8 ms·

Why Don’t More Men Take Their Wives’ Last Names?

ksherlock 4y ago
With around 45% of first marriages ending in divorce (and that rate getting worse for second and third....) nobody should bother changing their name.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nking 4y ago
  I think we need a new form of marriage that lasts a set 20 years and then the assets are divided evenly unless they both choose to renew. Changing the last name of the woman advances the idea that she is now property of the man. Marriage is a contract and needs to be updated to fit the modern world. Of course accepting that it is a contract for companionship and sex “reduces” women's status, so since nobody will admit that truth, we can’t call it the contract it obviously is and update it accordingly. Not that I’m knocking marriage. I should be so lucky. But maybe we need to get past the ideas that A) you can own a woman and tell them what to do and that they can’t have sex with other men and B) that trading goods, money or opportunities for advancement in social status for sex reduces the value of the woman. For all the moral superiority we claim over primitive religious cultures, we have a long way to go to recognize the basic realities of human existence. The primary motivations for most people indirectly revolve around sex and money. If you take those things away, people will shut down.
  - tharkun__ 4y ago
    For consideration. Not saying anything for or against here. In Québec, both spouses keep their surname after they marry. In other words, you must use the surname you were given at birth to exercise your civil rights, for example when you sign a contract, or apply for a driver's licence. Even if you married outside Québec but you are domiciled in Québec, you must exercise your civil rights using the surname you were given at birth. However, in your social life you can, if you wish, use your spouse's surname. Women married prior to April 2, 1981 If you are a woman and married prior to April 2, 1981, you are entitled to use your spouse's surname to exercise your civil rights, provided your were already doing so at that date. However, if you decide to exercise your civil rights under your own name, you must first notify the relevant departments and agencies. https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/couples-and-families/marriage-civil-union-and-de-facto-union/marriage/married-name/ https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/couples-and-families/marri...
    - nking 4y ago
      That’s a good compromise, keep both names. And the kids if any can start with the last names of the same sex parent then choose one or the other when they become adult. It’s easy enough to retire these aged concepts. In a way the marriage contract is a technology to be advanced. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for a startup here, marriage 2.0. Trouble is people will see the contract as negotiable from then on. Custom marriage contacts would become the norm leading to new lifestyles, perhaps including communal partnerships, and further, women would have a great deal more leverage depending on which variant of the marriage contract they are willing to accept. Although it could be said their bargaining power would be restored rather than increased since it was clearly taken from them in the past using religious shame tactics.
      - tharkun__ 4y ago
        This in only Quebec AFAIK. But FWIW, Canada in general is pretty progressive that way. While actual marriage exists for those that want to, there's no reason to marry just because of tax advantages as there is in other countries. After a relatively short amount of time (a year or something like that) you can apply for a "common-law marriage" status and you basically get all the same things as if you were married.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    I agree most people today should not be entering into a marriage as they only view it as 'till inconvenience do us part. I would rather have no legal method of separation from my wife other than infidelity. I made a commitment that is going face challenges. Like Ulysses bound the mast I want to be bound to my wife. So I have external forces binding me to that agreement. Much like a personal trainer at the gym helps hold you accountable and achieve greater things than you could on your own.
    - nking 4y ago
      The thing is, speaking for myself, every 5 years or so I’m almost a completely different person. Same context, different tenant. People change and they get bored. Maybe they don’t want to commit the entire rest of their lives to a single relationship. Divorce is the norm already, so let’s just standardize it and reduce the trauma.
      - xupybd 4y ago
        Yeah, but if divorce is the norm a fixed term contract is a better option. Personally I want an actual death do us part contract. But that no longer exists. Why can't we have both?
        nking 4y ago
        Sure if you can get your partner to sign you can set whatever terms you both agree on. Fully customizable. But most death-do-us-part marriages aren’t honored, so that may not be the best deal for you because since that contact comes with no predefined exit strategy, if you have assets that means litigation if someone wants out.
  - dTal 4y ago
    You have some pretty odd ideas. In particular I find it bizarre to frame a mutual, symmetrical commitment to monogamy as "owning a woman and telling them what to do". Marriage is nothing more or less than formal recognition of the human tendency to pair bond, and distaste for infidelity is neither a cultural quirk nor exclusive to men.
    - nking 4y ago
      In terms of infidelity, this attitude doesn’t make a bit of sense to me. If I meet a woman and start a relationship I’m not rationally going to hold it against her that she’s slept with other men before me, and if the relationship ends I wouldn’t be concerned if she slept with other men (or women I know) after me. So then, why should I be so concerned if during our relationship she sleeps with other people? Disease and paternity issues can be managed with protection and DNA testing. You know, I wouldn’t dare tell someone they aren’t free to do as they please with their own body. They might turn around and ask me why.
      - xupybd 4y ago
        I would dare tell my wife that she can't sleep with others. Just as she would tell me the same. We bond via oxytocin especially during sex. My wife and I have committed to only bond with each other. It's something we both want and have chosen. I'm not saying others have to but it is a very common expectation. Rooted in our biology. There are many things we can manage with modern technology but sometimes life is better not having to.
        nking 4y ago
        I’m afraid our collective genetics does not tell of a history of fidelity. The standard successful procreation strategy involves children through many partners. And besides, aren’t sexual experiences enjoyment? Why deny yourself and your partner pleasure and variety? You could both agree to not let the other watch TV and just glare at each other over every meal, but that’s going to get old pretty fast. Not that I’m against marriage as it is today, but for the fact that for a decision that so radically defines the lives of those involved, I think there should be more deliberation in the details.
jackvalentine 4y ago
My mother never changed her last name when she married in the 70s. My wife and I decided to hyphenate. Obviously if we have kids that’ll be a problem for them to solve but we both agree that whatever they do it’s their call. Our family is something that we created and exists in this time. One day it won’t exist and our name might not either.
- beenBoutIT 4y ago
  Hyphenate surname couples seem to universally not worry about the dilemma that they invariably put their offspring in regarding their options for last name arrangements. What the hell do your kids do, especially considering that high odds that they will end up marrying other people who also carry the burden of a hyphenate surname? Easiest option is to just pass the buck and compound matters for the next generation; "Jones-Bass-Richards-Berg", "Smith-Stein-Lee-O'mally". Americans with hyphenate surnames will soon overtake Indian surnames as the longest in terms of sheer letter count.
  - jackvalentine 4y ago
    Yeah I guess we have a high tolerance for the impractical. Maybe by creating this dilemma we’ll manage to kill off the idea of changing your name for the next generation - who knows?
  - kbelder 4y ago
    Yeah, that's what bothers me about it. It's not a stable solution. While taking the father's surname is sexist, at least it actually works. Hyphenation doesn't over multiple generations, at least not without more rules about what last name kids inherit. Expecting the kids to choose a last name when they're 'of age'... that'll cause all sorts of issues for them. It's selfishness on the parents' part. Giving them the mom's last name may also be sexist, but that's still more practical than hyphenation. (Actually I don't think either is particularly sexist, it's just that it's far more practical to pick one of the parent's surnames for the whole family, and so one of the parents is going to get privileged to some degree.)
kirkules 4y ago
There's a systemic component to this issue that perpetuates the status quo separately from men's attitudes toward changing their names, and that is that it is often much harder for men to change their names. I am a man and married a woman, and initially we considered several options for a common last name that weren't just taking my original last name, including hyphenation, sort of portmanteau name-smashing, and a completely new name for both of us. We were met (in the US, in SC) with confusion and lack of support. Were my spouse to have changed her name, the process was literally as easy as checking a box when signing the marriage certificate. For me there was no such option. I would have had to go through a separate name change process unrelated to the marriage, and the government employees tasked with these processes just couldn't understand why I would want to change my name in the first place. When we asked how to accomplish it, the responses included things like "I guess he can change his name, just schedule your court date to justify why he wants to have a different name" and "wait, are you sure you want to change his name? Why?" It wasn't impossible to do, but the friction caused by a system that expected my spouse to change her name as a matter of course ended up being enough of a barrier that we never went through all the hoops, or even uncovered what they all were. When we later had a child she took my last name (which was still easy years after the fact) so the three of us would have a common last name.

With around 45% of first marriages ending in divorce (and that rate getting worse for second and third....) nobody should bother changing their name.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nking 4y ago
I think we need a new form of marriage that lasts a set 20 years and then the assets are divided evenly unless they both choose to renew. Changing the last name of the woman advances the idea that she is now property of the man. Marriage is a contract and needs to be updated to fit the modern world. Of course accepting that it is a contract for companionship and sex “reduces” women's status, so since nobody will admit that truth, we can’t call it the contract it obviously is and update it accordingly. Not that I’m knocking marriage. I should be so lucky. But maybe we need to get past the ideas that A) you can own a woman and tell them what to do and that they can’t have sex with other men and B) that trading goods, money or opportunities for advancement in social status for sex reduces the value of the woman. For all the moral superiority we claim over primitive religious cultures, we have a long way to go to recognize the basic realities of human existence. The primary motivations for most people indirectly revolve around sex and money. If you take those things away, people will shut down.
- tharkun__ 4y ago
  For consideration. Not saying anything for or against here. In Québec, both spouses keep their surname after they marry. In other words, you must use the surname you were given at birth to exercise your civil rights, for example when you sign a contract, or apply for a driver's licence. Even if you married outside Québec but you are domiciled in Québec, you must exercise your civil rights using the surname you were given at birth. However, in your social life you can, if you wish, use your spouse's surname. Women married prior to April 2, 1981 If you are a woman and married prior to April 2, 1981, you are entitled to use your spouse's surname to exercise your civil rights, provided your were already doing so at that date. However, if you decide to exercise your civil rights under your own name, you must first notify the relevant departments and agencies. https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/couples-and-families/marriage-civil-union-and-de-facto-union/marriage/married-name/ https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/couples-and-families/marri...
  - nking 4y ago
    That’s a good compromise, keep both names. And the kids if any can start with the last names of the same sex parent then choose one or the other when they become adult. It’s easy enough to retire these aged concepts. In a way the marriage contract is a technology to be advanced. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for a startup here, marriage 2.0. Trouble is people will see the contract as negotiable from then on. Custom marriage contacts would become the norm leading to new lifestyles, perhaps including communal partnerships, and further, women would have a great deal more leverage depending on which variant of the marriage contract they are willing to accept. Although it could be said their bargaining power would be restored rather than increased since it was clearly taken from them in the past using religious shame tactics.
    - tharkun__ 4y ago
      This in only Quebec AFAIK. But FWIW, Canada in general is pretty progressive that way. While actual marriage exists for those that want to, there's no reason to marry just because of tax advantages as there is in other countries. After a relatively short amount of time (a year or something like that) you can apply for a "common-law marriage" status and you basically get all the same things as if you were married.
- xupybd 4y ago
  I agree most people today should not be entering into a marriage as they only view it as 'till inconvenience do us part. I would rather have no legal method of separation from my wife other than infidelity. I made a commitment that is going face challenges. Like Ulysses bound the mast I want to be bound to my wife. So I have external forces binding me to that agreement. Much like a personal trainer at the gym helps hold you accountable and achieve greater things than you could on your own.
  - nking 4y ago
    The thing is, speaking for myself, every 5 years or so I’m almost a completely different person. Same context, different tenant. People change and they get bored. Maybe they don’t want to commit the entire rest of their lives to a single relationship. Divorce is the norm already, so let’s just standardize it and reduce the trauma.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      Yeah, but if divorce is the norm a fixed term contract is a better option. Personally I want an actual death do us part contract. But that no longer exists. Why can't we have both?
      - nking 4y ago
        Sure if you can get your partner to sign you can set whatever terms you both agree on. Fully customizable. But most death-do-us-part marriages aren’t honored, so that may not be the best deal for you because since that contact comes with no predefined exit strategy, if you have assets that means litigation if someone wants out.
- dTal 4y ago
  You have some pretty odd ideas. In particular I find it bizarre to frame a mutual, symmetrical commitment to monogamy as "owning a woman and telling them what to do". Marriage is nothing more or less than formal recognition of the human tendency to pair bond, and distaste for infidelity is neither a cultural quirk nor exclusive to men.
  - nking 4y ago
    In terms of infidelity, this attitude doesn’t make a bit of sense to me. If I meet a woman and start a relationship I’m not rationally going to hold it against her that she’s slept with other men before me, and if the relationship ends I wouldn’t be concerned if she slept with other men (or women I know) after me. So then, why should I be so concerned if during our relationship she sleeps with other people? Disease and paternity issues can be managed with protection and DNA testing. You know, I wouldn’t dare tell someone they aren’t free to do as they please with their own body. They might turn around and ask me why.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      I would dare tell my wife that she can't sleep with others. Just as she would tell me the same. We bond via oxytocin especially during sex. My wife and I have committed to only bond with each other. It's something we both want and have chosen. I'm not saying others have to but it is a very common expectation. Rooted in our biology. There are many things we can manage with modern technology but sometimes life is better not having to.
      - nking 4y ago
        I’m afraid our collective genetics does not tell of a history of fidelity. The standard successful procreation strategy involves children through many partners. And besides, aren’t sexual experiences enjoyment? Why deny yourself and your partner pleasure and variety? You could both agree to not let the other watch TV and just glare at each other over every meal, but that’s going to get old pretty fast. Not that I’m against marriage as it is today, but for the fact that for a decision that so radically defines the lives of those involved, I think there should be more deliberation in the details.

jackvalentine 4y ago

My mother never changed her last name when she married in the 70s. My wife and I decided to hyphenate. Obviously if we have kids that’ll be a problem for them to solve but we both agree that whatever they do it’s their call. Our family is something that we created and exists in this time. One day it won’t exist and our name might not either.

beenBoutIT 4y ago
Hyphenate surname couples seem to universally not worry about the dilemma that they invariably put their offspring in regarding their options for last name arrangements. What the hell do your kids do, especially considering that high odds that they will end up marrying other people who also carry the burden of a hyphenate surname? Easiest option is to just pass the buck and compound matters for the next generation; "Jones-Bass-Richards-Berg", "Smith-Stein-Lee-O'mally". Americans with hyphenate surnames will soon overtake Indian surnames as the longest in terms of sheer letter count.
- jackvalentine 4y ago
  Yeah I guess we have a high tolerance for the impractical. Maybe by creating this dilemma we’ll manage to kill off the idea of changing your name for the next generation - who knows?
- kbelder 4y ago
  Yeah, that's what bothers me about it. It's not a stable solution. While taking the father's surname is sexist, at least it actually works. Hyphenation doesn't over multiple generations, at least not without more rules about what last name kids inherit. Expecting the kids to choose a last name when they're 'of age'... that'll cause all sorts of issues for them. It's selfishness on the parents' part. Giving them the mom's last name may also be sexist, but that's still more practical than hyphenation. (Actually I don't think either is particularly sexist, it's just that it's far more practical to pick one of the parent's surnames for the whole family, and so one of the parents is going to get privileged to some degree.)

kirkules 4y ago

There's a systemic component to this issue that perpetuates the status quo separately from men's attitudes toward changing their names, and that is that it is often much harder for men to change their names. I am a man and married a woman, and initially we considered several options for a common last name that weren't just taking my original last name, including hyphenation, sort of portmanteau name-smashing, and a completely new name for both of us. We were met (in the US, in SC) with confusion and lack of support. Were my spouse to have changed her name, the process was literally as easy as checking a box when signing the marriage certificate. For me there was no such option. I would have had to go through a separate name change process unrelated to the marriage, and the government employees tasked with these processes just couldn't understand why I would want to change my name in the first place. When we asked how to accomplish it, the responses included things like "I guess he can change his name, just schedule your court date to justify why he wants to have a different name" and "wait, are you sure you want to change his name? Why?" It wasn't impossible to do, but the friction caused by a system that expected my spouse to change her name as a matter of course ended up being enough of a barrier that we never went through all the hoops, or even uncovered what they all were. When we later had a child she took my last name (which was still easy years after the fact) so the three of us would have a common last name.