# Husband takes wife's last name; years later, they divorce



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

One may have nothing to do with the other, or it may have contributed to it. Some parts from *the article on Huffington*.

*How did you decide to give your kids your wife’s last name?*

“We had some discussions about that because, since we had different last names, that was going to have to be a decision. Once we decided that she was going to be the one continuing to work and I would be the primary parent, *I think that made me more open-minded to other options*, including with respect to a last name. *I remember it was her suggestion to give our kids her last name. I had some problems with it at first, largely just kind of male ego-type stuff. I could see the merit of what she was doing.* And actually, if the parents have different last names, I don’t see any solid reason why the name of the children should be the father’s last name.”

*Was your wife excited when you told her you wanted to take her name?*

*“She didn’t like the idea at first, and in fact many of the times when we were out and people would call me Mr. Kemp, she would always correct them really quickly. She was uncomfortable with the idea,* and I just told her, ‘Think of it as a gift I’m giving you: a gift from me to you that we’ll all have the same name.’ She eventually was OK with it and even kind of enjoyed it, I think.”

“I didn’t really get much of a response because everybody out here just knows me as Kemp. It would have been more of a reaction if I had changed the name, I think. *My family again was disappointed, but they didn’t say much.* And my ex didn’t have an opinion on the matter. I think she kind of liked me still having her name. *She’s remarried, and her husband and she have a different last name. I’m not remarried. If I did remarry, I might take my wife’s new last name.* I don’t think I could keep my old wife’s name in a marriage, and I don’t know what would be the purpose of going back to my original name. *I don’t know.*”

---------------------------------

I think this guy is as beta and weak as it gets; part of the new batch of male feminists, I guess. He wanted to be so open-minded about it all, he didn't object to her having the kids take her last name over his, and to even later take her last name for himself. No wonder his ex-wife didn't respect him. He barely worked, was a stay at home dad while his ex was the bread winner. Offered to take her last name and she expressed discomfort with the idea. Even his friends and family were disappointed, and some called him a wimp. Even his ex knows to take the new husband's last name, whereas this beta male didn't. By his ex taking her new husband's last name, it contradicts his views on maintaining some kind of solidarity with his children. I mean, his children are his ex's children as well, so why didn't she keep her last name? I can totally see why she didn't want to be with him.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

I think the guy blew off his wife's opinion in favor of his own view of what he was "giving" her.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

My BIL took his wife's last name. The joke was that it was her second husband's last name. She had already changed her name twice and wasn't about to change it again. The family was a little agog. After she died he reverted to his original name.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Lame.


----------



## NotEasy (Apr 19, 2015)

I briefly suggested something similar. My wife is from overseas, we had to get married there and here. I needed a foreign language surname to marry there. But choosing one is a minefield, too long, too short, sounds like ****, doesn't sound like your original surname, etc. All I had was a bunch of options that had all been rejected. So on the way to register I suggested I take her surname there and she take my surname in Australia. Time stopped, the earth opened up and swallowed that suggestion, never to be seen again.

Thankfully the person taking our application knew the problem, asked my surname and gave me my new surname off a list. They even said "the surname is good, but if anyone complains you can blame me".


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

If he's considered weak for taking her name and giving their kids her last name, then you would have to consider all people who have done it as weak/lame. If it's okay for men to ask it of women, but not women to ask it of men, then you are creating double standards.

I'm also curious as to how taking someone's last name means you're possibly contributing to a later divorce. That just sounds like wishful thinking on your part.


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

Blondilocks said:


> My BIL took his wife's last name. The joke was that it was her second husband's last name. She had already changed her name twice and wasn't about to change it again. The family was a little agog. After she died he reverted to his original name.


What wuz her last name? Puzziwhooped?



breeze said:


> If he's considered weak for taking her name and giving their kids her last name, then you would have to consider all people who have done it as weak/lame. If it's okay for men to ask it of women, but not women to ask it of men, then you are creating double standards.


If I ran into that problem before I married her, I just go ahead and change my name to Staynsingle and then it wouldn't be a problem for either of us.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I often say my husband is tipped on the Beta side (Though I like to add "good beta" when I say this).. but you know what.. had I pulled on of these... it would have been a swift "Goodby honey, you're not the one for me!"...and I don't blame him one bit !

There are a growing # of women today who are greatly offended by HIS attitude...when a man feels that way....heaven forbid if he's still "Traditional".. been a few threads on this here.. this is one of those... .

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/family...opinion-child-assuming-fathers-last-name.html ... this is the article she used to start her thread..

*>> *My Baby Is Not Getting My Husband?s Last Name ? ModernMom I gotta be honest.. the attitude of this woman sickened me.. why marry at all???


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

Im an awful at expressing myself in forums so I hope I can get my opinion across in a way that can be understood, although probably not agreed with.

Taking on a man's last name is symbolic of putting him in a position of leadership in the family. A lot of women these days dont want a husband led marriage they see that as weakness, I suppose. I don't however. I see myself as being totally equal to my husband and able to do whatever I want as a free human being. However I choose to yield to his leadership as I believe that is the proper gender role for a man. I don't care for this trend of gender blending and neutralizing what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. We are two genders that bring different strengths and weaknesses to a relationship. 

Im not against women doing things traditionally considered "manly" or vice versa, especially in the workplace. But Im totally against weakening the strength of men to lead and provide for their families and to take on feminine roles in the family like staying home with the kids when they are totally capable of working. I could not respect a man who does not provide for his family.

I don't think its a matter of equality but rather a matter keeping the different strengths that complement a male-female relationship in place. And while I think its fantastic that girls are encouraged that they can be whatever they want to be in life I dont like how boys are made to feel like girls rock but boys already had their place in the sun, now go somewhere and hold your wife's purse while she pursues her dreams. 

Plus just from a personal preference standpoint I like a strong, take charge man with a little edge to his personality (but not a jerk) who I can trust is always looking out for the good of his family.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I often say my husband is tipped on the Beta side (Though I like to add "good beta" when I say this).. but you know what.. had I pulled on of these... it would have been a swift "Goodby honey, you're not the one for me!"...and I don't blame him one bit !
> 
> There are a growing # of women today who are greatly offended by HIS attitude...when a man feels that way....heaven forbid if he's still "Traditional".. been a few threads on this here.. this is one of those... .
> 
> ...


When I think of you and your hubby it seems the word "compatible" is more appropriate than beta. Plus isn't he more of a romantic than a beta?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

I knew a couple who had 2 very short names. They put the two one syllable names together to form a new name. I thought that was a sort of a neat metaphor for joining two lives. My cousin did not take her husband's name. At her rehearsal dinner she said "I want to stay one of us!" Wait. I stopped being one of us when I took my husband's name?? 

A name is just a label. I like having the same label as my kids. But it is still just a label. It only has the significance we assign to it.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> I knew a couple who had 2 very short names. They put the two one syllable names together to form a new name. I thought that was a sort of a neat metaphor for joining two lives. My cousin did not take her husband's name. At her rehearsal dinner she said "I want to stay one of us!" Wait. I stopped being one of us when I took my husband's name??
> 
> A name is just a label. I like having the same label as my kids. But it is still just a label. It only has the significance we assign to it.


It is a label but not without meaning. I think some women refusing to change theirs bears that out as much as any other position on changing names.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

As well as him giving her the gift of taking her name,he should have gave her the gift of his balls in a gift box because he had no use for them anyway.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

thefam said:


> When I think of you and your hubby it seems the word "compatible" is more appropriate than beta. *Plus isn't he more of a romantic than a beta?*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_










...well I've heard a small list to describe certain characteristics of a man -how he is "looked upon".. such a Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, Sigma, Lambdas & the Omegas ... but I never seen Romantic on that list... 

He's a through & through Family man.. but Yes.. very romantic, more on the sensitive side...but in a Caring way.. not an "offended easily" way...(that would drive me crazy if so!)...

This is my definition of Beta... I love ALL of these things.. (this is "good" Beta)...



> The *Beta Traits* are those associated with the strengths of being a nice guy / “family man”. Kindness, being a good listener, the ability to help with the children, dependability, thoughtfulness, compassion and patience. These all create a sense of comfort and safety for the woman, and relax her because she feels that if she became pregnant, the Beta Trait male isn’t going to abandon her and the baby.
> 
> *Beta *= comfort building = Oxytocin / Vasopressin = Pair Bond = Calm Enjoyment"


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> I knew a couple who had 2 very short names. They put the two one syllable names together to form a new name. I thought that was a sort of a neat metaphor for joining two lives. My cousin did not take her husband's name. At her rehearsal dinner she said "I want to stay one of us!" Wait. I stopped being one of us when I took my husband's name??
> 
> A name is just a label. I like having the same label as my kids. But it is still just a label. It only has the significance we assign to it.


My cousin and his wife both took out a new surname when they got married, to one that had mutual meaning (epitomized the thing that brought them together). I have much respect for my cousin for doing it this way, and if I were getting married for the first time I think I'd go the same route.


----------



## Miss Independent (Mar 24, 2014)

.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

breeze said:


> If he's considered weak for taking her name and giving their kids her last name, then you would have to consider all people who have done it as weak/lame.


I do consider those men weak.



> If it's okay for men to ask it of women, but not women to ask it of men, then you are creating double standards.


His wife didn't even ask him to take her name. He offered, and she was uncomfortable with it. 



> I'm also curious as to how taking someone's last name means you're possibly contributing to a later divorce. That just sounds like wishful thinking on your part.


I didn't say it contributed to the divorce, but how many woman you know would respect her man if he took her last name? I also listed other reasons that I felt contributed to her divorcing him: he barely worked and was a stay at home dad. There have been a number of threads where the husband chose to be the stay at home dad while the wife is out earning the paycheck, and she later resented him for it. You cannot deny that throughout human history, the husband has been the hunter and provider. It's this new fad of the SAHDad that he adopted. I don't know of any woman who would find that attractive. The man needs to work if he is physically able. Period. He walked right into a divorce thinking he was so open-minded and trendy.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

spinsterdurga said:


> I don't see where he's weak or beta.


Maybe if you were married to a guy like him who barely works, is a SAHD, and takes your last name. Then come back and tell us if your respect for him increases or diminishes over time.



> I'm a woman and refuse to change my last name if I ever get married. My last name is unique. I've always been SD. I can't imagine being S Smith or whatever. It sounds so unnatural.


Never say never. Love changes people. Maybe you'll meet and fall in love with a guy who won't budge on that, especially if that guy has traditional views on marriage.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

becareful2 said:


> I do consider those men weak.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you haven't noticed the reversal of traditional gender roles has been going on for several generations now, and for most marriages to some degree is necessary and works better. As a man I feel way more fortunate to be involved in the upbringing of my son (before and after my divorce) and where I took over some of those responsibilities from my son'a mother, she made up for in responsibilities that has lead to more independence for her so that even after divorcing I actually have a part in my son's life and I'm not just a breadbasket for his mother. This role reversal has tremendous benefits to men that actually choose to embrace them. But of course I'm not privy to some kind of stuffy pipe-smoking old-boys club, so I'm not sure what I'm missing out on.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

thefam said:


> Im an awful at expressing myself in forums so I hope I can get my opinion across in a way that can be understood, although probably not agreed with.
> 
> Taking on a man's last name is symbolic of putting him in a position of leadership in the family. A lot of women these days dont want a husband led marriage they see that as weakness, I suppose. I don't however. I see myself as being totally equal to my husband and able to do whatever I want as a free human being. However I choose to yield to his leadership as I believe that is the proper gender role for a man. I don't care for this trend of gender blending and neutralizing what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. We are two genders that bring different strengths and weaknesses to a relationship.
> 
> ...



Very well said. You hit the nail on the head with this post. Hollywood actress Kirsten Dunst said something similar and she got clobbered by the online lynch mob for it. You would be amazed at how many women, young and old, want their man to take the lead in their relationship. Even successful and "empowered" women feel this way. They can be the boss at work but they want their man to take charge at home.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lon said:


> If you haven't noticed the reversal of traditional gender roles has been going on for several generations now, and for most marriages to some degree is necessary and works better. As a man I feel way more fortunate to be involved in the upbringing of my son (before and after my divorce) and where I took over some of those responsibilities from my son'a mother, she made up for in responsibilities that has lead to more independence for her so that even after divorcing I actually have a part in my son's life and I'm not just a breadbasket for his mother. This role reversal has tremendous benefits to men that actually choose to embrace them. But of course I'm not privy to some kind of stuffy pipe-smoking old-boys club, so I'm not sure what I'm missing out on.


Who says a working father can't be involved in the upbringing of their children? Who says a working father can't take on home responsibilities? It's not an either/or situation here.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

becareful2 said:


> Who says a working father can't be involved in the upbringing of their children? Who says a working father can't take on home responsibilities? It's not an either/or situation here.


To me the whole problem stems from expecting your gender to define your role, even if it goes against your natural strengths. Why is it that just because I am a man I'm expected to lead, shouldn't the better leader be the one to lead? It is dismissive of the idea that women can make good leaders (not just in the workplace but in the home). Now I expect BOTH parents to provide and look out for the good of the family, and the optimal way is if both are using their natural strengths to the best of their ability, no?

So maybe all I'm debating is the idea that ALL men somehow have a built-in propensity to be the take charge one, and those that aren't as strong in this way are considered weak "as a man". But I will reject that idea because it only perpetuates an outdated stereotype. It can be generalized that women are nurturers and men are producers or fixers, but does generalizing actually benefit our community as a whole? I think this kind of generalizing shuns diversity, which is too bad because encouraging diversity is what allows us to improve and evolve on the social level.

If you are a take charge man that wants to be the head of the household and have a wife that wants to be submissive in this way, and it works then great! But conversely, if the man is better at a nurturing role and his wife feels more fulfilled by being the provider, and it works for them then why isn't that equally great? Or are we all just playing a game up one-upsmanship, where women have stepped up to the plate of the man's world and showing they can do it as good or better and expect all men to have to step up their own standard? (there seems to be such a strong "high-performance" push in this world where we just are no good as we are, and the wealthy major shareholders of corporations are the only ones that truly benefit by us constantly trying to be more than what we really are).


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lon said:


> To me the whole problem stems from expecting your gender to define your role, even if it goes against your natural strengths.


To do otherwise would go against millions of years of human evolution and biology.



> Why is it that just because I am a man I'm expected to lead, shouldn't the better leader be the one to lead? It is dismissive of the idea that women can make good leaders (not just in the workplace but in the home). Now I expect BOTH parents to provide and look out for the good of the family, and the optimal way is if both are using their natural strengths to the best of their ability, no?


No one is saying that women don't make good leaders; that's just your strawman argument. What I'm saying is that a man should work and provide for his family, and he can still be involved in his children's upbringing as well as take care of some home responsibilities. Base on the accounts I've read on TAM and other sites, the wife would eventually lose respect for her husband when he doesn't work and becomes a SAHD. A wife's respect for her husband is critical in a marriage. 



> So maybe all I'm debating is the idea that ALL men somehow have a built-in propensity to be the take charge one, and those that aren't as strong in this way are considered weak "as a man".


You are splitting hairs here with words like "All men." Of course, not all men are born leaders, but leadership can be learned. If he can work but doesn't work, he's lazy and weak in my eyes, but that's just one man's opinion. 



> But I will reject that idea because it only perpetuates an outdated stereotype. It can be generalized that women are nurturers and men are producers or fixers, but does generalizing actually benefit our community as a whole?


It has worked for as long as man has been around.



> I think this kind of generalizing shuns diversity, which is too bad because encouraging diversity is what allows us to improve and evolve on the social level.


What the heck does diversity have to do with this?



> If you are a take charge man that wants to be the head of the household and have a wife that wants to be submissive in this way, and it works then great! But conversely, if the man is better at a nurturing role and his wife feels more fulfilled by being the provider, and it works for them then why isn't that equally great?


If it works, then great, but we have read about marriages that ended badly because the working wife eventually loses respect for her SAH husband.



> Or are we all just playing a game up one-upsmanship, where women have stepped up to the plate of the man's world and showing they can do it as good or better and expect all men to have to step up their own standard? (there seems to be such a strong "high-performance" push in this world where we just are no good as we are, and the wealthy major shareholders of corporations are the only ones that truly benefit by us constantly trying to be more than what we really are).


This is not about women stepping up to anything.
This is not about men having to step up their own standard, but to maintain their standard of being the provider, which has happened for millennia. If what you're doing in your family works for you, then more power to you, but I would not dismiss the views of many women on this. The wife needs to respect her husband. This couple in the article lasted 10 years before they divorced, and he probably view the traditional role of men as an outdated stereotype, too. I would surmise that he lost the respect of his friends and family over it, but most importantly, the respect of his wife.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

becareful2 said:


> To do otherwise would go against millions of years of human evolution and biology.
> 
> *Disagreed, only a few centuries of cultural norms.*
> 
> ...


Look I completely respect your opinion and agree that wives need to respect their husbands just as much as men need to respect their wives. I just wholeheartedly disagree that its as simple as men not maintaining their standard of being the provider, it is so much more complicated than that... but even if it weren't, with the separation of wealth that is currently happening in this country we would be in very big trouble then, because all the money and power (the provisions) are trickling into the hands of a few, and if what you are suggesting is true then we will be helpless as all the women will be drawn into the amassing harems of a wealthy few. I like to think we are smarter than that, that we are drawn to others and make good families with them not because of a power balance, rather people are attracted to another because of the light they emit, and partner with them because of they way they can support each other. I think this is an individual chemistry and while some generalizations can be made about the genders I don't think that generalization are of any use to explain what happens to cause chemistry in a marriage to change, there are so many external factors and I think that is the biggest reason why someone who one day is good enough to make vows to is suddenly not worthy of your loyalty the next, neither has fundamentally changed, but the pressure of what you "should" do is ever present and ever being controlled in order to influence the family The idea of the man as breadwinner is just one cultural "should" that those who buy into it will be influenced by.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lon said:


> No it has been said to work for as long as certain individuals edit history to say that's the case. There have been matriarchal societies too, and notice that in modern times many empires have been ruled by queens not kings. The idea that man is spiritual head of the house (thus overall head of the household) is limited to post industrial revolution judeo-christian communities.


Name those many empires that were ruled by women, and compare that number to the ones ruled by men. Don't limit it to modern times, but as far back as there were empires.



> The idea that man is spiritual head of the house (thus overall head of the household) is limited to post industrial revolution judeo-christian communities.


I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate. Were men not head of their house in feudal Japan or the many ancient Chinese dynasties? What about the Swedish Empire that ended in 1721? The Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire? The Rurik and Romanovs ruled Russia when? Way before the Industrial Revolution. There is a very long list of empires that were ruled by males, and not just empires, but families. As the saying goes, this is a man's world.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

becareful2 said:


> Name those many empires that were ruled by women, and compare that number to the ones ruled by men. Don't limit it to modern times, but as far back as there were empires.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate. Were men not head of their house in feudal Japan or the many ancient Chinese dynasties? What about the Swedish Empire that ended in 1721? The Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire? The Rurik and Romanovs ruled Russia when? Way before the Industrial Revolution. There is a very long list of empires that were ruled by males, and not just empires, but families. As the saying goes, this is a man's world.


Other than feudal Japan and the Ottoman era, all those other empires had at some point a woman as it's regent. It's like you say, those empires were run by families and at times a woman was head of that family.

I can't say for sure I'm correct, I have no experience in anthropology, but there are some modern tribes that are matriarchal so it can function that way, and I think the great absence of female leadership throughout history may have as much to do with historical revision than it does biological advantage of men in that role.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lon said:


> Other than feudal Japan and the Ottoman era, all those other empires had at some point a woman as it's regent. It's like you say, those empires were run by families and at times a woman was head of that family.
> 
> I can't say for sure I'm correct, I have no experience in anthropology, but there are some modern tribes that are matriarchal so it can function that way, and I think the great absence of female leadership throughout history may have as much to do with historical revision than it does biological advantage of men in that role.


The point is some women were empresses but the vast majority were men. It was and continues to be a man's world. Not being sexist, just stating fact based on the numbers.

It's not that men can't be nurturers but that women are better equipped for that job.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

becareful2 said:


> The point is some women were empresses but most were men. It was and continues to be a man's world. Not being sexist, just stating fact.


So to you, is this (ie taking on surnames) about ownership? Just like the way the world is owned by men due to the fact they were the ones making the rules which other people were forced to live by most of the time?

I think the idea that women being the head of the household or sharing that equally, and keeping their own surnames after marriage is beyond the primitive idea of ownership of people, it's not that they are trying to take ownership of men, I think its more to do with exercising their civil liberties the same way that men supposedly can in a democratic country that has entrenched those liberties for all into its constitution. And I'd think any man that encourages women to do so is to help empower them, it's a sign of strength not weakness. I think any man that is willing to go against the cultural grain that labels him as weak for forgoing his own surname is actually pretty brave, and if his wife saw it as weakness and left the relationship for it then SHE is the one that did not appreciate the strength of the man she was with. I'd think it's pretty weak of a woman to not reciprocate the loyalty of someone willing to commit at that level.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lon said:


> So to you, is this (ie taking on surnames) about ownership? Just like the way the world is owned by men due to the fact they were the ones making the rules which other people were forced to live by most of the time?
> 
> I think the idea that women being the head of the household or sharing that equally, and keeping their own surnames after marriage is beyond the primitive idea of ownership of people, it's not that they are trying to take ownership of men, I think its more to do with exercising their civil liberties the same way that men supposedly can in a democratic country that has entrenched those liberties for all into its constitution. And I'd think any man that encourages women to do so is to help empower them, it's a sign of strength not weakness. I think any man that is willing to go against the cultural grain that labels him as weak for forgoing his own surname is actually pretty brave, and if his wife saw it as weakness and left the relationship for it then SHE is the one that did not appreciate the strength of the man she was with. I'd think it's pretty weak of a woman to not reciprocate the loyalty of someone willing to commit at that level.


The premise of this post being about ownership is false, so the rest is just a strawman. 

Like I said, the guy was able to work but couldn't keep a job, and had to depend on his wife to provide for him while he stays home. He didn't see anything wrong or emasculating about that, because he's all open-minded, you know. However, his wife probably lost respect for him after some time. To me, it's about acquiring and maintaining his wife's respect. It is very hard to stay married to someone whom you don't respect. How many wives say they respect their husbands so much because he works hard to provide for the family? How many wives say they respect their husbands so much because he's a SAHD who doesn't work? Marriages fail all the time regardless if the husband works or not but he kept rigging the dynamic to put him in a less than favorable light in his wife's eyes. Then he says if he remarries, he'd take his new wife's name as well. I guess he'll be a SAHD again, too. Meanwhile, his ex has abandoned her last name and taken her new husband's name, leaving the the guy in the article with a last name that his exwife apparently doesn't care that much for to begin with!

The point is: women want to be married to a man they respect, and part of that respect comes from him working hard to provide for the family.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

I always thought that I would keep my last name when I got married.

Being in love changed that. I changed my last name for romantic reasons.

What made it easier is that my last name was from my stepfather; and I was not close to him, or my mother at all. I never really "belonged" in their new family.

So, changing my last name was part of truly wanting to belong to someone else. That's probably psychologically unhealthy; but that's how I felt.

------------------------------------------------------

If I could make enough $ to support us, and my husband wanted to stay at home. That would be fine. He'd do a great job. He would have made a great butler, if he had the chance.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

notmyrealname4 said:


> *I always thought that I would keep my last name when I got married.
> 
> Being in love changed that. I changed my last name for romantic reasons.*
> 
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## Miss Independent (Mar 24, 2014)

.


----------



## Miss Independent (Mar 24, 2014)

.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

spinsterdurga said:


> Being in love might change my views on taking another person's last name, yet it won't change a traditional guy's views?


Never say never, but if he has traditional views, then not likely.


----------



## Miss Independent (Mar 24, 2014)

.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

spinsterdurga said:


> Smh. Again why are you saying that I can change my views but a man with traditional views can't?


You're not listening. I never said he can't, but that he likely won't.

Call it upbringing, call it culture, whatever. If, for example, you're from the ME and he's also from the ME, then the chances of him taking your last name is slim to none.


----------



## Miss Independent (Mar 24, 2014)

.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

spinsterdurga said:


> Hold on second. I'm NOT from the Middle East .
> 
> Ok... Why is likely that I will change my views?


I don't know where you're from; I'm just using it as an example.

You may change your views if you meet someone that you think you can't live without. Not a guarantee but people change themselves for the people they love. You seem young so your views will change before you know it.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

becareful2 said:


> The premise of this post being about ownership is false, so the rest is just a strawman.
> 
> Like I said, the guy was able to work but couldn't keep a job, and had to depend on his wife to provide for him while he stays home. He didn't see anything wrong or emasculating about that, because he's all open-minded, you know. However, his wife probably lost respect for him after some time. To me, it's about acquiring and maintaining his wife's respect. It is very hard to stay married to someone whom you don't respect. How many wives say they respect their husbands so much because he works hard to provide for the family? How many wives say they respect their husbands so much because he's a SAHD who doesn't work? Marriages fail all the time regardless if the husband works or not but he kept rigging the dynamic to put him in a less than favorable light in his wife's eyes. Then he says if he remarries, he'd take his new wife's name as well. I guess he'll be a SAHD again, too. Meanwhile, his ex has abandoned her last name and taken her new husband's name, leaving the the guy in the article with a last name that his exwife apparently doesn't care that much for to begin with!
> 
> The point is: women want to be married to a man they respect, and part of that respect comes from him working hard to provide for the family.


Yes women want a man they respect, but that does not have anything to do with him keeping his own surname or refusing to be a SAHD. In this case, if he lost his W's respect it was either because he never had it in the first place or because somewhere along the line she fell for the same tripe you did: that a man who is willing to take her surname and be a SAHD is weak. Now it could be he was a beta doormat all along and she just refused to see it until years later, but there are plenty of men that are SAHDs that are by no means beta, and choose to be the SAHD because that is how they can best provide for the family (the same way that traditionally a woman may have been a great provider - the same reason we men all have so much respect for our mothers). As for taking surnames, I think it's pretty rare for a man to because for those couples that stray from tradition they realize the irrelevance of a surname on the quality of the actual relationship and are likely more to either just keep each of their original surnames or choose a new one.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lon said:


> Yes women want a man they respect, but that does not have anything to do with him keeping his own surname or refusing to be a SAHD. In this case, if he lost his W's respect it was either because he never had it in the first place or because somewhere along the line she fell for the same tripe you did: that a man who is willing to take her surname and be a SAHD is weak. Now it could be he was a beta doormat all along and she just refused to see it until years later, but there are plenty of men that are SAHDs that are by no means beta, and choose to be the SAHD because that is how they can best provide for the family (the same way that traditionally a woman may have been a great provider - the same reason we men all have so much respect for our mothers). As for taking surnames, I think it's pretty rare for a man to because for those couples that stray from tradition they realize the irrelevance of a surname on the quality of the actual relationship and are likely more to either just keep each of their original surnames or choose a new one.


Why did you conveniently left out the part about him not being able to hold down a job? I don't know about you but to me, that's very emasculating to have your wife provide for you even though you are capable of working but are just too lazy and/or incompetent.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

becareful2 said:


> Why did you conveniently left out the part about him not being able to hold down a job? I don't know about you but to me, that's very emasculating to have your wife provide for you even though you are capable of working but are just too lazy and/or incompetent.


How would I know this, there is no link to any actual article, I can only respond to the headline and the excerpts you pulled out and commentated on. So is he a SAHD or is he an unemployed bum? Because these are two drastically different occupations. Either way I don't really care anymore, my point was there is nothing inherently weak about a man who makes decisions that he believes are in the best interests of the one he loves, be it taking his wife's name or choosing to be a full time parent, or whatever other characteristic you feel needs to be negatively judged according to the social construct you adhere to. If he's just a lousy partner then yes he's weak but how do we know.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lon said:


> How would I know this, there is no link to any actual article, I can only respond to the headline and the excerpts you pulled out and commentated on. So is he a SAHD or is he an unemployed bum? Because these are two drastically different occupations. Either way I don't really care anymore, my point was there is nothing inherently weak about a man who makes decisions that he believes are in the best interests of the one he loves, be it taking his wife's name or choosing to be a full time parent, or whatever other characteristic you feel needs to be negatively judged according to the social construct you adhere to. If he's just a lousy partner then yes he's weak but how do we know.


I mentioned multiple times that he couldn't keep a job, but *here's the link*. He had a job but couldn't keep it, and had to rely on his wife to sustain him. It's not like he's disabled or had a physical handicap that prohibited him from working.


----------



## NotEasy (Apr 19, 2015)

becareful2 said:


> I mentioned multiple times that he couldn't keep a job, but *here's the link*. He had a job but couldn't keep it, and had to rely on his wife to sustain him. It's not like he's disabled or had a physical handicap that prohibited him from working.


Ok, just read the link, and I don't see where it says he couldn't (as in not able to) keep a job. He worked part time. They had a baby and he became a full time SAHD. When he was about to go back to work they had another baby. Sounds like his decision to be a full time SAHD looking after a baby meant he chose to not hold a full time outside job, just like many SAHMs. Later he held a part time job for a while, but it says nothing about his ability to keep employed. Maybe he quit to look after the next baby.

I don't want to be his supporter. But I see nothing in the article to say the divorce was due to his inability to get or keep a job. Certainly he sounds wimpy and strange. Perhaps that is just the way the journalist wrote up the article concentrating on last names. My guess is the divorce may be related to his wimpyness, but the article does not say.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Lon said:


> If you are a take charge man that wants to be the head of the household and have a wife that wants to be submissive in this way, and it works then great! But conversely, if the man is better at a nurturing role and his wife feels more fulfilled by being the provider, and it works for them then why isn't that equally great? Or are we all just playing a game up one-upsmanship, where women have stepped up to the plate of the man's world and showing they can do it as good or better and expect all men to have to step up their own standard? (there seems to be such a strong "high-performance" push in this world where we just are no good as we are, and the wealthy major shareholders of corporations are the only ones that truly benefit by us constantly trying to be more than what we really are).


Personally.. I think it *still stands* that "generally speaking"... the vast majority of women* LOOK UP* to men who earn more then they do.. (of course there are exceptions).. just like women want a man to lead in the bedroom, does anyone really want to argue this with me -I've done threads on it.. they also desire a man with *CONFIDENCE & AMBITION*, some Alpha is his step in the working world......

Any thread here asking what a woman seeks in a man has these 2 high on their list (even though those 2 probably aren't high on mine).. I don't mind a blue collar worker that isn't climbing ladders of success... but I do care that he has a work ethic to protect & provide for his family.. absolutely....

I've seen study after study on this.. one Program, "The Science behind Sex Appeal" (or something like this?) showed women men's faces, ranked their hotness...then came back...added how much money they earned.. if it was lower.. the sex rank sank, if she learned he suddenly was a high earner.. it soared... what does this tell you???

I've read so many threads here where the women was complaining, having lost respect, it's affecting her feelings towards her husband when she's carrying a heavier "financial burden"...

Frankly... I wish I had saved all the threads !!.. this last one I seen sickened me.. this female doctor belittled her husband so bad -telling him to get "a real job"..and ya know what.. her husband probably made MORE MONEY over mine !! and I dearly look up to my husband for faithfully providing for a family of 8 ! and she felt hers was a panty waste!! Good thing I'm just a low earner.. that allows me to respect my husband MORE SO I guess... 

I just don't see a great many men Feeling all that strongly on this one... they seem to care more about Physical Beauty / Faithfulness & is she "good in bed" (loves sex) ...over a woman's earning power.. do a thread in the Men's club house.. [email protected]# .... of course there are exceptions.. we knew a young man who would shack up with older women - because they supported him.. would HE be all that attractive to the average woman..hell NO!!

I also can see WHY women care about this...it lays it out in His Needs, Her Needs: Building an Affair-Proof Marriage  ...author Harley devoted a chapter to this.. It certainly resonated with me ....

Of the 10 emotional needs.. it speaks of "*Financial support*"..and "*Domestic Support*"..... Generally women will have Financial Support HIGHER on their lists.. due to the one carrying a Baby.. many women are torn after the baby is born.. she is thankful for the CHOICE that she CAN stay home for a time.. what if carrying that child required bed rest.. I've known 2 women who've had to do this for months at a time.. thank God their husbands had a good paying job so she could, without worry....



This is a small overview on the subject ..... Financial Support Inventory

I DO believe a woman NEEDS to look up to a man to find him attractive.. I actually find it somewhat laughable how women say they don't care about this.. Here's one example I found rather quickly...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/financial-problems-marriage/338457-man-vs-woman-provider.html



lisanpr said:


> My husband has always worked part-time and I've always been the main provider. Jobs in his field are very limited. For 10+ years he didn't do much to try to earn more income. I've held a grudge on him for this since pretty much our second year of marriage. If I brought it up, we would just fight, so I stopped.
> 
> Some months ago I confronted him how unfair the situation had been. He made a big effort to find something and he did, but the income he makes is still not even half of what I make. Part of me is disappointed I married someone who hasn't been a provider and looks like he never will be. By provider I mean, a man who earns more than me and provides money for most bills, fun, retirement, and more for the family.
> 
> The finances are so disappointing. Any thoughts on possible solutions?


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

notmyrealname4 said:


> *I always thought that I would keep my last name when I got married.
> 
> Being in love changed that. I changed my last name for romantic reasons.*
> 
> ...





spinsterdurga said:


> Did you change it for romantic reasons?
> 
> Or
> 
> ?


I changed it for romantic reasons.

But the fact that my FoO was crappy, just made it so much easier to ditch that last name.


----------



## PhillyGuy13 (Nov 29, 2013)

I would consider taking my wife-to-be's name on a case by case basis.

Aniston
Daddario
Bundchen
Kunis
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*Whether or not a guy willingly agrees and decides to take his W's surname or not, statistics will show that he'll still be the one to get stuck up the wazoo in any subsequent divorce or child custody hearing!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

SA, that is good summarization of the generalization, but it does nothing to explain the outliers, the number of outliers or the change in the number of outliers over time. It also doesn't demonstrate whether or not the generalization is based in biology, culture or some other external influence. For me, I have had to toss the his needs her needs book out the window because my own needs don't completely align with what the general "his" needs are, nor am I deeply attracted to the kind of woman that holds that list of relationship needs because that is just not the kind of life I want to lead. Each person has to define their own relationship needs because we don't all fit someone else's formula. So I don't disagree with the generalization at all, I just don't feel it needs to be reinforced to maintain the fabric of society.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Lon said:


> SA, that is good summarization of the generalization, but it does nothing to explain the outliers, the number of outliers or the change in the number of outliers over time. It also doesn't demonstrate whether or not the generalization is based in biology, culture or some other external influence. For me, I have had to toss the his needs her needs book out the window because my own needs don't completely align with what the general "his" needs are, nor am I deeply attracted to the kind of woman that holds that list of relationship needs because that is just not the kind of life I want to lead. Each person has to define their own relationship needs because we don't all fit someone else's formula. So I don't disagree with the generalization at all, I just don't feel it needs to be reinforced to maintain the fabric of society.


You are absolutely right.. you know how you are wired.. what you seek. what you want. what wouldn't bother you, what would..... you have grown up in a culture where you seem to enjoy & embrace the new changes then, the blurring of the gender roles... 

The generalizations certainly FIT ME though, they fit my husband (but of course not all generalizations fit... my husband could give a crap about sports & happily watches the Bachelor & Chick flicks with me...he's weird!) 

I feel very differently.. if a man didn't have need or want of what is laid out in *"His Needs/ Her Needs"*.. I wouldn't understand him ...where is he coming from.. what are his needs then?? 

And He surely wouldn't understand me ... I have found this book to be a very simple but in-depth over view of how a harmonious marriage unfolds ...what is needed, what will destroy, cause resentment , what is appreciated, the dance of "give & take".. I love the book, would highly recommend it.. 

I've always gravitated towards Traditional type men...that's where my







is at.... I used to think you sounded like my husband Lon...in some ways anyhow.... maybe you have changed over the years ..

This was a post I left yrs ago taken from this thread >> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/184561-changing-your-last-name-marriage.html



> For me, taking my husband's last name is representative of our officially becoming "ONE"...before all of our family & friends....what an exciting moment when the Pastor announces "May I introduce you to the new Mrs & Mrs ______ "...a moment a woman longs for...to me, I see Honor in this....I am now, in every way, an extension of my husband .. on paper... in heart...with the bearing of children...and someday on a Gravestone...
> 
> We've never had separate bank /checking accounts or anything either, we're an all the way "joint" couple.
> 
> Who I was would always be with me... in spirit /memories......but now...I have become a Wife...soon to be a Mother of this man's children..


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

I probably have changed somewhat, I am still honored that my W (now ex of course) chose to take my name, and I tried to respect that in every way I knew how. For our wedding gifts one of my relatives gave us the his needs her needs book, we both laughed out loud for how outdated it seemed to both of us, no matter which page we cracked it to we just couldn't see either of us having anything in common with what the author was saying was important. I've come to understand that what is important is harmony, but as for the guy that is the subject of this thread which the OP referenced the thread title, I feel that all the blame is going on to him for being "weak" in the traditional, generalized sense of what it means to be a man, yet his W was the one that fled the nest to go work and abandon the kids for him to leave at home - if the traditional way is the better way then shouldn't BOTH gender roles be included in the formula? Perhaps this man was "weak" because he had no support system, perhaps it was her divergence from the traditional women's role that was the real dealbreaker in the marriage? How can a situation where the man is a SAHD and the W the breadwinner all fault to just him, isn't she also weak for not fulfilling her end of the bargain (and being a good homemaker, cheerleader and co-pilot instead overstepping her role?) To me it's irrelevant to try to figure it out using generalizations though because I know for a fact that the generalization does not work for me, thus it does not work for everybody, and for those it does not work for they still have to figure out what their relationship needs actually are. 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and the majority of those are still ones where the traditional gender roles have been assumed, so you can't blame the high rate simply on "weak" men.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Lon said:


> I probably have changed somewhat, I am still honored that my W (now ex of course) chose to take my name, and I tried to respect that in every way I knew how. For our wedding gifts one of my relatives gave us the his needs her needs book, we both laughed out loud for how outdated it seemed to both of us, no matter which page we cracked it to we just couldn't see either of us having anything in common with what the author was saying was important.


 it sounds you were a good match that you both felt this way about the book... Your words here suddenly made me realize just how Gawd awful out of touch I am with a great majority of people ...I almost feel stupid right now...

But I know this is why I gravitate to certain posters here... and really appreciate them... ..I would mostly fit in with those who respected the book..

I could literally take every chapter in that book & write up how each emotional need has been a blessing to our marriage.. and how if it was neglected.. it wouldn't be good.... I also feel "the 5 love languages" (another book) speaks many truths about how we are wired.. how we show our love....and long to receive it.... 

Maybe this too is looked upon as outdated...There is a popular book spoken about here by many --"Mating in Captivity" by Ester Pearl...I bought it but didn't feel it spoke for how we feel.. in a # of areas ..... so I guess that goes for any book.



> I've come to understand that what is important is harmony, but as for the guy that is the subject of this thread which the OP referenced the thread title, I feel that all the blame is going on to him for being "weak" in the traditional, generalized sense of what it means to be a man, yet his W was the one that fled the nest to go work and abandon the kids for him to leave at home -* if the traditional way is the better way then shouldn't BOTH gender roles be included in the formula?* Perhaps this man was "weak" because he had no support system, perhaps it was her divergence from the traditional women's role that was the real dealbreaker in the marriage?


These things should be talked about & understood before a couple gets married... as strong feelings can reside on both sides...some women are appalled a man might prefer she stay home (which is rare to find today anyhow.. our son's won't mind since they've had a taste of this lifestyle)..... I've always been thankful for my husband's attitude.. even though 90% of our marriage .. I still worked outside the home.. I wanted to earn a little extra...I am Big on building our savings..

I am working as many hours as him some weeks now.. it's more stressful, less time.... as I still do as much as I always did.. 

A friend & me were talking no long ago.. how we may not be considered so "traditional" -questioning that... .. 

I say we ARE because I know how strongly my husband feels on supporting his family..... he wants ME to have freedom.. he wouldn't like it if I HAD to work..(just as Harley explained all of that.. we resonate greatly with his explaining)... Yes he'd feel like somewhat of a failure.. to him.. that's not acceptable.. I don't see where this is a bad thing.. that's his "ambition" speaking -even if it's not exactly the worldview script of the modern man...where he expects both to have careers....a stay at home is a throw back from the 1950's, just something men are told to no longer accept, she'll take you for everything... 



> How can a situation where the man is a SAHD and the W the breadwinner all fault to just him, isn't she also weak for not fulfilling her end of the bargain (and being a good homemaker, cheerleader and co-pilot instead overstepping her role?) To me it's irrelevant to try to figure it out using generalizations though because I know for a fact that the generalization does not work for me, thus it does not work for everybody, and for those it does not work for they still have to figure out what their relationship needs actually are. 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and the majority of those are still ones where the traditional gender roles have been assumed, so you can't blame the high rate simply on "weak" men.


 I didn't read the article.. no marriage can stand or fall on whether it's more modern or Traditional.. of course not.. yet it's still helpful / comforting/ important to be on the same page here ..... which ever course a couple decides to take.. 

I would think keeping the stress down.. managing TIME would be imperative with both working full time today.. the stress levels can be so high...and meeting whatever emotional needs a couple cares about (even if very different from what some author says) ... 

Yes.. finding a harmony that works for each individual couple..

I surely don't begrudge or look down on a couple where the husband stays home.. or earns less than his wife.. I know of a few couples like this.. each has their issues, but it must be working... they're still together... They are all good people...


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

SimplyAmorous said:


> ...I surely don't begrudge or look down on a couple where the husband stays home.. or earns less than his wife.. I know of a few couples like this.. each has their issues, but it must be working... they're still together... They are all good people...


You stated my whole reason for participating in this thread succinctly with this last paragraph - I also know of a few couples like this, non-traditional gender roles, all are good people and have strong healthy marriages.

(And conversely I do not begrudge or look down on couple with the more traditional arrangements, I know many of them too and can say they are all good people with healthy marriages also.)


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Lon said:


> You stated my whole reason for participating in this thread succinctly with this last paragraph - I also know of a few couples like this, non-traditional gender roles, all are good people and have strong healthy marriages.
> 
> (And conversely I do not begrudge or look down on couple with the more traditional arrangements, I know many of them too and can say they are all good people with healthy marriages also.)


You know what I often think though.. so many threads I've thought of starting.. but just didn't bother.. as when it comes down to it....it's pretty much pointless to even share ...we're just introducing something to counter by another's point of view.. aren't we??

Heck I do it too.. even enjoy doing it.. it's all a "Chasing after the wind" so they say... Pointless... 

We're mostly all set in our ways..with varying beliefs or Non-belief, ...whether it be from how we were raised, our experiences Good or Bad (some may have experienced trauma, mental illness even)...all of these shape us, influence us....then add how many hormones are cursing through our bodies at any given time, how they play upon each other...to how our temperaments may affect our individual wiring..

We're a complicated bunch...it's even more complicated to find a suitable match & manage to live with them for a lifetime in some form of harmony...


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Another stay-at-home-dad gets cheated on.

BTW, @Lon, why did you and your ex-wife divorced? Were you already a SAHD at the time? Sorry, I don't know your story.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

NotEasy said:


> Ok, just read the link, and I don't see where it says he couldn't (as in not able to) keep a job. He worked part time. They had a baby and he became a full time SAHD. When he was about to go back to work they had another baby. Sounds like his decision to be a full time SAHD looking after a baby meant he chose to not hold a full time outside job, just like many SAHMs. Later he held a part time job for a while, but it says nothing about his ability to keep employed. Maybe he quit to look after the next baby.
> 
> I don't want to be his supporter. But I see nothing in the article to say the divorce was due to his inability to get or keep a job. Certainly he sounds wimpy and strange. Perhaps that is just the way the journalist wrote up the article concentrating on last names. My guess is the divorce may be related to his wimpyness, but the article does not say.


If you'll notice, the article says he had a part time job for a few years before his first child came along. That raises the question of why he wasn't working full time before their first child? Then he waited for eight years before going back to work for a little while? Everything about him in that article just screams lazy bum to me, and based on that, I formulated the opinion that it greatly contributed to his divorce.


----------



## NotEasy (Apr 19, 2015)

becareful2 said:


> If you'll notice, the article says he had a part time job for a few years before his first child came along. That raises the question of why he wasn't working full time before their first child? Then he waited for eight years before going back to work for a little while? Everything about him in that article just screams lazy bum to me, and based on that, I formulated the opinion that it greatly contributed to his divorce.


The journalist wrote an article about list last name, so his work history is not central or clearly laid out. Maybe at first he was studying and working part time, maybe he was a lazy sod, maybe he had a full time job that got cut back to part time, it doesn't say and he isn't here to answer. 

I don't see where it says he waited eight years before going back to work. I see he became a full time SAHD with the second and waited till they were six before looking for work. Then the 3rd and 4th came along. More part time work is mentioned. My guess is he spent over 10 years as a SAHD with little outside work. Similar things happen with SAHM. 

As I said, I don't want to start his cheer squad, and agree the article makes him sound lazy, but maybe this is the article spinning things. He is not telling his story directly or answering our questions.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

NotEasy said:


> The journalist wrote an article about list last name, so his work history is not central or clearly laid out. Maybe at first he was studying and working part time, maybe he was a lazy sod, maybe he had a full time job that got cut back to part time, it doesn't say and he isn't here to answer.
> 
> I don't see where it says he waited eight years before going back to work. I see he became a full time SAHD with the second and waited till they were six before looking for work. Then the 3rd and 4th came along. More part time work is mentioned. My guess is he spent over 10 years as a SAHD with little outside work. Similar things happen with SAHM.
> 
> As I said, I don't want to start his cheer squad, and agree the article makes him sound lazy, but maybe this is the article spinning things. He is not telling his story directly or answering our questions.


You're right; I got the number of years wrong. I thought it was eight but it's really six. He said he planned on going back to work and stuff, not that he actually went back to work. Then when his ex-wife got pregnant again, it was he who decided to be a SAHD; it wasn't a joint decision. Then to put the final nail in their marriage, imo, he gave her a gift that she neither wanted nor asked for: him taking her last name. I'd say being the SAHD, not working, and taking her last name emasculated him in her eyes, so when she remarried, she distanced herself from him by taking her new husband's last name.


----------



## Betrayedone (Jan 1, 2014)

Any man who takes his wife's last name was never a man and never had a chance in the relationship......I've seen it before and it has never been successful. His balls are usually kept in a jar and he can never play with them again........


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

becareful2 said:


> I think this guy is as beta and weak as it gets; part of the new batch of male feminists, I guess. He wanted to be so open-minded about it all, he didn't object to her having the kids take her last name over his, and to even later take her last name for himself. No wonder his ex-wife didn't respect him. He barely worked, was a stay at home dad while his ex was the bread winner. Offered to take her last name and she expressed discomfort with the idea. Even his friends and family were disappointed, and some called him a wimp. Even his ex knows to take the new husband's last name, whereas this beta male didn't. By his ex taking her new husband's last name, it contradicts his views on maintaining some kind of solidarity with his children. I mean, his children are his ex's children as well, so why didn't she keep her last name? I can totally see why she didn't want to be with him.


I disagree. The tradition of the children and wife taking the man's last name dates back to relatively barbaric times when men were never faithful to wives, and wives routinely were not faithful to husband.

Before the uproar of "that never happened!" shows up, let me explain the evidence.

Go back long enough (over 2,000 years) and records simply were not kept well at all. And...campaigns and wars went on all the time. Fathers were sent to war and there was no way, ever, for the wife to know if he had been killed or was ever coming back. Meanwhile, in those agricultural days, a woman did not have the strength and endurance to deal with land, animals and agriculture. There may be a hired hand, but then...the war ended and where was husband? And so, she took on a new lover out of the necessity of providing for the kids. The new lover, himself, might have been a remnant left over from another campaign and had no means of getting himself home - he may have a wife elsewhere, but without knowledge of whether that berg had been plundered so he had no idea whether there was someone to return to - and such journeys were themselves death-defying.

Meanwhile, what about children? There was no doubt who the mother was! Neighbors and midwives, not doctors, helped deliver the baby, so there were plenty of witnesses as who who the mother was. But there was no physical evidence of who the father was, unless the Babylonians had more advanced DNA analysis than we currently believe. The mother, therefore, had all the respect for parenthood and father was seen disconnected. As a method of giving the father at least a tiny little bit of a connection, the choice was made in society to name the child after the father, and shortly thereafter, women decided they wanted to honor their husbands thusly and requested the same tradition.

This story is my memories of reading about why Jews have this custom, as presented by Joseph Telushkin in "Jewish Literacy".

On the other hand, I've had plenty of friends in China and have lived there. According to those fine people, a person's family name and personal name ("Smith John" is the sequence in which they are said), together, mean something. E.g. "happy valley". A woman, therefore, never changes her name when she gets married unless the combined names mean something that she likes. And...the couple decides which name to give the children, as just one of a myriad of decisions made jointly.

As far as OP, I think he's plenty alpha - he decided to be his own man instead of letting society tell him what to do.

Not that alpha and beta mean what most "alpha males" think they do.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

DustyDog said:


> As far as OP, I think he's plenty alpha - he decided to be his own man instead of letting society tell him what to do.
> 
> Not that alpha and beta mean what most "alpha males" think they do.


A real man has his pride, his respect, and the respect of his wife. If you were to ask him about the level of his self-image or self-esteem, I'd venture a guess and say it's pretty low to non-existent. But he's so alpha...a lazy alpha who lost his wife and marriage.


----------



## NotEasy (Apr 19, 2015)

becareful2 said:


> You're right; I got the number of years wrong. I thought it was eight but it's really six. He said he planned on going back to work and stuff, not that he actually went back to work. Then when his ex-wife got pregnant again, it was he who decided to be a SAHD; it wasn't a joint decision. Then to put the final nail in their marriage, imo, he gave her a gift that she neither wanted nor asked for: him taking her last name. I'd say being the SAHD, not working, and taking her last name emasculated him in her eyes, so when she remarried, she distanced herself from him by taking her new husband's last name.


I agree with all this except her motivation. I guess she changed her name to distance herself from the failed marriage, rather than distanced herself from him. I guess she thinks keeping her maiden name damaged the marriage and she doesn't want to repeat that. But it is a guess.

I wonder if the journalist talked to her and understood her motivations.


----------

