One could just as easily ask why it is so important for a man to keep his name after he gets married. It’s not a facetious question. If we scratch beneath the surface, we find that a last name/family surname is a very important signifier of one’s origins, lineage, family heritage, genealogy and paternal descent. It answers the questions of where and who you came from. These signifiers follow you through your whole lifetime and are not changed by time or life circumstances. You can never alter your origins. So why would you ever want to change the thing that signifies your origins? Since there is nothing particularly masculine about surnames as important signifiers of origins, the more logical question is why wouldn’t a man or woman want to keep a family surname after marriage? The tradition of women entirely dropping their surnames upon marriage, limited largely to Anglosphere cultures, replaces the tradition of surnames indicating family heritage or origins with an emphasis on current social status, specifically marital status for women. Since current status is not fixed, constant, lifelong, or unchanging, in contrast to lineage or heritage, it provides a necessarily less stable and more burdensome basis on which to publicly identify oneself over time. These are legitimate concerns that deserve to be carefully thought out before assuming the innate correctness of what may be a mere cultural preference.
“...man shall leave his family..hold to his wife. Sounds he should be the one to take her name. Either way this practice is not from Bible. It’s cultural. And Bible is reflection of the time period. When women were treated like possessions. It is not unusual to see these misogyny verses in the book. it was written thousands of years ago, why do you want to base off of that. Live in current times.
You know there are cultures where men required to take the woman’s name? Legal perspective, it could even be man to change his name. And there are times that man taking wife’s name did happen. An example be queen Elizabeth II. So don’t think the other is even question. We have evolved on lots of things. This is something that definitely should change over time.
I was only joking with the last comment, but to be serious, when a man and women get married, TWO BECOME ONE. The man is head of the home and the woman should be proud to take his name.
“Two becoming one”. Ok..they are becoming one. But What is that anything to do with being it his name? No the man is not head of the home. Whoever is naturally good organizer is the head. I don’t understand why people try to point out things that’s culturally ingrained to religion. Facts: there were no last names during biblical times, this is cultural, varies from culture to culture. Not all cultures have this. It being his name is coming from history when women were treated as possessions. Not to do with becoming one. Even though yes they are. But what is that to do with his name. It does not make sense cause...this guy literally says “two becoming one” does not mean losing ones individuality. But how come only women’s identity in question? He still holding on to his group/identity. Why not the man’s identity is never in question? There is no valid explanation behind this practice. It’s just nothing but egos not to change. So ingrained in people’s heads. That society can’t taken the idea of man belonging to a woman but a woman belonging to a man.
@Mesha Thompson If that’s what you believe then why didn’t you change your first and middle name to his. That verse wasn’t about names at all and it’s completely different. M
One could just as easily ask why it is so important for a man to keep his name after he gets married. It’s not a facetious question. If we scratch beneath the surface, we find that a last name/family surname is a very important signifier of one’s origins, lineage, family heritage, genealogy and paternal descent. It answers the questions of where and who you came from. These signifiers follow you through your whole lifetime and are not changed by time or life circumstances. You can never alter your origins. So why would you ever want to change the thing that signifies your origins?
Since there is nothing particularly masculine about surnames as important signifiers of origins, the more logical question is why wouldn’t a man or woman want to keep a family surname after marriage? The tradition of women entirely dropping their surnames upon marriage, limited largely to Anglosphere cultures, replaces the tradition of surnames indicating family heritage or origins with an emphasis on current social status, specifically marital status for women. Since current status is not fixed, constant, lifelong, or unchanging, in contrast to lineage or heritage, it provides a necessarily less stable and more burdensome basis on which to publicly identify oneself over time. These are legitimate concerns that deserve to be carefully thought out before assuming the innate correctness of what may be a mere cultural preference.
I like how he reminded us that we call ourselves Christians after Christ. It goes to motive regarding why she asked the question.
“...man shall leave his family..hold to his wife. Sounds he should be the one to take her name. Either way this practice is not from Bible. It’s cultural. And Bible is reflection of the time period. When women were treated like possessions. It is not unusual to see these misogyny verses in the book. it was written thousands of years ago, why do you want to base off of that. Live in current times.
It doesn't matter at all, especially if you are a man. LoL.
You know there are cultures where men required to take the woman’s name? Legal perspective, it could even be man to change his name. And there are times that man taking wife’s name did happen. An example be queen Elizabeth II. So don’t think the other is even question. We have evolved on lots of things. This is something that definitely should change over time.
Exactly
I was only joking with the last comment, but to be serious, when a man and women get married, TWO BECOME ONE. The man is head of the home and the woman should be proud to take his name.
“Two becoming one”. Ok..they are becoming one. But What is that anything to do with being it his name? No the man is not head of the home. Whoever is naturally good organizer is the head. I don’t understand why people try to point out things that’s culturally ingrained to religion. Facts: there were no last names during biblical times, this is cultural, varies from culture to culture. Not all cultures have this. It being his name is coming from history when women were treated as possessions. Not to do with becoming one. Even though yes they are. But what is that to do with his name. It does not make sense cause...this guy literally says “two becoming one” does not mean losing ones individuality. But how come only women’s identity in question? He still holding on to his group/identity. Why not the man’s identity is never in question? There is no valid explanation behind this practice. It’s just nothing but egos not to change. So ingrained in people’s heads. That society can’t taken the idea of man belonging to a woman but a woman belonging to a man.
The woman and man are equal
“Two become one” what does that have to do with names? Does that mean she should change her entire name to his entire name?
@Mesha Thompson If that’s what you believe then why didn’t you change your first and middle name to his. That verse wasn’t about names at all and it’s completely different. M
😂