- Joined
- Sep 26, 2002
- Messages
- 10,910
- Reaction score
- 1,154
Perphaps I didn't word it correctly. I'm not equating a name change to compromise. Name changing represents your allegiance to a new person and a starting over as a couple. If the husband doesn't have a problem with the name not changing then more power to you. If the husband does have a problem, and you still continue to refuse to take his name, it can definitely be representive of not compromising. To me, giving up my name was a small compromise. It took a much greater effort to change locations, time after time, for my husband's job. I'm just saying that there will be bigger issues in a marriage to stress over without "sweating the small stuff". I can respect that certain cultures may have more emphasis on surname than others. In any instance if there isn't an objection, then don't change your name. I gave my opinion on the topic, void of sarcasm, and would appreciate if the same was done in return.
But logically you could say that a man who refused to marry a woman who wouldn't change her name would be guilty of the same inability to compromise as the woman who refused to change her name. Why put the sole blame on the woman for being the one who's unable to compromise when both parties are refusing to bend? I get the impression from your post that you think that "compromising" (actually giving in) is a woman's job.
And you can't be too surprised by rgwerin's response when you essentially posted that those of us unwilling to change our names were probably unlikely to have a successful marriage.