A rose by any other..

[_subgenius]

..name

TOKYO (AP) — Japan's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that requiring married couples to have the same surname is constitutional, dealing a blow to a longtime effort for gender equality in choosing names.
...
The law does not say which partner must give up his or her name in marriage. In practice it has almost always been the woman who took the husband's name. Some women say that is unfair and they feel as though their identity is lost.

In traditional marriage, one person, usually the woman, enters the household of the partner and is registered as a member of that household. Men are seen as more powerful in Japanese traditional culture. But as women increasingly have careers, some argue that changing surnames is confusing.


and let us also hear from the extreme exaggerating liberal side of the issue

""This is about women's human rights," she said. "This is not right.""

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-court-says- ... 57457.html

[_The CCC]

Lots depends on what area of the world you're from. ...son and ...sen in Scandinavian countries denote male or female relationship.
SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinav ... _etymology

[_canpakes]

A good argument can be made for the use of only one surname for each nuclear family group, but I'm not aware of a compelling reason as to why it would need to be only the male's, if both parties are in agreement otherwise.

[_Gunnar]

A good argument can be made for the use of only one surname for each nuclear family group, but I'm not aware of a compelling reason as to why it would need to be only the male's, if both parties are in agreement otherwise.

Fortunately we aren't legally bound to anything like the Icelandic naming requirements.

[_subgenius]

A good argument can be made for the use of only one surname for each nuclear family group, but I'm not aware of a compelling reason as to why it would need to be only the male's, if both parties are in agreement otherwise.

Physical dominance and an overwhelming occupation of financial, social, and political positions is not "compelling"? Then what is?

[_canpakes]

A good argument can be made for the use of only one surname for each nuclear family group, but I'm not aware of a compelling reason as to why it would need to be only the male's, if both parties are in agreement otherwise.

Physical dominance and an overwhelming occupation of financial, social, and political positions is not "compelling"? Then what is?

No, those aren't compelling reasons for the female to necessarily surrender her surname. Why would they be?

And, physical dominance? Did you actually just give that as a reason? That just makes me giggle.