avi@pegasus.UUCP (Avi E. Gross) (01/01/70)
Many years ago, when I stepped in front of a judge to become a citizen of the US, I asked him to change my first name to Avi. There was no charge. He just issued my papers with the new name. Interestingly enough, that piece of paper is the only legal piece of identification I have (other than things like passports that were issued when I used my citizenship papers for ID). There does not exist any piece of paper that says that "Emeric Gross" changed his name to "Avi Emeric Gross"! When my parents left Romania, they were not allowed to take extraneous papers with them -- minor things like marriage licenses or birth certificates. I was listed as a write-in on my fathers passport consisting of my name and birth-date. This was traded in for a "green-card" a year later when we arrived here. I actually changed my name "by usage" in school. Every year I crossed out "Emeric" and replaced it with "Avi" on my report card. Starting in the sixth grade, the school silently capitulated in this passive battle and started using Avi. If my daughter ever wants to change her name when she is older, I would be willing to help her. Why should we be stuck with names chosen for us? I don't identify with my Romanian name since I was never called by that name anyway. It was given to me because the law mandated giving such names in another country. Of course, if I had to choose a name again today, I would probably choose a more "American" name than Avi :-) -- -=> Avi E. Gross @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6241 UUCP: suggested paths: [ihnp4, allegra, cbosg, ahuta, ...]!pegasus!avi ARPA: agross@ru-green
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/01/70)
-- [Some guy] > > I choose to ride the train of values and tradition because I can > > at least have some perspective about it's destination, if you want, > > you have the choice of riding an untested, untried vehicle going > > only to God knows where. [Cheryl Stewart] > Scaredy-cat, scaredy-cat! Better to live a life millions have > already lived, rather than your own, huh? DARE to be boring!!! I *love* it! Author, author! (Authoress?) As Cheryl obviously knows, you really can't say you've lived unless the only explanation you have for at least one thing you've done is, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 25 Sep 85 [4 Vendemiaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
joj@rruxa.UUCP (J Jasutis) (08/17/85)
I am getting married soon. From what I have read, I understand I can legally choose to keep my name or change it, as long as I do so consistently. Ideally I would like to change my name for personal use (the idea of everyone in my new family having the same name appeals to me), but keep my name (&reputation) at work. At a later time when I changed jobs and my old name didn't mean anything to anyone I would use my new name everywhere. In some professions (e.g., acting) people have "professional" and private names. Is there any way I could do that? My main concern is my paycheck (could I cash it if it were in my maiden name) and my IRS records.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/19/85)
> I am getting married soon. From what I have read, I understand > I can legally choose to keep my name or change it, as long as I > do so consistently. Ideally I would like to change my name for > personal use (the idea of everyone in my new family having the > same name appeals to me), but keep my name (&reputation) at work. > At a later time when I changed jobs and my old name didn't mean > anything to anyone I would use my new name everywhere. > > In some professions (e.g., acting) people have "professional" and > private names. Is there any way I could do that? My main concern > is my paycheck (could I cash it if it were in my maiden name) > and my IRS records. So long as there is one Social Security Number referring to you, there is no legal problem with having two names, or twenty five, with two exceptions: your tax returns should all be in the same name. If you and your husband file together, you will unfortunately be known to local and national tax authorities as "Doe, John F and Jane Q.", where Q is either your middle initial or the initial of your maiden name. The second exception is the voter registration rolls. Voting authorities (at least those of Hudson COunty, NJ) are incapable of dealing with hyphenated names, so you may have to pick one or the other. Hyphenation may well be the best option, so banks and the like won't hassle you if checks are in one name and the account in another. Good luck. Marcel Simon
rosa@petsd.UUCP (Rosamaria Carbonell) (08/20/85)
> I am getting married soon. From what I have read, I understand > I can legally choose to keep my name or change it, as long as I > do so consistently. Ideally I would like to change my name for ... ------ ... >> exceptions: your tax returns should all be in the same name. If you and your >> husband file together, you will unfortunately be known to local and national >> tax authorities as "Doe, John F and Jane Q.", where Q is either your middle >> initial or the initial of your maiden name. The IRS will only mess up your name if you fail to read the instructions that come with the 1040 forms. They explicitly state if a couple is filing a joint return and they have different last names to fill them in as "Name1 Q. Doe and Name2 Z. Smith". I did so this year and received a check made out to both names. New Jersey can also deal with the situation. R. Carbonell (201) 758-7285 Perkin-Elmer Corporation Tinton Falls, NJ ...!vax135!petsd!rosa
spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) (08/22/85)
My wife changed her name when we got married. After filing a tax return under her new name, the IRS sent her a letter advising her to tell Social Security about her new name. Other than that, no action is required, at least in California. steve pope (ucbvax!spp)
bd@peora.UUCP (Bernie Dougan) (08/22/85)
Note that the Social Security Administration will not just
accept your word that your name has changed, for example, by
getting married. The SSA will send you a form that you must
complete and send to them with an original marriage certificate,
not a copy. The SSA returns the certificate in about 2 weeks.
--
Bernie Dougan
Perkin-Elmer Southern Development Center
2486 Sand Lake Road
Orlando, Florida 32809
(305)850-1040
{decvax!ucf-cs, ihnp4!pesnta, vax135!petsd}!peora!bded@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (08/23/85)
In article <10060@ucbvax.ARPA> spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) writes: > > My wife changed her name when we got married. After filing >a tax return under her new name, the IRS sent her a letter >advising her to tell Social Security about her new name. Other >than that, no action is required, at least in California. In California, it's legal to use *any* name you choose, so long as it's not to defraud anyone. This is *not* true in all states. The Feds, however, don't accept anything but a birth certificate, court order, or marriage certificate when verifying names for passport applications. I don't know when else they're that picky. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/24/85)
I'm pretty sure you can use whatever name you like, legally, without even being consistent, as long as you're not using different names with the intention to commit fraud thereby. Some people I know didn't bother changing their names at work because of the record keeping there. If you sign your paycheck with the name it's made out to, then you can deposit it (automatic deposit of paychecks is easier, of course!). The IRS knows your social security number (and you don't get another one of those--that probably would be fraud), so that should be fine. Using the one name relatively consistently in regards to paycheck or the IRS is probably a good idea just for your own convenience (and anyway, if you go in changing your name every week :-), they may think you're a flake)(might be fun, though). Probably be a good idea for both of you to tell friends and relatives what both you want to be called, just so they know. Some people don't assume you'll change names, or what the appropriate nicknames for the new family member might be. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (08/26/85)
> Note that the Social Security Administration will not just > accept your word that your name has changed, for example, by > getting married. The SSA will send you a form that you must > complete and send to them with an original marriage certificate, > not a copy. The SSA returns the certificate in about 2 weeks. When we got married, my wife notified SS that she was changing her name, and they told her the same thing: they needed the original marriage license. Her reaction was, I'M NOT TRUSTING THOSE BOZOS WITH MY MARRIAGE LICENSE! (Not to mention the USPS.) Instead, she went to the nearest SS office and physically applied for the name change. Steve Vegdahl Computer Research Lab. Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon
johnl@ima.UUCP (08/26/85)
When my wife and I got married seven years ago, it never seriously occurred to us that either would change his or her name. Other than a little unexpected razzing from her mother, it's never been a problem. We've lived in Connecticut and Massachusetts, bought a house, dealt with banks, used credit cards, etc., without any particular bureaucratic trouble. The government seems not to care what you call yourself so long as you pay your taxes. (Actually, Hawaii used to consider a woman's name to be changed when she married and she had to go into court to change it back as though she were changing it to something entirely different.) It was kind of an eye-opener when somebody would call on the phone looking for my wife, and say "oh, you must be Mr. Spitzer" (her name.) After a while I didn't even bother trying to correct them. And you get the most interestingly addressed mail from people trying to be tactful -- my favorite was one addressed to Mr. and Ms. Lydia Spitzer. As has been noted elsewhere, you also instantly know when to hang up on somebody who calls about the swell prize that Mrs. Levine (my name) has just won. My sister got married last fall and planned to keep her own name for business and use her husband's name socially. She has no legal trouble, but has great confusion deciding when to use which name. I get the impression that she may well end up keeping her own name everywhere. As far as children go, if you want to name the kid after George Washington, why not name him George Washington? (Or, more plausibly, name him after his maternal great-grandfather whose name was not that of either of the spouses.) This might confuse elementary schools, but I figure that's their problem. My opinion on this may moderate when actually presented with a descendant, of course. But anyway, the point of this ramble is that if you don't want to be known by your spouse's name all the time, you should consider keeping your own name everywhere. John Levine, ima!johnl (spouse of Lydia Spitzer, sometimes ima!lydia)
moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (08/26/85)
In article <1515@peora.UUCP> bd@peora.UUCP (Bernie Dougan) writes: >Note that the Social Security Administration will not just >accept your word that your name has changed, for example, by >getting married. The SSA will send you a form that you must >complete and send to them with an original marriage certificate, >not a copy. The SSA returns the certificate in about 2 weeks. I changed my name "by common usage" about ten years ago. Meaning that I have no official document stating that I paid $ to a court to do it; I simply starting using "Moira Mallison" exclusively. I had no particular problems with SSA. I think all that was required was a notarized document that I didn't intend fraud, and that I was going to use the new name exclusively. Moira (don't you wonder what it was before?) Mallison tektronix!moiram
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (08/27/85)
[]
When my wife and I got married we were young and foolish.
She felt ambivalent about name changing and decided to hyphenate.
In my usual helpful manner I told her to do what she wanted, but
I was keeping my name. Now that I'm older and foolish I have
some recommendations.
1) *DON'T* hyphenate. My wife quickly found that she was
"Busch" "Busch-Vishniac" and "Vishniac" on a bewildering
variety of records. It was about 2 years before it all
got straightened out. I think MIT continued to think
there were two of her for about a year after she arrived.
2) If you are in a profession where you publish, don't change
your name at all. If you get divorced (very common after all)
you will either confuse your colleagues or spend the rest of
your life using your despised ex-spouse's name.
I have a modest proposal. Why don't we all use a combination of
matrilineal and patrilineal names? For example, I would be
Ethan Vishniac-Simpson
and my wife would be
Ilene Rudnick-Busch
and our (hypothetical) children would be
Isaac Vishniac-Rudnick
and
Anne Rudnick-Vishniac
What could be simpler? (and still be nonsexist). Volunteers?
--
"Support the revolution Ethan Vishniac
in Latin America... {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Buy Cocaine" ethan@utastro.UTEXAS.ARPA
Department of Astronomy
University of Texasspp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) (08/27/85)
Actually, the passport office didn't want a copy of
the marriage certificate when my wife and I went in there
to apply. They only needed birth certificates (obviously,
my wife's has her maiden name on it) and took our word
for it that we were married and had the same last name.
This probably only works if you go in together.
Through procrastination we have yet to inform Social
Security of the fact that my wife changed her name, so
I don't know what they require.
steve pope (spp@berkeley) (..ucbvax!spp)inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (08/28/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** *** OK, HERE GOES! READY? *** > I changed my name "by common usage" about ten years ago. Meaning > that I have no official document stating that I paid $ to a court > to do it; I simply starting using "Moira Mallison" exclusively. > I had no particular problems with SSA. I think all that was required > was a notarized document that I didn't intend fraud, and that I > was going to use the new name exclusively. > > Moira (don't you wonder what it was before?) Mallison I changed my name by the legal route, and it involved paying absolutely NO $ to a court. I filed my intent with the court, which then gave me a list of guidelines and suggested people to tell. It's really for your own convenience - I didn't even have to pay court costs, because the judge just signed the decree in his chambers. The only requirement was a want-ad running once/week for three consecutive weeks stating the intention. Most of the guidelines were in the way of a checklist reminding me who to tell...SS of course was on top, but also the State Department for passport, Motor Vehicle Department, debtors, creditors, and employer. Some wanted copies of the decree, so I sent photocopies. I imagine the whole affair wound up costing me 15 bucks for the legal forms, want ad and photocopies. I wanted to correct the impression that you left your readers with that a name change might involve some high-buck court costs or something... -- Gary Benson * John Fluke Mfg. Co. * PO Box C9090 * Everett WA * 98206 MS/232-E = = {allegra} {uw-beaver} !fluke!inc = = (206)356-5367 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-ascii is our god and unix is his profit-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (08/29/85)
Just out of curiosity: I took my husband's last name when I married five years ago. I went down to the Social Security office to change my name. They were taking a holiday. After two more unsuccessful trips, I called to see if they would mail me the forms. They wouldn't. Said I could come by and pick the form up and mail it in. (Lots of help, huh.) Then I found out that, if I did mail the form, I would have to send my REAL marriage license with it, not a copy. Do you think I trusted them with it? NO! So I decided not to bother. I figured they post by account number, not name anyway. The only time it's come up since then is that, when my husband and I filed our first joint tax return, the IRS sent us a letter saying the name on the form didn't match the name on my Social Security account and asking me to verify that my name and the number were both correct. I did so. Is there any real need to hassle with Social Security over my name? If so, what is it? charli
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (08/29/85)
In article <100100001@ima.UUCP> johnl@ima.UUCP writes: > >As far as children go, if you want to name the kid after George Washington, >why not name him George Washington? (Or, more plausibly, name him after >his maternal great-grandfather whose name was not that of either of the >spouses.) This might confuse elementary schools, but I figure that's their >problem. My opinion on this may moderate when actually presented with a >descendant, of course. > What with second marriages and all, the schools have a lot of experience dealing with kids whose name does not match their parents. Our school system sends mail "To the Parents of ...". I think the most confusion would be with the people who visit the new mother at the hospital to register the birth ... and the most disappointment from the grandparents. -- PKW hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur
moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (08/29/85)
>> Moira Mallison >> I changed my name "by common usage" about ten years ago. Meaning >> that I have no official document stating that I paid $ to a court >> to do it; > Gary Benson >I changed my name by the legal route, and it involved paying absolutely NO $ >to a court... >I wanted to correct the impression that you left your readers with that a >name change might involve some high-buck court costs or something... This is a matter of state law. In California (where I lived at the time), it is considered legal to change one's name by common usage. In some states, it is not. I checked into what it would take to get a "legal document" here in Oregon when I was decided I wanted a passport. It is about $50, payable to some court or other. Not a *high* legal cost, I agree. Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/30/85)
> I changed my name "by common usage" about ten years ago. Meaning > that I have no official document stating that I paid $ to a court > to do it; I simply starting using "Moira Mallison" exclusively. > I had no particular problems with SSA. I think all that was required > was a notarized document that I didn't intend fraud, and that I > was going to use the new name exclusively. This doesn't always work. Several years ago, a friend of mine decided to regain her original name -- at the time she was married (1968), retaining one's name was unheard of. The laws of North Carolina allowed one to change one's name either by court order, or by the common law procedure of simply using the new name. Since the formal mechanism could, by statute, only be used once in a lifetime, and since there seemed to be little advantage to it, she elected to use the other procedure. She had no problem except with the driver's license folks; she waited six months and asked again, and they changed their records with no further questions. About two years later, she moved to conservative area of Virginia (Lynchburg, I believe), and tried to register to vote. The dialog went something like this: Q: Are you married? A: Yes. Q: Is that your husband's last name? A: No. Q: Do you have a court order? A: No. Q: Then we can't allow you to register. The local D.A., apart from intimating that she must be an immoral commie, threatened to prosecute her for attempted election fraud. My friend im- mediately contacted an ACLU attorney; he advised her that while there was no danger of criminal prosecution (and indeed no charges were ever filed), she would be unlikely to win a suit against the election board. After all, they were not denying her the right to use the name of her choice, merely insisting that the proper paperwork be used. So she gave in and asked the attorney to file the necessary papers for her. What makes this case especially unusual, though, is that it's really a case of Virginia not honoring the laws of North Carolina -- my friend had legally changed her name in accordance with the laws of the state where she resided at the time.
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (08/31/85)
Why not choose whichever name sounds better? Think of all the children who wouldn't have to go through school with names like Fink.
yoddy@elsie.UUCP (yoddy) (08/31/85)
I kept my own name when I got married. I offered to either change
names or hyphenate if (and only if) my husband would do the same. He
wouldn't so I didn't.
We've had very few hassles from outside the families. We do get
twice as much junk mail and twice as many phone salespeople as
a normal couple but that doesn't bother us. AMOCO wouldn't issue
a card in my name---the card says Kenneth Brown on the front. I
would find that offensive even if I'd had changed my last name.
The only people that have had a hard time dealing with the whole
thing are the families. Ken's greatgrandmother refuses to deal with
it at all. She addresses mail to Mr. and Mrs. Ken Brown. My
grandmother is slowly comming around (after 3 years). They're
both in their 90's so I figure they've earned the right to call
me anything they want. The rest of the family eventually adjusted.
It took my mom the longest--for the first 2 years of my marriage
she addressed everything to Ken Brown and Yoddy.
When my son was born everyone breathed a sigh of relief when
I told them we were hyphenating the baby's last name. I honestly
think Ken's parents were afraid I'd insist on naming the baby
Christopher Schwartz. So my son is Schwartz-Brown, maybe we'll
name the next one Brown-Schwartz just to keep the families on
their toes.
yoddy
...!decvax!allegra!umcp-cs!elsie!yoddy
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/31/85)
> > I kept my own name when I got married. I offered to either change > names or hyphenate if (and only if) my husband would do the same. He > wouldn't so I didn't. > You have a 50 50 chance of winding up divorced. Those are the statistics, like it or not. There are many reasons for failing marriages, why do you bother to create a problem out of a last name. There will be many many problems that crop up without your help. Serious, real, life threatening, marriage threatening, problems. Was life so problem free that you took a trivial issue and created a problem out of it at the beginning of your marriage so you could have something to debate about for years to come? Good luck sister, you'll need it.
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (09/01/85)
> We've had very few hassles from outside the families. We do get > twice as much junk mail and twice as many phone salespeople as > a normal couple but that doesn't bother us. AMOCO wouldn't issue > a card in my name---the card says Kenneth Brown on the front. I > would find that offensive even if I'd had changed my last name. > This sort of assholery on the part of credit-card issuers has been illegal for ten years. Sue the bastards. -- jcpatilla "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (09/01/85)
> > > > I kept my own name when I got married. I offered to either change > > names or hyphenate if (and only if) my husband would do the same. He > > wouldn't so I didn't. > > > You have a 50 50 chance of winding up divorced. Those are the statistics, like > it or not. There are many reasons for failing marriages, why do you bother to > create a problem out of a last name.There will be many many problems that crop > up without your help. Serious, real, life threatening, marriage threatening, > problems. Was life so problem free that you took a trivial issue and created a > problem out of it at the beginning of your marriage so you could have something > to debate about for years to come? Good luck sister, you'll need it. Changing one's identity, presumably for life, is *NOT* a trivial issue. If it were, why aren't men changing *their* names upon marriage ? The wife's name-change is a relic of times when women were chattel, property, and if that's how you look at your wife, then you're the one who has some problems. Personally, I would not want to marry a man who would not agree to my keeping my name. -- jcpatilla "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."
see1@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (E.K. Seebacher) (09/02/85)
>> I changed my name "by common usage" about ten years ago. ... >> >> Moira (don't you wonder what it was before?) Mallison > >I changed my name by the legal route, and it involved paying absolutely NO $ >to a court. I filed my intent with the court, which then gave me a list of >guidelines and suggested people to tell. ... > - I didn't even have to pay court costs, because the judge just >signed the decree in his chambers. The only requirement was a want-ad running >once/week for three consecutive weeks stating the intention. > ... I imagine the whole affair wound up >costing me 15 bucks for the legal forms, want ad and photocopies. > > Gary Benson Gasp. Choke. I paid this county almost $190 when I changed my name last year, and I made damn sure that several sources said it was REQUIRED first (you know how long it takes to save that much as an undergrad on financial aid?). Fifty bucks of that went for the want ads, which I believe had to run for six weeks, and which they explained must be run in something called _the_Law_Bulletin_. The rest was for court costs, and I had the judge sign the decree in his chambers, too. Is this just typical Chicago graft???! Some of the sources I checked with were consumer-legal-help type groups. As I told Moira in my reply to her original posting, though, I haven't re- gretted going the legal route (although I'm still sitting here fuming over the cost), just because I needed those documents in hand when preparing for battle with: - the GSL people; - the University of Chicago (they were the worst, and it wasn't even my last name that got changed!); - the Illinois State Scholarship Commission; - the Department of Motor Vehicles (which wants an ORIGINAL birth certificate -- that one took several months to obtain); - the SSA. That's another thing. The county clerk advised me to get three or four "originals" of the decree, so I could send them off to various agencies (at two dollars apiece, naturally). Every place I mailed a decree to sent it back safely. I guess I was just lucky. (Anyone want to comment on Cook County "requirements"? I've always been addicted to local politics, but the thought of somebody's brother having a night out on me .... grrrrrrrrrrrr....) -- Ellen Keyne Seebacher ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!see1
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/02/85)
> Changing one's identity, presumably for life, is *NOT* a trivial > issue. If it were, why aren't men changing *their* names upon marriage ? > The wife's name-change is a relic of times when women were chattel, > property, and if that's how you look at your wife, then you're the one who > has some problems. Personally, I would not want to marry a man who would not > agree to my keeping my name. > -- > jcpatilla > > "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch." *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Why doesn't the preacher say "and now the bride may kiss the groom? Why is there no flower boy following the groom? Why is there no shower for the man, instead of a party that wrecks his brain for weeks? Because this is simply the way things have evolved. To make more out of simple tradition than exists is just looking for trouble where there isn't any until you play magician and create it out of thin air. If one so desired, one could easily make an issue out of a million and one pratices that have evovled into traditions down through the ages. I don't blame you for not wanting to marry a man who would treat you as prop- erty. Who would want to? But why are you suggesting that changing names means the same today as it did long ago? Who told you that or did you surmise this yourself? You are going to get married presumedly because you love and or respect each other. If this, the very foundation with which to build a life on, is shattered simply by changing one's name, than I seriously have to doubt the sincerity of your reasons for wanting to get married. If you fear losing your identity because of a name change, then you most likely have a shaky self image to begin with. The ones who stand a chance to lose their identity are the children and their children and so on. What if a girl's name is Linda Sadowsky-Tannenberg? She marries John Pollichicho-Murphy. Their daughter becomes Lucy Pollichicho-Murphy-Sadowsky-Tannenberg. And so on. If you really feel that you will lose your identity for life, don't be too con- cerned, 1 out of 2 marriages are currently failing within seven years. If this misfortune befalls you, you can then reclaim your old identity. By the way, on second marriages, the statistics are even worse. It is almost as though you make it the first time around or you usually don't make it. Saying 'losing your identity for life' is a bit optimistic if not unrealistic in light of the current statistics.
peckham@cornell.UUCP (Stephen Peckham) (09/03/85)
> Changing one's identity, presumably for life, is *NOT* a trivial > issue. If it were, why aren't men changing *their* names upon marriage ? Changing one's name is not changing one's identity. Peoples' identities may change when they get married, but that happens to men as well as to women and has nothing to do to with names. (It also happens when people have children.) There are reasons for women to keep their names when they get married, but maintaining their identities is not one of them. Steve Peckham
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/03/85)
> > > > I kept my own name when I got married. I offered to either change > > names or hyphenate if (and only if) my husband would do the same. He > > wouldn't so I didn't. > > > You have a 50 50 chance of winding up divorced. Those are the statistics, like > it or not. There are many reasons for failing marriages, why do you bother to > create a problem out of a last name. There will be many many problems that crop > up without your help. Serious, real, life threatening, marriage threatening, > problems. Was life so problem free that you took a trivial issue and created a > problem out of it at the beginning of your marriage so you could have something > to debate about for years to come? Good luck sister, you'll need it. Can you say, "blame the woman"? I thought the idea was that if one partner thought there was a problem, there was a problem. How do you figure she "created" the problem? And what makes you think they will "debate about it for years to come"? Seems to me like you're jumping to a lot of conclusions at once. Careful - it's a long way down if you miss. Jeff Winslow
joj@rruxa.UUCP (J Jasutis) (09/04/85)
re: If you fear losing your identity because of something like
changing your name, you must have a shakey self identity to start with.
Many women, like me, work in a large organization. Most of the people
in upper management who have the power to promote, know me almost exclusively
by my written work. If next week, I change my name...sure the people I work
with everyday will still know who I am...but those people who no longer see
my "old" name on my written documents will not necessarily associate my "new"
name to me. Therefore, the reputation I am building almost has to start over.
Yes, I loose my identity (in part) when my name changes, No I don't have any
problem with my self-worth or about who I am.sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/04/85)
In article <11302@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> >> I kept my own name when I got married. I offered to either change >> names or hyphenate if (and only if) my husband would do the same. He >> wouldn't so I didn't. >> >You have a 50 50 chance of winding up divorced. Those are the statistics, like >it or not. There are many reasons for failing marriages, why do you bother to >create a problem out of a last name. There will be many many problems that crop >up without your help. Serious, real, life threatening, marriage threatening, >problems. Was life so problem free that you took a trivial issue and created a >problem out of it at the beginning of your marriage so you could have something >to debate about for years to come? Good luck sister, you'll need it. What arrogance! if it is such a trivial issue, then why didn't her husband change his name? one's name is an imortant part of one's identity. If that's not an important issue for you, then good for you, nobody's asking you to change your name, but it is not up to you to decide what are important issues for other people. Also, if I remember the original posting well, this was not a problem, only YOU perceived it to be. I have had similar discussions with my SOs and they all agreed that they wouldn't like to change their names, so it was only reasonable that I would feel the same way. What's wrong with that? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/04/85)
In article <11313@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> Changing one's identity, presumably for life, is *NOT* a trivial >> issue. If it were, why aren't men changing *their* names upon marriage ? >> The wife's name-change is a relic of times when women were chattel, >> property, and if that's how you look at your wife, then you're the one who >> has some problems. Personally, I would not want to marry a man who would not >> agree to my keeping my name. >> -- >> jcpatilla > >Why doesn't the preacher say "and now the bride may kiss the groom? >Why is there no flower boy following the groom? >Why is there no shower for the man, instead of a party that wrecks his brain for >weeks? > >Because this is simply the way things have evolved. To make more out of simple >tradition than exists is just looking for trouble where there isn't any until >you play magician and create it out of thin air. Am I the only one being irked by this guy? Sure, all the things you mentioned are traditions, but they are traditions for one day and are not very relevant. Changing one's name is a much more significant step. It is a symbol that the woman becomes part of the man. Apart from that, it is very annoying practically. It is much harder to find a long-lost friend if they have changed their name, and it is just a big hassle changing one's name unless one really wants to, and if, as you say, most marriages are so short-lived, then why bother going through all that fuss just to reverse it. When the government of Quebec last changed its family law, a few years ago, it changed the official name of married women from that of their husbands to their maiden name. The reason given was that it was too expensive and complicated to keep track of all the changes. Before that, they had already tried it out sucessfully with medicaire records. >If one so desired, one could easily make an issue out of a million and one >pratices that have evovled into traditions down through the ages. Yes, a lot of people do. Is there something wrong with that? And the insults flow: >I don't blame you for not wanting to marry a man who would treat you as prop- >erty. Who would want to? But why are you suggesting that changing names means >the same today as it did long ago? Who told you that or did you surmise this >yourself? You are going to get married presumedly because you love and or >respect each other. If this, the very foundation with which to build a life on, >is shattered simply by changing one's name, than I seriously have to doubt the >sincerity of your reasons for wanting to get married. >If you fear losing your identity because of a name change, then you most likely >have a shaky self image to begin with. >The ones who stand a chance to lose >their identity are the children and their children and so on. What if a girl's >name is Linda Sadowsky-Tannenberg? She marries John Pollichicho-Murphy. Their >daughter becomes Lucy Pollichicho-Murphy-Sadowsky-Tannenberg. And so on. So, if it's not such a big problem, then why do you worry about the children losing their identity? I also don't see why having a long name is equivalent to losing one's identity. I think you forgot your logic on the other side of the bed this morning, you know, the right one. >If you really feel that you will lose your identity for life, don't be too con- >cerned, 1 out of 2 marriages are currently failing within seven years. If this >misfortune befalls you, you can then reclaim your old identity. By the way, on >second marriages, the statistics are even worse. It is almost as though you >make it the first time around or you usually don't make it. Saying 'losing >your identity for life' is a bit optimistic if not unrealistic in light of the >current statistics. So, then again, why bother? It's much simpler not to change it. More importantly, why should a woman look forward to being divorced to regain her identity? why not simply keep it all along? that might give her less reasons to desire being divorced... -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/04/85)
In article <262@cornell.UUCP> peckham@cornell.UUCP (Stephen Peckham) writes: >> Changing one's identity, presumably for life, is *NOT* a trivial >> issue. If it were, why aren't men changing *their* names upon marriage ? > >Changing one's name is not changing one's identity. Peoples' identities >may change when they get married, but that happens to men as well as to >women and has nothing to do to with names. (It also happens when people have >children.) There are reasons for women to keep their names when they get >married, but maintaining their identities is not one of them. Speak for yourself, will you! I think women have the right to decide what they think are *valid* reasons for keeping their maiden names, just like men have the right to decide for themselves what they think are valid reasons for keeping their names. What is this? the thought patrol or something? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (09/04/85)
In article <11313@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> ... Personally, I would not want to marry a man who would not >> agree to my keeping my name. >> -- >> jcpatilla > >... You are going to get married presumedly because you love and or >respect each other. If this, the very foundation with which to build a life on,>is shattered simply by changing one's name, than I seriously have to doubt the >sincerity of your reasons for wanting to get married. > >If you fear losing your identity because of a name change, then you most likely >have a shaky self image to begin with.... I would also not marry someone who required me to change my name. A name change at 21 may be trivial, but it isn't 15 years into a career. I have already looked up an old contact I would not have found without a hyphenated name. And been asked about the job qualifications of women whose last names I did not recognize. A name is how we tell the rest of the world what we are and what we stand for. What we are may not change when we marry, but it sure is a hassle telling the rest of the world that what we are is now called something else. Aside from what I feel about my own name, it is the couple's decision. They are the ones who deal with 'too many characters', and 'too many hyphens', and their own childrens names, and their parents reactions. You are right about a couple having problems if they cannot agree on what their last names will be. I just don't think it has to be the man's name, or even the same. -- PKW hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur
gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) (09/05/85)
In article <11313@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> Changing one's identity, presumably for life, is *NOT* a trivial >> issue. If it were, why aren't men changing *their* names upon marriage ? >> The wife's name-change is a relic of times when women were chattel, >> property, and if that's how you look at your wife, then you're the one who >> has some problems. Personally, I would not want to marry a man who would not >> agree to my keeping my name. >> -- >> jcpatilla [Some stuff about how much of the traditions surrounding weddings are traditions which have evolved over the ages.] >If one so desired, one could easily make an issue out of a million and one >pratices that have evovled into traditions down through the ages. Tradition isn't any sort of excuse for continuing a practice. If it were, where would Office Automation be? (Traditionally, all work was done by hand.) Just imagine how little impact new technology would have on society. After all, before the automobile came, it was traditional to go by horse. Let's face it -- Tradition is no excuse to oppose change. > . . . You are going to get married presumedly because you love and or >respect each other. If this, the very foundation with which to build a life on, >is shattered simply by changing one's name, than I seriously have to doubt the >sincerity of your reasons for wanting to get married. Why assume that this is going to shatter the love and respect that they have for each other? My wife and I love and respect each other without having to have the same last name. I almost think that we love and respect each other more because of that. >If you fear losing your identity because of a name change, then you most likely >have a shaky self image to begin with. Try this test: Imagine you are getting married and your spouse expects you to change your name. Would you be willing to do that? It's not such a trivial matter after all, is it? > . . . The ones who stand a chance to lose >their identity are the children and their children and so on. What if a girl's >name is Linda Sadowsky-Tannenberg? She marries John Pollichicho-Murphy. Their >daughter becomes Lucy Pollichicho-Murphy-Sadowsky-Tannenberg. And so on. There are algorithms for paring down hyphenated last names, making the "loss of identity" equal for both the man and the woman. Also, hyphenated last names are not the only solution to naming children. Maybe we should take a look at other alternatives before crying "Unfair to the children." -- Geoff Loker Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Toronto, ON M5S 1A4 USENET: {ihnp4 decwrl utzoo uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!gkloker CSNET: gkloker@toronto ARPANET: gkloker.toronto@csnet-relay
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (09/06/85)
> > I kept my own name when I got married. I offered to either change > > names or hyphenate if (and only if) my husband would do the same. He > > wouldn't so I didn't. > > > You have a 50 50 chance of winding up divorced. Those are the statistics, like > it or not. There are many reasons for failing marriages, why do you bother to > create a problem out of a last name. There will be many many problems that crop > up without your help. Serious, real, life threatening, marriage threatening, > problems. Was life so problem free that you took a trivial issue and created a < problem out of it at the beginning of your marriage so you could have something > to debate about for years to come? Good luck sister, you'll need it. WHY should SHE be the only one to change her name?? Maybe she likes her name! What here indicates a fight? Yeah, wimmin! Always causing the trouble! Wanting to compromise! Thinking what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! (last time I checked, ganders still fit into the category of goose) With inflexible attitudes like yours, ray, *you*'ve got a good chance at being involved in a divorce. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) (09/06/85)
> > Is there any real need to hassle with Social Security over my name? If > so, what is it? > > charli It is my understanding that you may hurt your chances of collecting Soc. Sec. if you don't have the paper-work up to date about your name. -- Sarah E. Dugan "Thank God It's Friday." ########################################################################### # AT&T Bell Labs IH 1D-408 The Forest (home) # # Naperville-Wheaton Rd. 1353 Crab Apple Court Apt. 101 # # Naperville, Illinois 60566 Naperville, Illinois 60540 # # (312) 979 - 5545 (312) 355 - 0445 # ###########################################################################
bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (09/09/85)
> When we got married, my wife notified SS that she was changing her > name, and they told her the same thing: they needed the original > marriage license. Her reaction was, I'M NOT TRUSTING THOSE BOZOS > WITH MY MARRIAGE LICENSE! (Not to mention the USPS.) Instead, she > went to the nearest SS office and physically applied for the name > change. > Steve Vegdahl > Computer Research Lab. > Tektronix, Inc. > Beaverton, Oregon I agree with your wife. I don't give anybody my original anything. I'm still waiting for California to return my original birth certificate from when I applied for my passport. It's only been two years. Maybe they have been busy huh?
jack@cca.UUCP (Jack Orenstein) (09/10/85)
> > You have a 50 50 chance of winding up divorced. Those are the > >statistics, like it or not. This was in answer to a woman who decided to keep her maiden name. (That's such a quaint, old-fashioned term. It probably offends a lot of people out there too.) It's true, you can use statistics to prove anything. Last I heard, the divorce rate was 50%. That seems to suggest that if a woman decides to keep her maiden name she is not taking any chance at all. Did someone *really* say that? I predict a bright future with the National Enquirer. I further predict that this will be one of the stories: MARRIAGE CAN KILL YOU Baltimore, MD. Scientists at the National Institute of Health have found a virtually 100% correlation between marriage and death. Dr. P. Eau de Chien, aided by his research team, has looked at marriage licenses and death certificates from City Hall for the past 100 years. Statistics seem to indicate that the average 21 year old bride can expect only another 50 years of life. A tall price to pay for love. We spoke to the newly married Mrs. Clamella Shott (nee Srinivasan) on the steps of City Hall, mere moments after her marriage. She was surprised at the results of the study but seemed stoic, "No, I didn't realize it at all. Only fifty years? ... Yes, we're very much in love, and I would have married him anyway." Dr. Eau de Chien, emphasized that his group has found only a statistical correlation and that he hopes to establish a cause-and-effect relationship in the future. He has applied to NIH for a $10 million grant for this purpose. Jack Orenstein These are, in fact, the opinions of my employers.
adams@tymix.UUCP (Christina E. Adams) (09/10/85)
> In California, it's legal to use *any* name you choose, so long as > it's not to defraud anyone. This is *not* true in all states. > The Feds, however, don't accept anything but a birth certificate, > court order, or marriage certificate when verifying names for > passport applications. I don't know when else they're that picky. > > -- > Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA Ed is right. Changing your name in California is trivial. I just went through this when I got married in February I decided to change not only my last name but my first and middle name also( for reasons not relevant to the point). The only real hassle was the bank. Though, the FEDS may not be as picky as you may think. I had this silly idea that I could order new checks and by the time I got back from my honeymoon everything would be all done, right? WRONG! The banks here want to see documentation of any name change. Or, two pieces of ID in the name you want to use. It got pretty confusing. I thought I was going to have to go the legal route which would have been around $150 here in California. However, I first purchased a book called "How to legally change your name in California". As stated before, you can legally use any name you want, as long as you don't do it for fraudulent purposes. So the drivers liscence was easy. They just asked what name I wanted on my liscence, and put it on, not changing the number. They didn't require ANY proof of name change. Its amazing, after you get a drivers liscence, you can get your name changed on ANYTHING. The book, which cost $9.95, gave many ways to do this, including the court thing. It also had a form called "DECLARATION OF LEGAL NAME CHANGE" which you fill out with your old name, your new name, birthplace and birthdate. You sign it and have it noterized (about $5). This little piece of paper was (to my surprise) acceptable to the FEDS. SSA accepted it, though granted, they wanted to see the original, and I even used it for my passport. Now, the one thing I don't have is a new birth certificate. Though, with my name correct now on my passport and Social Security card and my drivers liscence, I cant see where I'd have any problems. I didn't have to put an ad in any paper or even file this piece of paper with the courts. I just kept it. And presented it as needed.
jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (09/11/85)
>Why doesn't the preacher say "and now the bride may kiss the groom? >Why is there no flower boy following the groom? >Why is there no shower for the man, instead of a party that wrecks his brain >for weeks? You are living in the past. The preacher does not say that the groom may kiss the bride, in modern marriages between equals. Neither the bride nor the groom wants such a thing said. There are often young boys included in ceremonies (actually they have been for many years -- as ring-bearers, so their "masculinity" is not "compromised") and everyone thinks they are just as cute as the little girls. A lot of "bridal" showers now include both the bride and the groom and the people invited include men as well as women. I have had and/or attended several very successful showers over the last few years which were really more gift-giving followed by a social evening with friends of both sexes. Lastly, the "stag" for the groom is often being omitted (because he was at the shower) or replaced by his being taken out to lunch or dinner. Wake up -- you are living in a changing world. --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!jamcmullan
falk@uiucuxc.Uiuc.ARPA (09/11/85)
{}
When my husband and I got married, we took each others name. He added my
name as an extra middle name and I added his name at the end, but continue,
for the most part, to "go by" by pre-married name. I chose NOT to hyphenate
because I thought that looked awkward, but many people (institutions) can't
handle that so they either drop one of the last names, hyphenate them on their
own or make one of my last names my first name! Our daughter bears both of
our names, and can choose the one she wants to use when she is older (she's
only 1 now and doesn't care). Our families had no problem with the concat-
enation, the social security administration, on the other hand, told me that
my name was "too long" (4 letters in my name, 10 letters in my husbands). They,
obviously, wanted me to "give in" and drop my part of the name. I told them
that I was sorry it was too long for them, but that it was my name, nonetheless.When I got my SS card several weeks later, everything fit on it just fine.
Married friends of ours kept their own names and named their daughter with the
wife's last name last and the husband's as a middle name.
I guess my point is that it was important to me to keep my name- after 25yrs. I
really felt it was a part of me; however, I also wanted to add my husband's
name (and he mine) to indicate that we *were* adding a new dimension to our
life in a permanent fashion. As an aside to that, we have credit cards in each
of our names and a random division of utilities, etc., in one or the other
names. However, we have had some people *insist* on using my husband's name
as the "name of record" (e.g., on a recent mortgage application, I filled out
the form listing me as the principal applicant and my husband as the co-
applicant- the bank changed it. We are both employed making roughly the same
amount of money).
The issue of names can be complicated, and may not seem real important to
those who don't normally have to consider the impact of changing their
names in mid-life (i.e., most men). But reasonable solutions can be worked
out.
Connie J. Falk Milosevich
(aka, uiucdcs!uiucuxc!falk)
.ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/12/85)
> > > You have a 50 50 chance of winding up divorced. Those are the > > >statistics, like it or not. > > This was in answer to a woman who decided to keep her maiden name. > (That's such a quaint, old-fashioned term. It probably offends a lot of > people out there too.) > > It's true, you can use statistics to prove anything. Last I heard, the > divorce rate was 50%. That seems to suggest that if a woman decides to > keep her maiden name she is not taking any chance at all. > > Did someone *really* say that? I predict a bright future with the National > Enquirer. I further predict that this will be one of the stories: > Yes, you. Open mouth, insert foot.
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (09/13/85)
It seems to me that name changes are not that big a deal--either
deciding to change, or not to.
But then, I've changed mine twice, and it wasn't traumatic. The
first time was when I got married in 1967. Back then, you just
changed your name. It was asssumed. Then I found myself divorced
in 1975. I kept my married name, assuming that it would be easier
to have the same name as my children--for school, etc. When I
remarried, I had 4 choices:
1. Keep my first married name. Not really an option--I
personally wanted to forget the first marriage altogether.
2. Change back to my maiden name. This would have made us
a 3-name family. Seemed too complex to me. I know how
easily people and organizations screw things like that up.
And I really don't consider myself as part of my parent's
family anymore.
3. Make up a new name. Could have been fun. But that still
makes 3 names in the family.
4. Change to my new husband's name. This at least keeps us
down to two names in the family.
I did number 4. My new husband could care less what I call myself.
And I really don't care what others call me. A name just isn't
that important. The people I care about call me by my first name,
anyway.
Note that I didn't have a career built on my name. In that case,
I think I would have made different choices. All in all, I think
you have to do whatever is most natural for you, and causes the
least problems.
By the way, I would advise NOT changing your name and your address
at the same time. When I was married the second time, I did not
change my name for several months, since we were planning on moving
later. I thought "If I have to send out change notices to magazines,
professional societies, credit cards and so forth, why not wait, so
I only do it once?" Well, I found out why not. Very few places
did it right. Some changed the name, some the address, some made
up new, strange values for both of them. Two separate changes might
have been easier.
I have discovered that schools deal quite well with multiple name
families--there are so many of us. So perhaps I should have changed
back in '75. But maybe they didn't do so well back then.
Susan Lee Hendrix Spence Brezden
--
Sue Brezden
Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb
AT&T Information Systems
11900 North Pecos
Westminster, Co. 80234
(303)538-3829
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your god may be dead, but mine aren't.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (09/16/85)
Another time you can legally change your name at no (additional) cost is when you get naturalized. Of course this only works if you were not born a US citizen. When I was naturalized I added a middle name, since I did not have one. I chose the name Russell, which was my son's first name. I can now claim that I am a father who was named after his son. Herman Russell Silbiger ihnp4!homxb!hrs
wjh@bonnie.UUCP (Bill Hery) (09/17/85)
> I agree with your wife. I don't give anybody my original anything. > I'm still waiting for California to return my original birth certificate > from when I applied for my passport. It's only been two years. > Maybe they have been busy huh? > I knew California was bizzare, but I didn't know Californians needed passports to leave the state. United States passports are issued by the US State Department, and can be obtained only through them or US Post Offices.
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (09/18/85)
>I'm still waiting for California to return my original birth certificate >from when I applied for my passport. It's only been two years. Well, no wonder you haven't gotten it back. To where did you expect to travel with a California passport? Texas? :-) -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (09/18/85)
> > I agree with your wife. I don't give anybody my original anything. > > I'm still waiting for California to return my original birth certificate > > from when I applied for my passport. It's only been two years. > > Maybe they have been busy huh? > > > > I knew California was bizzare, but I didn't know Californians needed passports > to leave the state. > > United States passports are issued by the US State Department, and can be > obtained only through them or US Post Offices. Wrong, or at least obsolete. In at least some areas, local government agencies can act as agents; I believe they get an extra fee from you. For example, in Union County, NJ, the court clerk will accept passsport applications.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/19/85)
> >Why doesn't the preacher say "and now the bride may kiss the groom? > >Why is there no flower boy following the groom? > >Why is there no shower for the man, instead of a party that wrecks his brain > >for weeks? > > You are living in the past. > The preacher does not say that the groom may kiss the bride, > in modern marriages between equals. Neither the bride nor the groom > wants such a thing said. > Until you can show me undenialble proof that you and all of us know where we are going, I will choose to remain in the past, after all, the past worked and has spoken for itself (there wasn't a 50% divorce rate) the present doesn't look too healthy, and the future is cloaked in the vagueness of experimentation. I hope the monsters created are more helpful than harmful. I choose to ride the train of values and tradition because I can at least have some perspective about it's destination, if you want, you have the choice of riding an untested, untried vehicle going only to God knows where. > There are often young boys included in ceremonies (actually they > have been for many years -- as ring-bearers, so their "masculinity" is not > "compromised") and everyone thinks they are just as cute as the little girls. > Ring-bearers have been around for many many years. > A lot of "bridal" showers now include both the bride and the groom > and the people invited include men as well as women. I have had and/or attended A lot of bridal showers do not include men. So much for that argument. > several very successful showers over the last few years which were really more > gift-giving followed by a social evening with friends of both sexes. > Lastly, the "stag" for the groom is often being omitted (because he was at the > shower) or replaced by his being taken out to lunch or dinner. > > Wake up -- you are living in a changing world. > > --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM > ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!jamcmullan Changing to what? You assume all change is for the best or just best for you?
hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (09/19/85)
< ...didn't know Californians needed a passport o leave the state! Many Californians think you should have a passportto control admissions to California. Seriously, you can apply for passports at County Clerks in NJ, and perhaps other states as well. They don't issue them, but process the application before sending it to the State Dept. This is often much quicker than going the US Passport offfive route. Herman Silbiger ihnp4!hpmxb!hrs
stan@hou2f.UUCP (S.GLAZER) (09/23/85)
The State of California issues passports?
bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (09/24/85)
> >I'm still waiting for California to return my original birth certificate > >from when I applied for my passport. It's only been two years. > > Well, no wonder you haven't gotten it back. To where did you expect > to travel with a California passport? Texas? :-) > OK OK OK OK I made a mistake (gasp/horror). When I posted the original statement it somehow got turned around while going from my head to my fingers. What I meant was I sent my original birth certificate (obtained in California) to the Feds to get my passport. I never got my cert. back even tho I got my passport. I must admit tho it was fun reading everybody's response to it and before I would travel to texas I would get shots and carry drinking water|-)
cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (09/25/85)
>> You are living in the past. >> The preacher does not say that the groom may kiss the bride, >> in modern marriages between equals. Neither the bride nor the groom >> wants such a thing said. >> > >Until you can show me undenialble proof that you and all of us know where we >are going, I will choose to remain in the past, after all, the past worked HA! >and has spoken for itself (there wasn't a 50% divorce rate) the present doesn't >look too healthy, the future is cloaked in the vagueness of experimentation. Hey, what's wrong with divorce????!!!! If it weren't for the time-honored social contract of divorce, I'd still be MARRIED!! Yuk-ola!! >I choose to ride the train of values and tradition because I can at least >have some perspective about it's destination, if you want, you have the >choice of riding an untested, untried vehicle going only to God knows where. Scaredy-cat, scaredy-cat! Better to live a life millions have already lived, rather than your own, huh? DARE to be boring!!! >> Wake up -- you are living in a changing world. >Changing to what? You assume all change is for the best or just best for you? Changes are happening whether you like it or not. If you don't wake up to the changes, you won't survive the changes. Face it: some social institutions are dinosaurs, changing too slowly to keep up. Some are Irish Elk, changing too fast and for the wrong reasons. Don't look here for the answers! You don't even know how to ask a question!
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (09/25/85)
In article <11728@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> >Why doesn't the preacher say "and now the bride may kiss the groom? >> >Why is there no flower boy following the groom? >> ... >> >> You are living in the past. >> The preacher does not say that the groom may kiss the bride, >> in modern marriages between equals. Neither the bride nor the groom >> wants such a thing said. > >Until you can show me undenialble proof that you and all of us know >where we are going, I will choose to remain in the past, after all, the >past worked and has spoken for itself (there wasn't a 50% divorce rate) >the present doesn't look too healthy, and the future is cloaked in the >vagueness of experimentation. Well, let's be a little more real, here. The average length of a marriage around 100 years ago was approximately the same as it is now. For a person to be married two or three times was considered normal. However, ends of marriages were usually by death, not divorce. The institution of marriage evolved in a situation where "till death do us part" was not so long a thing. Whether people can, in general, maintain a marriage over 50 to 75 years has yet to be seen, but the institution must and will, at least, change to adapt to longer lives. So perhaps the "unhealthy" divorce rate is quite normal and healthy for the population. Oh, by the way, spare me your examples of 60+ year marriages. My grandparents are still lovingly married after 67 years, and I, having just entered into marriage, intend to surpass them. Please note that I am talking about people *in general*, i.e., the population on average. Ken Arnold
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/27/85)
> > Hey, what's wrong with divorce????!!!! If it weren't for the > time-honored social contract of divorce, I'd still be MARRIED!! Yuk-ola!! > Ask your kids. > >I choose to ride the train of values and tradition because I can at least > >have some perspective about it's destination, if you want, you have the > >choice of riding an untested, untried vehicle going only to God knows where. > > Scaredy-cat, scaredy-cat! Better to live a life millions have > already lived, rather than your own, huh? DARE to be boring!!! > I'm more an individual than people like you who are sucked along with the currents and don't have a damn thing to hang onto. > >> Wake up -- you are living in a changing world. > > >Changing to what? You assume all change is for the best or just best for you? > > Changes are happening whether you like it or not. > If you don't wake up to the changes, you won't survive > the changes. Face it: some social institutions are > dinosaurs, changing too slowly to keep up. > Some are Irish Elk, changing too fast and for the wrong > reasons. Don't look here for the answers! You > don't even know how to ask a question! Again, change to what? Just because you find change is good for you does not mean it is good for everyone. Wake up and realize that small tidbit of info, well you? I must ask this; aren't you just somewhat self-serving here, hoping that by change you will realize some goal that is good for you but has no real impact on the rest of us? If this is the case then good for you, I hope you realize your goals. In this case, change can be good for you and totally indifferent to me.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/27/85)
> >Until you can show me undenialble proof that you and all of us know > >where we are going, I will choose to remain in the past, after all, the > >past worked and has spoken for itself (there wasn't a 50% divorce rate) > >the present doesn't look too healthy, and the future is cloaked in the > >vagueness of experimentation. > > Well, let's be a little more real, here. The average length of a > marriage around 100 years ago was approximately the same as it is now. > For a person to be married two or three times was considered normal. > However, ends of marriages were usually by death, not divorce. The > institution of marriage evolved in a situation where "till death do us > part" was not so long a thing. Whether people can, in general, > maintain a marriage over 50 to 75 years has yet to be seen, but the > institution must and will, at least, change to adapt to longer lives. > So perhaps the "unhealthy" divorce rate is quite normal and healthy for > the population. > > Oh, by the way, spare me your examples of 60+ year marriages. My > grandparents are still lovingly married after 67 years, and I, having > just entered into marriage, intend to surpass them. Please note that I > am talking about people *in general*, i.e., the population on average. > > Ken Arnold The divorce rate of people married 7 years or less is statistically much high now than at any time in the past. What are you talking about when you mention 50 or 75 year marriages? God bless your grandparents, but they have little to do with this discussion. Staying married for 20, 30, 40 years, etc probably is a feat of great accomplishment, but is staying married for greater than 7 years considered a great accomplishment? The divorce rate is higher now than in the past. No qualification of this fact is necessary. The divorce rate is not higher as you imply because people are living longer, this is absurd. Good luck in your marriage, you will need it. I don't mean this to be a negative or sarcastic remark, I really do wish you well, but don't take the 50% divorce rate to trivially. Thinking it could never happen to you is perhaps idealistically, unrealistically optomistic. Fifty percent means half the people are a victim of the 'enlightened need for change' era we are now living in.
cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (10/01/85)
Hey everybody!! A net.shouting-match between a real-live authoritarian patriarch (Frankie) and a snarling, unruly she-devil of a (GASP!) independent woman. >> >> Hey, what's wrong with divorce????!!!! If it weren't for the >> time-honored social contract of divorce, I'd still be MARRIED!! Yuk-ola!! >> Frankie say: > >Ask your kids. > All of my children AND GRANDCHILDREN approve of my lifestyle and marital status. Do yours? Frankie say, >> >I choose to ride the train of values and tradition because I can at least >> >have some perspective about it's destination, if you want, you have the >> >choice of riding an untested, untried vehicle going only to God knows where. >> Scaredy-cat, scaredy-cat! Better to live a life millions have >> already lived, rather than your own, huh? DARE to be boring!!! Frankie say, >I'm more an individual than people like you who are sucked along with the >currents and don't have a damn thing to hang onto. > Look Bub, I hang onto cold hard cash and red hot men (and a certain of legal permutation thereof). If you don't like it, then I'll tell you what: there's a "train of values and tradition" leaving at 7:14 EMT. Be under it. >> >> Wake up -- you are living in a changing world. Frankie say, >> >Changing to what?You assume all change is for the best or just best for you? >> >> Changes are happening whether you like it or not. >> If you don't wake up to the changes, you won't survive >> the changes. Face it: some social institutions are >> dinosaurs, changing too slowly to keep up. >> Some are Irish Elk, changing too fast and for the wrong >> reasons. Don't look here for the answers! You >> don't even know how to ask a question! Frankie say, >Again, change to what? Just because you find change is good for you does >not mean it is good for everyone. Wake up and realize that small tidbit >of info, well you? I must ask this; aren't you just somewhat self-serving >here, hoping that by change you will realize some goal that is good for you >but has no real impact on the rest of us? If this is the case then good >for you, I hope you realize your goals. In this case, change can be good >for you and totally indifferent to me. An environmental change that I can adapt to (and that you can't) is good for me (and my kids) -- and bad for you (and your kids, unless they're smart enough to rebel). Of course I'm self-serving. Whom would you rather I serve? Some MAN? Gag me with a glass slipper! Oh, barf! So what's the score? Patriarchs 3, She-devils 6? Let's let the audience decide!!! "Go away or I will taunt you a second time!" Cheryl Stewart
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (10/02/85)
>> = Me > = Ray Frank >> Well, let's be a little more real, here. The average length of a >> marriage around 100 years ago was approximately the same as it is now. >> For a person to be married two or three times was considered normal. >> However, ends of marriages were usually by death, not divorce. The >> institution of marriage evolved in a situation where "till death do us >> part" was not so long a thing. Whether people can, in general, >> maintain a marriage over 50 to 75 years has yet to be seen, but the >> institution must and will, at least, change to adapt to longer lives. >> So perhaps the "unhealthy" divorce rate is quite normal and healthy for >> the population. > >The divorce rate of people married 7 years or less is statistically >much high now than at any time in the past. What are you talking >about when you mention 50 or 75 year marriages? Staying married for >20, 30, 40 years, etc probably is a feat of great accomplishment, but >is staying married for greater than 7 years considered a great >accomplishment? The divorce rate is higher now than in the past. No >qualification of this fact is necessary. The divorce rate is not >higher as you imply because people are living longer, this is absurd. Is a 7 year marriage a great accomplishment? I don't know. I suppose it depends on the people. But what the point you seems to have overlooked or misread in my letter is that people, particularly women, died young in older days. For them, a 7 year marriage generally meant that a women had survived, say, 3 to 7 pregnancies. This was not extremely rare, but neither was it unusual to die in childbirth. Add in all the other then-common causes of death, and you'll find that, for both of a couple to live for seven years after a marriage was only somewhat better than 50/50 proposition. So what has happened, in general, is that the divorce rate has increased, and the death rate has declined, and the affect on longevity of any single marriage has about evened out. What this could indicate is that it is not reasonable to expect the average marriage to last any longer than it does today. It's just that now one can get out of a marriage without waiting for some natural event to kill off your spouse. Again, the institution of marriage that you wish to hold to evolved when mortality made most marriages short. When normal mortality makes a marriage at 25 likely to last 50 years, not less than 10, one cannot expect the institution to stand still. It must adapt to this changing situation. Another thing to learn is that the problem of sundering marriages and step-parents is essentially as bad today as it used to be in the good old days when divorce was nearly unheard of. It's just that now children have to deal with the trauma of parental divorce, and before they had to deal with parental death. Ken Arnold
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (10/03/85)
In article <11901@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >Good luck in your marriage, you will need it. I don't mean this to be >a negative or sarcastic remark, I really do wish you well, but don't take >the 50% divorce rate to trivially. Thinking it could never happen to you >is perhaps idealistically, unrealistically optomistic. Fifty percent means >half the people are a victim of the 'enlightened need for change' era we >are now living in. Of course, but the same remarks apply to YOU. Living in the past is not going to ensure that you don't get a divorce. It takes two to get married, but only one to get unmarried! so what's your point? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/04/85)
Stuwit gabs: > Hey everybody!! A net.shouting-match between a real-live authoritarian > patriarch (Frankie) and a snarling, unruly she-devil of a (GASP!) > independent woman. > Independent from what? The orange you ate this morning was picked in California, processed for shipping and transported 3000 miles to your local grocer. Just to eat that orange made you dependent on a whole system designed to make you VERY dependent. If you really are serious about being independent you'll have to prove it by living out in the sticks, growing your own food, chopping your own fire wood using a stone axe that you've made, and building by yourself a dwelling from primitive tools and materials you've fashioned. You'll most likely need a 'ahem' man to help you. After all, being truly independ can be hard work. > >> Stuwit gabs: > >> Hey, what's wrong with divorce????!!!! If it weren't for the > >> time-honored social contract of divorce, I'd still be MARRIED!! Yuk-ola!! > >> > > Frankie say: > > > >Ask your kids. > > Stuwit gabs: > All of my children AND GRANDCHILDREN approve of my lifestyle > and marital status. Do yours? > Congradulations, you're a liberated grandma, big deal. > Frankie say, > >> >I choose to ride the train of values and tradition because I can at least > >> >have some perspective about it's destination, if you want, you have the > >> >choice of riding an untested, untried vehicle going only to God knows where. > Stuwit gabs: > >> Scaredy-cat, scaredy-cat! Better to live a life millions have > >> already lived, rather than your own, huh? DARE to be boring!!! > > Frankie say, > >I'm more an individual than people like you who are sucked along with the > >currents and don't have a damn thing to hang onto. > > > Stuwit gabs: > Look Bub, I hang onto cold hard cash and red hot men (and a certain > of legal permutation thereof). If you don't like it, then I'll tell you > what: there's a "train of values and tradition" leaving at 7:14 EMT. > Be under it. > Bub says: If your the typical ___________ driver (fill in the gender), then most likely you will run me over with your train. Stuwit gabs: > >> >> Wake up -- you are living in a changing world. > > Frankie say, > >> >Changing to what?You assume all change is for the best or just best for you? > > >> Stuwit gabs: > >> Changes are happening whether you like it or not. > >> If you don't wake up to the changes, you won't survive > >> the changes. Face it: some social institutions are > >> dinosaurs, changing too slowly to keep up. > >> Some are Irish Elk, changing too fast and for the wrong > >> reasons. Don't look here for the answers! You > >> don't even know how to ask a question! > Dinosaurs lasted about 200 million years, don't knock'em, we've only been been around a few million. And most likely if were not careful, we will be gone very soon. > Frankie say, > >Again, change to what? Just because you find change is good for you does > >not mean it is good for everyone. Wake up and realize that small tidbit > >of info, well you? I must ask this; aren't you just somewhat self-serving > >here, hoping that by change you will realize some goal that is good for you > >but has no real impact on the rest of us? If this is the case then good > >for you, I hope you realize your goals. In this case, change can be good > >for you and totally indifferent to me. > Stuwit gabs: > An environmental change that I can adapt to (and that you can't) is good for me > (and my kids) -- and bad for you (and your kids, unless they're smart > enough to rebel). Of course I'm self-serving. Whom would you rather > I serve? Some MAN? Gag me with a glass slipper! Oh, barf! > > So what's the score? Patriarchs 3, She-devils 6? Let's let > the audience decide!!! > > "Go away or I will taunt you a second time!" > > Cheryl Stewart Environmental change ?!!! What the hell are you preparing for, another ice age? Self-serving? What we have here is a genuine 'ME' person. I'm a 'ME' person too, I would rather be 'ME' than 'YOU'. What we also have here is an apparent man hater who 'gulp' eats glass slippers, sounds kind of kinky any way you look at it. bye bye birdie, the weekend is here and I think I'll go on the hunt, foxes everywhere you know.
kjm@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Ken Montgomery) (10/05/85)
[] >Hey everybody!! A net.shouting-match between a real-live authoritarian >patriarch (Frankie) and a snarling, unruly she-devil of a (GASP!) >independent woman. > >[...] > >So what's the score? Patriarchs 3, She-devils 6? Let's let >the audience decide!!! > >"Go away or I will taunt you a second time!" > > Cheryl Stewart No, Patriarchs 0, She-devils 9 (at least). And please, taunt him again! I love it! -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU [Internet, if the nameservers are up]
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/05/85)
> > > >The divorce rate of people married 7 years or less is statistically > >much high now than at any time in the past. What are you talking > >about when you mention 50 or 75 year marriages? Staying married for > >20, 30, 40 years, etc probably is a feat of great accomplishment, but > >is staying married for greater than 7 years considered a great > >accomplishment? The divorce rate is higher now than in the past. No > >qualification of this fact is necessary. The divorce rate is not > >higher as you imply because people are living longer, this is absurd. > > Is a 7 year marriage a great accomplishment? I don't know. I suppose > it depends on the people. But what the point you seems to have > overlooked or misread in my letter is that people, particularly women, > died young in older days. For them, a 7 year marriage generally meant > that a women had survived, say, 3 to 7 pregnancies. This was not > extremely rare, but neither was it unusual to die in childbirth. Add > in all the other then-common causes of death, and you'll find that, for > both of a couple to live for seven years after a marriage was only > somewhat better than 50/50 proposition. > > So what has happened, in general, is that the divorce rate has > increased, and the death rate has declined, and the affect on longevity > of any single marriage has about evened out. What this could indicate > is that it is not reasonable to expect the average marriage to last any > longer than it does today. It's just that now one can get out of a > marriage without waiting for some natural event to kill off your > spouse. > > Again, the institution of marriage that you wish to hold to evolved > when mortality made most marriages short. When normal mortality makes > a marriage at 25 likely to last 50 years, not less than 10, one cannot > expect the institution to stand still. It must adapt to this changing > situation. > > Another thing to learn is that the problem of sundering marriages and > step-parents is essentially as bad today as it used to be in the good > old days when divorce was nearly unheard of. It's just that now > children have to deal with the trauma of parental divorce, and before > they had to deal with parental death. > > Ken Arnold The divorce rate has dramatically increased since the late fourties, are you suggesting that women died young in the fourties and fifties? Are you suggesting that the longevity curve has dramatically incraeased since the fourties? The fifty percent divorce rate today cannot possibly be attributed to longevity as you suggest, it is just mathematically impossible. In effect you are blamming mother nature for the divorce rate, and nothing else. But if what you suggest is correct one could then surmise that 50% of the women who married at age 20 back in the fourties died before the age of 40. This would nicely account for the 50% divorce rate of marriages begun when the women were 20 years old and are today 40 years old and not dead. If you are talking about a hundred or a thousand years ago, then you might be correct, the life expectancy was around 40 then, but 40 years ago, the life expectancy was about 70.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/07/85)
> In article <11901@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > >Good luck in your marriage, you will need it. I don't mean this to be > >a negative or sarcastic remark, I really do wish you well, but don't take > >the 50% divorce rate to trivially. Thinking it could never happen to you > >is perhaps idealistically, unrealistically optomistic. Fifty percent means > >half the people are a victim of the 'enlightened need for change' era we > >are now living in. > > Of course, but the same remarks apply to YOU. Living in the past is not going > to ensure that you don't get a divorce. It takes two to get married, but only > one to get unmarried! so what's your point? > -- > Sophie Quigley > {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie I never said that anyone was immune to divorce. Also it takes two to get unmarried. Many marriage counselors today feel that marriages are not working because of the 'ME' attitude instead of the 'WE' attitude. The 'ME' attitude is a symtom of this new age we have entered, you know, this period of personal enlightenment of rediscovering one's self. The 'WE' attitude is more the tradionalists thinking from another age commonly refered to as the past. I've heard these counselors also mention that committment, which is a key word in a marriage, is very difficult to achieve by people who are more into their own desires and self-serving interests than people who are not. In any case, I'm no expert, only someone who recognizes that the divorce rate compared to another age is way outa sight and I happen to agree with some of the experts who think they know why. regards ray
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (10/08/85)
In article <12089@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > >The divorce rate has dramatically increased since the late fourties, are you >suggesting that women died young in the fourties and fifties? Are you >suggesting that the longevity curve has dramatically incraeased since the >fourties? The fifty percent divorce rate today cannot possibly be attributed >to longevity as you suggest, it is just mathematically impossible. >In effect you are blamming mother nature for the divorce rate, and nothing >else. Of course not. Any social institution takes some time to adapt, especially one as entrenched as marriage. Please sit back and think a little before responding. I hate typing things as obvious as that. >If you are talking about a hundred or a thousand years ago, then you might >be correct, the life expectancy was around 40 then, but 40 years ago, the >life expectancy was about 70. Thank you. I was, indeed, talking about a hundred years ago. I stated this explicitly in my first article. Do I have to repeat myself each time? Oh, and by the way, divorce became common in the upper classes before it moved into the middle and lower classes. Also, it was the upper classes who were able to afford what life-prolonging health care did exist. For the less affluent, life-prolonging health care didn't arrive until 30 to 50 years ago. And, lo and behold, divorce as a common thing came only 20 to 10 years ago. So there is a visible lag, possibly correlative, between the arrival of health care for a class of people and the acceptance of divorce. Ken Arnold
cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (10/08/85)
In article <12074@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >Stuwit gabs: >> Hey everybody!! A net.shouting-match between a real-live authoritarian >> patriarch (Frankie) and a snarling, unruly she-devil of a (GASP!) >> independent woman. >> >Independent from what? The orange you ate this morning was picked in >California, processed for shipping and transported 3000 miles to your >local grocer. Just to eat that orange made you dependent on a whole >system designed to make you VERY dependent. If you really are serious >about being independent you'll have to prove it by living out in the I don't depend on some idiot man to tell me what to do. I know you're trying to flame me back (yawn). > >Stuwit gabs: >> >> Hey, what's wrong with divorce????!!!! If it weren't for the >> >> time-honored social contract of divorce, I'd still be MARRIED!! Yuk-ola!! >> Frankie say: >> >Ask your kids. > >Stuwit gabs: >> All of my children AND GRANDCHILDREN approve of my lifestyle >> and marital status. Do yours? >> >Congradulations, you're a liberated grandma, big deal. That is incorrect! I have neither children NOR GRANDCHILDREN. It still holds true that ALL of them approve of me. Learn to spell. THEN learn simple logic & how to avoid fundamental logical traps. > >> Frankie say, >> >> >I choose to ride the train of values and tradition because I can at least >> >> >have some perspective about it's destination, if you want, you have the >> >> >choice of riding an untested, untried vehicle going only to God knows where. > >Stuwit gabs: >> >> Scaredy-cat, scaredy-cat! Better to live a life millions have >> >> already lived, rather than your own, huh? DARE to be boring!!! >> >> Frankie say, >> >I'm more an individual than people like you who are sucked along with the >> >currents and don't have a damn thing to hang onto. >> > > >Stuwit gabs: >> Look Bub, I hang onto cold hard cash and red hot men (and a certain >> of legal permutation thereof). If you don't like it, then I'll tell you >> what: there's a "train of values and tradition" leaving at 7:14 EMT. >> Be under it. > >Bub says: If your the typical ___________ driver (fill in the gender), then >most likely you will run me over with your train. > Oh, wow. Don't you mean "you're the typical..."? Do you remember third grade? >Stuwit gabs: > >> Frankie say, >> >Again, change to what? Just because you find change is good for you does >> >not mean it is good for everyone. Wake up and realize that small tidbit >> >of info, well you? I must ask this; aren't you just somewhat self-serving >> >here, hoping that by change you will realize some goal that is good for you >> >but has no real impact on the rest of us? If this is the case then good >> >for you, I hope you realize your goals. In this case, change can be good >> >for you and totally indifferent to me. > >Stuwit gabs: >> An environmental change that I adapt to (and that you can't) is good for me >> (and my kids) -- and bad for you (and your kids, unless they're smart >> enough to rebel). Of course I'm self-serving. Whom would you rather >> I serve? Some MAN? Gag me with a glass slipper! Oh, barf! >> >Environmental change ?!! What the hell are you preparing for, another ice age? >Self-serving? What we have here is a genuine 'ME' person. I'm a 'ME' person >too, I would rather be 'ME' than 'YOU'. >What we also have here is an apparent man hater who 'gulp' eats glass slippers, >sounds kind of kinky any way you look at it. >bye bye birdie, the weekend is here and I think I'll go on the hunt, foxes >everywhere you know. May you bag a vacuous stunade to complete your neolithic social environment. Cheryl Stewart "How'm I doin'?"
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Colonel'K) (10/08/85)
You know Ray, I've got news for you:
Selfishness is NOT a recent invention.
Somehow I think that the only reason battered women (as an
example) didn't leave marriages "in the past" is that it
wasn't "socially acceptable" to do so. Now that it is, does
that make it "selfish"?
The only result of the "ME" generation, is that instead of giving
100% to your spouse, people nowadays believe in keeping a little
of themselves FOR themselves. Sounds reasonable to me.
"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"
Scott J. Berry
ihnp4!hou2g!scottseb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) (10/09/85)
From ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 >I never said that anyone was immune to divorce. Also it takes two to get >unmarried. >Many marriage counselors today feel that marriages are not working because of >the 'ME' attitude instead of the 'WE' attitude. The 'ME' attitude is a >symtom of this new age we have entered, you know, this period of personal >enlightenment of rediscovering one's self. The 'WE' attitude is more the >tradionalists thinking from another age commonly refered to as the past. Oh no! The 'WE' attitude is sexist! The 'WE' attitude said "The husband ultimately makes all the decisions." In the past women has very little input into what went on. If your husband found a new job in another city, you moved with him. If your husband said you can only spend $10 a week on yourself, that's all you got, since he made all the money. Traditional marriage implys traditional commitment implys traditional sex roles for men and women. It was a great deal for men, but a lousy one for women who wanted to do more than raise a family and take care of a house. The 'ME' attitude is where are two people in the marriage and each of them has input. And you solve your differences through compromise. One side doesn't do all the compromising. You work at it. In the past you didn't have to work at marriages! Women were so will trained to think there was nothing else for them to do outside of marriage that they wouldn't even consider a divorce. And men were trained that they shouldn't abandon their wives and children (though I would bet money that a lot more men skipped out on their wives than the other way around). Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (10/10/85)
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) says: >-- >[Some guy] >> > I choose to ride the train of values and tradition because I can >> > at least have some perspective about it's destination, if you want, >> > you have the choice of riding an untested, untried vehicle going >> > only to God knows where. > >[Cheryl Stewart] >> Scaredy-cat, scaredy-cat! Better to live a life millions have >> already lived, rather than your own, huh? DARE to be boring!!! > >I *love* it! Author, author! (Authoress?) As Cheryl obviously knows, >you really can't say you've lived unless the only explanation you have >for at least one thing you've done is, "It seemed like a good idea at >the time." What is this ridiculousness? I've only missed a week or so of reading this group, and now I come back to this? Everyone (read *EVERYONE*) is entitled to live their lives as they see fit and in the manner they feel most comfortable with. So [Some guy] is riding "the train of values and tradition"--that's his choice! Let him make it without hounding him to death. And _name_calling_, Cheryl, isn't that a bit high-school? You sound like you are trying desperately to pull someone else down to your level so you won't have to be done there by yourself. (Notice I said "sound like". I don't now why you are reduced to calling people childish names.) And Mr. Gadfly, honestly. Do you really believe that there is anyone living in the world today who *can't* say "It seemed like a good idea at the time" about some action they have taken. Maybe you can say that about your posting here. However, I can imagine that most of your life contains that line. In conclusion, let us try and act like rational adults instead of self defensive children. I have kids at home I can listen to. I read the news for adult interaction. If this is what I get, I quit! -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (10/10/85)
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold) says: > >Is a 7 year marriage a great accomplishment? I don't know. I suppose >it depends on the people. But what the point you seems to have >overlooked or misread in my letter is that people, particularly women, >died young in older days. > >So what has happened, in general, is that the divorce rate has >increased, and the death rate has declined, and the affect on longevity >of any single marriage has about evened out. What this could indicate >is that it is not reasonable to expect the average marriage to last any >longer than it does today. It's just that now one can get out of a >marriage without waiting for some natural event to kill off your >spouse. Hey, you are forgetting something here. Mortality was not the only this which caused less divorce in the past. There was also the fact that most organized religions of that time period frowned on divorce, so divorced people were left out in the cold socially because in many cases, church was the only social contact a family had with other members of a community. Also, there was no welfare program. A wife with children really couldn't leave her husband because she couldn't afford to take care of the kids, unless she had rich family she could turn to or a respectable profession she had been trained for (highly unlikely). And, at that time, the father was more than likely to get custody of any children in a court battle because any woman who *wanted* to leave her husband was probably a wanton. But, there is another facet you are also forgetting... People then *believed* in marriage until "death do you part" and they prayed hard that death did not them part until they were old and gray. They *wanted* to stay together--not just economically, socially, and religiously HAD to stay together. A lot of people just don't believe in marriage any more--making it impossible for them to stay happily married. And I find this incredibly heartbreaking. I knew a couple once who actually planned their divorce before they got married. They decided that she would buy a washer/dryer/refrigerator and he would buy a car/stereo/tv before the marriage, so that when/if they got divorced they wouldn't have to worry about community property laws because they had owned everything previous to getting married. Needless to say, their marriage lasted just a little more than one year. They had planned their divorce right into their marriage. How sad. They had removed even the last vestiges of reasons to *try* to make a marriage work. Yes, I am married. Have been for almost 5 years. No, we haven't made it to the 7 year mark yet, but we will. We have lots of good examples to look back on. My grandparents on both sides have been married for 60+ years. His grandparents on both sides are the same. My parents are looking at their 36th anniversary coming up, and my husband's are somewhere in the 30's also. This is my first marriage. His second (his first wife kicked him out to invite her boyfriend to live with her). We *believe* in marriage. We *want* it to work, and most importantly, we are willing to work as hard as we have to to *make* it work. Yes, we've had our problems, and there are times when divorce would have been an easy way out, but "easy ways" don't allow you to learn and grow from hard experiences. And I love my husband more now that I ever did when we got married. Anyway, this is degenerating into personal testimony of marriage, if anyone wants to hear that they can send me email. Sorry this got so long. -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/10/85)
> In article <12074@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > >Stuwit gabs: > >> Hey everybody!! A net.shouting-match between a real-live authoritarian > >> patriarch (Frankie) and a snarling, unruly she-devil of a (GASP!) > >> independent woman. > >> . . . > >Environmental change ?!! What the hell are you preparing for, another ice age? > >Self-serving? What we have here is a genuine 'ME' person. I'm a 'ME' person > >too, I would rather be 'ME' than 'YOU'. > >What we also have here is an apparent man hater who 'gulp' eats glass slippers, > >sounds kind of kinky any way you look at it. > >bye bye birdie, the weekend is here and I think I'll go on the hunt, foxes > >everywhere you know. > > May you bag a vacuous stunade to complete your neolithic social environment. > > > Cheryl Stewart > > > > "How'm I doin'?" How about changing the subject line to read: "Vacuous bickering between Cheryl and Ray" so that those of us who are disinterested can easily "n" key past this ongoing series? Thanks. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/10/85)
On the subject of divorce, Ray Frank writes: >Also it takes two to get unmarried. While I suppose divorce laws vary from state to state, I must admit Mr. Frank has baffled me, here (not the first time): what the heck does this mean, Ray? I don't know of a state that requires the consent of both parties for a divorce, and I know a lot of people (including me) who are divorced, not by their own choice, but by their ex-spouse's. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/10/85)
> > I don't depend on some idiot man to tell me what to do. I know you're > trying to flame me back (yawn). > > > > Oh, wow. Don't you mean "you're the typical..."? Do you remember third grade? > > > May you bag a vacuous stunade to complete your neolithic social environment. > > > Cheryl Stewart > > > > "How'm I doin'?" Ahhhhhh, I think she likes me! p.s. I give up, what does stunade mean? I hope it's a compliment.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/13/85)
> > From ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > >I never said that anyone was immune to divorce. Also it takes two to get > >unmarried. > > >Many marriage counselors today feel that marriages are not working because of > >the 'ME' attitude instead of the 'WE' attitude. The 'ME' attitude is a > >symtom of this new age we have entered, you know, this period of personal > >enlightenment of rediscovering one's self. The 'WE' attitude is more the > >tradionalists thinking from another age commonly refered to as the past. > > Oh no! The 'WE' attitude is sexist! The 'WE' attitude said "The husband > ultimately makes all the decisions." In the past women has very little input > into what went on. If your husband found a new job in another city, you > moved with him. If your husband said you can only spend $10 a week on > yourself, that's all you got, since he made all the money. Traditional > marriage implys traditional commitment implys traditional sex roles > for men and women. It was a great deal for men, but a lousy one for women > who wanted to do more than raise a family and take care of a house. > If I told you once, I told you a million times, don't exagerate, and generally speaking, don't over generalize. From above: you should have said "SOME husbands ultimately make all the decis- ions", and "In the past, SOME women had very little input into what went on", and SOME husbands alowed 10 bucks a week on his wife, etc., etc. You really make it sound like there existed a robotic society where wives were nothing more than subordinate machines with on/off buttons, no love, no consideration, no feelings.
pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) (10/16/85)
In article <1247@mtgzz.UUCP> seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) writes: >Oh no! The 'WE' attitude is sexist! The 'WE' attitude said "The husband >ultimately makes all the decisions." In the past women has very little input >into what went on. If your husband found a new job in another city, you >moved with him. If your husband said you can only spend $10 a week on >yourself, that's all you got, since he made all the money. Traditional >marriage implys traditional commitment implys traditional sex roles >for men and women. It was a great deal for men, but a lousy one for women >who wanted to do more than raise a family and take care of a house. I still think you are over estimating the power of men. >The 'ME' attitude is where are two people in the marriage and each of them >has input. And you solve your differences through compromise. One side >doesn't do all the compromising. You work at it. In the past you didn't >have to work at marriages! Tell my parents or my grandparents that. (They always like a good laugh :-) >Women were so will trained to think there was >nothing else for them to do outside of marriage that they wouldn't even >consider a divorce. And men were trained that they shouldn't abandon >their wives and children (though I would bet money that a lot more men >skipped out on their wives than the other way around). > >Sharon Badian >ihnp4!mtgzz!seb I don't know what Ray Frank meant by "ME" and "WE", but it seems to me that you've got it backasswards. The "ME" attitude always seemed to me to be "If I don't get what I want then I should change things until I do". The "WE" attitude seems to me to be a partnership where we do what is best for us. -- siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (10/18/85)
In article <> terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) writes: ........... >In conclusion, let us try and act like rational adults instead of self >defensive children. I have kids at home I can listen to. I read the >news for adult interaction. If this is what I get, I quit! mommy! mommy! wheres my mommy!? are you my mommy? (i really am sorry, but i couldn't resist- i guess it felt like a good idea at the time- atleast i'm not a scaredy-cat...) -- ---------- "Break but never bend" ...akgua!galbp!bing