Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bmcg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!bmcg!rick
From: rick@bmcg.UUCP (Rick Yarbrough)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Name-changing and "identity"
Message-ID: <1852@bmcg.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 13:46:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: bmcg.1852
Posted: Thu Sep  5 13:46:03 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 16:46:08 EDT
References: <510@osiris.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Burroughs Corp. ASG, San Diego, CA.
Lines: 70

> 
> 	It's all very well for a man, who will never be called upon to
> change *his* name, to think it foolish for women to protest having to
> change theirs. One's inner identity is not dependent upon one's name,
> but one's credit rating, professional reputation, etc., most certainly
> is. When  I got married, I owned property in my name, had credit cards
> and a credit rating, and a professional reputation based on that name.
> Ask any man, those things *are* important. Appealing to tradition won't
> cut it. If we were depending on "tradition", why, then I wouldn't own
> property, have credit cards or a profession at all !
> 	It is also historically true that a woman takes a man's name as a
> sign of becoming his property - in effect, her virginity ceases to be the
> property of her father and is given over to her husband. That is why the
> father "gives" the bride away at the wedding (another tradition I didn't
> go along with !). This is well-documented in historical analysis. If we
> are trying to dispense with "traditional" views of women as weak-minded,
> helpless children, or as sex and baby-making machines for the dominant
> males, then we should dispense with the "traditions" that subtly reinforce
> those views.
> 	As they say, men of quality are not threatened by women for equality.
> 
> 
> -- 
> jcpatilla
> 
> "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."



HEAR!!! HEAR!!! My sentiments exactly!!!
	I don't want to put words into peoples mouths, and I didn't save
the article to which the above is obviously replying; so for those who
didn't see it I will try to give a generalization of what was said.
	
	A lady had posted, saying that she had agreed to change her
name if her prospective husband would agree to change his. He had
refused and so had she... In response to this someone said that SHE
was endangering her chances of the marriage lasting by refusing such
a petty thing. 

	I agree. To me it is a petty thing. Were I ever to marry
again, I would have no difficulty with the situation of my wife
keeping her own name. 
	The only problem I have with his response (I am almost sure
it was a man) was that he didn't seem to put any of the responsibility
on the prospective husband. This is where I feel I may be putting MY
interpretation of what was said. I apologize in advance if I am
incorrect in my feeling that he was telling me the man had no
obligation to change his name.
	If it was important enough for him to refuse to do the same
thing, then it IS NOT a trivial issue, and I feel both partners are
equally responsible for the trouble that the refusal may cause in
the future.
	Although things may have changed somewhat in the last few
years, I know for a fact the problems with credit and related
issues that name changes CAN (not necessarily do) cause. At the
least it CAN be a HUGE inconvenience to the person who has had
to change their name. How can he expect her to put herself in
this position if he is not willing to do the same? I just can't
help but feel the above mentioned respondent really doesn't feel
it is a petty issue, EXCEPT IN THE WOMAN'S CASE.


                                   FROM THE KEYBOARD OF
                                   The High Flying,
                                       Low Diving,
                                       Sneaky &
                                       Conniving
                                    Road Dog