*I dhey fear 4 future marriages* this generation get has im b... Please what is the use of (nee) when mentioning a woman's name.. Lemme ask diz question if ur husby happens to b an affluent personality lets say like dangote cousin, adenuga or obasanjo are u still going to stick to ur fathers name..

Chiamaka01:
To
denigrate something is to make it seem less valuable or important. You
said, 'a wife is an extension of her husband' and that is what made me
refer to you as a misogynist. A wife is not her husband's extension, for
God's sake, she had a life before they got married.
In addition, it's demeaning to refer to me as a man's extension. It's more like you're objectifying women.

But, but, the man also had a life before marriage. He's charged with the responsibility of provision and protection of his wife and family where he only had to provide for and protect himself. There's nothing denigrating to women about the man as head of household. His responsibilities give him the privilege to be the boss. That is the truth.

And what's all this patriachy business. The patriachy, historically, hasn't been unfair to women, on the contrary, it has been beneficial to women. I'd advise you to speak about the patriachy with respect.

I'd have you know though, as far as objectifying women is concerned, feminism is to blame for that. This is why: we no longer need women for anything but sex. The modern man can cook his meals, do his laundry, etc. The only thing he literally needs from a woman is sex. Sorry, that's the truth. You people objectified yourselves.

Chiamaka01:
@pichabeau1

Lmao @ 2 are 1. If you want to go biblical, the holy book says, 'a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife'. It's not the other way round.

Therefore, he moves to his in laws house since the bible does not require the woman to leave her own parents.

freshdude2:
But, but, the man also had a life before marriage. He's charged with the responsibility of provision and protection of his wife and family where he only had to provide for and protect himself. There's nothing denigrating to women about the man as head of household. His responsibilities give him the privilege to be the boss. That is the truth.

But but the man is not asked to change his name, is he?

And what's all this patriachy business. The patriachy, historically, hasn't been unfair to women, on the contrary, it has been beneficial to women. I'd advise you to speak about the patriachy with respect.

How has it been beneficial to women?

I'd have you know though, as far as objectifying women is concerned, feminism is to blame for that. This is why: we no longer need women for anything but sex. The modern man can cook his meals, do his laundry, etc. The only thing he literally needs from a woman is sex. Sorry, that's the truth. You people objectified yourselves.

Would you also say that women do not need men when they have their own money?

Hyphenating both names is better. That way it is easier to drop the husband's name after a divorce.

But why marry? Why go through the stress of the ceremony and all. Why bother? You can visit your love interest and vice versa, have children, it's a current reality. No need living under the same roof. You can easily keep your name when you're single.

freshdude2:
But why marry? Why go through the stress of the ceremony and all. Why bother? You can visit your love interest and vice versa, have children, it's a current reality. No need living under the same roof. You can easily keep your name when you're single.

Exactly

I'm still waiting for the OP response

I think we should agree marriage should be proscribed so we can move on from this embattled level.

crackhaus,
Since there's no point either way, let the woman decide what she wants. Problem solved.

carefreewannabe:


But but the man is not asked to change his name, is he?

But he's asked to do more work. The word husband, historically, loosely translates to "housebond". He keeps the family a unit not the woman. This is done through the man setting the family up and providing the resources to keep the family healthy.

carefree: How has it been beneficial to women?

for one, it has placed women on a pedestal and protected them from physical requirements of life. The men in a patriachy actually served the women and as a result were given certain privileges as incentives to perform their societally-defined roles.

carefree: Would you also say that women do not need men when they have their own money?

women don't need men actually because they have become their own man. But you don't hear men complaining of being objectified. If anything, the average man wants to be a sex object.

pickabeau1:


Exactly

I'm still waiting for the OP response

I think we should agree marriage should be proscribed so we can move on from this embattled level.

Yes bawse. Apparently, there's no need to get married.

It just so happens I'm in the mood to give lectures. So, gather round children, Uncle Freshdude is in a good mood.

[quote
author=freshdude2 post=27215097]Therefore, he moves to his in laws
house since the bible does require the woman to leave her own parents.
[/quote]

The Bible can be viewed from various perspectives. If that's yours, then, fine.

Chiamaka01:
crackhaus,
Since there's no point either way, let the woman decide what she wants. Problem solved.

Still waiting for your response...

pickabeau1:


Ok.. lets leave Bible out of it then
So let me, ask you what is marriage to you

freshdude2:
Yes bawse. Apparently, there's no need to get married.

It just so happens I'm in the mood to give lectures. So, gather round children, Uncle Freshdude is in a good mood.

LOL..

@pickabeau1,

Marriage is more or less a partnership to me. Mutual love and understanding between two adults is the first step. The next step is the decision to live together and how they decide to that will be agreed on by the both of them.

Chiamaka01:


The Bible can be viewed from various perspectives. If that's yours, then, fine.

You're not as slippery as you think. You said following biblical teaching the man was the one asked to leave his parents and cleave to his wife; I simply expanded YOUR line of thought. If the wife wasn't required to leave her parents and cleave to her husband why leave her parents. If the husband truly follows biblical teaching he should cleave to his wife where she is(note: this is what you implied). Be decent enough not to attempt to turn it around on me.

Chiamaka01:
@pickabeau1,

Marriage is more or less a partnership to me. Mutual love and understanding between two adults is the first step. The next step is the decision to live together and how they decide to that will be agreed on by the both of them.

ok.. fair enough.... this works too

Chiamaka01:
@pickabeau1,

Marriage is more or less a partnership to me. Mutual love and understanding between two adults is the first step. The next step is the decision to live together and how they decide to that will be agreed on by the both of them.

Marriage is a partnership but there is a senior partner who is usually the man, yes I said it.

But a quick question. Would you get married to a man who, after marriage, wanted to live at a different location from you and you'd only see on weekends? Would you advise any woman to agree to such a deal?

@freshdude2,
I never implied that, i meant to prove that there is no biblical basis for the woman to adopt the man's identity.

Chiamaka01:
It's
getting less uncommon to see women, especially those occupying high
positions in society hyphenating their surnames and their husbands'
surname. I think it's a good thing, at least, it will erase the notion
that the daughter you've invested much in will bear another man's name. Ladies, would you do it? Guys, would you marry a lady that has this notion?

Not adopting your husband's name might have potential legal implications incase of will, estate administration or divorce.
when all your documents show no obvious relationship with your husband you will have a lot of proving to do.

Also if your husband is a famous or well to do man am sure you will eagerly embrace the name change.

freshdude2:
But he's asked to do more work. The word husband, historically, loosely translates to "housebond". He keeps the family a unit not the woman. This is done through the man setting the family up and providing the resources to keep the family healthy.

Who asks him to do more work? And how does he do more work?
I don't agree that the husband is the one who keeps the family a unit. It takes two to tango.
Besides, women have always helped to provide the resources to keep the family healthy, too. They also worked on farms. They also collected food. They cooked.

for one, it has placed women on a pedestal and protected them from physical requirements of life. The men in a patriachy actually served the women and as a result were given certain privileges as incentives to perform their societally-defined roles.

Women served men too but were not given any privileges or at least not to the degree men were and this is the problem.

women don't need men actually because they have become their own man. But you don't hear men complaining of being objectified. If anything, the average man wants to be a sex object.

You are right, many women don't need men to take care of them but this does not mean that they don't need men at all.
If the average man wants to be a s*ex objet then it is his free choice. Let him work on it. Where is the problem?

@freshdude2,
My understanding of that verse is that a man should not allow his family( the one he came out from) to interfere with the one he formed. I don't mean that they shouldn't visit or anything. And don't quote me to turn this around.

@femu,
Re-read the topic. I will adopt his name but it's not going to replace my surname.

Chiamaka01:
@freshdude2,
I never implied that, i meant to prove that there is no biblical basis for the woman to adopt the man's identity.

Yet, I bible times families were identified by their patriachs? Even God referred to families by the name of their patraichs, eg, House of David, House of Jacob, Tribe of blah blah blah. House of Mary abi House of Ruth dey ya own bible. Abi House of David and Bathsheba, or Hose of Abraham and Sarah?

carefreewannabe
post=27216105:


Who asks him to do more work? And how does he do more work?
I don't agree that the husband is the one who keeps the family a unit.
It takes two to tango.
Besides, women have always helped to provide the resources to keep the
family healthy, too. They also worked on farms. They also collected
food. They cooked.

Exactly.

it is never a bad thing. it is good for families who gave birth to girls only and intend to preserve the fathers name. And like some people already posited, its good to get the husbands consent first.

Chiamaka01:
@femu,
Re-read the topic. I will adopt his name but it's not going to replace my surname.

whatever case understand the potential social, cultural and legal implications. things can happen......

[quote
author=freshdude2 post=27216208]Yet, I bible times families were
identified by their patriachs? Even God referred to families by the name
of their patraichs, eg, House of David, House of Jacob, Tribe of blah
blah blah. House of Mary abi House of Ruth dey ya own bible. Abi House
of David and Bathsheba, or Hose of Abraham and Sarah?[/quote]

Okay, you're right. But there is no compulsion to adopt your husband's name, biblically.

Chiamaka01:
crackhaus,
Since there's no point either way, let the woman decide what she wants. Problem solved.

Buahahahahahaha..

This right here is why I can't take some of you females on here seriously.
So now all of a sudden, a married woman can decide on her own what name she wants to bear huh?

Is the man now also allowed to keep late nights out with his mistress or guy friends since it doesn't matter whether he comes home early or late, as long as he still comes home?

Never mind, don't answer that...I already know what a truly married and dedicated woman would say. Peculiar to females like you on our beautiful NL, always twisting the rules to suit you when necessary.

If not for the anonymity of the internet, it's girls like you that will hurriedly change their surname to show off proof of marriage to single friends and everyone else y'all care to show off for.

I'm outta here, you ain't serious..

Chiamaka01:
@freshdude2,
My understanding of that verse is that a man should not allow his family( the one he came out from) to interfere with the one he formed. I don't mean that they shouldn't visit or anything. And don't quote me to turn this around.

I read all that you said but get one thing right; there's nothing like equal partners in marriage. The setting up of every family unit starts with the man proposing to all other marriage rights. More so, nature has assigned the genders roles that are to be played by the man or the woman involved. Anything apart from that doesn't just work.

destante:
it is never a bad thing. it is good for families who gave birth to girls only and intend to preserve the fathers name. And like some people already posited, its good to get the husbands consent first.

Will the children of girls from such families bear their maternal grandfather's name?

Will the name not still end?
Think about it...

crackhaus:

Will the children of girls from such families bear their maternal grandfather's name?

Will the name not still end?
Think about it...

Lol true. One thing I never thought of.

Just a thought to add to the mix
OP

Why the obsession to keep the fathers name? He is still a man anyway,,,, the father is just the known patriarch since porting to the new patriarch's name seems to be the issue.


Why not change the mix.. invent a new name to break from the tradition

To show uniqueness, sophistication and class

Heck,... why do we stop there.. lets choose names as we see fit and change them periodically like the moon

crackhaus:

Will the children of girls from such families bear their maternal grandfather's name?

Will the name not still end?
Think about it...

Oh,,, why did u spoil the whole thing..
Lets look at their preferred scenario

So Alex Osifo marries Patience Ozokwor; she becomes Patience Ozokwor-Osifo(to maintain her fathers lineage)
So Chiamaka01.. if the child is called Peter

Will he named Peter Osifo or Peter Ozokwor-Osifo

which...