tpia@:
mr orgrinbm

what you and your co-conspirators are failing to acknowledge due to your bullheadedness and over eagerness to bully others, is :

1. 90 to 98% of ladies take on their husband's name when they marry. So you are giving yourself hypertension over something that doesnt concern you.

2. a woman automatically takes on her husband's name when she marries him. This is expressly implied, as in it is assumed by all who know of the wedding and/or marital status, that she now takes on another name in addition to the one she had before.

Did you perhaps call someone by her married name and received a thorough beating in return? Thats the only thing that would explain your aggression over this matter, imo.

Before giving an epithet u should at least try to justify it.i outlined ur conspiracy.u should at least hv outlined mine b4 calling me a conspirator.u earned your own name nd ild love to earn mine also.well at least thank you 4 admitting me into the brotherhood.
Taking ur precint no 1:I am so happy with the statistics u gave and i hope it will improve.Secondly i am not giving myself any hypertension,instead i am having fun.how can i hv hypertension from talking with someone as intelligent as u r?infact u just made my day brighter with ur response.

No2:Whats the notion behind altering a norm which governs a particular activity and coming round to infere that the original norm which has been altered should be infered from the activity?its like throwing away ur invitation card to an event ,and going to the event to argue with the security that the fact that you are at the venue means that u have an invitation card even when u dont have it to present.Y resort to the implicit recognition of the marriage ceremony attendees only?
Except the bride has something to hide from the outside world...

No 3:I should know wen to pacify or vamoose(to use the language of jidegirl12) from an angry woman or a potentially angry one.Like i said before no man can ever win a war against a woman.its foolhardy to try.

tpia@:
mr orgrinbm

what you and your co-conspirators are failing to acknowledge due to your bullheadedness and over eagerness to bully others, is :

1. 90 to 98% of ladies take on their husband's name when they marry. So you are giving yourself hypertension over something that doesnt concern you.

2. a woman automatically takes on her husband's name when she marries him. This is expressly implied, as in it is assumed by all who know of the wedding and/or marital status, that she now takes on another name in addition to the one she had before.

Did you perhaps call someone by her married name and received a thorough beating in return? Thats the only thing that would explain your aggression over this matter, imo.

Before giving an epithet u should at least try to justify it.i outlined ur conspiracy.u should at least hv outlined mine b4 calling me a conspirator.u earned your own name nd ild love to earn mine also.well at least thank you 4 admitting me into the brotherhood.
Taking ur precint no 1:I am so happy with the statistics u gave and i hope it will improve.Secondly i am not giving myself any hypertension,instead i am having fun.how can i hv hypertension from talking with someone as intelligent as u r?infact u just made my day brighter with ur response.

No2:Whats the notion behind altering a norm which governs a particular activity and coming round to infere that the original norm which has been altered should be infered from the activity?its like throwing away ur invitation card to an event ,and going to the event to argue with the security that the fact that you are at the venue means that u have an invitation card even when u dont have it to present.Y resort to the implicit recognition of the marriage ceremony attendees only?
Except the bride has something to hide from the outside world...

No 3:I should know wen to pacify or vamoose(to use the language of jidegirl12) from an angry woman or a potentially angry one.Like i said before no man can ever win a war against a woman.its foolhardy to try.

tpia@:
mr orgrinbm

what you and your co-conspirators are failing to acknowledge due to your bullheadedness and over eagerness to bully others, is :

1. 90 to 98% of ladies take on their husband's name when they marry. So you are giving yourself hypertension over something that doesnt concern you.

2. a woman automatically takes on her husband's name when she marries him. This is expressly implied, as in it is assumed by all who know of the wedding and/or marital status, that she now takes on another name in addition to the one she had before.

Did you perhaps call someone by her married name and received a thorough beating in return? Thats the only thing that would explain your aggression over this matter, imo.

Before giving an epithet u should at least try to justify it.i outlined ur conspiracy.u should at least hv outlined mine b4 calling me a conspirator.u earned your own name nd ild love to earn mine also.well at least thank you 4 admitting me into the brotherhood.
Taking ur precint no 1:I am so happy with the statistics u gave and i hope it will improve.Secondly i am not giving myself any hypertension,instead i am having fun.how can i hv hypertension from talking with someone as intelligent as u r?infact u just made my day brighter with ur response.

No2:Whats the notion behind altering a norm which governs a particular activity and coming round to infere that the original norm which has been altered should be infered from the activity?its like throwing away ur invitation card to an event ,and going to the event to argue with the security that the fact that you are at the venue means that u have an invitation card even when u dont have it to present.Y resort to the implicit recognition of the marriage ceremony attendees only?
Except the bride has something to hide from the outside world...

No 3:I should know wen to pacify or vamoose(to use the language of jidegirl12) from an angry woman or a potentially angry one.Like i said before no man can ever win a war against a woman.its foolhardy to try.

tpia@:
mr orgrinbm

what you and your co-conspirators are failing to acknowledge due to your bullheadedness and over eagerness to bully others, is :

1. 90 to 98% of ladies take on their husband's name when they marry. So you are giving yourself hypertension over something that doesnt concern you.

2. a woman automatically takes on her husband's name when she marries him. This is expressly implied, as in it is assumed by all who know of the wedding and/or marital status, that she now takes on another name in addition to the one she had before.

Did you perhaps call someone by her married name and received a thorough beating in return? Thats the only thing that would explain your aggression over this matter, imo.

Before giving an epithet u should at least try to justify it.i outlined ur conspiracy.u should at least hv outlined mine b4 calling me a conspirator.u earned your own name nd ild love to earn mine also.well at least thank you 4 admitting me into the brotherhood.
Taking ur precint no 1:I am so happy with the statistics u gave and i hope it will improve.Secondly i am not giving myself any hypertension,instead i am having fun.how can i hv hypertension from talking with someone as intelligent as u r?infact u just made my day brighter with ur response.

No2:Whats the notion behind altering a norm which governs a particular activity and coming round to infere that the original norm which has been altered should be infered from the activity?its like throwing away ur invitation card to an event ,and going to the event to argue with the security that the fact that you are at the venue means that u have an invitation card even when u dont have it to present.Y resort to the implicit recognition of the marriage ceremony attendees only?
Except the bride has something to hide from the outside world...

No 3:I should know wen to pacify or vamoose(to use the language of jidegirl12) from an angry woman or a potentially angry one.Like i said before no man can ever win a war against a woman.its foolhardy to try.

tpia@:
mr orgrinbm

what you and your co-conspirators are failing to acknowledge due to your bullheadedness and over eagerness to bully others, is :

1. 90 to 98% of ladies take on their husband's name when they marry. So you are giving yourself hypertension over something that doesnt concern you.

2. a woman automatically takes on her husband's name when she marries him. This is expressly implied, as in it is assumed by all who know of the wedding and/or marital status, that she now takes on another name in addition to the one she had before.

Did you perhaps call someone by her married name and received a thorough beating in return? Thats the only thing that would explain your aggression over this matter, imo.

Before giving an epithet u should at least try to justify it.i outlined ur conspiracy.u should at least hv outlined mine b4 calling me a conspirator.u earned your own name nd ild love to earn mine also.well at least thank you 4 admitting me into the brotherhood.
Taking ur precint no 1:I am so happy with the statistics u gave and i hope it will improve.Secondly i am not giving myself any hypertension,instead i am having fun.how can i hv hypertension from talking with someone as intelligent as u r?infact u just made my day brighter with ur response.

No2:Whats the notion behind altering a norm which governs a particular activity and coming round to infere that the original norm which has been altered should be infered from the activity?its like throwing away ur invitation card to an event ,and going to the event to argue with the security that the fact that you are at the venue means that u have an invitation card even when u dont have it to present.Y resort to the implicit recognition of the marriage ceremony attendees only?
Except the bride has something to hide from the outside world...

No 3:I should know wen to pacify or vamoose(to use the language of jidegirl12) from an angry woman or a potentially angry one.Like i said before no man can ever win a war against a woman.its foolhardy to try.

tpia@:
mr orgrinbm

what you and your co-conspirators are failing to acknowledge due to your bullheadedness and over eagerness to bully others, is :

1. 90 to 98% of ladies take on their husband's name when they marry. So you are giving yourself hypertension over something that doesnt concern you.

2. a woman automatically takes on her husband's name when she marries him. This is expressly implied, as in it is assumed by all who know of the wedding and/or marital status, that she now takes on another name in addition to the one she had before.

Did you perhaps call someone by her married name and received a thorough beating in return? Thats the only thing that would explain your aggression over this matter, imo.

Before giving an epithet u should at least try to justify it.i outlined ur conspiracy.u should at least hv outlined mine b4 calling me a conspirator.u earned your own name nd ild love to earn mine also.well at least thank you 4 admitting me into the brotherhood.
Taking ur precint no 1:I am so happy with the statistics u gave and i hope it will improve.Secondly i am not giving myself any hypertension,instead i am having fun.how can i hv hypertension from talking with someone as intelligent as u r?infact u just made my day brighter with ur response.

No2:Whats the notion behind altering a norm which governs a particular activity and coming round to infere that the original norm which has been altered should be infered from the activity?its like throwing away ur invitation card to an event ,and going to the event to argue with the security that the fact that you are at the venue means that u have an invitation card even when u dont have it to present.Y resort to the implicit recognition of the marriage ceremony attendees only?
Except the bride has something to hide from the outside world...

No 3:I should know wen to pacify or vamoose(to use the language of jidegirl12) from an angry woman or a potentially angry one.Like i said before no man can ever win a war against a woman.its foolhardy to try.

IMO. I see nothing wrong when a woman desires to keep her fathers name. It is a desiret not a decision. For a woman to bear her fathers name in whatever form rest on the shoulders of her husband. If he says yes, it stands, if no, it stands. Each man to his own and no one is a slow poke nor dark aged based on what they want. For the christains read Nbrs:30.
To the feminist beings that claims to be christains and do not conform to Nbrs:30, sorry you are sitting on a time bomb. If you like claim to speak in tongue and see what will happen tomorrow, today. Yet the word of God changeth not.
My take.

SA Lady:

I asked for a quote in the bible but somehow I was refered to a whole chapter, now being a diplomat that I am I decided to dismiss the ommission and I obliged. Now having gone through the Chapter I can now safely say thank you sir I dont need your surname. Perhaps you can give to somebody that doesnt have one I am sorted on that front in fact you should consider yourself lucky that I come with a surname.

What a full package I am hey! stress free   

I am loving Ephesians 5 good news indeed.

Read Nbrs:30

deols: If discussing this was too archaic for 2008, I wonder what cave/village the people having problems with it in 2013 came from.


Weaklings calling themselves men over something very trivial. I pity them wives.

I do not know why women easily classify things has been trivial. I think if Men are going to stop paying attention to trivial issues, then the source of the trivial issue should be taken as trivial too and stop paying attention to. Abi instead of tacking the problem go for the cause.

Witty07:
I do not know why women easily classify things has been trivial. I think if Men are going to stop paying attention to trivial issues, then the source of the trivial issue should be taken as trivial too and stop paying attention to. Abi instead of tacking the problem go for the cause.

I see it as trivial because it doesnt add substance to the marriage.

Nothing proves that bearing his name makes the marriage last long/better. Abi u get proof?

Originbm

Below is the disputed point in your post:

A word of advice to everyone:Before discussing a thread like this its best to know the background of people participating in the debate.something tells me that many girls arguing here are products of a broken home,a divorcee parent or an absentee parent.it takes a medical doctor to produce a medical doctor and an engineer to produce an engineer...a broken home will always tend to produce its kind.

Again

That ^^^ is where my problem lies with your initial post that brought up this argument : You said - All those who opposed a change of surname on this thread hailed from broken home... Hence their decision and reasoning ( bout maiden name) is shaped by their upbringing .

And I simply questioned your assertions to prove your point but you continued rambling endlessly bout what doesn't seem to be my beeswax.



Now Answer the simple questions I asked you before ;

1.How does being raised by a single parent affect a lady's decision to keep her maiden name as a married woman.

2.What possibly could be the reason why a single parent would teach his/her child to maintain/ keep her maiden name?

3.Do you agree that a decision ( to keep a maiden name) has got nothing to do with your background but personal choice OR not?

Just cos a situation is wrongly perceived / condemned / stigmatized ( societal/ brainwash/ hearsay) doesn't validate that perception .... You'll be surprised if you have an open mind and learn.

Being a single parent is not the end of the world, life goes on abi they should go and die?
------------

Now listen, Dont mumbo jumbo a post without paragraph and punctuation marks .

[quote author=jidegirl12]
Originbm

Below is the disputed point in your post:






Again

That ^^^ is where my problem lies with your initial post that brought up this argument : You said - All those who opposed a change of surname on this thread hailed from broken home... Hence their decision and reasoning ( bout maiden name) is shaped by their upbringing .

And I simply questioned your assertions to prove your point but you continued rambling endlessly bout what doesn't seem to be my beeswax.



Now Answer the simple questions I asked you before ;

1.How does being raised by a single parent affect a lady's decision to keep her maiden name as a married woman.

2.What possibly could be the reason why a single parent would teach his/her child to maintain/ keep her maiden name?

3.Do you agree that a decision ( to keep a maiden name) has got nothing to do with your background but personal choice OR not?

Just cos a situation is wrongly perceived / condemned / stigmatized ( societal/ brainwash/ hearsay) doesn't validate that perception .... You'll be surprised if you have an open mind and learn.

Being a single parent is not the end of the world, life goes on abi they should go and die?
------------

Now listen, Dont mumbo jumbo a post without paragraph and punctuation marks .


[/quote






First i dont think u know wat a punctuation or paragraph is,cause i not only punctuated my work,i numerically alligned it.i only didnt indent it.
1.Decisions,whether spontaenous or premeditated r products of learned responses.Every decision encapsulates the world view of a person concerning a particular issue.And this view is represented both by the experiential phenomena of the person and the didactic climate to which the person has beenn subjected.The earliest and the greatest source of this representation is the family....

2.Most divorcee single mums are embittered people.they feel either rightly or wrongly that they hv been dealt a bad hand in marriage.and it doesnt take much for their daughters who would most certainly imitate their mothers to take on this character.the mere fact that as a divorcee ,her mother is bearing her maiden name inures her to the fact that its a breakage from the norm,and the fact that her mother seems to put on the attitude of 'what the hell,it doesnt matter',continues to build up a certain mentality in the daughters psyche.birds of a feather flock together,so she might hv other divorcee friends and when they get together they vent their fury on men,and clap themselves on the back for getting riddance of bad rubbish.the daughter soaks in the atmosphere created by he mother's situation.and since its the only life she might have known it seems like the real life.Perchance the friends of the divorcees all hv daughters and they all become friends,consolidating on each other the tenets of the embittered atmosphere to which they hv become accustomed.add to this the continuous whinning about the stigma and inconveniences of name change which her divorce had occasioned ,the daughter continues to store a host of these information in her brain.The absence of a man in the family have actually robbed her of the opportunity to see what a functional family should be like,and has even imprinted on her mind that a man is at best an accessory that can be discarded, afterall her mother was without one and she grew up without one.All these at the back of her mind makes her suspicious of men and sceptical of the whole marriage institution so that she enters into the marriage with preconceptions which make building a marriage very difficult.to such a girl making a decision to keep her maiden name becomes a natural necessity,because at any point in time she is suspicious of the marriage paranerphalia...and is always ready to check out like her mother,who would hv no moral authority to rebuke her,as she herself is a divorcee and had already been tacitly,explicitly or implicitly imprinting the notions in her that had culminated in the demise of the marriage.....so madam, personal decisions r experientially and didactically motivated...so a the issue of a divorcee is much more likely to make a decision to retain her maiden name....



3.I think the preceeding paragraph has answered the question...finally going into deeper analysis might beyond the scope of this thread.i made it simple so u can relate with it and not call it mumbo jumbo.because i should show u child development models and the effect of early,formative ,cognitive abd experiential phenomena on the growing child...
good day

Yeah just what I expected...Yet another mumbo jumbo again

Have a nice day.

@ orgronbm

the name change is included in/implied by the marriage ceremony, seems this simple fact eludes you.

when you bear the title mrs, which is what a marriage ceremony is about, the mrs is your husband's name.

therefore, the woman has multiple names while the man retains his one name unless he needs to switch names for whatever reason.

kapish?

tpia@:
@ orgronbm

the name change is included in/implied by the marriage ceremony, seems this simple fact eludes you.

when you bear the title mrs, which is what a marriage ceremony is about, the mrs is your husband's name.

therefore, the woman has multiple names while the man retains his one name unless he needs to switch names for whatever reason.

kapish?

What about women that dont use mrs?many only use their professional names.you hardly see dr miss,barr miss,pharm miss.even some married women do not put mrs to their professional titles.wat of those that answer chief,or dame etc.
Now mrs is a marriage title,but not designed to b symbolic.Mrs may only identify that u claim to be married.but the name irrefutably identifies you with who you are joined to.i hv already dicussed the ideology behind the symbology of name change in my prior post.

Now the man does not change his name because in our society the man brings the girl into his own family.and ours is a patrilinear society.challenging the custom itself is another topic and another issue all together.

I dont know what you mean by claiming to be married, what I specifically referred to was the marriage ceremony which makes two people a couple in the eyes of the state and of their society.

Someone bearing their professional title does not mean they are not mrs, try to see beyond whatever lens you are using now and quit belabouring the point, or your lack of one.

tpia@:
I dont know what you mean by claiming to be married, what I specifically referred to was the marriage ceremony which makes two people a couple in the eyes of the state and of their society.

Someone bearing their professional title does not mean they are not mrs, try to see beyond whatever lens you are using now and quit belabouring the point, or your lack of one.

y do u always resort to ad hominem.u havent made any ideological point.u havent dissented based on any single precint i've made.i hv watered down the level of my language ,syntax and ideological leaning just to speak so u can understand.yet u havent made any intelligent point.u r arguing like one has not opened any journal or book in yrs except perhaps for gossip magazines.read widely ,only then ull develop the ability to rationalize.if u had intelligent points ild have enjoyed having an intellectual discussion with u but u hv none.ad hominem is always the last resort of the ignorant ,which is wat u r desperately trying to portray yourself as.if u dont understand my quotes ask simply and ill explain.if u dont know hw to think creatively learn it.i cant waste my time pointing out elementary logics to u since u cant even decipher the arguements or contentions in my simplest quotes.

good day.

I'd use my husband's name, only.

I'd take up my husband's name, only.

stranger26:




Its pure and utter nonsense to make such a big deal about a name. A woman's name has no impact on her readiness for marriage. My father fed me, took care of me, paid my fees and everything so should I renounce him for a man that wants me only because of all the work this father of mine has done for me? If the man had met me in rags, uneducated, uncouth and unmannerly, would he have felt the same attraction to me? Excuse me, o, for being grateful to my dad for all he has done. If a guy isn't happy with that, he can get lost. Only a petty person would be hung up on such a trivial issue; in fact, that alone would tell me a lot about his character.

Hm

Well, 2 me wld luv 2 kip my maiden name buh wld discuss wit future hubby so it doesnt pose as a probs 4 us. Buh my babes n babettes wld maintain der pops name . I'm so used 2 my surname d@ doesnt mean am nt ready 4 d big deal (marriage).

umhum.