Skip to comments.Women Are Still Being Judged for Not Taking Their Husbands' Last Names
Posted on 02/24/2012 3:44:35 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Sure. I got your point. There was a time when women were literally the property of men.
The modern Western tradition of a woman taking her husband’s name is obviously much different today, thank God.
What is to threaten? I stand by what I initially wrote. I know what it has been like to look at the census records early on in this nation. IF there was a man as head of the household, the woman might get her first name recorded.
The excellent gun/outdoors/human observer writer Jeff Cooper said it best, covering national and marital identities:
“We reserve the right to scoff at hyphenated Americans”.
Think how hard Ive had it trying trace my Norwegian roots when prior to the 1800s there was no fixed family name i.e. Ole Hansens son Erik became Erik Olesen and his daughter Ragnhild became Ragnhild Olsdatter at least until she married; Erikss son Arne became Arne Eriksen and his son Hans became Hans Arensen and so on.
You are absolutely correct. The early census takers only recorded the name of who was the head of the house.... I am NOT in opposition to a man being the head. What has been totally frustrating is that the woman, the 'mom', if not the 'head' is typically listed by first name only.
in another generation marriage will be as popular as becoming amish and everybody can keep their name
And I thought I had it rough.... I have enjoyed finding out what I have found but there is a void in what was deemed important to record.
Keep your name sign my prenup
Here are some ideas for researching that may help you.
Look at land records - deeds, wills, probate files.
Look at “tax rateables” - I have done this with a couple of my ancestors and have been able to trace where they were to a much finer degree than a census will give you.
Look at county histories, e.g. History of county x. There is often information on an ancestor in there that you may be researching. Although, if I understand correctly, to be put in a county history or biography you had to “subscribe” (pay) the compiler/writer. This is also true of maps.
Look at church records.
Look at town histories if you know the town he lived in/near.
Be prepared to spend a lot of time in libraries and courthouses. Most stuff is *not* online.
Don’t accept what is on ancestry.com or even the LDS websites w/o a lot of crosschecking. Most people on there don’t check their sources.
Cite your sources. This is so important. It will also help you to organize your records.
Oh, good grief, LOL! What BS.
Nothing warms a guy’s heart more than a gal who won’t take his last name.
Nope, no problems ahead with that marriage. Just smooth sailing ahead there, boy.
Bless yer heart. Obviously you have your pedigree all lined out, male and female. OR you don't give a darn whence the women in your heritage came.
I’m not overly concerned about my “pedigree.” My response concerned the women-as-chattel thing. That’s classic leftwing feminist ideology.
Two people,, marrying, adopt one last name. Then they, and their children, are identified as one family. This feminist crap is just another way to drive a wedge,, and to encourage people not to see their marriage as a new, unique creation.
And it’s idiotic to claim that geneology becomes more difficult. If anything,, I find it’s easier to trace female ancestors. The women in the family seem to naturally know far more about them. They are listed as mothers on birth certificates,,etc. And the occasional name change that occurred back in those days was well known and documented in many ways within family and government.
But i will admit, in this current era of the serial whore,, geneology researchers will have a devil of a time 150 years from about now.
Well honey I am interested in my heritage. AND when the women in my heritage are only recorded by their 'first names' IF at all that makes them chattel. I could care less about the left wing and their ideology.
Well, sweetiepie, you just go ahead and research it to your heart’s content. But please leave off with the chattel crap, OK? It’s nonsense, plain and simple.
I remember back to my wedding day in 1996...I was proud and happy to take my husband’s name. And he didn’t even brand me or make me wear his chains. :)