>…because I did not take on my husband’s surname.
No please, don’t ask me an explanation for such convoluted logic. Ask Manyata (not-yet-legally) Dutt. Not only has she supported her husband’s sexist remarks , she’s gone ahead and made some stupid ones of her own. Like this:
“Having married a man who takes care of all my needs, I’d like to accept his name with full honour and take charge of his home and accept his family as my family. If you can’t accept your husband’s name and family then why marry? Go in for a live-in relationship.”
Really Manyata? So marriage is all about the man’s family and his surname? And what about the woman and her family?
And what does she mean by “a man who takes care of all my needs”. A husband is a provider and therefore you should take on his surname – is that it? She talks as if she and her husband live not in this world but in a vacuum. Has she never heard of women who earn? And who are capable of taking care of their own needs? Or that there are women can manage more than the home?
And by this logic, is it that a woman whose husband cannot provide for her should not change her surname? Say yes, Manyata, please do, because then there would be so many more women retaining their maiden name.
Also, please tell me I’ve got this right: that if it were not for Sanjay Dutt’s surname, she would have had a live-in relationship with him. The only reason we should marry is because we want to take on our husband’s surnames? Yeah, right!
“His home,” she says. The woman lives either in her father’s home or in his husband’s home. Care to answer, where exactly is “her home”?!
Please, someone explain to me the imbalances in a marriage.
Manyata, please don’t volunteer.