Is it love or submissiveness....

I have a 2 part question concerning marriage and the 'rituals' of. Why does society expect women to take their husbands surname upon marriage? It's almost a given and never really questioned. It's so much a part of Our culture it's assumed the husbands last name will be adopted by the wife.
Taking your husbands name upon marriage, to me, is giving up a portion of your own identity. The changing of surnames dates back to when women were considered 'chattle', they were 'property' to be owned. It's almost like regarding yourself as a secondary to your husband.
As a woman I want to preserve the tradition of my ancestors last names. Why must a woman forfeit a peice of her history in lieu of her spouses? I dont think I want to give up my familial name O'Ceallaigh for Jones or Smith. Historically theres so much attatched to it, history that would be lost in future generations, that would be lost.
There are those who say it's it's idicative of love, if thats the case-why doesnt the man change His surname to that of the womans?
Just to be clear I'm not talking about hyphenated names, which is a whole other topic with pros and cons. Also, I lean toward a woman keeping her surname but not dead set against her changing it to her husband. I have total respect for others personal choices and decisions with their own lives.

2nd has to do with wearing wedding rings. Why is it supposed that women should wear them, or men for that matter. Men havent worn bands until recent years, women always have, making it a symbol of being 'owned'. Wearing a ring is a choice but almost obligatory due to societys views. Isnt marriage, declaring your love for another enough? Is it taken less serious if one doesnt wear a ring? It doesnt make one more faithful.. I'm not opposed to wedding band either, I'm questioning why there are traditions that seem almost on the verge of sexual discrimination??
Please, I'd love Your thoughts and opinions on this matter. Some will be 'old skool' and others not. I think it's a great topic for discussion, showing the alternatives where theres thought to be none.

Kim

Has every woman in your family kept their maiden name, from the beginning of time? If not well then, your name is already that of one's husband somewhere down the line. Isn't it?

I understand what you're saying though. My wife wanted to keep her name, but only because it sounded cool when said with her first name.

Oh, they've all changed their names but that's my point. They were obligated. Even if they did that doesn't affect my surname or where I got it at all. My name is my name that can be carried thru men or women. My mother was an O'Ceallaigh thru her mom who was 1 thru her mom who was 1 thru her Dad...etc..etc. I'm only a 5th generation 'transplant' lol. ..but yeah, that's my point.

Kim

I see.

I wouldn't call it obligation as much as it's really tradition.

I dunno.

reply to post by Demetre


I have known men who have taken their wife's name so in todays day and age that shouldn't be an issue.
You either keep the name or change it and its not much a big deal anymore.
The wedding ring thing is just an old tradition from the pagans if i am correct.
The ring is not a symbol of being owned.
The ring or circle was to protect the marriage and give it good luck.
It was a superstitious thing in my opinion,but hey its marriage so why not ask for a bit of luck and good fortune?
To me today the ring is just a hands off sign so I am of the opinion that wearing it is a good thing.
If you are married (not owned) then why not wear it??
I thought people today liked a bit of bling.




[edit on 24-6-2010 by DrumsRfun]

We both wear rings...it tells others "we're taken".... (which is actually just polite, if you think about it)...

As for the surname...while maybe more of the "dominant male" thing in the past, now it's more out of convenience. If you don't like it, hyphenate it, or do like the famous folks do, and simply keep your own name. There are legal ways to do this of course.

You have to remember, societies are built on tradition, and changing that is like trying to grind down a mountain.

I was recently married to my high school sweetheart - and we're anything but traditional.

I kept my last name, and he completely supported me in that decision.

We also wear matching rings although not on the ring finger.

(The rings are more a "between him and I thing" than it is for anyone else, but it does help keep the strays away. )

...and we didn't shell out for an expensive wedding either.


Long story short, the union between two people in love shouldn't always have to focus on living up to the expectations of others.

Tradition is nice, but it shouldn't superceed the wishes of the couple making their Union together - especially when it's a matter of a one day affair versus a lifetime commitment.

reply to post by DrumsRfun


Im understanding ur point. This is why I'm asking, I want others opinions, differing or not. The 1st wedding bands been traced to Egypt actually. Later the wedding band was used as a commitment to the woman's father. If the man were to change his mind he would owe money to the father. It was a 'contract'. So, yes, it was definitely a symbol of being owned. I know how the practice came about, I'm asking personal opinions on why it isn't questioned more. And very few men are willing to take their wife's name, again, its as a whole. You know 1 person out of how many that's changed his name? Of course its an issue or more men would do it.

reply to post by GENERAL EYES


Exactly, you and your husband think 'out of the box'. Most do what's been done forever without questioning it, that's great if it works for them. Lots go along with it because that's how it's been for forever, its become assumed in society.

reply to post by Demetre


It's also a multi-million dollar industry.

Dresses, tuxedos, caterers, cakes, presents for the bride/groom and trinkets for the guests, renting out the church and halls for the post-ceremony festivities, professional photographers, the "obligatory" Honeymoon....and even then, when all the cash has been siphoned out of the pockets of the participants - only 50% of modern marriages stay the course.

Divorce Rates in America.


Consumer society using/abusing "tradition" as an excuse to have an outrageously expensive and elaborate shin-dig that in 50% of cases is nothing more than a huge "look at me moment"?

No thanks.

I'd rather stand under an old oak tree with a Justice of the Peace and still be able to look with love at my husband when we're both old and crinkly.

Think religion has alot to do with it. They Aided this whole women are property thing and blah blah blah. Though today i have to say there is a lot of freedom. You dont have to wear a ring, take the hubands name or even have a large wedding.
Some people see the wedding as the most important part of marrige and all i can really say is... Jokes on you

its a tradition,but if you dont like it,keep your maiden name,no one makes you...

Originally, many marriages are (and still are, in many cultures) more of a political contract, than a union of people in love. Heck, for two of my friends, it was almost a financial arrangement, more than love.

It's different things to different people, and that's all there is to it. My wedding would be "inexpensive" when considering the average cost, but it was still way more than I'd ever, ever spend for a party, ever again (and I'm a big fan of elaborate gatherings)... Of course, it helped to have connections (like my mother being a professional decorator, friend as a pro photographer, etc., etc.)

ahhhh.. damn this is a hard one.. i say go wit what ^^^^ said