Yet another localised breakout but hey, let’s not say anything....

Status
Not open for further replies.
ellal said:
Ah, so you are carrying on the tradition of when a woman was regarded as a 'chattle' when getting married...

More enlightened nations have used the system of patronymics and maintaining names.

And since the subject of '*******s' was recently raised, the latter system reduces or eliminates the stigma of being born 'out of wedlock'.

Anything that reduces prejudice is a good thing wouldn't you agree?

There are other benefits too.

Have you ever tried to trace your family tree, and if so how far back did you get?

Edit: no name change
Click to expand...
Normal thinking wives would be grossly insulted referred to as partner instead of wife.
 
ellal said:
Ah, so you are carrying on the tradition of when a woman was regarded as a 'chattle' when getting married...

More enlightened nations have used the system of patronymics and maintaining names.

And since the subject of '*******s' was recently raised, the latter system reduces or eliminates the stigma of being born 'out of wedlock'.

Anything that reduces prejudice is a good thing wouldn't you agree?

There are other benefits too.

Have you ever tried to trace your family tree, and if so how far back did you get?

Edit: no name change
Click to expand...
Normal thinking wives would be grossly insulted referred to as partner instead of wife.
 
sodthisforfun said:
I wouldn't take a mans surname if I got married. I'm not married, no intention of ever being so, just happily living in sin.
Click to expand...
Good on you but in light of ellals stance, I’d be interested to know why he got married. You don’t have to be married to live with or love someone and he admits not having no religion so perhaps his decision to marry was for financial or residential reasons?
 
durhamplumber said:
Normal thinking wives would be grossly insulted referred to as partner instead of wife.
Click to expand...
Nah, doubt it. The two words are the same really, most people don't give it much thought imo.
I call my partner my 'better half'. It's true (most of the time!).
 
Mottie said:
Good on you but in light of ellals stance, I’d be interested to know why he got married. You don’t have to be married to live with or love someone and he admits not having no religion so perhaps his decision to marry was for financial or residential reasons?
Click to expand...


Some people want to be married, the romance, having kids, legally it's easier - probably many a reason.
Which reminds me, I must get our wills sorted! Without marriage or a will, the partner is entitled to nothing.
 
Notch7 said:
I don't think most women feel that way.
Click to expand...
Because the society they are brought up in (in this case the UK) often expects it of them!
Notch7 said:
how a woman is treated has nothing to do with the ceremony and everything to do with the individual characters
Click to expand...
If you look at the countries where the gender gap is the least, then those without a tradition of taking the man's name tend to come out the best...
 
ellal said:
If you look at the countries where the gender gap is the least, then those without a tradition of taking the man's name tend to come out the best...
Click to expand...
Do you really think there's a link?!
 
sodthisforfun said:
Do you really think there's a link?!
Click to expand...
Yes, because the women who are perceived as 'more independent' of men tend to achieve more and that is reflected in society...

Women in the UK only started to gain a real foothold because of WWII, but there is still a long way to go for true equality...

Have you ever wondered why there are so many surnames ending in 'son' in the UK?
It's because originally it was a viking naming system (son of), but the female equivalent (dottir - daughter of) got lost when in this country the woman became a 'chattle'...

I asked a question of mottie earlier (which he didn't answer) about tracing your family tree...

Most people are lucky if they can get further back than a couple of hundred years, because the entry of a woman's maiden name (née) on a marriage certificate was often not recorded...

Thus whole family names were wiped out...

Now imagine if you could go back over a thousand years and trace virtually all of your descendants at the click of a mouse (y)

And in addition, if you want to know how a woman's maiden name becomes 'lost' when she swaps it.
How many times have you had to answer a bank security question saying 'what was your mother's maiden name'?

 
Last edited:
I like the Brazilian system - probably in other latin countries too. When a woman marries, she drops her mother's name and keeps her fathers and take husband's name. Everybody has 2 surnames. It only keeps the mothers name alive for one extra generation, but a son and daughter will carry their mother's name until they themselves marry. My kids have my father-in-laws name as their 3rd names, mine as 4th, which obviously means a woman also passes her surname onto her children, which is what I said already but said differently ... back to work!
 
ellal said:
Yes, because the women who are perceived as 'more independent' of men tend to achieve more and that is reflected in society...
Click to expand...
Interestingly, I've just been doing some reading.
I don't think keeping maiden name always equals better gender equality.

Greece is illegal to take on surname and yet it's lower than the UK in the equality charts.
Switzerland, which is ranked best in equality, only 1 in 5 women keep their maiden name, and only recently been allowed to (2013)
Canada, lower than the UK tend to take on maiden name..
Chile, where they never take the maiden name are well down on women's equality..

I think that a link may be some what coincidental in some counties, if one at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
 
ellal said:
Because the society they are brought up in (in this case the UK) often expects it of them!
Click to expand...
you are over thinking it.

this is the same argument you have in regards to us being 'subjects'

you are conflating tradition as though it has any bearing on modern relationships

equality in a marriage depends entirely on the 2 people, not tradition.
 
Notch7 said:
you are over thinking it.

this is the same argument you have in regards to us being 'subjects'

you are conflating tradition as though it has any bearing on modern relationships

equality in a marriage depends entirely on the 2 people, not tradition.
Click to expand...
I think you are too dismissive of social pressures.
Toys for boys are still very much of the cars, lorries, tractor, boat sort.
Whereas toys for girls are still dolls, and their paraphernalia, nurses, cooking and other housework paraphernalia, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top