Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Women Who Refuse To Take The Man's Last Name After Marriage

TheTrollKing said:
You're taking it personal.

The system was created to keep order to make sure family's names were able live on through history. They chose for the boys to carry the name, for reasons I've explained in the last couple pages.

It can't be both the boys and the girls who keep the last name because when it's time to have kids who's name does the kids get?

Yall get too caught up in your feelings to approach these discussions logically sometimes.
Click to expand...
@Azlyn made her point excellently. far as the bolded, smh.

lets all stop feeding this inflammatory troll please.
EleanorDeWitt said:
Eventually the name will always be gone regardless...

And whyyyy don't men care their daughters lose their name when they get married? Her kids don't matter to you like your son's kids do? Ya'll so inherently sexist you're only gonna cry about your son losing your name? Is he more your kid than your daughter? It's just a name. This whole thing is stupid.
Click to expand...
i wanna make u my valentine on march 14th!
 
Azlyn said:
How does it not when you typed it bruh?
Your words not mine= And like I said, they could've easily chose for the family name to live on through the women, but being that men were the one's out there creating empires , being presidents , etc, it's natural for the family name to live on through historic figures, rather than their wives.

Like so many like to claim it's not black and white at all...
Has everything to do with the fact that we are born with a Pu**y and nothing to do with what we have accomplished or can accomplish and I just really cant believe yu said that @creating empires and being presidents cause I really didn't think yu was that closed minded...
Click to expand...


You're too emotional right now, u might need to walk this off for sec b


So you're saying it was mostly women out there creating empires and businesses? Wow, I didn't know that. Tell me more.
 
Azlyn said:
How does it not when you typed it bruh?
Your words not mine= And like I said, they could've easily chose for the family name to live on through the women, but being that men were the one's out there creating empires , being presidents , etc, it's natural for the family name to live on through historic figures, rather than their wives.

Like so many like to claim it's not black and white at all...
Has everything to do with the fact that we are born with a Pu**y and nothing to do with what we have accomplished or can accomplish and I just really cant believe yu said that @creating empires and being presidents cause I really didn't think yu was that closed minded...
Click to expand...

i'ma take a shot for each time someone posts "its not black and white" in their posts
 
TheTrollKing said:
You're taking it personal.

The system was created to keep order to make sure family's names were able live on through history. They chose for the boys to carry the name, for reasons I've explained in the last couple pages.

It can't be both the boys and the girls who keep the last name because when it's time to have kids who's name does the kids get?

Yall get too caught up in your feelings to approach these discussions logically sometimes.
Click to expand...

had you believed in Jesus, you could've gone biblical, but you dont so....yea...that way
 
Just putting this out there all these scientist studies and sociologist
TheTrollKing said:
You're too emotional right now, u might need to walk this off for sec b


So you're saying it was mostly women out there creating empires and businesses? Wow, I didn't know that. Tell me more.
Click to expand...

Wow Bighead you really that ignorant to admit we didn't have the same right's as yu males?
 
@BNE , I was once 1000% against the likelihood of being submissive to any man. It was because of my one-sided definition of the term. Submissive in my description of submissive behavior was losing my identity, having no opinion, unworthy, incapable, and restricted of doing anything outside of pleasing your man, house duties, and bearing children. I pretty much related the characteristics to slavery. So I'm thinking, "Never...ever...ever...EVER will I be anybody's slave. DF?"

My stance has changed only because I decided to become a little bit more open-minded and educated about the idea. I've learned that submitting to your man isn't a sign of weakness or discontinuing who you are as a person. It only means that you let the man lead, you allow him to make decisions, and just stand behind those decisions. Pretty much let him be King, but remember you are also the Queen. If you trust his movement, he treats you like the Queen you are, and respects you as a woman, what would be the reason for rejecting that role? I believe it's all about your views and what you're willing to accept and not accept, honestly. Everybody's relationship is different.

So I guess becoming more conscious of where I want to be and why has significantly changed my approach on the subject. Also toning down my stubbornness has permitted me to becoming vulnerable to the idea. I have no issue real issue to why I would decline not taking my husband's last name. We become one and we're building our own family. That's dope to me.
 
Azlyn said:
Just putting this out there all these scientist studies and sociologist


Wow Bighead you really that ignorant to admit we didn't have the same right's as yu males?
Click to expand...

I never said that.

But back to the topic at hand, in this day and age, what is the purpose of not taking your husband's name?
 
Blactivity said:
@BNE , I was once 1000% against the likelihood of being submissive to any man. It was because of my one-sided definition of the term. Submissive in my description of submissive behavior was losing my identity, having no opinion, unworthy, incapable, and restricted of doing anything outside of pleasing your man, house duties, and bearing children. I pretty much related the characteristics to slavery. So I'm thinking, "Never...ever...ever...EVER will I be anybody's slave. DF?"

My stance has changed only because I decided to become a little bit more open-minded and educated about the idea. I've learned that submitting to your man isn't a sign of weakness or discontinuing who you are as a person. It only means that you let the man lead, you allow him to make decisions, and just stand behind those decisions. Pretty much let him be King, but remember you are also the Queen. If you trust his movement, he treats you like the Queen you are, and respects you as a woman, what would be the reason for rejecting that role? I believe it's all about your views and what you're willing to accept and not accept, honestly. Everybody's relationship is different.

So I guess becoming more conscious of where I want to be and why has significantly changed my approach on the subject. Also toning down my stubbornness has permitted me to becoming vulnerable to the idea. I have no issue real issue to why I would decline not taking my husband's last name. We become one and we're building our own family. That's dope to me.
Click to expand...

OMG...this is EXACTLY what being submissive means

another way i think of it, to lighten the mood...everybody in family feud gets an opinion on the answer, but there is one spokesperson as the representative of the team. In other words, they dont make the decision solely on their own and need the input from their partners, but the man is literally the spokesperson in the relationship

do not get this confused from those cats who prey on weak minded females and are just looking to subtract from them instead of adding or multiplying with them. Those nigs can kick rocks.
 
BlackAndWhite said:
OMG...this is EXACTLY what being submissive means

another way i think of it, to lighten the mood...everybody in family feud gets an opinion on the answer, but there is one spokesperson as the representative of the team. In other words, they dont make the decision solely on their own and need the input from their partners, but the man is literally the spokesperson in the relationship

do not get this confused from those cats who prey on weak minded females and are just looking to subtract from them instead of adding or multiplying with them. Those nigs can kick rocks.
Click to expand...


Great analogy
 
BNE said:
share ur point AP

everyone gets what im saying, 14 pgs nigga lol
Click to expand...

im not biblical scholar, but before the inclusion of last names, they would often recite the lineage from which they came

ex. Son of Abraham, Son of Isaac, etc...

Im drawing a blank right now, but i think its either exodus or leviticus (i think its leviticus) that is basically one huge ancestry.com book. My memory is a bit hazy, but all they talk about is who was the son of who, and then talk about their descendants. So to goldie's point, he could've used that as a position to support his point about men carrying the family lineage or it being passed down through men.
 
KandyPants said:
I actually don't care. Take the man name or not but to keep arguing something thats never gonna be settled is pointless as hell.
Click to expand...
cared enough to chime in to get ur view in one more time tho KP? lol

I argue with @TheTrollKing about everything. We're on a forum, why be a member for any reason but to discuss shit? It isn't that serious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top