To lose a name?

I've been sneezing so much today, that it's seriously not funny anymore. Seconds ago I just finished my 7th sneeze in a row! No joke.

But alas, that was not the reason for my post, just an interesting fact [or not] which I thought I'd share.

Rather I came on here to post about something which has been coming up rather commonly within discussions of late.
The whole concept of whether a female should keep her maiden name after she is married. Or whether she should take on that of her husband.
I really think that ultimately this whole concept has flown out of the feminist movement, women standing up and saying "I'm no longer going to be a doormat". However as liberated as women may very well feel, I often look at the feminists and feel...well, just sad. Because it feels as though they're missing out on the richness God has created for Man and women when working in unison.
Now that said there's also the flip side, I'm sure we all know at least one chauvanist, and I'm talking hard-core. Because yes even I will laugh at Chauvanist jokes, but the truth of the matter is, they're only funny so long as they are jokes.

My biggest concern however comes with a general irckiness women have in regards to the word 'Submission' or 'obey' in the context of marriage to their husbands [*future* if it be the case].

The fact is, that the trend nowadays is, in fact, to cut the word 'obey' completely out of the wedding vows. perhaps I am a traditionalist of sorts. However considering the direction of majority of women I know, I think that my idea's may in fact be more radical than I would ever believe.

This is what I believe. I believe that God created men to be the head of the household, he designed them to lead. [now that is by no means saying that women can't or shouldn't lead, because I do believe that they are more than capable of it. however I believe that in the context of a household, Men were positioned at the head]. The sad fact is that over time, and due to shappy translations the position of women has been lessened somewhat. The original word God gave to women was 'Ezer'. Many a translation has described this to mean "Help-mate" however through some research it has been discovered that a much clearer and more accurate description of the word would be somthing along the lines of;

"Further research indicates 'ezer' is a powerful Hebrew military word whose significance we have barely begun to unpack. The 'ezer' is a warrior, and this has far-reaching implications for women, not only in marriage, but in every relationship, season, and walk of life.
...The man was alone in the world - the only one on the earth who walked by faith. God was preparing to launch the most ambitious enterprise imaginable. The potential for overload, burnout, discouragement, and unbelief was enormous, worse considering the fierce opposition the enemy was about to mount. Adam couldn't fight these battles alone. So God created the 'ezer' as mans staunchest ally in the life of faith and in fulfilling the cultural mandate. Together they exercised dominion and laboured to advance God's kingdom in their own hearts and on the Earth..."
[excerpt from "Lost Women of the Bible" by Carolyne Custis James]

Today the trend seems to be for couples to choose to have the word 'obey' removed from the wedding vows. I however feel that this is due to the fact that many couples do not understand or comprehend the significance or true contextual meaning of such a word.

It is here that I feel I should state that my entire belief theory would fail to remain valid, at least in my own mind, should my husband not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. We are warned heavily against yoking ourselves with unbelievers and I realise the significance of such a circumstance.
As woman we are told to submit to our husbands - to respect our husbands through our support and encouragments. In the same way men are told to treat their wives as they would themselves - to respect their wives as partners and as allies.

I believe that when our husbands are planted in the presence of God - in his word and his teachings, led by his truth and spirit, that by submitting to them, we as wife are no longer submitting to the man, to the flesh, but rather, we as wives are submitting to God himself.

There is incredible power in Unity, for we know that Christ himself desires it so desperately. The most beautiful representation of such unity ever displayed by God is found within the combination of Man and Woman - husband and wife. So powerful is this bond that it has often been referred to as the 'Blessed Alliance". For the marriage covenent itself is a representation of God and the church - his bride. Where exactly am I going with this? I hear you ask
basically when i think of the concept of taking on another persons nameI cannot help but think of the idea of water baptism. One way this is often explained is as an outward act of an inward decision. I believe that the taking on of anothers name, this other being of course your husband, as being an act of much the same - an outward expression of an inward decision, passion and exhubrance for unity and respect.

my hope?
my hope is in a husband who wants my experience and knowledge brought into our marriage. He seeks and values my interaction in his work, my counsel in decisions, and my collaboration in tackiling the problems that come our way. He wants a partner, not a dependent. Instead of rendering my career temporary, unnessecary, or even a threat, marriage should give my vocation, gifts and contributions a new sense of mission.

I apologise for the "all over the show" style of my writing. I hope that I didn't confuse you, I hope that you have grasped at least some of where I am coming from. But more than anything I hope that you do consider where you stand on it. I respect you all the same regardless.

That said, It will be a bitter-sweet day, when I say goodbye to my surname, for it has served me well. For it represents loyalty and love. It will, however mean no less to me should I no longer attach it to my first.

Goodnight.