Traditions of marriage

Zulu

...why would you get married so? It's a tradition for one. And according to your logic, a sexist one to boot!

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

...why would you get married so? It's a tradition for one. And according to your logic, a sexist one to boot!

You can get married for many many reasons.
1) as a public declaration of your love and commitment to each other.
2) to give complete financial security to your partnership.
3) in the event of having children that both parents have legal rights over these children.


Marriage in and of itself is not a sexist tradition, many of the things associated with it however are e.g. the "giving away" of the bride, the call to "love honour and obey", taking the name of the man etc etc. You can get married not in a church (and organised religion has to be the most patriarchal misogynistic institution going) and have a real marriage based on mutual love respect equality.

Thumpette

Zulu wrote: »

...why would you get married so? It's a tradition for one. And according to your logic, a sexist one to boot!

+1 The whole concept of marraige could be viewed as an outdated tradition. I think the name change is a totally personal decision however I would certainly change mine. I love my present name, and certainly feel it is part of who I am, but the point of marraige is to become a family, and after all surname is often called family name. It is the identity you will give to your children.

This doesnt mean you have to change who you are, or live as a 50s housewife, it only means you are in a union with your husband, and have a new family- not that you have deserted your old one.

Also I find the whole thing about kids getting double barrelled names very confusing. If Mister Jones marries Miss Smith, they have a kid called Micky Smith Jones. Then on the other side of down Mister Fitzpatrick marries Miss Burke, and have little Katie Fitzpatrick- Burke.

If Katie and Micky hook up down the old registry office, and a year later pop out little Mary is she Mary Smith-Jones-Fitzpatrick-Burke? And on and on...?

Somebody somewhere has to lose a name!

iguana

Thumpette wrote: »

+1 The whole concept of marraige could be viewed as an outdated tradition.

Not really, the person you marry becomes your legal next of kin. The person who decides what happens to you should you end up on a life support machine. The person who will get power of attorney over you if you lose your mind. The person who plans your funeral and automatically inherits everything of yours if you die without a will, including your debts.

If you just live together as partners you are legally nothing to each other. In the event of your hospitalisation your parents, siblings or children could prevent your partner from seeing you. Or vice versa.

Making a person who is no relation to you into your next of kin, your closest legal relative who's relationship to you will legally surpass your relationship to your family, is a serious matter which can not happen by default. And that is what marriage, and civil union in some countries, achieves.

Thumpette

iguana wrote: »

Not really, the person you marry becomes your legal next of kin. The person who decides what happens to you should you end up on a life support machine. The person who will get power of attorney over you if you lose your mind. The person who plans your funeral and automatically inherits everything of yours if you die without a will, including your debts.

If you just live together as partners you are legally nothing to each other. In the event of your hospitalisation your parents, siblings or children could prevent your partner from seeing you. Or vice versa.

Making a person who is no relation to you into your next of kin, your closest legal relative who's relationship to you will legally surpass your relationship to your family, is a serious matter which can not happen by default. And that is what marriage, and civil union in some countries, achieves.

Very true, point taken!

Zulu

So break the tradition of marrage, hire a lawer - draw up so documents shareing all your worldly goods and debts.

People get married because of the tradition assoicated with it; because that's what society does.
Some people like to pick and choose the traditions they follow becuase some they identify with and other they don't.
What grinds my gears is when they take parts from a tradition to flatter they're own beliefs - one being getting married in a church with the big rock on the finger - just to get one up on the captain of their secondary school hocky team, when they have no interest in religion. /end rant.

If I get married, my OH will take my surname as she'll be joining my family according to tradition. In actual fact, we'll make our own family.

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

So break the tradition of marrage, hire a lawer - draw up so documents shareing all your worldly goods and debts.

People get married because of the tradition assoicated with it; because that's what society does.
Some people like to pick and choose the traditions they follow becuase some they identify with and other they don't.
What grinds my gears is when they take parts from a tradition to flatter they're own beliefs - one being getting married in a church with the big rock on the finger - just to get one up on the captain of their secondary school hocky team, when they have no interest in religion. /end rant.

If I get married, my OH will take my surname as she'll be joining my family according to tradition. In actual fact, we'll make our own family.

I too get irritated and annoyed at people insisting on a church wedding when it means nothing at all to them in a religious sense. Similarly for the christining of babies, first communions, and confirmations. These are the only times many people darken the doors of a church and it is hypocritical in the extreme.
However you can have a perfectly fine civil ceremony and not be a hypocrite.
When I get married I will not be taking my OH name, I will not be given away by anyone, I will not be wearing white but myself and my OH will be a family unit albeit with different names. Should we have children they will get both names and when their time comes/ should they chose to get married they will be perfectly free to call themselves whatever they want as will be their choice.
What wlil you do Zulu if your OH feels strongly about the name change and really doesn't want to do it?

iguana

Zulu wrote: »

So break the tradition of marrage, hire a lawer - draw up so documents shareing all your worldly goods and debts.

That still won't make them your next of kin. They will have no rights in a situation where you are medically incapacitated if your family chooses to exclude them.

What you are describing as marriage is your own corrupted idea of it. For example people were getting married long before christianity was ever even conceived. So christianity has corrupted the tradition of marriage for it's own uses. Marriage was first and foremost about the protection of land and wealth. Nothing to do with love or religion whatsoever.

juliegreen

You mean, you will demand that she bear children and then give them your name only? Don't you see anything remotely inequitable in that?

Zulu

juliegreen wrote: »

You mean, you will demand that she bear children and then give them your name only? Don't you see anything remotely inequitable in that?

Sorry who said that? Prejudice much?? :rolleyes:
Two posts... hummmm.

kizzyr wrote: »

What wlil you do Zulu if your OH feels strongly about the name change and really doesn't want to do it?

Thankfully she does feel strongly about it, but feels the same way as me. If she didn't, that would be interesting...
I'll be honest, I don't know what I'd do. I'll say I'd tell her if she wants marriage, it'll be under certain terms :pac: but really I don't know. Perhaps I'd capitulate. I wouldn't have kids with double-barrelled names though. So perhaps it'd be a deal breaker???

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

Sorry who said that? Prejudice much?? :rolleyes:
Two posts... hummmm.

Thankfully she does feel strongly about it, but feels the same way as me. If she didn't, that would be interesting...
I'll be honest, I don't know what I'd do. I'll say I'd tell her if she wants marriage, it'll be under certain terms :pac: but really I don't know. Perhaps I'd capitulate. I wouldn't have kids with double-barrelled names though. So perhaps it'd be a deal breaker???

You can have kids with double barrelled names in an official capacity but in day to day use drop one of them so it wouldn't really be as bad as many people think.
Many people aren't that bothered by a name change and if their OH feels strongly about it will go along with the flow and that is great for them. I just don't understand why any one would feel less married / less of a family unit somehow if their wife didn't have the same name as them

juliegreen

Zulu wrote: »

...why would you get married so? It's a tradition for one. And according to your logic, a sexist one to boot!

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that I believe marriage to be a sexist tradition. Marriage is about an equal union between two people. However, if you read my post, you will see that I believe that one of the "traditions" which comes with the marriage package (ie woman's name change) is blatantly sexist.

To answer your later post, it would be a deal-breaker for me if my husband insisted on our children having his name only. The sheer unfairness of that attitude, the unwillingness to compromise with a double-barrelled solution I would find offensive and hurtful.

For the record, I don't have a difficulty with people having one name. I have a difficulty with the fact that it is the woman's name that is always sacrificied.

juliegreen

See below for my solution on the double-barrelled thing. As for wanting to keep one name - again, that is not the problem. The problem arises from an equality perspective where it is always the woman's name that is given up. If a man really wants one name, and a woman wants to keep her name, let him take her name.

5Yeah, yeah, you say, but what do my children do when they get married?

There are a million different ways of addressing this. This is how I propose to do it: My children (if we are lucky enough to have any) will keep his/her name in marriage, as my fiance and I will keep ours. He/She will give one of his/her surnames to his or her child , so our grandchild would be "one of our names" – "partner's name / one of partner's name".

Of course we plan to have more than one child so, in all likelihood my fiance and my names will appear in one or other of our grandchildren's names.

However, if we only ever had one child, it would be entirely up to our child how to proceed. Perhaps he/she would name one of their children with one of our names, another with the other. Perhaps, our child would marry a lady like Tupins and our names would be preserved. Perhaps our child would choose to drop one of our names. Perhaps our child would create a hybrid name etc.

In any event, our child's name and the future of it would be something that would be discussed and debated between him/her and his/her partner, giving rise to more and more ingenious name-quirks as the years go by.

Of course, ultimately, my fiance and I both run the risk of our names "dying out" but so does everybody. A man who has his wife change her name and fathers only daughters will, by the application of his own logic, see his own name die out. A woman who changes her name at marriage has already sacrificed her name anyway, so would not be bothered by this.

Ironically, not that it bothers either of us, but my fiance and I are better protected against "die-out" of our names than any "one-name" man is.

Zulu

juliegreen wrote: »

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that I believe marriage to be a sexist tradition. Marriage is about an equal union between two people. However, if you read my post, you will see that I believe that one of the "traditions" which comes with the marriage package (ie woman's name change) is blatantly sexist.

Do you not think that the father "giving away" the bride is sexist? or that the bride wearing white as a symbol of her chastity is sexist??

juliegreen

Absolutely. I'm doing neither.

juliegreen

Zulu wrote: »

Do you not think that the father "giving away" the bride is sexist? or that the bride wearing white as a symbol of her chastity is sexist??

But might I add to the above reply, even if a bride does either of the above, I don't think she loses the right to keep her name. Both of the above, though sexist traditions, only last for one day. The name change lasts a life time.

Zulu

juliegreen wrote: »

Absolutely. I'm doing neither.

Well, perhaps now you can see where I was coming from then when I assumed you taught marriage was sexist.
In fact, I'm finding it hard to see why you'd bother if you have that feeling about it.

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

Well, perhaps now you can see where I was coming from then when I assumed you taught marriage was sexist.
In fact, I'm finding it hard to see why you'd bother if you have that feeling about it.

But she doesn't feel marriage itself is sexist, it is the name change, giving away, wearing white etc that is seen by her and myself too as being outdated, misogynistic traditions.

Zulu

kizzyr wrote: »

But she doesn't feel marriage itself is sexist, it is the name change, giving away, wearing white etc that is seen by her and myself too as being outdated, misogynistic traditions.

...so it's not marriage (the concept of expressing love/commitment), just marriage (the tradition) she feels is sexist?
Why call it marrage, if you don't mean the cermony.

iguana

Zulu wrote: »

...so it's not marriage (the concept of expressing love/commitment), just marriage (the tradition) she feels is sexist?
Why call it marrage, if you don't mean the cermony.

But marriage pre-dates any of the traditions you mentioned. Marriages existed long before weddings. In fact marriages existed long before surnames were commonplace.

All of the things you associate so strongly with marriage are just cultural addenda which have absolutely nothing to do with the core purpose of marriages.

juliegreen

Zulu wrote: »

...so it's not marriage (the concept of expressing love/commitment), just marriage (the tradition) she feels is sexist?
Why call it marrage, if you don't mean the cermony.

I'm sorry to say that you seem to be incapable of getting the point. A marriage of two people, entered into freely by both parties, is not sexist. As has been pointed out above, it is the trappings thereof that are.

Why do you find it so outrageous to suggest that we should keep the marriage part but do away with the sexist traditions?

Why do you really think that a woman should take a man's name, as your OH will? Please be honest, and give any reason other than "tradition" which is just a cop out. Also remember that if you want one name, it could always be hers that you take.

Zulu

Sure, I made an assumption, but I'll safely bet we're mostly talking about a christian marrage here and not something that predates it.

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

Sure, I made an assumption, but I'll safely bet we're mostly talking about a christian marrage here and not something that predates it.

If you don't get married in a church of any kind how is your marriage a Christian (or indeed any other religious kind) marriage?
I have no inclination to ever get married in a church, many others who have posted here feel the same way so our idea of marriage is a coming together of two equal people in a public and legal declaration of their love, respect, commitment, support and so on for each other. That is in no way sexist.

Zulu

juliegreen wrote: »

I'm sorry to say that you seem to be incapable of getting the point.

No. I get it. You seem to be missing my point.
You agree with the "two people forming a loving union"; you don't agree with "the ceremony" as we've had in this country for the past what 10? generations. That is your point isn't it? (I've already covered this of course)

Why do you find it so outrageous to suggest that we should keep the marriage part but do away with the sexist traditions?

Are you proposing that you wouldn't get married in a church?

Why do you really think that a woman should take a man's name, as your OH will?

I told you tradition.

Please be honest, and give any reason other than "tradition" which is just a cop out.

"give any reason other than your reason 'cause it's a cop out" :rolleyes: Why is tradition a cop out?

• because she wants to
• I buy into tradition
• She's joing my family (although we're forming our own
• Although minor, it's a mark of respect to both my parents and hers (who'd also carry my belief)

I understand you want to hear me say "I own her" or some such, but it's not the case. I'm not a marauding sexist.

Also remember that if you want one name, it could always be hers that you take.

It could be, but if I wanted a name change I'd pick Max Power.
See if you can guess the reason I wouldn't pick her name. (Bonus point if you manage to find a reason that isn't fuelled by sexist paranoia)

Zulu

kizzyr wrote: »

If you don't get married in a church of any kind how is your marriage a Christian (or indeed any other religious kind) marriage?
I have no inclination to ever get married in a church, many others who have posted here feel the same way so our idea of marriage is a coming together of two equal people in a public and legal declaration of their love, respect, commitment, support and so on for each other. That is in no way sexist.

Very true, you mentioned that you wouldn't get married in a church before, and as sure I agree with you. (Correct me here, but you are the only one so far that stated that)
I'm referring to those (and lets face it there's a lot) who choose the church marriage. I would have taught that was a reasonable assumption to make in Ireland.

Apologies for confusion.

juliegreen

Zulu wrote: »

No. I get it. You seem to be missing my point.
You agree with the "two people forming a loving union"; you don't agree with "the ceremony" as we've had in this country for the past what 10? generations. That is your point isn't it? (I've already covered this of course)

No. I believe in the ceremony, minus the sexist traditions. It is possible to have a wedding ceremony, that celebrates marriage, minus all the sexist trappings.

Are you proposing that you wouldn't get married in a church?

I told you tradition.

"give any reason other than your reason 'cause it's a cop out" :rolleyes: Why is tradition a cop out?

• because she wants to
• I buy into tradition
• She's joing my family (although we're forming our own
• Although minor, it's a mark of respect to both my parents and hers (who'd also carry my belief)

Tradition, as I said in my original post, can justify anything. "Traditionally, white people kept black slaves", "Traditionally, women were not allowed to work outside the home". The use of the word tradition cannot legitimise any of the foregoing propositions, so why should it be wheeled out to legitimise the name-change debate?

You are forming a new family, that consists of you both. That is categorically not a reasonable explanation as to why that family name should be yours.

I can't address whether or not "she wants to", it wouldn't be fair.

Wouldn't it be a mark of respect on your behalf to take her name?

I understand you want to hear me say "I own her" or some such, but it's not the case. I'm not a marauding sexist.
It could be, but if I wanted a name change I'd pick Max Power.
See if you can guess the reason I wouldn't pick her name. (Bonus point if you manage to find a reason that isn't fuelled by sexist paranoia)

If your wife wants to change her name, why doesn't she pick her "Max Power" equivalent, and change it by deed poll?

For the record, I absolutely don't have sexist paranoia. I believe in true equality, as does my OH.

I wonder how you would feel if the tradition was the other way around? Although, it's so terribly easy to say "I would change my name if the tradition was inversed"...

Zulu

juliegreen wrote: »

If your wife wants to change her name, why doesn't she pick her "Max Power" equivalent, and change it by deed poll?

You've missed my point. Entirely. Because that wouldn't be traditional now would it.

I wonder how you would feel if the tradition was the other way around? Although, it's so terribly easy to say "I would change my name if the tradition was inversed"...

I'd change my name as per the tradition.

Look you seem incapable of understanding what I'm saying so I'm going to leave it.

To Kizzyr: you might notice that she still hasn't answered whether she'd be going with a church ceremony, so my assumption remains unanswered.

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

Very true, you mentioned that you wouldn't get married in a church before, and as sure I agree with you. (Correct me here, but you are the only one so far that stated that)
I'm referring to those (and lets face it there's a lot) who choose the church marriage. I would have taught that was a reasonable assumption to make in Ireland.

Apologies for confusion.

While my feelings about a church wedding are perfectly clear why would someone who gets married in a church be expected to conform to all traditions and go along with the name change?
Also why is it expected that the woman joins the husbands family but not he hers? I see marriage as two people coming together and making their own family not joining one over another.
Tradition is not a good enough answer for me, there are many things that are or were traditional and have been stopped for reasons of cruelty, abuse, ignorance and so on. For those that feel it will be dreadfully embarrassing for children to have a different name than one of their parents all I can say is, with all the slings and arrows life will throw your way, if this is as bad as it gets they'll be doing well. In other countries it is traditional for both names to be given to children anyway and that tradition serves well in Spain for example.

iguana

Zulu wrote: »

you don't agree with "the ceremony" as we've had in this country for the past what 10? generations.

Well actually white wedding dresses only became fashionable from the 1840's in England following the wide distribution of a photograph of the wedding of Victoria and Albert. And Victoria chose a white dress because she had been gifted some lace. That white represents virginity is a complete myth. Up until the mid-19th century a woman would wear any colour on her wedding apart from black (as it represented mourning) or red (the colour of a prostitute).

In Ireland in the early 20th century blue was often worn. Both my grandmothers married in the 50's and wore blue. By the 60's the fashion of white had taken hold. So one of the "traditions" of the modern wedding ceremony only goes back 2 or 3 generations for most.

Diamond engagement rings have only been the "traditional" ring for 60 years as they became popular following a De Beers marketing campaign which began in 1947.

In the past it was common for a man marrying a woman from a wealthier family to take her families name. And the first recorded instance of a woman choosing to keep her own surname on marriage for reasons of equality was in 1855. So if diamond engagement rings and white wedding dresses can be considered tradition so can a woman keeping her own name.

seamus

Iguana's original post actually sums up very well the tangible benefits of marraige.

Zulu wrote: »

So break the tradition of marrage, hire a lawer - draw up so documents shareing all your worldly goods and debts..

It's a myth, probably created by all those drama shows and the legal system in the US, that you can draw up documents and contracts and everything is OK.

In reality, if you are killed or left permanently incapacitated, contracts and legal documents can be very easily challenged and overturned by your family. You cannot sign a contract or draw up any kind of legal documents which contradict entitlements under the law. The will is a good example of a legal document which is actually effective, but even your will cannot override the basic minimum entitlements of your next-of-kin and your children in the event of your death.

Getting married will legally make your wife/husband your next of kin, which removes any kind of doubt or legimitate legal challenge on the estate from the deceased's genetic family.

Zulu

So you can't will something to someone else?

seamus

Zulu wrote: »

So you can't will something to someone else?

You can, provided that it doesn't override the minimum entitlements that your spouse (and creditors!) are due.

Your will can also be challenged by children or others who feel they have not been adequately provided for.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/death/before-a-death/making_a_will/

Zulu

I did not know that.
Cheers Seamus.

juliegreen

Zulu wrote: »

You've missed my point. Entirely. Because that wouldn't be traditional now would it.

I have not missed your point. You are failing to explain why you think that this convention is worth preserving. The only answer you give is "tradition", which as I have argued ad nauseum can be wheeled out to justify anything. You have failed to address this point. You have failed to give any other good reason, and I wonder is it because there is simply is no other good reason, other than sexist ones.

I'd change my name as per the tradition.

Yeah right. You'd feel as aggreived as I do.

Look you seem incapable of understanding what I'm saying so I'm going to leave it.

Trust me, I am perfectly capable of comprehension.

To Kizzyr: you might notice that she still hasn't answered whether she'd be going with a church ceremony, so my assumption remains unanswered.

Is that "she" directed at me? Don't see what religion has to do with this.