Women Are Still Being Judged for Not Taking Their Husbands' Last Names

The Atlantic Wire ^ | Jen Doll

[ConservativeStatement]

Right now in the most of the developed world, it could be argued, women are considered about as "equal" to men as they have ever been. And yet, countering any "We've come a long way, baby"-type sentiment you might cheer about (intelligence in a woman is now considered by men to be more important than being pleasant and a good housekeeper; France is doing away with the term "mademoiselle"), there are deep, abiding problems that we're still working through. Some, like birth control access, are matters of health and freedom, while others are more "semantic," though no less problematic.

[ConservativeStatement]

If Jen married a Ken and he took her last name, he'd be a Ken Doll.

[achilles2000]

Feminism is mental illness.

[Just mythoughts]

Anyone who has spent any time searching ‘genealogy’ immediately hits walls for women ancestors. This notion that women are chattel for a man is primeval.

[umgud]

I’d sure be happier if my ex would go back to her maiden name. I’d be happier if she’d go somewhere far far away. Maybe a deserted island?

[the invisib1e hand]

Well that’s what they want, isn’t it? To be judged as being above being part of someone else, esp a man? These poor sows will never be happy. This is classic “don’t you dare/oh why don’t you look at my tits!?”

[Krankor]

I don’t judge the women who won’t change their names, I judge the wimpy husbands.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Do you know why the system is what it is?

A man can impregnate 100 women in as many days. The only way to keep track of the bloodline is to name the offspring after the father. If you named them after the mother, all those offspring (half-brothers and half-sisters) could easily marry and breed and cause an inbred generation.

Now, here’s the counter-argument. A woman could be married to “Joe” and claim that she was impregnated by “Joe” and “Joe” could claim to be the father. However, the woman can cheat and become impregnated by “Dick.” Certainly this happens, but nowhere near the extent that husbands and wives have children together. But because that happens, we need to praise monogamy and shame adultery and continue to have women take the last names of their husbands.

And I’ve never had any trouble with genealogy tracking down female ancestors, even those who did not marry. I’m not sure what you’re doing there, but the tree is as easy to fill out for females as it is for males.

[utherdoul]

Nearly every major culture on Earth (with the exception of judiasm and I may be wrong about that) is patrilinial as a fathers birth tended to determine the kids status.

Its tradition and its a deep rooted one. There is no need to change it and saying that it makes women “chattel” seems to show a few insecurities on your part.

When I get married and have children of my own they will be “douls” to show that I’m their father. The woman gives birth the least you women can do is acknowledge we sired the younglings.

[sauropod]

Taking a man’s last name is not treating a woman as “chattel.”

It is the woman honoring the man’s position in the house.

If my wife would not take my name, I wouldn’t have married her. I would view that as extreme disrespect. I feel the same way about hyphenated names. ‘Pod.

[SandRat]

..offspring (half-brothers and half-sisters) could easily marry and breed and cause an inbred generation.

You mean like the DemocRATS?

[Jack Hydrazine]

Women still need men to tell them to get out of a stuck car they drove onto railroad even while a train traveling at 55mph is barreling down on them.

http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/dramatic-rescue-seconds-before-train-hits-car-28414690.html

[Just mythoughts]

Do you know why the system is what it is? A man can impregnate 100 women in as many days. The only way to keep track of the bloodline is to name the offspring after the father. If you named them after the mother, all those offspring (half-brothers and half-sisters) could easily marry and breed and cause an inbred generation. Now, here’s the counter-argument. A woman could be married to “Joe” and claim that she was impregnated by “Joe” and “Joe” could claim to be the father. However, the woman can cheat and become impregnated by “Dick.” Certainly this happens, but nowhere near the extent that husbands and wives have children together. But because that happens, we need to praise monogamy and shame adultery and continue to have women take the last names of their husbands. And I’ve never had any trouble with genealogy tracking down female ancestors, even those who did not marry. I’m not sure what you’re doing there, but the tree is as easy to fill out for females as it is for males.

I have 'searched' for a female ancestor in the early 1700's and all I can find is the first name. AND another female ancestor who supposedly came from the Cherokee is not listed anywhere. So you have been fortunate in your search. IF the Cherokee did not get listed on the 'rolls' there is NO record of their existence. To contact the 'roll' keepers of the Cherokee is like seeking an entitlement, and if you are not on their rolls then you basically do not exist.

[aimhigh]

MS is an abbreviation for misery.

[sauropod]

And I’ve never had any trouble with genealogy tracking down female ancestors, even those who did not marry. I’m not sure what you’re doing there, but the tree is as easy to fill out for females as it is for males.

Agree. I've been doing genealogy pretty intensively the last couple of years and have not noticed any difference in the ease (or lack thereof) in researching somebody b/c of gender.

[Chode]

how do you figure that? i can trace mine back to the 1700's and the ship they came over on...

[MeganC]

“Feminism is mental illness.”

I’ve long said that there’s nothing the least bit feminine about feminism and feminists.

Look at the dried out hags of feminism from the 1970’s and then look at the eunuchs they always have for husbands. Those men combined would not amount to a pimple on a real man’s posterior.

And then look at the hatred and vitriol these skanks spew at women who choose to marry young and raise families. Their ideal for a young woman is that she should work at a career until she’s 40, hook up with some random guy to father a trophy child, and then raise the child on her own because who needs a man, right?

Look at the empty, unsatisfying lives those hags live. They watch ‘Sex in the City’ as if that’s a model for life and they cry to their therapists for anti-depressants when all they really needed was a wholesome and satisfying lifestyle. But by the time they realize thjey got it wrong all they’re capable of is of condemning the women who would rather marry a great guy, keep his house, and raise his kids.

They can have feminism.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Muzzies have a problem with inbreeding, also. Maybe that’s why they get along so well with DemocRats!

[Spok]

Women who think not changing their last name is a big deal are the kind of individuals (men AND women) who think symbolism, titles and pretense are substitutes for real character and substance, because they have no character or substance.

[Just mythoughts]

I don’t judge the women who won’t change their names, I judge the wimpy husbands.

There was a time when I would not have given a second thought to 'changing' the last name. But when I hit a wall in my ancestral search and all I can find is the woman's first name I have changed my opinion of maintaining that line of ancestors.... And of course NOT all females keep their last name for that reason.

[Jack Hydrazine]

It’s not ‘gender.’ Gender is what you give a word (masculine, feminine, or neuter). Sex is male or female.