Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Women Are Still Being Judged for Not Taking Their Husbands' Last Names
The Atlantic Wire ^ | Jen Doll

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: marriage; names; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-145 next last
To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
...the woman can cheat and become impregnated by “Dick.”

Well, isn't that normally the case? :=)

51 posted on 02/24/2012 4:35:42 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Witlessness is not gender specific, except in 1950s sitcoms.

There was a local case of a guy pushing a stroller onto a train track this week. He and the child were both killed.
52 posted on 02/24/2012 4:36:19 PM PST by Nepeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nepeta

In all of the Latin American countries a woman continues to go by the name of her father after she gets married. In formal circumstances she adds “de” followed by her husband name, but at work everybody calls her by her father’s name. For example, the president of Argentina is Kristina Fernandez. Sometimes she is referred to as Kristina Fernandez de Kirchener.


53 posted on 02/24/2012 4:38:20 PM PST by forgotten man (forgotten man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

“Then you give me the proper term that dismisses the heritage of woman.”

term that dismisses the heritage?

freudian slip?

Chattel denotes property. Women aren’t property, at least in Christian tradition.


54 posted on 02/24/2012 4:38:44 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Well, at least you didn’t threaten me.


55 posted on 02/24/2012 4:39:25 PM PST by Krankor (eenie meenie, chili beanie, the spirits are about to speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
It’s only the Feministas that associate patrilineal surnames with women and chattel.

Excuse me? I would not know what the Feministas associate. Chattel is what it is. To ignore the heritage of the woman is a disservice to the offspring.

56 posted on 02/24/2012 4:45:04 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Nepeta

When it comes to cars women are more witless than men behind the wheel. This is based on my experience of driving about 750,000 miles.


57 posted on 02/24/2012 4:45:50 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: umgud
LOL.

I was just thinking that, were I still a young man and my fiance' were to insist on keeping her maiden name, I would promptly, and firmly, grant her wish...as I sent her down the road.

58 posted on 02/24/2012 4:46:31 PM PST by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
term that dismisses the heritage? freudian slip? Chattel denotes property. Women aren’t property, at least in Christian tradition.

And you wish to tell me that women have NOT been considered property, even with some claiming the Christian tradition.... I am so reminded of that book of Ruth.

59 posted on 02/24/2012 4:47:25 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
...because of my ancestry searches I keep hitting dead ends because the woman's lineage disappears unless there is special care to record her family.

The main problem I have found in cases like this is the timeframe of the records you are looking at. I have run into this with an ancestor that died in 1867. I don't know her maiden name, but her husband was a pioneer settler in Ohio in the early 1800s. He had a very common first name for the time period and I am left trying to sort out who is who without good records.

So I think I am understanding what you are saying.

60 posted on 02/24/2012 4:47:25 PM PST by sauropod (You can elect your very own tyranny - Marc Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
It’s only the Feministas that associate patrilineal surnames with women and chattel.

No.


61 posted on 02/24/2012 4:47:34 PM PST by Nepeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

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.


62 posted on 02/24/2012 4:48:45 PM PST by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
I personally know a guy and gal who both took each others hyphenated last name. For instance Sue Jones became Sue Jones-Smith and Bob Smith became Bob Smith-Jones. I wondered what name their kids would have, but they never had any.

Yeah, I can understand why this guy couldn't have any kids.
63 posted on 02/24/2012 4:49:16 PM PST by Krankor (eenie meenie, chili beanie, the spirits are about to speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Krankor
Well, at least you didn’t threaten me.

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.

64 posted on 02/24/2012 4:49:30 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: forgotten man
In all of the Latin American countries a woman continues to go by the name of her father after she gets married. In formal circumstances she adds “de” followed by her husband name, but at work everybody calls her by her father’s name. For example, the president of Argentina is Kristina Fernandez. Sometimes she is referred to as Kristina Fernandez de Kirchener.

I understand there is a similar tradition in China.
65 posted on 02/24/2012 4:50:15 PM PST by Nepeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

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”.


66 posted on 02/24/2012 4:52:08 PM PST by dainbramaged (I nearly threw my pit bull at the television.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Think how hard I’ve had it trying trace my Norwegian roots when prior to the 1800’s there was no fixed family name – i.e. Ole Hansen’s son Erik became Erik Olesen and his daughter Ragnhild became Ragnhild Olsdatter at least until she married; Eriks’s son Arne became Arne Eriksen and his son Hans became Hans Arensen and so on.


67 posted on 02/24/2012 4:52:34 PM PST by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
The main problem I have found in cases like this is the timeframe of the records you are looking at. I have run into this with an ancestor that died in 1867. I don't know her maiden name, but her husband was a pioneer settler in Ohio in the early 1800s. He had a very common first name for the time period and I am left trying to sort out who is who without good records. So I think I am understanding what you are saying

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.

68 posted on 02/24/2012 4:53:02 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

in another generation marriage will be as popular as becoming amish and everybody can keep their name


69 posted on 02/24/2012 4:53:15 PM PST by AnTiw1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Think how hard I’ve had it trying trace my Norwegian roots when prior to the 1800’s there was no fixed family name – i.e. Ole Hansen’s son Erik became Erik Olesen and his daughter Ragnhild became Ragnhild Olsdatter at least until she married; Eriks’s son Arne became Arne Eriksen and his son Hans became Hans Arensen and so on.

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.

70 posted on 02/24/2012 4:55:49 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
When it comes to cars women are more witless than men behind the wheel. This is based on my experience of driving about 750,000 miles.

With a similar number of life-miles and decades of driving, including a LOT of miles hauling a trailer, I have the insurance rate to prove my driving sensibilities.

I have seen witless drivers of all persuasions; the scariest ones come out in late morning before lunch. They're afraid of driving in traffic, and they do unexpected things.

I like driving in the middle of the night. The amateurs are off the road.
71 posted on 02/24/2012 4:57:23 PM PST by Nepeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Keep your name sign my prenup


72 posted on 02/24/2012 5:00:44 PM PST by ronnie raygun (V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

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.

hth, ‘Pod.


73 posted on 02/24/2012 5:01:25 PM PST by sauropod (You can elect your very own tyranny - Marc Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"This notion that women are chattel for a man is primeval."

Oh, good grief, LOL! What BS.

74 posted on 02/24/2012 5:03:37 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

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.


75 posted on 02/24/2012 5:10:51 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
Oh, good grief, LOL! What BS.

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.

76 posted on 02/24/2012 5:20:17 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

I’m not overly concerned about my “pedigree.” My response concerned the women-as-chattel thing. That’s classic leftwing feminist ideology.


77 posted on 02/24/2012 5:25:38 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

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.


78 posted on 02/24/2012 5:28:27 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
I’m not overly concerned about my “pedigree.” My response concerned the women-as-chattel thing. That’s classic leftwing feminist ideology.

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.

79 posted on 02/24/2012 5:30:07 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

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. :)


80 posted on 02/24/2012 5:33:31 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Consequences of feminism and other immoralities just ahead. Have fun. Enjoy the slide.


81 posted on 02/24/2012 5:41:57 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
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. :)

Hon, my interests comes from wanting to know about the women in my heritage. Nothing to do with the refusal of taking a man's last name in marriage. But you carry on in your bubble.

82 posted on 02/24/2012 5:42:00 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

I chose to keep my name when we married more than 35 years ago. It had nothing to do with respect or disrespect; and my husband did not care. It was a non-issue for us then and a non-issue for us now. Our children had no trouble with parents with different last names. Fortunately they were bright enough to figure it out.

Apparently the male ego in many cases can’t tolerate this simple idea of choice and must insist on convention.

During all these years when anyone was confused or irritated by it I always viewed it as their problem not mine.


83 posted on 02/24/2012 5:44:28 PM PST by Jenny217
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

“Chattel” chatter comes straight from the womens studies dept of the last 20 years.
Chattel has a dictionary and a legal definition. The social convention of women in love, joining into marriage, and publically demonstrating that they have formed a new, unique nuclear family by taking their new name,,,,is beautiful.

Seeing it as oppression, or more oddly,,,as chattel, tells us more about the mental place of the person who sees it so.


84 posted on 02/24/2012 5:47:51 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

“And he didn’t even brand me or make me wear his chains”

ROFLMAO,,, sounds like a good man you got there!


85 posted on 02/24/2012 5:50:29 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

a great idea is for women to formally keep the last name they were born with. you don’t have to go through all the hassle of getting it changed.

Informally in daily life use the husband’s last name.

problem solved!

then when you go through divorce and remarry and divorce again, you don’t have to go back and change it, then back to maiden, then new hubby’s name then back to maiden name again. what a hassle!

all names are made up from whole cloth and meaningless anyway, so who cares? people are changing their first and lasts names all the time nowadays. most people are born with sucky names and go by nicknames mostly.


86 posted on 02/24/2012 5:52:08 PM PST by snowstorm12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

I’m with you there. When I got divorced in October, 2011, part of the judge’s order was that my ex wife go back to the name she had when we married. She’s a sociopath and as much trouble as she has caused me in getting rid of her, she refuses to give up my name.


87 posted on 02/24/2012 5:53:57 PM PST by jsh3180
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
“Chattel” chatter comes straight from the womens studies dept of the last 20 years. Chattel has a dictionary and a legal definition. The social convention of women in love, joining into marriage, and publically demonstrating that they have formed a new, unique nuclear family by taking their new name,,,,is beautiful. Seeing it as oppression, or more oddly,,,as chattel, tells us more about the mental place of the person who sees it so.

The word chattel did not first appear 20 years ago. Women have been in eons of the past been treated and considered as chattel. Do not believe me then do some genealogy research in the 1700's and see whose names are fully recorded. The woman's identity was totally associated with the man they married. Which of course I have no problem in the taking with the man's last name, except when I want to find out what that woman's father's name might be.

I don't let the insane liberals dictate my vocabulary.

88 posted on 02/24/2012 5:56:40 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Nepeta

I have been hearing that same Feminist claptrap for the past 40/50 years and it hasn’t changed one iota. If you said that on DU you would be getting kudos from your Leftist sisters who are down with the struggle against men and boys.

Go back to DU!


89 posted on 02/24/2012 5:57:07 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

I’ve been married for 19 years and I still haven’t changed my last name on any documents. It is just too much work and it doesn’t seem to bother my husband.

Our son carries my husbands last name and I answer to Mrs. (husbands last name) if called that.

I’m not a feminist and I don’t consider this a big deal.


90 posted on 02/24/2012 5:57:24 PM PST by katnip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine; Senator Pardek

Once again it’s Friday night, the weekend is approaching and some men on FR don’t have dates for Saturday night.Next best thing is to get on FR and insult women.

Why not let people decide what they call themselves? Why do you care? Does it impact you in any way? LOL


91 posted on 02/24/2012 5:57:35 PM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Ok sport,,, no, Chattel did not literally appear 20 years ago, and i did not mean to confuse you. You apparently only understand literal meanings.
When i said chattel appeared in the last 20 years, i should have said that the use of the word “chattel” to describe a womans state in marriage, appeared in the last 20 years. That word was used to describe a relationship such as slavery, or bondage. (as in a “bond-man,, not tied up)

THAT concept was indeed popularized by the womens studies dept. Along with marital sex as rape, and a lot of other wild ideas. Most women did not consider themselves property,,or owned.


92 posted on 02/24/2012 6:04:29 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

Amen! Me too!

Like in the feminist Bible: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a women, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25)

“Wherefore, as by one women sin entered into the world, and so death by sin; so death passed upon all women, for that all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12)

[I confess I made that up; you just replace men with women, and you have a feminist Bible]


93 posted on 02/24/2012 6:05:14 PM PST by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

LOL, yep, he was lenient with me....


94 posted on 02/24/2012 6:09:42 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: MacMattico

I am so glad you also noticed this because it is something I have always wondered. Why is it “feminism” when you are just taking a different man’s name. In fact, it is LESS independent because your maiden name is a name of a man too, but you had no choice in it , while taking the name of the man you marry is one that you are CHOOSING.

I also think there is a psychological component here that is healthy. Women/girls have a harder time separating from their mothers and their families and it often causes a lot of friction in a marriage.Taking the new name is a statement that you are now a NEW family unit and it is the one you owe your allegiance to now.


95 posted on 02/24/2012 6:09:42 PM PST by Anima Mundi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

“Chattel”: you said it. Own it.


96 posted on 02/24/2012 6:11:08 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Yes, and I have no patience with it.


97 posted on 02/24/2012 6:11:54 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Nepeta

I have been hearing that same Feminist claptrap for the past 40/50 years and it hasn’t changed one iota. If you said that on DU you would be getting kudos from your Leftist sisters who are down with the struggle against men and boys.

Go back to DU!


98 posted on 02/24/2012 6:15:15 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Couple of thoughts:
- I’ve never understood why a woman would want to remain known as Daddy’s Little Girl rather than her husband’s partner and soulmate.
- In our family, middle names have been used to delineate maternal geneology.
- What happens, I wonder, when feminist children of hyphenated parents marry hyphenated spouses? Susie Jones-Smith marries Bobby White-Brown and becomes....who?


99 posted on 02/24/2012 6:22:21 PM PST by Wife of D28Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

She started the insults. The Feminists who are at war with men need to stay off FR and go over and stay at DU. I’ve heard this same crap for the last several decades and I don’t have any more patience for it.

Calling a Feminist what she is when she decides to get her stab in at men saying the exact Feminist unoriginal claptrap and me calling her out on it by identifying her as such isn’t name calling at all.

Why do I care? Because we don’t need men haters on FR! You can’t pay me enough money to put up with that crap. Don’t need it and don’t want it.

I come to FR because I join a forum of like-minded men and women who are interested in rugged, individualism where men and women can relax and be the men and women they desire without being attacked for it. If I was a glutton for punishment I would go over to DU and let loose.


100 posted on 02/24/2012 6:23:42 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-145 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson