now on, women do not try to figure out how much money a guy makes, do not expect an engagement ring, and do not expect a guy to work.  Men will no longer expect women to take their last name.
:)

ism, THE TRUTHSAYER!
i never ask. i'm smarter than all the guys i meet.

[golden_buns]

Originally posted by seoyeanluvhoi@May 8 2003, 04:42 PM
as the first born of the only boy in my dad's family [so that means my dad was the only male born and he only had girls :huh: ]
uh anyways....so if i get married and my kids use their "dad's" last name, then our family clan's names thing is gone...do you know what i mean?
marry a guy that has your last name.

[ism]

Originally posted by kasia@May 9 2003, 09:30 PM
i never ask.  i'm smarter than all the guys i meet.
I wish you had addressed my point directly, and seen through the smartassness for the valid point contained within. Perhaps I was being too subtle, or this horse is now glue.

To be blunt: centering the issue around feminism is misleading. It's simply about tradition. This ties in with your marriage topic (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=38&t=8449&). If marriage is an unnatural tradition, how can those that partake in it be expected to be buck certain parts of it? People who have no problem with the concept of marriage generally wouldn't have a problem with the name and engagement ring traditions. The ones that do have a problem have the obvious choice of not engaging in such activity, or arranging changes with their partner(s). We've talked about what the old traditions mean today. If people have to think really hard to understand that it's founded in sexist beliefs, is it still sexist today, or just a mindless tradition? I don't think this topic needs to get muddled with a loaded argument about empowering women. Both sexes are complicit in perpetuating the traditions.

[kasia]

Originally posted by ism@May 9 2003, 08:36 PM
I wish you had addressed my point directly, and seen through the smartassness for the valid point contained within.  Perhaps I was being too subtle, or this horse is now glue.

To be blunt: centering the issue around feminism is misleading.  It's simply about tradition.  This ties in with your marriage topic (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=38&t=8449&).  If marriage is an unnatural tradition, how can those that partake in it be expected to be buck certain parts of it?  People who have no problem with the concept of marriage generally wouldn't have a problem with the name and engagement ring traditions.  The ones that do have a problem have the obvious choice of not engaging in such activity, or arranging changes with their partner(s).  We've talked about what the old traditions mean today.  If people have to think really hard to understand that it's founded in sexist beliefs, is it still sexist today, or just a mindless tradition?  I don't think this topic needs to get muddled with a loaded argument about empowering women.  Both sexes are complicit in perpetuating the traditions.
i disagree. i think that the structure of marriages has changed a lot over the past decades and the concept of marriage is not inherently sexist. it may have been based on a sexist tradition - but the concept itself is not sexist.

i don't have a problem with marriage. i also don't have a problem with engagement ring - so long as both parties receive one. i do have a problem with society feeling that it is appropriate for women to take the men's last name but not vice versa.

it's not about tradition. why else would men talk about 'emasculation' and such when asked whether they would take their wife's last name?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@May 10 2003, 12:41 AM
it's not about tradition. why else would men talk about 'emasculation' and such when asked whether they would take their wife's last name?
you assume that tradition and not wanting to be emasculated are two concepts that are unrelated to each other. but they are. it's a patriarchal society after all.

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 9 2003, 09:44 PM
you assume that tradition and not wanting to be emasculated are two concepts that are unrelated to each other. but they are. it's a patriarchal society after all.
okay, you're right. the concept of 'emasculation' necessarily has to do with tradition - otherwise men won't feel like they're being stripped of anything at all. but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for change.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@May 10 2003, 01:59 AM
okay, you're right.  the concept of 'emasculation' necessarily has to do with tradition - otherwise men won't feel like they're being stripped of anything at all.  but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for change.
i feel that many women actually like this tradition of having their children take the father's surname, and themselves taking their husband's surname, instead of simply being insecure about losing their husbands or potential husbands if they do not conform to this trend.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@May 8 2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by iris@May 7 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by applehead@May 7 2003, 11:53 PM
i think it would be superficial.
if my children took MY last name
because i'm the only child of my parents,
in order to keep the family name alive.
regardless of their last name,
they're still who they are.
I totally agree Meena, hence why I don't care.

It's just a name. There are no laws stating I have to take my husband's surname or that my children have to have his last name. If later on, my daughter wanted mine, she can have it. Screw the census.
that's missing the point. informal sanctions play as much of a role, if not more, than formal sanctions.

and i disagree with meena's argument that it's superficial. take a look at some of the guy's comments. taking our last name would "emasculate them". they want their kids to have their last name our of respect for their fathers have done. if it's superficial, why would they care?
so now that we've established that it is at least partly because of tradition, i'd like to go back to this point and disagree with kasie.

meena and iris may personally feel that it is superficial for women to want their children to take their surnames, however, that does not necessarily say that men feel that it is superficial for men to want their children to take their surnames. why? because it's a tradition, and it is not superficial for children to take their father's surname.

so maybe their indifference is not "informal sanction" or a "sanction" of any kind. maybe it's just indifference.

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 9 2003, 10:28 PM
i feel that many women actually like this tradition of having their children take the father's surname, and themselves taking their husband's surname, instead of simply being insecure about losing their husbands or potential husbands if they do not conform to this trend.
false consciousness

you're from china - you should be familiar with marxist theory.

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 9 2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by kasia@May 8 2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by iris@May 7 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by applehead@May 7 2003, 11:53 PM
i think it would be superficial.
if my children took MY last name
because i'm the only child of my parents,
in order to keep the family name alive.
regardless of their last name,
they're still who they are.
I totally agree Meena, hence why I don't care.

It's just a name. There are no laws stating I have to take my husband's surname or that my children have to have his last name. If later on, my daughter wanted mine, she can have it. Screw the census.
that's missing the point. informal sanctions play as much of a role, if not more, than formal sanctions.

and i disagree with meena's argument that it's superficial. take a look at some of the guy's comments. taking our last name would "emasculate them". they want their kids to have their last name our of respect for their fathers have done. if it's superficial, why would they care?
so now that we've established that it is at least partly because of tradition, i'd like to go back to this point and disagree with kasie.

meena and iris may personally feel that it is superficial for women to want their children to take their surnames, however, that does not necessarily say that men feel that it is superficial for men to want their children to take their surnames. why? because it's a tradition, and it is not superficial for children to take their father's surname.

so maybe their indifference is not "informal sanction" or a "sanction" of any kind. maybe it's just indifference.
i wasn't saying that their indifference was an informal sanction. i'm saying that there are informal sanctions in society. such as little kids asking my kids why they have my last name instead of their dads. such as my parents and other family members wondering why i'm breaking the tradition. and so on.

since we are on the topic of their indifference, however, i will respectfully say that i think that they may have rationalized it. there's no way around it. it's inherently unequal.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kasia@May 9 2003, 11:41 PM


it's not about tradition. why else would men talk about 'emasculation' and such when asked whether they would take their wife's last name?
and for the last time the same reason women or some women think about it as dominance if they take the name of the husband.

i still believe in my rationale of i don't require her to do it nor should i be asked to do it.

bottomline for me: it's between the couple and it's no one else's business.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@May 10 2003, 04:40 AM
false consciousness

you're from china - you should be familiar with marxist theory.
i don't understand.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@May 10 2003, 04:42 AM
since we are on the topic of their indifference, however, i will respectfully say that i think that they may have rationalized it.  there's no way around it.  it's inherently unequal.
rationalised it? are you saying that people may be only indifferent because they can't do anything about it? if so - is it not at all possible that people, or rather, women, can be truly indifferent to this?

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 10 2003, 07:37 AM
rationalised it? are you saying that people may be only indifferent because they can't do anything about it? if so - is it not at all possible that people, or rather, women, can be truly indifferent to this?
sure. a lot of people are indifferent to a lot of things. some people don't care about anything at all.

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 10 2003, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by kasia@May 9 2003, 11:41 PM


it's not about tradition. why else would men talk about 'emasculation' and such when asked whether they would take their wife's last name?
and for the last time the same reason women or some women think about it as dominance if they take the name of the husband.

i still believe in my rationale of i don't require her to do it nor should i be asked to do it.

bottomline for me: it's between the couple and it's no one else's business.
what about your kids?

prior to earnings laws, men had full control over their wives' wages. a married women's labor, in essence, didn't belong to her - it belonged to her husband. she had no right to her wages.

when women were fighting for earnings laws, their argument was solely female autonomy. men, on the other hand, argued that it should be up to the couple. since they're married, they're supposed to be one. and it's not like the husbands deprive their wives of money.

assuming that the husbands do give their wives sufficient spending money, and assuming that couples always stay together, would it be your opinion that the earnings laws never should have been enacted?

in case you're missing the correlation, it has to do with female autonomy and sovereignty over self.

[deez nuts]

if you say so.

who said i'm having kids? if we do have kids, we have nine months to discuss it, if it's such a big issue with my wife.

i'm speaking in terms of a micro level. to put it bluntly, i don't care what went on in the past, what's going on now and what other couples are doing in regards to this matter. i just care about me and her; and doing what it takes, such as making acceptable compromises, to make the marriage work and each other happy.

[ism]

Originally posted by kasia@May 10 2003, 12:41 AM
i disagree. i think that the structure of marriages has changed a lot over the past decades and the concept of marriage is not inherently sexist. it may have been based on a sexist tradition - but the concept itself is not sexist.

i don't have a problem with marriage. i also don't have a problem with engagement ring - so long as both parties receive one. i do have a problem with society feeling that it is appropriate for women to take the men's last name but not vice versa.

it's not about tradition. why else would men talk about 'emasculation' and such when asked whether they would take their wife's last name?
If both parties receive an engagement ring, then that is egalitarianism. If neither party changes last name, then that is egalitarianism. Expecting society to be okay with the proposition than men change last name is just like expecting society to be okay with the proposition that women do not receive an engagement ring. Try going around telling your friends that you're getting married, and see what kind of reaction you get for not having a have a rock on your finger.

"Emasculation" and "feminism" in this debate are just ways of overextending equality into reparations. If society is okay with neither party changing their last name, you have your equality; the tradition is bucked. Wanting society to be okay with the exact opposite tradition is not about equality. That's revenge.

[kasia]

Originally posted by ism@May 10 2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by kasia@May 10 2003, 12:41 AM
i disagree.  i think that the structure of marriages has changed a lot over the past decades and the concept of marriage is not inherently sexist.  it may have been based on a sexist tradition - but the concept itself is not sexist.

i don't have a problem with marriage.  i also don't have a problem with engagement ring - so long as both parties receive one.  i do have a problem with society feeling that it is appropriate for women to take the men's last name but not vice versa.

it's not about tradition.  why else would men talk about 'emasculation' and such when asked whether they would take their wife's last name?
If both parties receive an engagement ring, then that is egalitarianism. If neither party changes last name, then that is egalitarianism. Expecting society to be okay with the proposition than men change last name is just like expecting society to be okay with the proposition that women do not receive an engagement ring. Try going around telling your friends that you're getting married, and see what kind of reaction you get for not having a have a rock on your finger.

"Emasculation" and "feminism" in this debate are just ways of overextending equality into reparations. If society is okay with neither party changing their last name, you have your equality; the tradition is bucked. Wanting society to be okay with the exact opposite tradition is not about equality. That's revenge.
you're forgetting about the kids.

[seoyeanluvhoi]

Originally posted by applehead@May 8 2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by seoyeanluvhoi@May 8 2003, 04:42 PM
as the first born of the only boy in my dad's family [so that means my dad was the only male born and he only had girls :huh: ]
uh anyways....so if i get married and my kids use their "dad's" last name, then our family clan's names thing is gone...do you know what i mean?
yeah. so your point is... you want your
future children to take YOUR last name?
well i guess it's not traditional but yes

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@May 10 2003, 03:02 PM
sure. a lot of people are indifferent to a lot of things. some people don't care about anything at all.
and some people care about things that may be inconsequential.

[deez nuts]

and some people are just bitter.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by ism@May 10 2003, 03:34 PM
Try going around telling your friends that you're getting married, and see what kind of reaction you get for not having a have a rock on your finger.
honestly, i don't think this would be such a big deal to some people in this day and age. when and if i decide that i want to get married, i'm basically going to ask my girlfriend what she would rather have - money towards a down payment for a house, or an engagement ring.

[ism]

Originally posted by kasia@May 10 2003, 05:32 PM
you're forgetting about the kids.
That is a separate problem with a separate solution. No kids? No problem!

[ism]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 10 2003, 09:40 PM
honestly, i don't think this would be such a big deal to some people in this day and age.  when and if i decide that i want to get married, i'm basically going to ask my girlfriend what she would rather have - money towards a down payment for a house, or an engagement ring.
I agree. It's a modern modification of the tradition that many people would find acceptable, just like neither party adopting a new last name. The difference is the value of moving away from the tradition.

The name change's traditional position creates an inequality against the female. The engagement ring's tradition position creates an inequaliy against the male. The name change's modified position is equality -- no one loses or gains anything. The engagement ring's modified position still creates an inequality -- the man's goods may no longer be transferred 100% in the form of a ring to the woman, but the equivelant of the man's goods are expected to be used towards the purchase of a joint property, in effect, 50% of it (assuming, of course, that the woman doesn't pool in an equal amount). True equality would remove the expectation of a ring or any equivelant substitution that is not matched by the female.

Whatever couples decide to do, that's great, it really is up to them. I'm not quite sure what Kasie wants beyond fixing a single inequality. There just happens to be inequalities for both parties, and it's only right that if one is going to be fixed, the others should be too.

Frankly, I see homosexuals spearheading egalitarianism in marriage before heteros, if marriage becomes a real option for them. They don't have to muddle in arguments about sexism, but what would be equal and practical for two parties.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by ism@May 10 2003, 10:38 PM
The name change's traditional position creates an inequality against the female. The engagement ring's tradition position creates an inequaliy against the male.
actually, i see the traditional position of an engagement ring as an inequality against women also. it's sort of like putting your mark on something to claim as your own. sort of like territorial pissings.

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 10 2003, 05:37 PM
and some people care about things that may be inconsequential.
you're defining it as such because you won't be the one losing your last name.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@May 10 2003, 11:19 PM
you're defining it as such because you won't be the one losing your last name.
maybe. but it's obvious to me from this thread that there are women that think this issue is inconsequential.

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 10 2003, 07:26 PM
maybe. but it's obvious to me from this thread that there are women that think this issue is inconsequential.
possible false consciousness.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@May 10 2003, 11:27 PM
possible false consciousness.
what's that?

[achtungbaby]

I dunno about you guys, but if I was a woman, shit like this would matter to me somewhat -- it's only natural that whatever team you're on, you're going to want the best for it. This isn't some concession, however, that guys are only disagreeing because they're trying to hold onto what they've got...like most matters of personal preference, the complexities can't be deconstructed on some friggen online forum.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@May 10 2003, 11:59 PM
I dunno about you guys, but if I was a woman, shit like this would matter to me somewhat -- it's only natural that whatever team you're on, you're going to want the best for it.
you're assuming that men and women want the exact same thing.

for example, while i only know a few men that wouldn't mind being house-husbands, and only one friend who actually is a house husband, i know many many more woman who want to be or are house-wives.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 10 2003, 08:37 PM
for example, while i only know a few men that wouldn't mind being house-husbands, and only one friend who actually is a house husband, i know many many more woman who want to be or are house-wives.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with women wanting to be housewives...or even anything remotely against what your prototypical "feminist" might permit. The point of feminism, at least from the perspective of a male pig like myself, is empowerment, autonomy and ultimately, choice...the freedom to choose between being a stay-at-home mom or going to work 9 to 5.

So far I've heard the argument that men are completely justified in refusing to recognize the obvious double-standard because either 1) equality isn't necessary amongst men and women because we want different things (and generally men choose to dictate what those things are); or 2) that at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter a whole lot anyway.

I lean more towards the latter. If the name was somehow mandated by law, then I could see a problem...but people are the way that they are. There's only so much of your own self-righteousness that you can try and sodomize them with.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by tazadar@May 11 2003, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by kasia@May 9 2003, 08:41 PM
i disagree. i think that the structure of marriages has changed a lot over the past decades and the concept of marriage is not inherently sexist. it may have been based on a sexist tradition - but the concept itself is not sexist.

i don't have a problem with marriage. i also don't have a problem with engagement ring - so long as both parties receive one. i do have a problem with society feeling that it is appropriate for women to take the men's last name but not vice versa.

it's not about tradition. why else would men talk about 'emasculation' and such when asked whether they would take their wife's last name?
I don't see how it's sexist to change last name when a woman get married. Since your in the subject of tradition [and culture], Korean women retain their maiden name after they're married. Some Chinese women don't change their last name either. My mom didn't change her last name. I know this is true for Vietnamese as well.
actually chinese women keep their maiden names also. it's just that they also gain a title as X Tai Tai, where X is their husband's surname.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@May 10 2003, 10:59 PM
I dunno about you guys, but if I was a woman, shit like this would matter to me somewhat --
that's cuz you a sensitive and understanding korean playah playah!

Originally posted by achtungbaby@May 10 2003, 10:59 PM
like most matters of personal preference, the complexities can't be deconstructed on some friggen online forum.

yo wifey started it.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 11 2003, 07:48 AM
that's cuz you a sensitive and understanding korean playah playah!

You need to employ all options to conquer the enemy :D


Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@May 11 2003, 07:48 AM
yo wifey started it.

What I said re: personal preference supports what you're saying :D

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@May 12 2003, 07:29 PM

You need to employ all options to conquer the enemy :D




What I said re: personal preference supports what you're saying :D
gimme pedro martinez.