I grew up wih a very strong mother. She worked, took care of us, etc. my dad was always her partner, but if either one was the stronger parent or spouse, that was my mom. She never took my dad’s name because it is not in her country’s tradition. I followed her example and did not take my husband’s name and I am definitely the stronger one in the couple. I have two DDs and I really hope they won’t give up their name when they marry, but more than anything I hope (and think) they will follow my example and be strong and independent and will never tolerate some of the thinking I read in the posts above. Mubarak’s DDs will never believe their spouse has better talents or are superior in any way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked forward to taking my husband’s last name. I like the idea of a man being head of the household even though I am educated and have a nice career. My feeling is why throw the baby with the bath water? I enjoy having a relationship where I am both self-sufficient and protected. I also find it sexier. Androgyny is not sexy.

I think the issue is that what you consider the baby is what a lot of us consider the bathwater.

And it's fine to live a life where women are second to men. But just don't call it anything else.

I am family oriented, not self oriented. I am fully gratified and my kids are better off.

Really admirable that you stick to your family oriented beliefs even when judgemental women try to shame you for it. Keep it up PP

A last name has nothing to do with being family oriented.

I am actually the PP who said I was family oriented, and I agree. It is a fairly trivial thing. But apparently the poster who responded to me suggested that the idea of a man being the head of the household in this subtle way indicated that women are second to men. That cracked me up. To me, it is a responsibility more than a privilege to be the head of a household. And it doesn't imply that the wife doesn't work, is subservient, or even secondary. It is like the CEO and the COO being jointly responsible to shareholders in different capacities.

I'm a different poster in this thread, not PP, and I did change my name but I don't think they're wrong about the HOH thing. That is the language of misogyny. Because you can say its like the a CEO and a COO (although the CEO gets more prestige and deference) but what is your title? Co HOH?

My husband and I are a unit, there is no head of household. Even if I were a SAHM I wouldn't call my husband the HOH. He is the breadwinner in that scenario, but the term head of household implies some extra authority. The idea that they get to make the final call on things. And I'm not a fan of that, because that is not an egalitarian relationship. And relationships that aren't egalitarian are susceptible to abuse.

My husband and I are a unit too, but I disagree with your ideas about the HOH distinction. To me, it confers not only some extra authority but extra responsibility that I expect my husband to feel for our family. He has a more prestigious career than I do, and I'm fine with that. His prestige benefits me and my kids, and even though there are some perks for him, he is oriented around us and not only himself. Part of his willingness to put us first is due to the perks. That is how life works and how human nature works. I am a competent, educated, and responsible person with a good career, but I am not capable of having a "big" job and focusing on my kids at the same time. Frankly my husband is more capable than me when it comes to sheer ability. I am more than happy to give him HOH status in exchange for his willingness to happily and lovingly (no abuse) confer his status and resources on me and my kids. I am not worried about being taken advantage of because I could fend for myself if the sh*t hit the fan, and I do agree any woman should always be prepared for that.

I bolded all the parts of your post that speak to the fact that in your household your husband is seen as superior to you in one way or another. You guys are not on a equal playing field, which you seem to fully understand and embrace.

I am not going to criticize an individual woman for choosing a relationship like this if it makes them happy and they are going into it with their eyes wide open. But this is not the attitude that women should have when they are looking for a mate. Because this attitude can be very very easily turned into an abusive situation.

I believe personally that even if an overweight maid who got Cs in school (let's call her Mary) is married to a big law guy who looks like Ken (let's call him Ken), they should be equals in the relationship. Mary shouldn't have to walk around her whole life feeling like she lives with someone who's better than her. They are human beings, and so they are equal, nothing about Ken being more accomplished or better looking or perhaps more intelligent takes away from the fact that Mary is a human being who deserves exactly as much dignity and respect as Ken does. Mary can appreciate Ken for bringing a lot of money into their household, and love that he is ambitious. She can admire that he is better at being a lawyer then she could ever be. But Mary should also realize that perhaps she is a little kinder then Ken could ever be, that she is better at Sudoku puzzles or cooking or parenting or gardening and certainly better at cleaning than he will ever be.

What is your husband better at than you due to sheer ability? I think it is troubling that that sentence doesn't actually have a noun. You just say he's better than you. Not what it is that he is better at.

Your household is run with your husband being labeled superior. You're cool with that and he doesn't abuse you, so I'm not going to say there is anything wrong with your life. But you need to realize that it is a dangerous world view to have. There are a lot of bad men in the world.

A) Stop telling women what attitude they should or should not have
B) My husband is not superior to me, because we both assign a tremendous amount of value to my personal qualities. Lacking in self esteem I am not, and I would have no problem leaving my marriage if my husband stopped behaving appropriately, which he full well knows.

Young women who go into the dating world believing men have a better ability to handle the world than they do are at risk. That is the reality of the world. I don't have any problem with a woman entering the kind of arrangement you have with their eyes open with a non-abusive man, but if you have those mindsets going in, you will be more susceptible to abuse. I just want women to be fully informed and to have the self esteem to make choices that are in their best interest.

If a woman wants to have a relationship where the man will be the head of household, she should choose that man very very very carefully as power tends to corrupt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked forward to taking my husband’s last name. I like the idea of a man being head of the household even though I am educated and have a nice career. My feeling is why throw the baby with the bath water? I enjoy having a relationship where I am both self-sufficient and protected. I also find it sexier. Androgyny is not sexy.

I think the issue is that what you consider the baby is what a lot of us consider the bathwater.

And it's fine to live a life where women are second to men. But just don't call it anything else.

I am family oriented, not self oriented. I am fully gratified and my kids are better off.

Really admirable that you stick to your family oriented beliefs even when judgemental women try to shame you for it. Keep it up PP

A last name has nothing to do with being family oriented.

I am actually the PP who said I was family oriented, and I agree. It is a fairly trivial thing. But apparently the poster who responded to me suggested that the idea of a man being the head of the household in this subtle way indicated that women are second to men. That cracked me up. To me, it is a responsibility more than a privilege to be the head of a household. And it doesn't imply that the wife doesn't work, is subservient, or even secondary. It is like the CEO and the COO being jointly responsible to shareholders in different capacities.

I'm a different poster in this thread, not PP, and I did change my name but I don't think they're wrong about the HOH thing. That is the language of misogyny. Because you can say its like the a CEO and a COO (although the CEO gets more prestige and deference) but what is your title? Co HOH?

My husband and I are a unit, there is no head of household. Even if I were a SAHM I wouldn't call my husband the HOH. He is the breadwinner in that scenario, but the term head of household implies some extra authority. The idea that they get to make the final call on things. And I'm not a fan of that, because that is not an egalitarian relationship. And relationships that aren't egalitarian are susceptible to abuse.

My husband and I are a unit too, but I disagree with your ideas about the HOH distinction. To me, it confers not only some extra authority but extra responsibility that I expect my husband to feel for our family. He has a more prestigious career than I do, and I'm fine with that. His prestige benefits me and my kids, and even though there are some perks for him, he is oriented around us and not only himself. Part of his willingness to put us first is due to the perks. That is how life works and how human nature works. I am a competent, educated, and responsible person with a good career, but I am not capable of having a "big" job and focusing on my kids at the same time. Frankly my husband is more capable than me when it comes to sheer ability. I am more than happy to give him HOH status in exchange for his willingness to happily and lovingly (no abuse) confer his status and resources on me and my kids. I am not worried about being taken advantage of because I could fend for myself if the sh*t hit the fan, and I do agree any woman should always be prepared for that.

I bolded all the parts of your post that speak to the fact that in your household your husband is seen as superior to you in one way or another. You guys are not on a equal playing field, which you seem to fully understand and embrace.

I am not going to criticize an individual woman for choosing a relationship like this if it makes them happy and they are going into it with their eyes wide open. But this is not the attitude that women should have when they are looking for a mate. Because this attitude can be very very easily turned into an abusive situation.

I believe personally that even if an overweight maid who got Cs in school (let's call her Mary) is married to a big law guy who looks like Ken (let's call him Ken), they should be equals in the relationship. Mary shouldn't have to walk around her whole life feeling like she lives with someone who's better than her. They are human beings, and so they are equal, nothing about Ken being more accomplished or better looking or perhaps more intelligent takes away from the fact that Mary is a human being who deserves exactly as much dignity and respect as Ken does. Mary can appreciate Ken for bringing a lot of money into their household, and love that he is ambitious. She can admire that he is better at being a lawyer then she could ever be. But Mary should also realize that perhaps she is a little kinder then Ken could ever be, that she is better at Sudoku puzzles or cooking or parenting or gardening and certainly better at cleaning than he will ever be.

What is your husband better at than you due to sheer ability? I think it is troubling that that sentence doesn't actually have a noun. You just say he's better than you. Not what it is that he is better at.

Your household is run with your husband being labeled superior. You're cool with that and he doesn't abuse you, so I'm not going to say there is anything wrong with your life. But you need to realize that it is a dangerous world view to have. There are a lot of bad men in the world.

A) Stop telling women what attitude they should or should not have
B) My husband is not superior to me, because we both assign a tremendous amount of value to my personal qualities. Lacking in self esteem I am not, and I would have no problem leaving my marriage if my husband stopped behaving appropriately, which he full well knows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked forward to taking my husband’s last name. I like the idea of a man being head of the household even though I am educated and have a nice career. My feeling is why throw the baby with the bath water? I enjoy having a relationship where I am both self-sufficient and protected. I also find it sexier. Androgyny is not sexy.

I think the issue is that what you consider the baby is what a lot of us consider the bathwater.

And it's fine to live a life where women are second to men. But just don't call it anything else.

I am family oriented, not self oriented. I am fully gratified and my kids are better off.

Really admirable that you stick to your family oriented beliefs even when judgemental women try to shame you for it. Keep it up PP

A last name has nothing to do with being family oriented.

I am actually the PP who said I was family oriented, and I agree. It is a fairly trivial thing. But apparently the poster who responded to me suggested that the idea of a man being the head of the household in this subtle way indicated that women are second to men. That cracked me up. To me, it is a responsibility more than a privilege to be the head of a household. And it doesn't imply that the wife doesn't work, is subservient, or even secondary. It is like the CEO and the COO being jointly responsible to shareholders in different capacities.

I'm a different poster in this thread, not PP, and I did change my name but I don't think they're wrong about the HOH thing. That is the language of misogyny. Because you can say its like the a CEO and a COO (although the CEO gets more prestige and deference) but what is your title? Co HOH?

My husband and I are a unit, there is no head of household. Even if I were a SAHM I wouldn't call my husband the HOH. He is the breadwinner in that scenario, but the term head of household implies some extra authority. The idea that they get to make the final call on things. And I'm not a fan of that, because that is not an egalitarian relationship. And relationships that aren't egalitarian are susceptible to abuse.

My husband and I are a unit too, but I disagree with your ideas about the HOH distinction. To me, it confers not only some extra authority but extra responsibility that I expect my husband to feel for our family. He has a more prestigious career than I do, and I'm fine with that. His prestige benefits me and my kids, and even though there are some perks for him, he is oriented around us and not only himself. Part of his willingness to put us first is due to the perks. That is how life works and how human nature works. I am a competent, educated, and responsible person with a good career, but I am not capable of having a "big" job and focusing on my kids at the same time. Frankly my husband is more capable than me when it comes to sheer ability. I am more than happy to give him HOH status in exchange for his willingness to happily and lovingly (no abuse) confer his status and resources on me and my kids. I am not worried about being taken advantage of because I could fend for myself if the sh*t hit the fan, and I do agree any woman should always be prepared for that.

I bolded all the parts of your post that speak to the fact that in your household your husband is seen as superior to you in one way or another. You guys are not on a equal playing field, which you seem to fully understand and embrace.

I am not going to criticize an individual woman for choosing a relationship like this if it makes them happy and they are going into it with their eyes wide open. But this is not the attitude that women should have when they are looking for a mate. Because this attitude can be very very easily turned into an abusive situation.

I believe personally that even if an overweight maid who got Cs in school (let's call her Mary) is married to a big law guy who looks like Ken (let's call him Ken), they should be equals in the relationship. Mary shouldn't have to walk around her whole life feeling like she lives with someone who's better than her. They are human beings, and so they are equal, nothing about Ken being more accomplished or better looking or perhaps more intelligent takes away from the fact that Mary is a human being who deserves exactly as much dignity and respect as Ken does. Mary can appreciate Ken for bringing a lot of money into their household, and love that he is ambitious. She can admire that he is better at being a lawyer then she could ever be. But Mary should also realize that perhaps she is a little kinder then Ken could ever be, that she is better at Sudoku puzzles or cooking or parenting or gardening and certainly better at cleaning than he will ever be.

What is your husband better at than you due to sheer ability? I think it is troubling that that sentence doesn't actually have a noun. You just say he's better than you. Not what it is that he is better at.

Your household is run with your husband being labeled superior. You're cool with that and he doesn't abuse you, so I'm not going to say there is anything wrong with your life. But you need to realize that it is a dangerous world view to have. There are a lot of bad men in the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked forward to taking my husband’s last name. I like the idea of a man being head of the household even though I am educated and have a nice career. My feeling is why throw the baby with the bath water? I enjoy having a relationship where I am both self-sufficient and protected. I also find it sexier. Androgyny is not sexy.

I think the issue is that what you consider the baby is what a lot of us consider the bathwater.

And it's fine to live a life where women are second to men. But just don't call it anything else.

I am family oriented, not self oriented. I am fully gratified and my kids are better off.

Really admirable that you stick to your family oriented beliefs even when judgemental women try to shame you for it. Keep it up PP

A last name has nothing to do with being family oriented.

I am actually the PP who said I was family oriented, and I agree. It is a fairly trivial thing. But apparently the poster who responded to me suggested that the idea of a man being the head of the household in this subtle way indicated that women are second to men. That cracked me up. To me, it is a responsibility more than a privilege to be the head of a household. And it doesn't imply that the wife doesn't work, is subservient, or even secondary. It is like the CEO and the COO being jointly responsible to shareholders in different capacities.

I'm a different poster in this thread, not PP, and I did change my name but I don't think they're wrong about the HOH thing. That is the language of misogyny. Because you can say its like the a CEO and a COO (although the CEO gets more prestige and deference) but what is your title? Co HOH?

My husband and I are a unit, there is no head of household. Even if I were a SAHM I wouldn't call my husband the HOH. He is the breadwinner in that scenario, but the term head of household implies some extra authority. The idea that they get to make the final call on things. And I'm not a fan of that, because that is not an egalitarian relationship. And relationships that aren't egalitarian are susceptible to abuse.

My husband and I are a unit too, but I disagree with your ideas about the HOH distinction. To me, it confers not only some extra authority but extra responsibility that I expect my husband to feel for our family. He has a more prestigious career than I do, and I'm fine with that. His prestige benefits me and my kids, and even though there are some perks for him, he is oriented around us and not only himself. Part of his willingness to put us first is due to the perks. That is how life works and how human nature works. I am a competent, educated, and responsible person with a good career, but I am not capable of having a "big" job and focusing on my kids at the same time. Frankly my husband is more capable than me when it comes to sheer ability. I am more than happy to give him HOH status in exchange for his willingness to happily and lovingly (no abuse) confer his status and resources on me and my kids. I am not worried about being taken advantage of because I could fend for myself if the sh*t hit the fan, and I do agree any woman should always be prepared for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked forward to taking my husband’s last name. I like the idea of a man being head of the household even though I am educated and have a nice career. My feeling is why throw the baby with the bath water? I enjoy having a relationship where I am both self-sufficient and protected. I also find it sexier. Androgyny is not sexy.

I think the issue is that what you consider the baby is what a lot of us consider the bathwater.

And it's fine to live a life where women are second to men. But just don't call it anything else.

I am family oriented, not self oriented. I am fully gratified and my kids are better off.

Really admirable that you stick to your family oriented beliefs even when judgemental women try to shame you for it. Keep it up PP

A last name has nothing to do with being family oriented.

I am actually the PP who said I was family oriented, and I agree. It is a fairly trivial thing. But apparently the poster who responded to me suggested that the idea of a man being the head of the household in this subtle way indicated that women are second to men. That cracked me up. To me, it is a responsibility more than a privilege to be the head of a household. And it doesn't imply that the wife doesn't work, is subservient, or even secondary. It is like the CEO and the COO being jointly responsible to shareholders in different capacities.

I'm a different poster in this thread, not PP, and I did change my name but I don't think they're wrong about the HOH thing. That is the language of misogyny. Because you can say its like the a CEO and a COO (although the CEO gets more prestige and deference) but what is your title? Co HOH?

My husband and I are a unit, there is no head of household. Even if I were a SAHM I wouldn't call my husband the HOH. He is the breadwinner in that scenario, but the term head of household implies some extra authority. The idea that they get to make the final call on things. And I'm not a fan of that, because that is not an egalitarian relationship. And relationships that aren't egalitarian are susceptible to abuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked forward to taking my husband’s last name. I like the idea of a man being head of the household even though I am educated and have a nice career. My feeling is why throw the baby with the bath water? I enjoy having a relationship where I am both self-sufficient and protected. I also find it sexier. Androgyny is not sexy.

I think the issue is that what you consider the baby is what a lot of us consider the bathwater.

And it's fine to live a life where women are second to men. But just don't call it anything else.

I am family oriented, not self oriented. I am fully gratified and my kids are better off.

Really admirable that you stick to your family oriented beliefs even when judgemental women try to shame you for it. Keep it up PP

A last name has nothing to do with being family oriented.

I am actually the PP who said I was family oriented, and I agree. It is a fairly trivial thing. But apparently the poster who responded to me suggested that the idea of a man being the head of the household in this subtle way indicated that women are second to men. That cracked me up. To me, it is a responsibility more than a privilege to be the head of a household. And it doesn't imply that the wife doesn't work, is subservient, or even secondary. It is like the CEO and the COO being jointly responsible to shareholders in different capacities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH and I laugh about the fact that I kept my name, much to the very loud objections from both our families. Our siblings all made it a point to let us know that they thought that was a sure sign we'd get divorced and that in their marriages, the woman always changed her name. My MIL refused to speak to me because I was "disrespecting" the family, and my mother informed me "I didn't raise a feminist!"

We're the only ones not divorced. 15 years now. Meanwhile, the longest marriage any sibling managed was 4 years. My in-laws are divorced, and my parents have been living separately for 13 years.

Pretty much. Let the marriage speak for itself. The overreliance of symbolism is shaky ground.

Exactly. Having the same last name doesn't make you more married. Living in such a way that you honor your spouse makes you more married and lifts you up. Just celebrated 30 years, and so many people tell us "You make it look easy." I had another woman in our neighborhood tell me how my DH always sings my praises whenever he speaks of me. I try to do the same with him. Our marriage shines even without the tradition of sharing the same name.

Ok Sanctimonious Sallies. You guys are really no better than the MRA guys.

I changed my name because I grew up with divorced parents. I hated that my parents had different last names. My last name certainly didn't define me as a person and I certainly didn't lose my identity when I changed it. Anyone who knows me would think that was a pretty funny accusation.

Real feminism is choice, and mocking the people who change their names is just as low as mocking and criticizing the people who don't.

Anonymous wrote:I think in a lot of places it is seen as her not being "all in" on the marriage. This area has a lot of highly educated women...but it also has a LOT of divorces, we can't pretend that's not true

Nope. High socioeconomic status is correlated with lower divorce rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked forward to taking my husband’s last name. I like the idea of a man being head of the household even though I am educated and have a nice career. My feeling is why throw the baby with the bath water? I enjoy having a relationship where I am both self-sufficient and protected. I also find it sexier. Androgyny is not sexy.

I think the issue is that what you consider the baby is what a lot of us consider the bathwater.

And it's fine to live a life where women are second to men. But just don't call it anything else.

I am family oriented, not self oriented. I am fully gratified and my kids are better off.

Really admirable that you stick to your family oriented beliefs even when judgemental women try to shame you for it. Keep it up PP

A last name has nothing to do with being family oriented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked forward to taking my husband’s last name. I like the idea of a man being head of the household even though I am educated and have a nice career. My feeling is why throw the baby with the bath water? I enjoy having a relationship where I am both self-sufficient and protected. I also find it sexier. Androgyny is not sexy.

I think the issue is that what you consider the baby is what a lot of us consider the bathwater.

And it's fine to live a life where women are second to men. But just don't call it anything else.

I am family oriented, not self oriented. I am fully gratified and my kids are better off.

Really admirable that you stick to your family oriented beliefs even when judgemental women try to shame you for it. Keep it up PP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked forward to taking my husband’s last name. I like the idea of a man being head of the household even though I am educated and have a nice career. My feeling is why throw the baby with the bath water? I enjoy having a relationship where I am both self-sufficient and protected. I also find it sexier. Androgyny is not sexy.

I think the issue is that what you consider the baby is what a lot of us consider the bathwater.

And it's fine to live a life where women are second to men. But just don't call it anything else.

I am family oriented, not self oriented. I am fully gratified and my kids are better off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH and I laugh about the fact that I kept my name, much to the very loud objections from both our families. Our siblings all made it a point to let us know that they thought that was a sure sign we'd get divorced and that in their marriages, the woman always changed her name. My MIL refused to speak to me because I was "disrespecting" the family, and my mother informed me "I didn't raise a feminist!"

We're the only ones not divorced. 15 years now. Meanwhile, the longest marriage any sibling managed was 4 years. My in-laws are divorced, and my parents have been living separately for 13 years.

Pretty much. Let the marriage speak for itself. The overreliance of symbolism is shaky ground.

Exactly. Having the same last name doesn't make you more married. Living in such a way that you honor your spouse makes you more married and lifts you up. Just celebrated 30 years, and so many people tell us "You make it look easy." I had another woman in our neighborhood tell me how my DH always sings my praises whenever he speaks of me. I try to do the same with him. Our marriage shines even without the tradition of sharing the same name.

I would assume the guy's a cuck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am one of them. Think nothing of it. Wonder a little about the women who change their names, though.

I hope you don’t pull a muscle patting yourself on the back.

I'm not the PP but I also kept my name. Why wouldn't I? It's my name. It's one thing if you really love the name Smith or whatever and always wanted your name to be that. In which case just change it whenever you want.

But you can count me as another person who wonders about the women who are lacking an identity so much that they change their name to their husband's name after the man agrees to marry her and hence 'allows' them to do so.

You're making a lot of assumptions. After I got married, I eventually changed my last name. My husband didn't care one way or the other, and certainly was not the one to "allow" me to do so, or not. It was a personal decision that I made for my own reasons. My maiden name just wasn't a crucial part of my identity, as you describe. People make the decision to change their names, or not to, for reasons beyond "lacking an identity" or that someone else "allows them to do so". You need to take people out of the little boxes you've placed them into-- expand your horizons a bit.

Pretty sure that most guys would freak the hell out if a girlfriend changed her name to his last name. The time he gives her permission to do so, really, is on or after the wedding. That's what I was referring to.

Anything else would absolutely be an exception that may or may not be okay, depending on the couple.

And my hair color might not be a "crucial part of my identity" but I wouldn't be changing it to my husband's hair color just because I got married.