Woman marrying into husband’s family
 

Beyond the whole thing about the woman taking on her husband’s surname, how common do people think a woman actually becoming part of her husband’s family (but obviously never the other way round) is in this day and age?

I don't really understand what you mean (a part from taking the name)

It's usually the man who marries into the woman's family really. That's what my dad did anyway. We don't really see my dad's family.

there are odd people who call their inlaws mum and dad

:umm2:

I’m going back to that old-school concept of the woman leaving her old family and becoming part of her husband’s (beyond taking on the man’s surname). You know how it used to be said that a woman married into her husband’s family if you know what I mean.

Nah I don't really know what you mean :laugh: It's not like you go live with his family? Surely they just become inlaws like the wifes family are to the husband?

Like I say it’s old-skool but there’s still that expectation sometimes.

Maybe it’s partly a cultural thing. Obviously not here but in other parts of the world the man pays brideprice for the woman and she moves into his house.

It’s more low-key in these parts but it still happens to a certain extent (in my opinion). I remember someone saying re. EastEnders that Stacey’s the only Slater he likes “but then she’s a Fowler now.” You can see that that implies something beyond just taking on his surname. She’s meant to adapt to her husband’s family more than her ‘old’ family. It still happens low-key.

That just sounds like a name thing tbf :laugh:

I've certainly never encountered anything like you're describing in my lifetime

Like I say maybe it’s partly a cultural thing.

Yeah if you're going to countries where the women are actually sold off by their fathers or whatever, I like to think on this side of the world women are their own people these days :laugh:

There’s still this thing about the man being the head of the house though. That’s something you’ll find in every part of the world.

Not saying it’s right or wrong but it happens all the time.

Not in my house it doesn't. Being the "head of the house" what does that even mean, he can have the final say on household decisions or something? Do you think that happens in alot of marriages? I would say no. I find your thread extremely sexist tbh

Like I keep saying I’m not siding with those opinions, I’m just pointing out what does happen all over the world. They’re not my opinions but there’s no point pretending things like that don’t happen even in this day and age.

You still haven't explained what you mean by head of the house

Depends entirely on the individuals.
I loved my mother in law, not fussed on father in law.
Loved and adored my father, not too fussed on mother.
Extended family know rest of family etc.

It’s exactly like you say. The so-called head has the upper hand in family decisions and all that type of thing.

Again, again and again I’m not siding with these old-school gender concepts. I’m just talking about traditional marriage roles and how common (or not) they still are in this day and age, just like racism or homophobia. I’m not siding with them but we can’t pretend that they didn’t exist back in the day just because we’re in a more enlightened era (however wrong they were).

For the record I don’t agree with anyone being the head of the house but you know what I’m saying when I talk about it. We might know more now but it’s just one of those traditional concepts.

I would like to meet the man that any of my female family members had to answer to as head of the family, this generation or the last two.:joker:

Ok I don't know any couples in real life that let their husbands make decisions for the family, it's an outed concept that I like to think we're well passed

In Spain they have double barrell, I believe they have their Father's surname and their Mother's maiden name, and if they become married they add their husband's surname onto that e.g. Martina (first name) Rodriguez (fathers surname) Lopez (mothers maiden name) de Garcia (husbands surname)

Martina Rodriguez Lopez de Garcia. That's a mouthful!

They don't take the husbands name when they marry (according to my Spanish, Spanish teacher :laugh: ) they keep their double barrell mother + father name, then if they have kids the kids take the first surname name of both parents

It did used to be much more than a name change it was the husbands family taking over looking after the welfare of the wife. Not sure about other cultures but its hardly mentioned now

Exactly. I know we’re part of an enlightened era but we can’t pretend that certain things never happened even 30 years ago.

IMO it more often happens the other way around - females (in general, of course) maintain stronger links with their family after leaving home than a lot of men do, and so after marriage / kids, it tends to be the maternal extended family that's more involved. :shrug:. That's the way I've seen it work in the majority of cases, anyway.

its a throw back to when women were house wives. They didnt have an income and were therefore entirely reliant on the husband.

The husbands family looking after the wife in what way though? People got married to each Other and lived together, I'm really confused by what you mean by that.

Financially maybe but I don't see how that means they were in his family. I still find this thread really sexist

Like I say these aren’t my views. I’m just highlighting something that hasn’t been completely faded out even in 2018.

In a lot of Sikh, Hindu or Muslim households, including and especially those in the UK, its often marital tradition for the bride to move in with her new father/mother-inlaw. In fact, during these antiquated wedding ceremonies, the bride is expected to weep as she says goodbye to her parents. Its also traditional for the brides father to pay for the entire wedding.

Fortunately, more and more women are refusing to go along with these ridiculous traditions. Give it time and it will all die out.

But you still haven't explained what you mean by joining his family and not the other way around

I’m sure you know what I’m saying. It might not be as widespread as it was(and rightly so) but you must’ve heard about the expression that a woman marries into her husband’s family. It’s not right but you must know what I mean.

No I honestly don't

Not in my family, equality all the way.
Even my mother and grandmother would not be dictated too.

It is "traditionally" a real thing though, it's where the whole father of the bride "giving his daughter away" phrase comes from... it's all sort of symbolic... the father of the bride walks her down the aisle to the alter where new hubby waits, and then he "hands her over" into the care of the husband.

It *IS* an extremely sexist ideology and I find it odd that it's a tradition that persists (at least the symbolic parts of the wedding itself) but the throwbacks are there.

I personally don't see it as still existing in the west these days, though. Like I said I tend to find that maternal extended family are if anything MORE involved, though obviously this isn't always the case.

Yeah I don’t think any indigenous westerners actually think that when the father gives the bride away that they’re literally giving her away and they won’t see her again :laugh:
It’s just part of the ceremony from the times when men were the only bread winners and had to look after the wife financially.People like the traditional wedding still.

Tbh, in recent weddings I've been to more and more weddings where the bride walks down the aisle alone.

Like she's followed by her brides maids and flower girls but she doesn't link arms with a man going down the aisle.

It wasn't that long ago when it was only the bride who was expected to wear a ring on her finger. Its only in more recent years that both families are expected to pay for the wedding or not pay for it at all and let the bride and groom foot the costs.
Its not so long ago that a brides vows were to 'love, honor and obey'.

All of these things are based on Christian values where the wife was deemed as meek and virtuous.

Bible teachings include:
Men should have authority over women and wives should obey their husbands
A woman's primary role is to procreate and bring up children
Women are more prone to sin
Women cannot be priests
Women should be sexually pure
Women should dress modestly
Men can divorce their wives, but wives cannot divorce their husbands
Women (and men) should not use contraception
Rape of women is less bad than rape of men
http://www.philosopherkings.co.uk/Womeninthebible.html

Me and my wife went in and walked to the front together hand in hand :hee:. But we just had a small non-religious thing with family and close friends. And we both found it all really cringeworthy so we sort of stood outside together psyching ourselves up, scurried to the front, ploughed through the vows, did the rings and let out a sigh of relief that it was done :joker:.

Honestly I really loved my wedding day... Just not the actual standing in front of everyone doing vows bit :umm2:. We did the bare minimum legal requirement, haha

My two "proper" relationships have been with one of each gender, and in both cases we each kind of joined each others families.

I'd say I see more of that as well and so it seems to be men who complain more about the in laws being too interfering etc. unless I just spend more time in male company so have a skewed view of it

just minding my own this morning - some bird rosemary proposed to me and offered everything on a plate - house - money - everything.


I am only a man - ofcourse I accepted - this is 2017. :joker: