In times prior to the 1700's (maybe even later), women were no more than chattle, essentially ';belonging'; to the man they were married to. Marriages were normally arranged by the parents. Love was rarely taken into consideration. See the movie Shakespere in Love for an example of what I'm talking about (I know it's not a factual movie, but the example of Paltrow's character's forced marriage demonstrates my point). As a possession, the woman was forced to adopt the husband's name.What started the tradition of a wife taking her husband's last name?
Traditionally, men were assumed to be leaders of the family so his wife and children carried his name. Men were responsible, particularly financially for taking care of the family until sons were of age and daughters married their husbands. This is a tradition in many English speaking countries so a woman taking her husband's surname doesn't apply to all cultures.
It has to do with ownership.
Traditionally, a girl was the property of her father, and carried his name. When she married, she became the property of her husband and assumed his name.
Women are no longer considered property (in most countries...) and the practice of changing names is optional for most women.
It started to show that the wife was legally the husband's possession.....and protector.
I have no idea when....just way way before any of us was born.
well, looking at the Geico cave men's family history, looks like some time around 4000 BC.
two ppl become one in a marraige...traditionally the man was the head of the household...I guess this could be why. one family...one name
It is optional now. Who care where it started.
idk but i think this has been going on for many centuries
a dumb chauvinist why don't husbands become part of our family? i kept my own
No comments:
Post a Comment