Don't see it matters which way a couple goes, but having the same surname just makes things a little bit easier when it comes to stuff like insurance, pensions, etc.
I've never totally understood how this works: women have been taking their menfolks' names for many many generations, so their 'real' names are surely lost. Most women I know, I know by their given names anyway, so not such a huge deal really. People should just do what they feel most comfortable with.
Dean.....my hubby didn't want a wedding ring and i was happy with this..........I had one as i believe that you have to have one in the marriage ceremony.at least the religious ones............
but I only wear it 2 or 3 times a year...its a bit of jewellery to me
If you don't want to change your name there's not much point in getting married.
Because name changing is the entire purpose of the union?
Nothing like wanting and promising to spend the rest of your life with the person you love, or even at a more cold and logical level the legal rights as a partner that married couples have over those who aren't.
the other problem of course is that most British women are trading the name of the first man to 'own' them - their fathers, for that of the 2nd man to 'own' them, their husbands. Both are utterly sexist really.
I didn't expect my wife to change her name, but then getting hitched in our lunch hour wasn't very traditional. No time for first dances on that occassion.
the other problem of course is that most British women are trading the name of the first man to 'own' them - their fathers, for that of the 2nd man to 'own' them, their husbands. Both are utterly sexist really.
but the sons also have the name of their father, so that bit is not sexist
the other problem of course is that most British women are trading the name of the first man to 'own' them - their fathers, for that of the 2nd man to 'own' them, their husbands. Both are utterly sexist really.
but the sons also have the name of their father, so that bit is not sexist
Mmm. So why doesn't the mother 'own' them? Right of ownership of women and children belongs to men.
Lets not exaggerate the difficulty, not in this day and age ....... you enter online 99% of the time ..... so therefore everything is on a database somewhere. It would be quite easy at the time you register to have add a password field. If the person wishes to transfer their number they would go to a page where they reentter their password and update the fields.
The information is already in a database, so all you are creating is a new html page which can borrow 90% of the code from the original form page anyway.
Its really not that big a deal. And you could always have some rule that says you have up till 7 days before the race, so that well before the race starts you arent getting any last minute changes that you might have to cater for. Remember its just a name swap, you arent increasing or decreasing the amount of people, and the person is doing all the work by re-entering the information, you dont have to do a thing.
the other problem of course is that most British women are trading the name of the first man to 'own' them - their fathers, for that of the 2nd man to 'own' them, their husbands. Both are utterly sexist really.
but the sons also have the name of their father, so that bit is not sexist
Mmm. So why doesn't the mother 'own' them? Right of ownership of women and children belongs to men.
the other problem of course is that most British women are trading the name of the first man to 'own' them - their fathers, for that of the 2nd man to 'own' them, their husbands. Both are utterly sexist really.
but the sons also have the name of their father, so that bit is not sexist
Mmm. So why doesn't the mother 'own' them? Right of ownership of women and children belongs to men.
A mother can register a child in her own name and do so without consent from the father. A child can be registered jointly or by the father, with a statutory declaration from the mother.
It appears to me that the default position at birth is that children are 'owned' by the mother.
the other problem of course is that most British women are trading the name of the first man to 'own' them - their fathers, for that of the 2nd man to 'own' them, their husbands. Both are utterly sexist really.
but the sons also have the name of their father, so that bit is not sexist
Mmm. So why doesn't the mother 'own' them? Right of ownership of women and children belongs to men.
A mother can register a child in her own name and do so without consent from the father. A child can be registered jointly or by the father, with a statutory declaration from the mother.
It appears to me that the default position at birth is that children are 'owned' by the mother.
Quite right Lou, in terms of current legislation, which is also sexist. I was referring to the more tribal traditions underlying the social perspective on surnames.
I got married 3 years ago and was very happy to take my husbands surname for a few reasons:
It was much shorter and easier to spell than my maiden name, which is named after a town in Essex, and you'd be surprised how often is got mis-spelt. Lots of people referred to it as' Rhythm, whiteham, whitman, withers, wittam...and refused to spell it properly!;
I would jump up the register list from a 'W' surname to a 'G'
The surname combined with my forenames flowed a lot better.
i'm quite old fashoned and not a fan of double barelled surnames.
i havent yet changed my passport as it expires next year anyway so we have to make sure we book holidays using my maiden name details.
Aside from this it does seem a pain that the females have to go through the hassle of changing their surname on every official document. I reckon the husbands should have to pay half!
Shouldn't all of the ladies on here be cooking a steak for their man, not sat on here nattering? It is 14th March afterall.
how can you tell who is male and who is female as we could all be CATFISH wanabees......
and i can cook his steak whilst posting as well as cleaning the kitchen and feeding the baby and listening to the elder child read........... if you are talking about a woman ....
Comments
Don't see it matters which way a couple goes, but having the same surname just makes things a little bit easier when it comes to stuff like insurance, pensions, etc.
I've never totally understood how this works: women have been taking their menfolks' names for many many generations, so their 'real' names are surely lost. Most women I know, I know by their given names anyway, so not such a huge deal really. People should just do what they feel most comfortable with.
Dean.....my hubby didn't want a wedding ring and i was happy with this..........I had one as i believe that you have to have one in the marriage ceremony.at least the religious ones............
but I only wear it 2 or 3 times a year...its a bit of jewellery to me
If you don't want to change your name there's not much point in getting married.
Because name changing is the entire purpose of the union?
Nothing like wanting and promising to spend the rest of your life with the person you love, or even at a more cold and logical level the legal rights as a partner that married couples have over those who aren't.
I would have happily changed my name but he said that i couldnt change my name if I couldnt pronounce it properly. So I didnt
How do you expect to become his property if you refuse to change your name. They'll be letting you women vote and leave the kitchen next.
A man wearing a wedding ring, traditional!
Can't say I've heard of that one.
Fashionable perhaps.
🙂
the other problem of course is that most British women are trading the name of the first man to 'own' them - their fathers, for that of the 2nd man to 'own' them, their husbands. Both are utterly sexist really.
Agree with that Ric.
The one bit of "Tradition" i'd be looking to break would be the first dance.
Lifelong commitment to someone? No problem.
Dancing in front of people? Wouldn't do that for anyone
women should change their names when they get married to show who they belong to.
I didn't expect my wife to change her name, but then getting hitched in our lunch hour wasn't very traditional. No time for first dances on that occassion.
but the sons also have the name of their father, so that bit is not sexist
only the 3rd person to do this gag so far...any more takers?
Haven't we established that the 'ownership' angle doesn't have any biters - it failed on page 1 and 2. I guess you are optimistic
SG got there first - and not for the first time.
Mmm. So why doesn't the mother 'own' them? Right of ownership of women and children belongs to men.
Louise, stop teasing the people, clearly you took my surname "G" when we got married
cos she wants the man to pay for them?
A mother can register a child in her own name and do so without consent from the father. A child can be registered jointly or by the father, with a statutory declaration from the mother.
It appears to me that the default position at birth is that children are 'owned' by the mother.
I said it was sexist, I didn't say it was WRONG Stevie
Quite right Lou, in terms of current legislation, which is also sexist. I was referring to the more tribal traditions underlying the social perspective on surnames.
Skotty, are you fighting with me AND DF3 at the same time?
Some men just can't multitask....
stupid forum. and it won't let you edit.
I was just mulling on the serendipity of your neologism - mul-tit-ask... what could it mean?
Your dictionary is out of date?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multitasking
Shouldn't all of the ladies on here be cooking a steak for their man, not sat on here nattering? It is 14th March afterall.
I got married 3 years ago and was very happy to take my husbands surname for a few reasons:
It was much shorter and easier to spell than my maiden name, which is named after a town in Essex, and you'd be surprised how often is got mis-spelt. Lots of people referred to it as' Rhythm, whiteham, whitman, withers, wittam...and refused to spell it properly!;
I would jump up the register list from a 'W' surname to a 'G'
The surname combined with my forenames flowed a lot better.
i'm quite old fashoned and not a fan of double barelled surnames.
i havent yet changed my passport as it expires next year anyway so we have to make sure we book holidays using my maiden name details.
Aside from this it does seem a pain that the females have to go through the hassle of changing their surname on every official document. I reckon the husbands should have to pay half!
Damn, I thought for a minute your name was Beaumont-cum-Moze.
how can you tell who is male and who is female as we could all be CATFISH wanabees......
and i can cook his steak whilst posting as well as cleaning the kitchen and feeding the baby and listening to the elder child read........... if you are talking about a woman ....