The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A woman's identity > Comments

A woman's identity : Comments

By Nina Funnell, published 29/12/2008

Of the thousands of decisions a couple must make before a wedding, one of the more political ones is what to do about surnames.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 41
  10. 42
  11. 43
  12. All
Hi Runner - could you explain why a woman's name should not be carried on just as much as a man's? Why is a man's name more important? Just curious.
Posted by Candide, Monday, 29 December 2008 11:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Candice

Man was created to be the spiritual head of the family. We have seen the feminization of the school system, some Police services and many other areas of life. It is no wonder many young boys grow up with an identity crisis and that things are in such a mess. To go against the natural order of things always results in the further break down in society. To take on ones wife name is emasculating and unnatural. Woman was made to complement the man (not rule over). Man was made to rule his family and set an example to them. Just look at how many fatherless children end up in prison. Many men are to weak and selfish to take up their God given responsibility. As long as they get sex the woman can do what they want. It is time for men to stop being whimps.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 12:44:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi folks... ok Nina.. I'll cross you off the list of 'possible rellies' :)

This is a fascinating question. I can see Runners point about the creation order with man as the head of the family (in an attitude of servanthood..not tyranny) so, I suppose it logically follows that the woman could take the family name of the man.

If we were a culturally matriarchal society then it could be the other way around.

I'm a bit curious about why MRD's wife wanted "their" child to have 'her' name? I think that's where the rub is.. when children come they have to have a name, and they come from a family.. In my wifes culture it's simple. Every child is named after it's father, for example if the woman is named 'mary' and her father is 'fred'..then her full name is 'mary fred'. Fred also had a dad.. (John) so his name is 'Fred John', John also had James as his dad, thus he is 'John James'.

In order to differentiate one Fred from another, you just add the name of his father's father "Fred John James" which further identifies which 'Fred' he is.

When my wifes people embraced Christianity, the naming conventions did not change, nor did they need to.

The lineage and family tree is based on the line of the Father, but that of the mother is also well known.

The womans identity is still intact, but it simply traces different branches. A womans lineage is also important (in that culture)for reasons of social class and family history.

The Old Testament was like this also. Our naming conventions seem to be linked to geography (somewhat like some Arab names) and Occupation.
"Miller". So the 'John' who happened to be a 'Miller' in a certain place would be called "John Miller".

Given this, it seems to me that the family name is not so crucial in establishing identity... but the lineage is.
John Miller the son of '
James Miller the son of
Henry Miller....

The important bit is 'John/James/Henry' in establishing genealogy
Posted by Polycarp, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 7:36:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article and thread. Clearly, the expectation that a wife should take her husband's family name is a vestige of former patriarchal arrangements in our society that linger on, unfortunately.

In my own case, my first wife changed her surname to mine, and retained it after our divorce. She had always detested her family name, so this wasn't really a problem for her. Twenty years later she still goes by it, as do our daughter and grandson. My grandson had a double-barrelled name for his first couple of years, until my daughter changed it to hers. Tragically, my grandson's father died before he was born and my daughter thinks it will be less confusing for the little fellow if he doesn't bear the name of someone he'll never know.

My second wife retained her surname, which she insisted that we include in our children's names (as middle names). However, when they were enrolled at school their names became duble-barrelled, but without a hyphen. Following our divorce, this continued through their schooling, often leading to confusion in minor but annoying ways. Now that they're old enough to think for themselves, they've both dropped their mother's family name, mostly for convenience sake.

Roscop - your comments were those of a knuckle-dragging oaf.

runner - are you sure you're not a closet Muslim?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 7:38:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I recall correctly there in the past there was a tendency for women to increase their status, by marrying a doctor, lawyer ec.

So by using the same surname automatically established the hierarchy amongst women.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 7:58:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I rule the world, the problem will be solved by the compulsory adoption of my surname scheme. It's based in biology, and everyone gets to have a double-barrel surname. What could be better - a scheme based in nature that lets everyone have those pretentious sounding surnames hitherto only enjoyed by the elite or the wanna-bees.

It works like this. Each new child gets a surname from Dad and one from Mum. The name Dad passes on is the part of his surname he got from his Dad; Mum passes on the bit of her name that she got from her Mum. The nature bit comes from its mimicry of the Y chromosome line and the mitochondrial DNA line.

So, if my Dad's surname had been Smith-Jones, and Mum's had been Brown-Black, my surname,and that of all my siblings, would be Smith-Black. If I, as a Smith-Black, then had children with a Potter-Redkin, then our children would be Smith-Redkins.

This system means no-one changes their name on marriage/partnering, and the child's surname reflects its lineage through the Y chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA lines, a boon for family historians. And just as females don't pass on Y chromosomes and males don't pass on mitochondrial DNA, the changes in surnames through time reflect the loss of one or other of these lines through time.

Vote for me when I stand for Parliament on this single issue.

There's another plus - the scheme outlined has scope for debate about whose surname-part would go first in the double-barrel, and how to cope with unknown parentage. Fertile ground there.
Posted by Spog, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 9:21:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 41
  10. 42
  11. 43
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy