Why She Took My Name
Ron Graham
feminist, would take my name after marriage, you know, being a
feminist and all. The feller who wrote the article said his wife,
also a feminist, would never have dreamed of taking her husband's
name. I decided to post my response here instead of the original
newsgroup, because this is where it belongs.
She had two reasons:
(1) The pragmatic reason. My name is easier to remember and easier to
spell (although you would be amazed at how many people misspell it
anyway).
(2) The historical reason. If she doesn't take my name, she keeps her
own, which was her pop's - and that "preserves the patriarchy"
just as sure as if she takes mine. The alternative would have
been to make up a new one. Too much work.
I gave her several chances, too. She could keep her name or could go
with a hyphenated version (like the arts and sports people who want to
be remembered, like Francie Larrieu-what was her name again? :-)) She
told me that she would show the world she was a feminist by what she
did, not by what her name was; and that part of what she did would be
pragmatic and part historical. But she said I was being a good
feminist-husband ;-).
RG
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Lisa Nyman
>I was asked in another newsgroup why my wife, who calls herself a
>feminist, would take my name after marriage, you know, being a
>feminist and all. The feller who wrote the article said his wife,
>also a feminist, would never have dreamed of taking her husband's
>name. I decided to post my response here instead of the original
>newsgroup, because this is where it belongs.
>
When myhusband and I filed for our marraige license, the form asked
for names of both persons after marraige, and clearly noted that the
names need not be current names of *either* person. My husband
looked at me and said "How about Jones?".
Growing up, I had always thought that I would not change my name
but then when faced with the problem I did. My reasoning is that
it lends to family cohesion (ok, so this may be a bit warped). I did
make a mistake, sort of, by dropping my given middle name replacing
my former surname. Now this feels weird. Also, I chose not to
hyphenate - it didn't sound right.
--
Lisa Wolfisch Nyman "Life is too short to wear ugly underwear."
pa...@syrinx.umd.edu
Just remember, geographers do it in places unknown to the general public.
New from Dweeb Publishers: Memoirs of a Workstation Widow, Oh the Agony of It
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> Growing up, I had always thought that I would not change my name
> but then when faced with the problem I did. My reasoning is that
> it lends to family cohesion (ok, so this may be a bit warped). I did
> make a mistake, sort of, by dropping my given middle name replacing
> my former surname. Now this feels weird. Also, I chose not to
> hyphenate - it didn't sound right.
It certainly is a tough decision. In our case, "family cohesion" was
achieved by both my husband and I hyphenating our names so that we now
have one family name. At first it sounded weird to both of us, but
now it sounds right (we've been married since October).
Also, your husband could have taken your name, for "family cohesion".
It has really been an interesting experience, especially for my
husband. We hyphenated with his name first (his preference), and
people aren't used to that. So he gets called "Mr. Edelman" a lot,
which has never been his name. I think he has seen first hand how it
feels for women when they lose their names. (And considering the many
arguments we had over this decision, I am glad that he finally
understands what I was trying to say!)
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
>It certainly is a tough decision. In our case, "family cohesion" was
>achieved by both my husband and I hyphenating our names so that we now
>have one family name.
My wife and I did something similar. We took each other's last name
and appended it onto the end of our own. Our old names were Owens and
Nicholson and now her last name is Owens-Nicholson and mine
Nicholson-Owens.
We did this over choosing a totally new last name, just using either
name for both of us or hyphenating both of our names one way because
we feel that this way preserves our families' names and has the added
bonus of being alphabetized the same way our old names were.
>Also, your husband could have taken your name, for "family cohesion".
I thought this is a must. I feel it's only fair for both sides to do
name trading, name taking or whatever it's called. Also, for me, it's
a source of great pride to be a part of my wife's family by both name
and marriage.
--
-- Jeff (je...@uiuc.edu)
-- No NeXTmail please
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> feminist, would take my name after marriage, you know, being a
> feminist and all. The feller who wrote the article said his wife,
> also a feminist, would never have dreamed of taking her husband's
> name. I decided to post my response here instead of the original
> newsgroup, because this is where it belongs.
>
> She had two reasons:
>
> (1) The pragmatic reason. My name is easier to remember and easier to
> spell (although you would be amazed at how many people misspell it
> anyway).
> (2) The historical reason. If she doesn't take my name, she keeps her
> own, which was her pop's - and that "preserves the patriarchy"
> just as sure as if she takes mine. The alternative would have
> been to make up a new one. Too much work.
>
> I gave her several chances, too. She could keep her name or could go
> with a hyphenated version (like the arts and sports people who want to
> be remembered, like Francie Larrieu-what was her name again? :-)) She
> told me that she would show the world she was a feminist by what she
> did, not by what her name was; and that part of what she did would be
> pragmatic and part historical. But she said I was being a good
> feminist-husband ;-).
You "gave her several chances"?!!!!
You sound like this was entirely her issue, her problem. Did *you*
offer to change *your* name to hers? To hyphenate your name like she
would? To create a new name together?
Re: the "pragmatic reason" -- I am always amazed at the results when a
male/female couple discusses which name to choose upon marriage. In
my experience, every couple decides on the man's name for some
"pragmatic" reason or other. Not to say that the reasons are invalid
-- but I just think it is a *big* coincidence, given our sexist society.
Does anyone know of hetero couples that both chose the woman's name?
Re: the "historical reason" -- you have a point, but the change has to
start some time. Yes, a woman keeping her own name means keeping her
father's name right now. But that woman's daughters will be able to
keep their *mother's* name, and her granddaughters and
great-granddaughters will be able to trace their names back to *her*.
(This is assuming that the children will not merely assume the name of
the father, which is a whole other issue.)
Certainly, women have the right to take their husbands' names, and I
am not trying to demean that choice. I have just never heard a
compelling reason for women to take their husbands' names, and I think
there are a lot of good reasons for women *not* to. (I am speaking
about women in general, and not denying women's rights to *make* that
decision on an individual basis.)
I feel fortunate to have a "good feminist-husband" -- before we were
married, his last name was "Blank" and mine was "Edelman". We both
hyphenated, and are now the "Blank-Edelman's". (Confuses people, but
we are happy!)
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
steve sandoval
Ron,
You wrote:
>I was asked in another newsgroup why my wife, who calls herself a
>feminist, would take my name after marriage, you know, being a
>feminist and all. The feller who wrote the article said his wife,
>also a feminist, would never have dreamed of taking her husband's
>name. I decided to post my response here instead of the original
>newsgroup, because this is where it belongs.
>She had two reasons:
>(1) The pragmatic reason. My name is easier to remember and easier to
> spell (although you would be amazed at how many people misspell it
> anyway).
So out of convenience (easier to spell and to remember) your
wife sacrificed her identity??
>(2) The historical reason. If she doesn't take my name, she keeps her
> own, which was her pop's - and that "preserves the patriarchy"
> just as sure as if she takes mine. The alternative would have
> been to make up a new one. Too much work.
She's right--retaining her birth name is preserving the patriarchy as
much as it is taking your last name, but married (women) need to break
from such an oppressive traditional cycle sometime. Why not start at
your marriage? Perhaps, then, when (if) you have children, they can
take your wife's last name (or hyphenated name, if you decided to do
that), thereby preserving the matriarchy.
>I gave her several chances, too. She could keep her name. . .
This quote of yours really bothers me. Why is it that "you" gave her
chances to do with her name what she wishes?--a choice that should be
hers in the first place?? I don't know of any "feminist husbands" who
"gives" their wife choices on what she should do with her birth name.
Let me ask you, Ron, did she give you a choice to keep your last name?
Another question--did ever your consider taking your wife's last name?
society tends to do a good job placing the "great double standard"
on the laps of women upon (holy) matrimony.
>She told me that she would show the world she was a feminist by what she
>did, not by what her name was;
I admire that your wife is willing to express her feminism openly
through her actions; however, by merely taking your last name (thus
"selling out" to such an repressive and debilitating tradition) her
feministic credibility (as well as yours), in my eyes, has
substantially decreased.
Steve Naumann-Sandoval
sand...@unlinfo.unl.edu.
Steven L Harrington
>Lisa Wolfisch Nyman writes:
>
>It certainly is a tough decision. In our case, "family cohesion" was
>achieved by both my husband and I hyphenating our names so that we now
>now it sounds right (we've been married since October).
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------
I think hyphenating the last names may be well intentioned, but has
anyone considered where this will take us? Imagine a Blank-Edelman child
marrying a Gurley-Brown child, you get Blank-Edelman-Gurley-Brown. That
is only one generation; can you imagine the progeny somewhere down the line?
It seems to me that there must be a better way to embody the concept
of feminism in a marriage than some whim of nomenclature. Perhaps the
patriarchal system of name inheritance was originally sexist, but in
modern times it seems more a matter of pragmatism. Certainly, there is
no logical reason that the name inheritance couldn't occur down the
female side of the geneological tree. So, from my perspective, a couple
should choose a name from one of the two rather than hyphenate. Of course,
if one wants to see a future generation of Harrington-Smith_Gurley-Brown-
John-Jacob-Jingle-Heimer_Schmidt's then let's start hyphenating.
--Steve Harrington
--texas a&m university
Lou Glassy
[stuff omitted]
[ Steve balks at the Blank-Edelman naming scheme ]
[ more stuff omitted ]
>Perhaps the
>patriarchal system of name inheritance was originally sexist, but in
>modern times it seems more a matter of pragmatism. Certainly, there is
>no logical reason that the name inheritance couldn't occur down the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[1] people of our collective religious and social tradition place great
weight on the significance of *names*. logic plays little if any role
in this.
[2] a friend of my eldest sister changes his name once every 7 years,
just to remind himself that he is not his name. while i find that
thinkable, i suspect a great many folks do not... (see note 1, above).
>female side of the geneological tree. So, from my perspective, a couple
>should choose a name from one of the two rather than hyphenate. Of course,
>if one wants to see a future generation of Harrington-Smith_Gurley-Brown-
>John-Jacob-Jingle-Heimer_Schmidt's then let's start hyphenating.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
as long as i don't have to sign *every* check that way... :-)
>--Steve Harrington
whimsy aside, the big question seems to be: what name does a woman or
man choose to have upon getting married, and more importantly, *why*?
if any arbitrary convention suits ye, the best pseudo-logical one i've
heard of, is that the daughters take the mother's last name (for life),
and the sons take the father's last name (for life). i think the
people of Iceland do something like that already: e.g. Ingrid
Gretasdottir... matronymics and patronymics both active!
lou.
--
Lou Glassy <> Watch the field behind the plow
Student in Earth Sciences <> Turn to straight, dark rows..
Montana State University <> Put another season's promise in the ground.
for...@giac1.oscs.montana.edu <> --Stan Rogers
Lisa Nyman
>
>She's right--retaining her birth name is preserving the patriarchy as
>much as it is taking your last name, but married (women) need to break
>from such an oppressive traditional cycle sometime. Why not start at
>your marriage? Perhaps, then, when (if) you have children, they can
>take your wife's last name (or hyphenated name, if you decided to do
>that), thereby preserving the matriarchy.
>
>through her actions; however, by merely taking your last name (thus
>"selling out" to such an repressive and debilitating tradition) her
>feministic credibility (as well as yours), in my eyes, has
>substantially decreased.
>
What is oppressive about deciding to change one's name? I
do not feel oppressed in any way. No once forced me to
change my name and I have not lost my identity. I'm still who
I have been, only the label has changed a bit. My husband
chose to live in my country for me, which i feel is a much
bigger sacrifice than me taking his name.
Now having a baby a year....this is an opressive cycle.
--
Lisa Wolfisch Nyman "Life is too short to wear ugly underwear."
pa...@syrinx.umd.edu
Just remember, geographers do it in places unknown to the general public.
New from Dweeb Publishers: Memoirs of a Workstation Widow, Oh the Agony of It
--
Dan Welch
>anyone considered where this will take us? Imagine a Blank-Edelman child
>marrying a Gurley-Brown child, you get Blank-Edelman-Gurley-Brown. That
>is only one generation; can you imagine the progeny somewhere down the line?
>It seems to me that there must be a better way to embody the concept
>of feminism in a marriage than some whim of nomenclature.
I agree with this completely. Hyphenating just seems to be a way people
have of waving their hands high in the air and screaming "I don't believe
in the patriarchy!" Why go to so much trouble?
In my case, it would be even sillier. I'm getting married next year to
a wonderful Chinese girl whose last name is Chao. Welch-Chao? Chao-Welch?
Maybe we should just go with Welchao. Or maybe, sensibly, we'll both just
keep our own names.
Daniel Welch
Mary Olin
>>
>>It certainly is a tough decision. In our case, "family cohesion" was
>>achieved by both my husband and I hyphenating our names so that we now
>>have one family name. At first it sounded weird to both of us, but
>>now it sounds right (we've been married since October).
>>
with my abusive parents. He, on the other hand, wanted and still wants
to retain some identification with his wonderful parents. We want the
same last name because the fact that we are family to each other is so
important. But I do hate the sexist aspect of the arrangement. Would
anyone like to comment on what you would do in my situation?
If the following has been said a zillion times already, please forgive
me, but it's important. Wedding rings, IMHO, are more symbolic
of the sexist nature of traditional marriage than names. People express
shock to me on a very regular basis at my lack of one, which tells me
that it's an important statement. The ring is a straight forward
signalling that one is POSSESSED by another.
Mary Olin
Cindy Tittle Moore
I've always liked the notion that daughters take the mother's name,
sons take the father's name and nobody ever changes their names (at
least, not for reasons of marriage). I won't bother to justify my own
name change, except to say that it will never change again! I don't
care if I wind up marrying eight times, it's staying this way! Don't
believe it when they tell you it is "easy" to change your name...
--Cindy
--
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what
feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist
whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a
doormat, or a prostitute." -- Rebecca West, 1913
Dreaming
>Also, your husband could have taken your name, for "family cohesion".
I thought this is a must. I feel it's only fair for both sides to do
name trading, name taking or whatever it's called. Also, for me, it's
a source of great pride to be a part of my wife's family by both name
and marriage.
This is exactly how I feel; I'm getting married next year, and I'll be
appending my fiancee's name to my own. This, although neither of us
particularly like our surnames. (Pick one: Lichter or Brunner).
Derek L.
--
ddl...@csc.albany.edu
eight arms to hold you
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> I think hyphenating the last names may be well intentioned, but has
> anyone considered where this will take us? Imagine a Blank-Edelman
> child marrying a Gurley-Brown child, you get
> Blank-Edelman-Gurley-Brown. That is only one generation; can you
> imagine the progeny somewhere down the line? It seems to me that
> there must be a better way to embody the concept of feminism in a
> marriage than some whim of nomenclature. Perhaps the patriarchal
> system of name inheritance was originally sexist, but in modern times
> it seems more a matter of pragmatism. Certainly, there is no logical
> reason that the name inheritance couldn't occur down the female side
> of the geneological tree. So, from my perspective, a couple should
> choose a name from one of the two rather than hyphenate. Of course, if
> one wants to see a future generation of Harrington-Smith_Gurley-Brown-
> John-Jacob-Jingle-Heimer_Schmidt's then let's start hyphenating.
Well, I certainly hope that my children don't marry any
Gurley-Brown's! You paint a terrifying picture! :-)
Everyone asks me this question about what my children will do when
they get married. (I don't have any children at the moment.) My
answer is: *if* they get married, they will be old enough by then to
choose a suitable and meaningful name for themselves. Perhaps they
will drop part of their old name and hyphenate with their spouse's,
perhaps they will create a new name, perhaps they will keep their name
as is. In any case, their options include their mother's name, and
they will know the reasons why.
I believe that this egalitarian sentiment that we will pass along to
our children in this way overrides any difficulties they might
experience twenty years or so down the line when they get married.
And I'm sure that they will come up with a decision that works for
them, just as we came up with a decision that works for us.
Choosing a name from one of the two upon marriage is a fine option.
But *everyone I have ever heard of that tried to make a conscious
choice has chosen the man's name*. Everyone. Maybe it is just easier
that way, I don't know. Maybe it's more societally acceptable. Does
anyone have any counter-evidence? I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
>I agree with this completely. Hyphenating just seems to be a way
>people have of waving their hands high in the air and screaming "I
>don't believe in the patriarchy!" Why go to so much trouble?
Because there's no reason that one's name line should stick around for
so many generations while another's does not. I think the most fair
way to change one's name upon marriage or partnership is to do as my
wife and I did or make up a completely new last name.
>In my case, it would be even sillier. I'm getting married next year
>to a wonderful Chinese girl whose last name is Chao. Welch-Chao?
>Chao-Welch?
First of all, I'm sure the person to whom you are getting married is a
*woman* not a girl. Secondly, why don't you have the last name of
Welch-Chao and her take the last name of Chao-Welch? That way nobody
is first and both family names survive another generation.
You could also, as you said, keep your own names. For some people
having their partner's name means something more than what one writes
on a check.
--
-- Jeff (je...@uiuc.edu)
-- No NeXTmail please
Dawn Owens-Nicholson
>I think hyphenating the last names may be well intentioned, but has
>anyone considered where this will take us? Imagine a Blank-Edelman child
>marrying a Gurley-Brown child, you get Blank-Edelman-Gurley-Brown. That
>is only one generation; can you imagine the progeny somewhere down the line?
Here is what our plan is:
My name is Dawn Owens-Nicholson My husband is Jeff Nicholson-Owens
Daughters: Amy Owens-Nicholson Sons: Arnold Nicholson-Owens
Betty Owens-Nicholson Boris Nicholson-Owens
If Amy married a man called Carl Smith-Jones,
she would become Amy Owens-Smith and he would become Carl Smith-Owens.
If Arnold married a woman called Cathy Pike,
he would become Arnold Nicholson-Pike and she would be Cathy Pike-Nicholson.
In other words, you keep the root name of your same-sex parent as your
permanent name for the rest of your life. Before you have a partner,
you take the root name of your opposite sex parent as an auxillary
name. After you get married or take a partner, you take the partner's
name as your auxillary name.
It seems really fair to me. It also means that women don't lose their
identity upon marriage. That is a pretty important consideration for
me, as I published several things before my marriage. I think that my
position in the field would be weaker, if half my articles were under
the name Nicholson, and half were under the name Owens.
Someone else mentioned this before, but I want to reiterate it. It is
really funny I think, that people have all kinds of supposedly
gender-neutral excuses for dropping their name, and taking their
partner's (partner's name is easier to spell, partner's name sounds
better, family cohesion, etc), but it always ends up with the woman
taking the man's name. Surely it is not that men's last names are
easier to spell than women's last names in general. It is just an
excuse.
-Dawn
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> I agree with this completely. Hyphenating just seems to be a way
> people have of waving their hands high in the air and screaming "I
> don't believe in the patriarchy!" Why go to so much trouble?
Because it matters to us. One could say "Why go to so much trouble
for *anything* that concerns women's rights?" (She screams, waving
her hands high in the air :-)
> In my case, it would be even sillier. I'm getting married next year
> to a wonderful Chinese girl whose last name is Chao. Welch-Chao?
> Chao-Welch? Maybe we should just go with Welchao. Or maybe,
> sensibly, we'll both just keep our own names.
I think people keeping their own names is a good option as well. But
will your children be named "Welch" (if you have any) or "Chao" or a
combination? In our case, we discussed keeping our own names. But we
wanted our children to have the same last names as each other, and
neither of us wanted their last names to exclude ours.
All the couples I know that have chosen to keep their own names that
have children have named the children with the father's names. I
wonder if this is usually the case? If so, the patriarchy continues!
(more screaming and hand waving)
P.S. Congrats on your upcoming marriage!
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> if any arbitrary convention suits ye, the best pseudo-logical one
> i've heard of, is that the daughters take the mother's last name
> (for life), and the sons take the father's last name (for life). i
> think the people of Iceland do something like that already: e.g.
> Ingrid Gretasdottir... matronymics and patronymics both active!
I think this is a good solution, and it is one I proposed to my
husband. But he preferred that our whole family have the same name,
so we ended up with a hyphenated one.
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
Steve Cutchin
|> Lou Glassy writes:
|>
|> > if any arbitrary convention suits ye, the best pseudo-logical one
|> > i've heard of, is that the daughters take the mother's last name
|> > (for life), and the sons take the father's last name (for life). i
|> > think the people of Iceland do something like that already: e.g.
|> > Ingrid Gretasdottir... matronymics and patronymics both active!
|>
I'm surprised no one has mentioned something like this but in
Burma the woman keeps her same name, the man keeps his name and
the children get whatever name the parents feel like giving them.
Ie the wife could be Sue Martin the husband Bob Jones and the kids
could be Sally Smith, Wendy Johnson, and Tom Hanks.
Generally they choose names with some sort of family relevance but
totally different names are not out of the question.
----
Steve C
David Collier-Brown
|anyone considered where this will take us? Imagine a Blank-Edelman child
|marrying a Gurley-Brown child, you get Blank-Edelman-Gurley-Brown.
The spanish have been doing this for centuries, in a traditionalist,
patriarchical environment. Ortega y Gasset marries Collier-Brown
and at least the children end up Gasset y Brown. Or maybe that's
Brown y Gasset... No problem, if you're already used to it.
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | dav...@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave., |
Willowdale, Ontario, | Stupidity is evil waiting to happen.
CANADA. 416-223-8968 | -- Clay Bond
Desiree Sy
>
>Choosing a name from one of the two upon marriage is a fine option.
>But *everyone I have ever heard of that tried to make a conscious
>choice has chosen the man's name*. Everyone. Maybe it is just easier
>that way, I don't know. Maybe it's more societally acceptable. Does
>anyone have any counter-evidence? I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
This is a good point. If you don't think it's such a big deal for a woman
to change her name upon marriage, try asking a man how he would
feel if he had to change his name. There are some wonderful,
notable exceptions, but by and large, most men are really taken
aback by the thought.
I think it's a personal choice. To many people, some of whom
have spoken up already, names aren't very important. To others,
and I am among them, words of any type are important and names
are an important subset of those.
I agree that the name I started out with came laden with
patriarchical significance (besides being constantly
mispronounced, and misspelled), and when I was 10 I thought if I
got a better offer I would trade up. But a funny thing has been
happening since then... I've been that person with that name for
long enough that it's become a sort of iconic shorthand for my
personality, and my achievements. I might consider a logo
redesign in the case of a future merger, but I couldn't accept
someone else's trademark in toto; for *me*, that would feel like
a take-over. (Don't worry, I'll stop with this now. :-) )
likely, but not irrevocably so, to remain to the end of her days,
Desiree Sy
Mary Olin
In an earlier posting I said that wedding rings were a more important
symbol to avoid than taking the man's name. I've gotten a bunch of
E-mail asking me to elaborate on this, so here goes.
A ring is a public symbol making a traditional statement. It says "I'm
in a permanent relationship sanctioned by Authority in which I have
become someone's exclusive sexual property." One cannot simply declare
that MY ring doesn't mean that property stuff when it's a symbol with
a meaning that's already been assigned long ago.
Over and over again, I get people expressing to me the idea that I'm
somehow disloyal and/or immoral for my lack of a ring. My best beloved,
on the other hand, has never heard a peep along these lines. The sexual
double standard is still alive and well and this difference in the
public impact of a ring is part of what makes its symbolism sexist.
What bothers me even more is the reinforcing of the authority of church
and state to legitimatise relationships. Only a small percentage of our
society is actually, like me, living happily (25 years thus far) in a
death do us part, totally exclusive, heterosexual, first marriage. My
lesbian friends, for example, cannot wear rings because they would be
telling the world that they're living with men. I don't think my
relationship is more special than theirs.
I, personally, get a certain amount of perverse enjoyment from finding
small ways of not being a good girl. This is an easy one.
Mary Olin
Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]
>In article <13gjhq...@agate.berkeley.edu> shar...@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
>>Perhaps the
>>patriarchal system of name inheritance was originally sexist, but in
>>modern times it seems more a matter of pragmatism. Certainly, there is
>>no logical reason that the name inheritance couldn't occur down the
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>female side of the geneological tree. So, from my perspective, a couple
>
>[1] people of our collective religious and social tradition place great
>weight on the significance of *names*. logic plays little if any role
>in this.
Perhaps logic plays more of a role than one might think; after all,
when a child is born, everyone *knows* who the mother is, the
father on the other hand. . . .
Perhaps it is also a reminder to the tribe/society that the father is to be
*responsible* for helping the child make it to maturity...
Cindy Tittle Moore
>shar...@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
>|I think hyphenating the last names may be well intentioned, but has
>|anyone considered where this will take us? Imagine a Blank-Edelman child
>|marrying a Gurley-Brown child, you get Blank-Edelman-Gurley-Brown.
> The spanish have been doing this for centuries, in a traditionalist,
>patriarchical environment. Ortega y Gasset marries Collier-Brown
>and at least the children end up Gasset y Brown. Or maybe that's
>Brown y Gasset... No problem, if you're already used to it.
Having lived in Mexico, here's how they do it:
Mother's maiden name: Father's name:
Yolanda Acosta Suarez Enrique Pacheco Jimenez
her married name becomes
Yolanda Acosta de Pacheco
Daughter's name: Son's name:
Mireya Pacheco Acosta Enrique Pacheco Acosta
her married name
(to Pedro Ramirez Rodrigues)
Mireya Pacheco de Ramirez
Informally, Enrique Jr (and Sr) call themselves Enrique Pacheco.
Mireya before her marriage will refer to herself as Mireya Pacheco;
after marriage as Mireya Ramirez OR sometimes by the names above (it
can get confusing). I have entirely omitted the middle names in the
above description, but they will have at least one middle name.
Mireya's name was actually Mireya Zulema Pacheco Acosta.
(Mireya, if you're somehow reading this, your marriage is entirely
hypothetical!)
So anyway, the mother's name that is passed down to her children is
her father's name, so it is not much of a "matriarchal" naming scheme.
However, in Spain (the above example is in Mexico), they can get
really funky and just keep appending names and rearranging them how
they feel. Europe in general can be funky: I know that very wealthy
heiresses in Britain can demand that the husband change his name to
hers to preserve the family name.
--Cindy
--
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what
feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist
whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a
doormat, or a prostitute." -- Rebecca West, 1913
Joanne M. Karohl
>if any arbitrary convention suits ye, the best pseudo-logical one i've
>heard of, is that the daughters take the mother's last name (for life),
>and the sons take the father's last name (for life). i think the
>people of Iceland do something like that already: e.g. Ingrid
>Gretasdottir... matronymics and patronymics both active!
This is a great idea in my opinion, (but in Iceland, everyone takes
their father's name, as in Hildur Albertsdottir, who is a friend of
mine).
In fact, I like this idea so much that I am going to lobby for it in my
family. At the moment, I have my original name, my husband has his, but
he thinks all the kids should have his! I think, if I lug them around
for nine months, I should be able to give them my name at least some of
the time, right?
Joanne
Dan Welch
>
>I've always liked the notion that daughters take the mother's name,
>sons take the father's name and nobody ever changes their names (at
>least, not for reasons of marriage).
I don't know about naming daughters for the mother and sons for the
father -- that strikes me as a bad, or at least poor, idea. My fiance
and I have decided on this method: the first child, we flip a coin,
and then alternate after that.
Of course, I can see it now: we'll have one child, and the coin toss
will go in my favor. Years later, I'll be reviled by people claiming
that I'm oppressing my wife by not letting her pass on her name.
----
Daniel Welch
"She's not melting -- she's dissolving!"
-- Tom Servo, on the Wicked Witch of the West
Chris Hudel
: Lou Glassy writes:
:
:> if any arbitrary convention suits ye, the best pseudo-logical one
:> i've heard of, is that the daughters take the mother's last name
:> (for life), and the sons take the father's last name (for life). i
:> think the people of Iceland do something like that already: e.g.
:> Ingrid Gretasdottir... matronymics and patronymics both active!
:
:I think this is a good solution, and it is one I proposed to my
:husband. But he preferred that our whole family have the same name,
:so we ended up with a hyphenated one.
Hmmm. Something in me just doesn't like the fact that this naming
system creates dichotomy between mother->daughter and father->son.
It sounds as if the daughter belongs to her mother and the son belongs
to his father. Isn't this bad?
I mean, I'd rather belong to my *family*. It just seems, I don't know,
like the name-choosing is creating two distinct communities within
the family instead of just one. What if the family has only sons? This
essentially kills the Mother's last name, no? (and vice versa)
We should all just convert to alphanumeric strings. It'll make
things sooo much simpler. "Hi. I'm pq18mij" :)
Chris.
--
Chris Hudel
business: hu...@waterloo.hp.com 519/883-3080
pleasure: chu...@watarts.waterloo.edu
(Pleasure forwards to business...) - all comments are mine, not HP's -
Dan Welch
>Daniel Welch writes:
>
>> I agree with this completely. Hyphenating just seems to be a way
>> people have of waving their hands high in the air and screaming "I
>> don't believe in the patriarchy!" Why go to so much trouble?
>
>Because it matters to us. One could say "Why go to so much trouble
>for *anything* that concerns women's rights?" (She screams, waving
>her hands high in the air :-)
There's a difference here, I think. It's important to do whatever is
required whenever there is truly some infringement on anyone's rights.
Name changing, though, doesn't fit in there. The kind of person you
are isn't going to change if you change your name, nor is it going to
upgrade or downgrade your life in any way. Hyphenating means that
both parties have to go through the hassle and expense of changing
their names. I think that it's bad to make life worse for everyone
just to make sure that it's the SAME for everyone.
>> Or maybe,
>> sensibly, we'll both just keep our own names.
>
>I think people keeping their own names is a good option as well. But
>will your children be named "Welch" (if you have any) or "Chao" or a
>combination?
>
>All the couples I know that have chosen to keep their own names that
>have children have named the children with the father's names. I
>wonder if this is usually the case? If so, the patriarchy continues!
I may have already said this, but our decision was: flip a coin for
the first one, and then alternate after that. Naming the girls for
the mother and the boys for the father seems to be an unneccessary
association. Naming them all one way or the other wouldn't be right,
either.
>P.S. Congrats on your upcoming marriage!
Thank you!
Daniel Welch
Chris Malcolm
>All the couples I know that have chosen to keep their own names that
>have children have named the children with the father's names.
What extraordinary egocentricity! We kept our own names and let our
son choose what he wanted to call himself. He has always taken his
mother's surname, but has recently (he's now 21) been wondering
whether to use mine, or a combination, since his mother has a foreign
name and he's getting fed up with people asking him where he comes
from.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Ronnie Falcao
>In article <1992Jul9.0...@coe.montana.edu> for...@giac1.oscs.montana.EDU (Lou Glassy) writes:
>>[1] people of our collective religious and social tradition place great
>>weight on the significance of *names*. logic plays little if any role
>>in this.
>
>Perhaps logic plays more of a role than one might think; after all,
>when a child is born, everyone *knows* who the mother is, the
>father on the other hand. . . .
Where, exactly, are you going with this?
I hardly think that naming a baby after its true biological
father is more traditional than naming it after the presumed
father, i.e. the husband of the mother. More interesting,
perhaps.
If you're having trouble figuring out which are the baby's
acting parents, look for the people carrying the baby and
the diaper bag.
- Ronnie
Ronnie Falcao, Metaphor Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
fal...@metaphor.com
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> I took my husband's name 25 years ago because I wanted no
> identification with my abusive parents. He, on the other hand, wanted
> and still wants to retain some identification with his wonderful
> parents. We want the same last name because the fact that we are
> family to each other is so important. But I do hate the sexist aspect
> of the arrangement. Would anyone like to comment on what you would do
> in my situation?
You could hyphenate with his name and a name of your choosing. The
name you choose could be the name of a woman (or man) whom you admire,
perhaps a great-grandmother or an aunt or an historical figure. For
example: you have always admired Golda Meir. You and your husband
could change your name to "Olin-Golda" or "Golda-Olin" or "Olin-Meir"
etc. You could also create a new name that would convey what you want
to pass on to others, rather than the name of your abusive parents:
words like "peace" and "love" etc., in the language of your ancestors,
perhaps.
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> Perhaps logic plays more of a role than one might think; after all,
> when a child is born, everyone *knows* who the mother is, the
> father on the other hand. . . .
Hmmm....but this is only true when the child is very young. Sounds
like a plausible explanation, though.
> Perhaps it is also a reminder to the tribe/society that the father is
> to be *responsible* for helping the child make it to maturity...
This is a very interesting point, especially considering problems
today with fathers who abandon children or won't pay any child
support. However, even though the linking of responsibility to naming
might be a good idea, it doesn't appear to have worked. Or maybe it
worked once, but doesn't work anymore and it is time to change the
strategy.
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
uunet!mailrus!sharkey!heifet...@ncar.ucar.edu
uunet!mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!meshugge.media.mit.edu!ci...@ncar.ucar.EDU (Cindy
>All the couples I know that have chosen to keep their own names that
>have children have named the children with the father's names. I
>wonder if this is usually the case? If so, the patriarchy continues!
I've never really understood why a husband and wife would feel a need
to have an identical last name. I don't recall ever even discussing
the matter with my husband, before or after we were married. We get
along fine with our birth names.
As for children's names, it makes a lot of sense to me to name my
child after his father. It is biologically indisputable that I am
the mother of my children; my body gave birth to them. At the same
time, I am the only person who can verify who their father is. So
I see giving my children their father's surname as a way of indicating
paternity, which is otherwise indistinguishable.
Linda.
Muffy Barkocy
>This doesn't mean that a woman can't have the right to choose her
>husband's name. Similarly, a woman can choose not to vote, or to vote
>the way her husband tells her to vote. But is an action feminist just
>because a woman chooses it?
Aha! The right question. No, an action is not feminist just because a
woman chooses it, even if a feminist chooses it. In fact, I'm not sure
exactly what a feminist action would be, but I'm thinking about it.
However, what *is* feminist, in my opinion, is for women to think about
their choices and then make their *own* choices. It seems to me that
the primary goal of feminism is to free women from the various roles
they are being forced into *specifically because they are women* by
society (or whoever) and allow them to make their own choices. Yes, I
know that society forces men into roles, too, and I know that it forces
people in general into roles, but I do not think that all feminists
consider these two latter to be feminist issues.
Now, the other side of your question. There are people who believe
that, for example, a woman *refusing* to take a man's name is *always* a
feminist action. What if she just doesn't like his name? She's not
trying to make any sort of statement, she doesn't consider it oppressive
to women to change her name, she just prefers her own and doesn't want
to go to the trouble of changing her name to something she doesn't like.
Is her action feminist just because many feminists would think that that
is the right thing to do?
Muffy
--
Muffy Barkocy | mu...@mica.berkeley.edu | wi....@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]
>death do us part, totally exclusive, heterosexual, first marriage. My
>lesbian friends, for example, cannot wear rings because they would be
>telling the world that they're living with men. I don't think my
In two weeks my sister is marrying a woman in a church in Palo Alto.
They both gave each other (almost identical) rings quite a while ago,
and I think they like the bond it creates between them - they both
have something of some small material value representing a much
greater emotional/spiritual bond.
I think it might also serve (for those who still look at women's
ring fingers) as a signal to others that they are involved with
someone else on a long term basis. . .
Dano
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> A ring is a public symbol making a traditional statement. It says "I'm
> in a permanent relationship sanctioned by Authority in which I have
> become someone's exclusive sexual property." One cannot simply declare
> that MY ring doesn't mean that property stuff when it's a symbol with
> a meaning that's already been assigned long ago.
You know ... I think you're right (she says, wistfully looking at her
rings.) I have an engagement ring as well as a wedding ring -- yeesh.
A definite case of "I know it's sexist and patriarchal but I've always
wanted one so I'm gonna have one" for me.
But doesn't what you're saying about rings hold true for the institution
of marriage in general? Seems to me that is the real issue, and the
rings are just the symbols. The question is: can we transform the
institution of marriage and its attendant symbols, and reclaim it as
feminists? (I certainly hope so -- considering I'm already married :-)
By the way, I have known some lesbian couples who wear rings that show
their commitment. Not to mention nuns who wear wedding rings because
they are wedded to Jesus (who are definitely not living with men!).
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
Becky Thomas
>By the way, is there a husband out there who objected
>to his wife changing her name? I'd be interested in
>hearing about it.
Well, we came somewhat close - when I commented to my then-fiance,
"Oh, by the way, you've probably guessed this but I don't intend
to take your last name," he exclaimed that he hoped not! He
explained that his friends would probably think he was a jerk if
I took his name, that he had pushed me to do so. (We are both
academic types, and it is more the rule than the exception among
our friends and colleagues for people to keep their own names.)
On the topic of children's names, we recently realized that among
the folks in my husband's department,
- one family named the kids Firstname Hername Hisname
(Hername is the kid's middle name)
- one family used Firstname Hername-Hisname
- one family used Firstname Hername for both kids
- I think one family gave one kid Hisname and one Hername
Personally, I think the variety makes it very interesting!
Sure, it's simpler when everyone follows the same rule, but
variety is the spice of life.
Becky Thomas
--
--
Becky Thomas
bth...@cs.stanford.edu
Joe Pruett
rather than a patriarchal or matriarchal method, why not alternate?
the female offspring get the father's name, and the male offspring
get the mother's. this way the name switches each generation.
confusing enough?
Mary Olin
> So why did you get legally married in the first place?
I never said I did. I certainly don't believe in it.
> You seem to feel strongly about the sexual exclusivity of
>marriage, but I can't tell whether you think it is good or bad.
>Which is it and why? Is this a traditional position? A feminist
>one? A compromise? One you chose for yourself? Are you happy with
>it?
I don't feel anything at all about sexual exclusivity. I guess I
talked a little too much about my own relationship because, being
approved of by the traditional powers that be, I have no axe to grind.
Any agreements between my SO and I are strictly from what we,
personally, feel comfortable with.
>>lesbian friends, for example, cannot wear rings because they would
>>be telling the world that they're living with men.
> Why not? I know non-married het couples who wear rings, and
>same-sex couples who wear rings, and some who don't. I even attended
>the wedding ceremony of two women once (with all four parents
>present!) In some cities this kind of relationship can be civilly
>registered as well.
Good Stuff! But this is changing the commonly held meaning of rings.
These poeple will have to cope with the public around them thinking
that their lives are quite different from the actuality. I'm all for
it, but will not wear a ring myself until that change is complete.
Ed Falk
>
>Someone else mentioned this before, but I want to reiterate it. It
>is really funny I think, that people have all kinds of supposedly
>gender-neutral excuses for dropping their name, and taking their
>partner's (partner's name is easier to spell, partner's name sounds
>better, family cohesion, etc), but it always ends up with the woman
>taking the man's name. Surely it is not that men's last names are
>easier to spell than women's last names in general. It is just an
>excuse.
Actually, what bugs me is when a couple decides which one quits
their job to take care of the kids, it's usually the woman.
I realize the decision is usally based on who makes the most money,
which for various reasons is usually the man. The woman then drops
out of the job market for a few years, by the end of which the income
disparity is even more. Repeat for each kid.
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, fa...@sun.com
terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode,
DSS, FBI, NSA, CIA, NRO, SDI, communist, proletariat.
John (MAX
>man choose to have upon getting married, and more importantly, *why*?
Why get married? That is the question. Why can't people just
have the relationships they want without classifying themselves. That
opens them to prejudice. And it affects *unmarried* people too.
Personally, I've never been able to understand how anyone
could possibly claim to be a feminist and then go and get married.
IMHO exclusive relationships and the stereotyping of them is
far more damaging to personal freedom than mere sexism. Was not
marriage the *mechanism* of oppression of women--and men. Is not the
*nuclear family* the most inefficent and exploitative con-job ever?
Look to the attitude of the moralists and see the importance they
place on 'family values'. This is exploitation par excellence.
And yet it is one of the few exploitations easily avoided.
Just don't get married. And fight laws that attempt to claim you're
married when you aren't. ( In Australia there are laws about 'de
facto' relationships---living togther 'as if married').
--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
Sherry Mann
>have children have named the children with the father's names. I
>wonder if this is usually the case? If so, the patriarchy continues!
>(more screaming and hand waving)
When my daughter married she kept her name, her husband kept his.
The kids are the ones with hyphenated names.
By the way, when my son-in-laws family found out my daughter wasn't
changing her name, his family was extremely upset. (Remember, he
also did not change his name.) They accused her of not respecting
him or his family. No one suggested that he did not respect hers.
--
Sammy=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The enemy of women...is not men, just as the enemy of blacks is not whites.
The enemy is "the tyranny of the dull mind." Carol S. Pearson, _The Hero Within_
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dawn Owens-Nicholson
>As for children's names, it makes a lot of sense to me to name my
>child after his father. It is biologically indisputable that I am
>the mother of my children; my body gave birth to them. At the same
>time, I am the only person who can verify who their father is. So
>I see giving my children their father's surname as a way of indicating
>paternity, which is otherwise indistinguishable.
I don't get this. To whom are you verifying the child's paternity?
To society? If so, then how will society know who the child's mother
is? It may be biologically indisputable to YOU that you are the kid's
mother, but to the random person who sees your child's name it will
not be obvious at all. Is it more important that society know who a
child's father is than who his/her mother is?
To the child? If the only way your child knows who his/her father is
is because they share the same last name, then we are not talking
about a very involved father here, are we? Afterall, how does the
child know YOU are his/her mother?
To the father of your child? Putting aside the fact that the only way
a man can REALLY know he is the father of a particular child is
through DNA testing, there are several other ways you can verify
paternity to the father of your child: 1) by putting his name on the
child's birth certificate, 2) by giving the child a hyphenated name,
3) by telling him he is.
You see what I mean?
Dawn
Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik
-- should I change it, what to, do I want to, does it matter, all that
stuff. Identity was an issue for me, but perhaps not for the reasons
others might cite in this newsgroup; I am of Celtic (mostly Irish)
descent, and it is still a bit bizarre to have people assume I am
Polish. I still mention at every opportunity that I'm not Polish. My
reactions seem to be based upon who I am in the heritage sense rather
than who I am in the female sense.
In my case I wanted to make that statement, that I had joined my
husband's family and now carried his name. He would never have made
me do so, and continually tells me it is an honor that I do him. He
did not take my name, and I do not feel slighted, for taking a name is
not the only way to show that you want to be a part of a person's
family and life, and he's done all that.
I didn't hypenate because, I mean, really. Harwood-Kaczmarczik? Gak.
Besides, it would never fit in any computer.. :)
However, when time came to choose which name I would drop, I dropped
the use of my middle and confirmation names, and deliberately chose to
be Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik. And on everything that allows the space
for it, I am. As I explained many times soon after my wedding, it's
all three names but not hypenated, like Laura Ingalls Wilder or Marion
Zimmer Bradley.
Why am I explaining all this? Because it bugs me when people think
that women who have done this have chosen to succumb to patriarchal
pressure. I wanted to take his name, and I did. It's back to the bows
on the bras again -- doesn't make me any more or less a feminist. I
think it's how you look at it. Just like I see our wedding rings as
not a declaration of ownership, but a symbol of connection.
(You must excuse me if I wax over-familial -- our first daughter was
born on the 7th and I guess it's kind of all-pervasive... :) )
--
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"Queens never make bargains." -- The Red Queen, _Through the Looking Glass_
-----a...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu--------------The University of Texas @Austin---
John (MAX) Skaller
>However, what *is* feminist, in my opinion, is for women to think about
>their choices and then make their *own* choices. It seems to me that
>the primary goal of feminism is to free women from the various roles
>they are being forced into *specifically because they are women* by
>society (or whoever) and allow them to make their own choices. Yes, I
>know that society forces men into roles, too, and I know that it forces
>people in general into roles, but I do not think that all feminists
>consider these two latter to be feminist issues.
1) What do YOU think?
2) How are MEN affected by women being forced into roles?
3) To what extent are men also liberated by the liberation of
women (from the stereotyped roles)?
4) And the converse: how are women affect by men's being
forced into roles, and how would their liberation
affect women?
5) How many *male* feminists do you think would deny
that male roles/liberation are feminist issues?
6) If feminism is against sexism, try swapping
the genders your above paragraph.
--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
Alan J Rosenthal
really seems to get people's ire up! It is quite important to me
personally; there is NO WAY I would consent to changing my surname
upon marriage, nor can I imagine being otherwise compatible with a
woman who would want to change her surname to mine upon marriage.
Cindy Blank-Edelman notes that when people keep their own surnames
upon marriage, the children's surnames tend to be the father's name.
This is a very important observation and in my opinion shows that a
little radicalism is not enough; one important element of the debate
is lineage, and getting women to retain their surnames but not to play
a part in the lineage is not a total solution. I think that the
system of having the children take the husband's surname is just as
patriarchal as the system of having the wife take the husband's
surname.
Dawn Owens-Nicholson's note about the solution to the hyphenation
problem is entirely valid. If a woman named A-B and a man named C-D
have a daughter, her surname is A-C, A being a matrilineal name and C
being a patrilineal name. Jeff Nicholson-Owens's point about the
order of the names being important is a good one too, so let us say,
for example, that women's surnames will have the matrilineal name
first and men's surnames will have the patrilineal name first. Then
if their child A-C has a daughter with a man whose surname is E-F, the
granddaughter's surname will be A-E, thus losing the family name C-D
entirely. Why is this fair? Well it's clear that the surname cannot
encode the entire family tree without getting to a ridiculous length
soon. But the plea to encode a female lineage as well as a male one
is not a requirement to encode the entire family tree. These choices
I have presented regarding which name to include are not arbitrary
except for the ordering. Everyone has a matrilineal name, the name of
their mother's mother's mother's mother's ... mother, and a
patrilineal name, the name of their father's father's father's ...
father.
The idea of children taking the mother's or the father's surname based
on their gender is interesting, but I'm not particularly fond of it.
I quite dislike the idea that boys should be more inclined to follow
in their father's footsteps than girls (this idea generally does not
contain an analogous suggestion that girls would follow in their
mother's footsteps). I'm not saying that this is the basis of this
surname assignment but it just seems baseless to me. For example, why
not have the boys take the mother's surname and the girls take the
father's surname? However, I must comment on the article posted by
Siva Prasad, in which he said that surnames indicate genetic
commonality, and would serve to indicate it even in the absence of
known intersections of family trees. He gives the example of cousins
who may not know that they are related except through matching
surnames, but given the matching surnames, would decide not to marry.
But not all cousins have the same surname! I am always astounded by
reasoning so fundamentally flawed as this. Only in the case of actual
siblings is commonality in surnames a reasonably reliable indicator of
the genetic relationship, and siblings are more likely to know who
each other is than to share a surname anyway (adoption usually changes
surnames).
My personal preferred solution is quite different. Joanne M. Karohl
writes:
>I think, if I lug them around for nine months, I should be able to
>give them my name at least some of the time, right?
This sentiment is quite compelling and is the reason why I feel that
my biological children should have my (female) partner's surname.
(However, I don't hold much stock in the argument that the mother's
identity is more reliably known -- lineage is a cultural thing, not a
genetic one.)
Let me now come full circle and respond to something in Ron Graham's
posting which started this thread. He said that a woman keeping her
own name upon marriage is keeping a male name -- at marriage you get
to decide between your father's name and your new husband's, and why
is one less male than the other? I have two very strong views on
this. Firstly, the pattern matters more than the individual instance.
Who now knows which ancestor of theirs originally adopted their
current surname? (Well I do, so some of us do, but it's not something
I think about often and it doesn't really affect my perception of the
origins of the name.) If people adopt a combined
matrilineal-patrilineal surname propagation scheme now, it won't be
too many generations before people forget that the matrilineal
component of their surname has its origins as a patrilineal name. You
have to start somewhere! But mostly, the main reason I would never
change my name is that people know me by my current surname. It would
be a great loss to all business-related and academic-related contacts
that I have made if my name were to change in an unconnectable way.
Dan Welch says that changing my name would not "upgrade or downgrade
your life in any way", but he is wrong; it would actually represent a
financial loss as it became harder for me to get jobs! The tradition
of women changing their surnames upon marriage is surely founded upon
the idea that they do not have any important, distant, non-family
contacts to maintain.
Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861
>have children have named the children with the father's names. I
>wonder if this is usually the case? If so, the patriarchy continues!
My wife and I both kept our names when we were married. I have a
stepson, who is named after his father (last name, that is), so to the
inifinite confusion of the schools (My, but those smart people get
confused easily ;-), we now have three people with three last names in
the family.
A question we have been discussing half in jest, but half seriously,
is what we do when we have another child. If we give it either my
wife's name or mine, we create imbalance, not only with regard to my
wife and me, but respecting my stepson, who might feel that this child
is somehow closer to my wife and me since s/he shares one of our
names. We're sure that the best solution is to give the child a fourth
last name, but we don't know if we'll be allowed to do it or how to
pick one when the time comes (I suppose that it can't be any harder
than picking a first name).
This isn't anything that we stay up all night worrying about, and I
don't think that my stepson will grow up emotionally damaged if we
name our next child after my wife or me, but I'd be curious to hear
whether anyone reading this has any experience in such matters.
BTW, none of us has felt any lack of family cohesion through having
different names, but I won't claim that this holds for everyone else's
family.
(Back to Cindy's comment, a woman named Lia Matera has written a few
mystery novels whose heroine is a woman who was named (last name) for
her mother. I don't think the books themselves are that great, but
it's nice to see an example, even fictional, of someone flouting the
convention.)
---Jon
--
Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
Mary Olin
> Why get married? That is the question. Why can't people just
>have the relationships they want without classifying themselves. That
>opens them to prejudice. And it affects *unmarried* people too.
>
> Personally, I've never been able to understand how anyone
>could possibly claim to be a feminist and then go and get married.
>
> IMHO exclusive relationships and the stereotyping of them is
>far more damaging to personal freedom than mere sexism. Was not
>marriage the *mechanism* of oppression of women--and men. Is not the
>*nuclear family* the most inefficent and exploitative con-job ever?
While I am in complete ideological agreement with you about the
scrapping of institutionalized marriage, I take strong exception both to
the labeling of those who marry as non-feminist, and to the attitude
that it is wrong to be sexually exclusive or in a nuclear family.
I define "feminist" as being a person who intellectually accepts, as
correct, feminist ideology. The implications of this ideology can often,
because of heavy societal pressure, be very difficult to implement in
one's personal life. I know that I have copped out on numerous things,
and still have no problem claiming to be a feminist. This is why I think
that dropping some of the trappings of marriage, like husband's name and
rings, is good to do even if it is, admittedly, a halfway measure. The
old adage about glass houses comes to mind here.
On the question of lifestyles:
The problem is with the institutionalizing of only one of the many
possibilities, and with the lack of freedom that this implies. Why do
you have a problem with those who FREELY choose sexual exclusivity and/or
FREELY choose a living arrangement of Mom, Dad, and kids? Maybe you'd
like to figure out the most "efficient" lifestyle and institutionalize
it?
Mary Olin-____ (I haven't made up my mind yet as to my new name.)
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> There's a difference here, I think. It's important to do whatever is
> required whenever there is truly some infringement on anyone's
> rights.
Agreed.
> Name changing, though, doesn't fit in there. The kind of person you
> are isn't going to change if you change your name,
Well....certainly this is true is the largest, most important sense.
But we all make a lot of small choices in our lives, and those choices
all together do make us who we are, to a certain extent. In a
heterosexual marriage it can be difficult to avoid power issues and
assuming traditional gender roles, because (at least for me) all of my
role models for marriage are basically sexist ones. My name choice
was one small part of my larger choice to be an equal partner in my
marriage.
> nor is it going to upgrade or downgrade your life in any way.
> Hyphenating means that both parties have to go through the hassle
> and expense of changing their names.
Choosing to hyphenate my name with my husband's did upgrade my life.
It made me feel like a more equal partner united with my husband in
one family. The hassle was minimal and was equal for both of us.
There was *no* expense for either of us.
> I think that it's bad to make life worse for everyone just to make
> sure that it's the SAME for everyone.
Our name choice made life better for both of us.
I'm not sure what you're implying here. Are you saying that it would
be better for just one person to give up her/his name instead of both?
Or are you advocating your own solution of keeping your names as is?
One could also say that giving your children different last names
makes life worse for everyone just to make sure it's the SAME for
everyone. (*I* think your solution is great, by the way. I'm just
pointing out that it is just as hassle-producing as hyphenating.)
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
John (MAX
>
>But doesn't what you're saying about rings hold true for the
>institution of marriage in general? Seems to me that is the real
>issue, and the rings are just the symbols.
Yes. Just like the issue of names.
>The question is: can we transform the institution of marriage and its
>attendant symbols, and reclaim it as feminists? (I certainly hope so
>-- considering I'm already married :-)
Why 'reclaim' it? It is an institution of oppression.
What needs transformation is out personal relationships, and the
best way to do that is refuse to be conned by the state, church,
or other totalitarian body that uses marriage to control people.
If you are already married, fine. You were probably brought
up with certain expectation and cultural values, just
as many people, especially older ones, were brought up
with strong gender prejudice. Like them, you cannot help
the past, but you can continue to learn.
[BTW: I went to a some friends' wedding recently.
He wanted to apply for a job in the US, and take his partner
with him. I might marry a nice foreign person who wants
to stay in Australia but can't get residency without
being married.]
--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
--
Cynthia Kandolf
> Why get married? That is the question. Why can't people just
>have the relationships they want without classifying themselves. That
>opens them to prejudice. And it affects *unmarried* people too.
I have never felt any prejudice against myself as a married woman,
as a matter of fact i can't imagine what prejudice you're talking
about. The only difference i've noticed is that the sight of a
wedding ring tends to discourage some (not all) guys who are out
looking for a one-night stand. If that's prejudice, it's in my favor.
Now do i really understand how my actions have affected unmarried
people. True, there are some people who cannot accept unmarried
couples living together. However, their prejudices are in place.
My choice to get married affects their attitude no more or no less
than your choice not to get married.
My husband and i were both eager to get married. I don't know his
reasons, but i know mine. I am an American, he is a Norwegian. At
the time we decided to get married, i was a college student with a
short-lease rental apartment, a job that i disliked, and no real
groundwork laid for a career. Steinar, on the other hand, had
purchased an apartment and had been working for ten years at a job he
enjoyed and that he hopes to go far in. Obviously it was more
practical to uproot me than him. I had no objections to that. But if
he had wanted me to come over without intending to marry me, my
response would have been "Hold on. You want me to pack up my things,
leave my family and friends and go to a strange country, and i love
you enough to do that. But i want something in return. I want you
to make a commitment, and i want you to make it publicly, that this
is not just some whim of yours. I want you to stand in front of our
families and our friends and tell them that you intend for us to be
together for the rest of our lives. If you are not willing to make
that commitment to me when i am asking for it, how can you ask me
to make the commitment of moving to Norway?"
Yes, i do intend to stay with my husband for the rest of my life.
We are each other's best friends; we compliment each other and help
each other out; and we want to raise a family together. It seems to
me a commitment flows naturally from that relationship, it's not
forced by anyone's norms.
> IMHO exclusive relationships and the stereotyping of them is
>far more damaging to personal freedom than mere sexism.
Here we disagree, i'm afraid. An "exclusive" relationship - which is
really only exclusive in a few limited areas, like sex - does not
limit me. On the contrary, it's given me a stable base, and that
stable base gives me the freedom to try new things and develop as
a person.
Take it to its logical conclusion. In a world where no one is willing
to commit to anyone or anything, who is free? No one. There is
nothing you can trust, and you are stuck in a chain of suspicion.
> Is not the
>*nuclear family* the most inefficent and exploitative con-job ever?
>Look to the attitude of the moralists and see the importance they
>place on 'family values'. This is exploitation par excellence.
Certainly there is exploitation there - but the exploitation is being
done by the moralists, not by the nuclear family. Stopping the
"nuclear family" isn't going to end the exploitation, it's just going
to send the exploiters off to find another target.
> Personally, I've never been able to understand how anyone
>could possibly claim to be a feminist and then go and get married.
Feminists are for choice. Getting married was my choice and my
husband's choice. Saying "You shouldn't get married" is just
as limiting for a person's freedom of choice as saying "You should
get married", if the people saying those things have equal power to
back themselves up.
-Cindy Kandolf
ci...@solan.unit.no
Trondheim, Norway
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
> Why get married? That is the question.
As far as relationships go, I agree in that my relationship with my
partner hasn't been made stronger or more solid by us getting married.
However, married people do get:
* certain housing options (at the University of Illinois, I don't
know about other colleges).
* much better insurance rates.
* to file joint tax returns and, thusly, get more money on them.
I can't think of any other monetary/property advantages at the moment,
but those are a few.
If it could be that married people were not given preferential
treatment in certain circumstances, I'd say there's no need for
marriage for me. There's no additional love or respect that I have
for my partner simply because we are married. Other people feel that
they should get married because not doing so could conflict with their
religious beliefs.
> Personally, I've never been able to understand how anyone
>could possibly claim to be a feminist and then go and get married.
Here, I disagree. It is possible for a person to be both a feminist
and married if their religious beliefs are taken into account. It is
not always the case that marriage means being bound to another's rules
or that one must give up their interest in pursuing equality for
people of either sex. Also, I don't think that marriage (outside of
religion) has anything to do with anything but gaining the
aforementioned advantages and some signatures on a piece of paper.
I also feel that marriage should have no place in the discussion of
raising children (max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au brought up the nuclear
family and family values, so I shall address my thoughts on the
issue). If people (it's irrelevant how many) are willing to care for a
child, I'd say those are the children's parents (I won't get into
details on what I mean by caring, it's outside of the topic).
What I do object to, however, is how homosexuals cannot obtain the
same advantages heterosexual couples can obtain by getting married.
--
-- Jeff (je...@uiuc.edu)
-- No NeXTmail please
Tanya M Ollick
the two partners in the marriage and their commitment to each other.
Admittedly, most people seeing a ring make an assumption of a
heterosexual union, but that's a matter of ignorance and
narrow-mindedness on their part. The same can be said for those people
who insist that married people MUST wear rings and even that there
must be a legal or religious undertone to wearing rings. Any choice
about this should be made by the partners, no one else.
This also applies to homosexual marriages. There are religious
ceremonies and legal declarations (in Ann Arbor, domestic partnerships
of any nature can be registered at City Hall, although it grants no
additional legal rights), so there is no reason that ANY two people
cannot wear rings (any assumptions made by others are, once again,
narrow-minded).
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> Now, the other side of your question. There are people who believe
> that, for example, a woman *refusing* to take a man's name is
> *always* a feminist action. What if she just doesn't like his name?
> She's not trying to make any sort of statement, she doesn't consider
> it oppressive to women to change her name, she just prefers her own
> and doesn't want to go to the trouble of changing her name to
> something she doesn't like. Is her action feminist just because
> many feminists would think that that is the right thing to do?
Well, this is certainly a tough question.
In thinking about it, I feel that although this (hypothetical) woman's
action is not a fully feminist one, she has the freedom to make this
choice, to a large extent, because of feminism. The mere option of
keeping her own name, for *whatever* reason, is one that remains
controversial in mainstream society, and one that is still not fully
accepted. The fact that she has a choice is a triumph for women's
rights. So exercising that choice in an unconventional manner is an
unintentioned feminist choice, to some extent. Just like, in my
opinion, a woman's choosing to take her husband's name for "pragmatic"
reasons is an unintentioned non-feminist choice.
Another hypothetical: it is many years from now, and it has become
fully acceptable (and even commonplace) for men to take women's names
upon marriage (and they do so about 50% of the time). A woman chooses
to take her husband's name upon marriage because she just likes it
better than her own. Another woman chooses to keep her own name upon
marriage because she just likes it better than her husband's. Will
either of these choices be feminist or non-feminist? I don't think
so; in such a climate, they will be value-neutral, and "pragmatic"
reasons can truly be considered. Unfortunately, today we do not live
in such a society, so our actions may hold more feminist or
non-feminist weight.
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
Dan Welch
>Daniel Welch writes:
>> Name changing, though, doesn't fit in there. The kind of person you
>> are isn't going to change if you change your name,
>
>Well....certainly this is true is the largest, most important sense.
>But we all make a lot of small choices in our lives, and those choices
>all together do make us who we are, to a certain extent.
Since I wrote my contribution above, I have reconsidered things somewhat,
and what Cindy says is valid. I have a very easily shortened first name,
and even though I do not like being called "Dan" I tolerate it just
because it is so pervasive amongst the people I know. "Dan" is not my
name; it doesn't reflect who I really am, to my way of thinking. After
going over this last night, I couldn't come up with a reason why my
last name is any less a part of me than my first.
Of course, to me that makes any change seem even stranger.
>My name choice
>was one small part of my larger choice to be an equal partner in my
>marriage.
I guess my way of thinking is that equality in a relationship is not
and cannot be achieved by external gestures. It is something that both
partners must believe in for it to work. If they do, then it doesn't
matter who is called what, or who makes the money, or who does the
dishes. However, if they don't, in their hearts, believe themselves
to be equal, no amount of display is going to alter that fact.
>> Hyphenating means that both parties have to go through the hassle
>> and expense of changing their names.
>The hassle was minimal and was equal for both of us.
>There was *no* expense for either of us.
Really? I was under the impression that a name change required some
sort of fee paid to the state, and that it *was* a hassle (info gleaned
>from the few people around me who have done it).
>Our name choice made life better for both of us.
I'm glad for you (no sarcasm intended). In the end, that's the only
thing that matters. You seem to have had a multitude of good, solid
reasons for your choice, so it was the right one for you.
Daniel Welch
John (MAX) Skaller
In article <12JUL199...@erich.triumf.ca> his...@erich.triumf.ca (Mary Olin) writes:
>While I am in complete ideological agreement with you about the
>scrapping of institutionalized marriage, I take strong exception both to
>the labeling of those who marry as non-feminist, and to the attitude
>that it is wrong to be sexually exclusive or in a nuclear family.
I haven't so labelled you, although perhaps, by getting
married you have labelled yourself. Note I said I have never
been able to understand about feminists marrying, not that it
was wrong. Why did you get married?
As to exclusivity, I object to the stereotyping, the assumption
that it is the only way. I accept the right of people to be exclusive,
although sometimes I wish they could cope without such self-imposed
restrictions.
>I define "feminist" as being a person who intellectually accepts, as
>correct, feminist ideology.
Mm. Doesn't help much. What is feminist ideology?
And really, what the hell does 'correct' mean?
Sounds a bit like 'ideologically pure'.
>The implications of this ideology can often,
>because of heavy societal pressure, be very difficult to implement in
>one's personal life.
Yes. Sometimes very hard. I guess we must choose our
compromises, and when to make a stand.
>I know that I have copped out on numerous things,
>and still have no problem claiming to be a feminist.
There is hope for me yet :-)
>This is why I think
>that dropping some of the trappings of marriage, like husband's name and
>rings, is good to do even if it is, admittedly, a halfway measure. The
>old adage about glass houses comes to mind here.
How about dropping the piece of paper? What would that
do to your personal relationship? What would other people
think?
The answer to the first question is 'not much' probably
[just guessing] and the second is probably a good reason
not to do it. Or maybe a good reason to do it, depending
on where you want to make a stand.
>On the question of lifestyles:
> The problem is with the institutionalizing of only one of the many
>possibilities, and with the lack of freedom that this implies.
Yes, the main problem is there.
>Why do
>you have a problem with those who FREELY choose sexual exclusivity and/or
>FREELY choose a living arrangement of Mom, Dad, and kids?
I have no dispute with them, although I might prefer
that more people were, for example, polyamorous. Just as
I imagine a homosexual would have no dispute with someone
FREELY choosing to be heterosexual, but would really like
there to be other homo-sexuals around to talk to.
But when so many people choose exclusive relationships
I suggest many are not truly making free choices. Just the same
as in the recent past so many women choosing to get married,
have kids, and do the housework while the male earned the money:
were these choices made so FREELY?
>Maybe you'd
>like to figure out the most "efficient" lifestyle and institutionalize
>it?
Hell no. I'm not in favour of institutionalising personal
relationships at all. In fact, I think the constitution should
make it illegal for governments to recognize marriage, religion,
or sex of a person.
How dare they make laws, which, for example, make polygamy
illegal? No mere stereotyping this: the weight of the law
and the police state is behind this.
[A contract concerning property and child raising is a different
thing]
>Mary Olin-____ (I haven't made up my mind yet as to my new name.)
I started adding 'MAX' to my name because there were
too many 'John's around :-)
--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
Steve LaSala
More anecdotes from the married-name front. I attended the wedding
of some friends over the weekend and brought up the question of name change
with the groom (the bride was not present at the time). He said that he
had no strong feelings on the subject, but that she felt strongly that all
members of a nuclear family should have the same name, particularly that both
parents should have the same name as their children. They considered the
options of no change, groom changes, bride changes, and she chose the last
and took his name. These are highly educated people who are quite socially
progressive (and feminist) but also draw strength from tradition.
(e.g: The wedding was at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College near
Philadelphia. The groom is an MD and the bride both a DVM and a Rabbi.
The bandleader invited us to "join the Doctors Brown on the dance floor". ;-)
I've also found an example for Cindy of a man taking his wife's name.
My wife's grandfather's brother came to this country about the turn of the
century with the name of Gutfleish. He married a woman named Becker and took
her name "in order to sound more American" (?!) Later on, his brother (my
grandfather-in-law) also came over and also changed his name to Becker,
whether to sound more American or to have the same name as his brother
I don't know.
Terry Maton
> In an earlier posting I said that wedding rings were a more
> important symbol to avoid than taking the man's name. I've gotten a
> bunch of E-mail asking me to elaborate on this, so here goes.
>
> A ring is a public symbol making a traditional statement. It says
> "I'm in a permanent relationship sanctioned by Authority in which I
> have become someone's exclusive sexual property." One cannot simply
> declare that MY ring doesn't mean that property stuff when it's a
> symbol with a meaning that's already been assigned long ago.
I have to disagree - it *may* mean that to you, to others
and/or to the majority, but as far as I am concerned, it means
what my wife and I feel it means to us. We *both* have a ring
as an outward sign of our continuing love for each other.
What other people percieve as it's meaning is not my problem :)
> I, personally, get a certain amount of perverse enjoyment from
> finding small ways of not being a good girl. This is an easy one.
>
> Mary Olin
I know that there are women, my wife included, who consider
the ring also cuts out some unwanted hassle from men. I even
know some who wear a ring for that specific purpose (ie. they
are *not* married).
I would hope that it will one day soon be no longer necessary
to even consider a ring as anti-hassle prop!
Terry
--
Terry Maton
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
INTERNET: ma...@sask.usask.ca or ma...@herald.usask.ca
Jordi Torne
[ some good stuff deleted ]
>
>So anyway, the mother's name that is passed down to her children is
>her father's name, so it is not much of a "matriarchal" naming scheme.
>
>However, in Spain (the above example is in Mexico), they can get
>really funky and just keep appending names and rearranging them how
>they feel. Europe in general can be funky: I know that very wealthy
>heiresses in Britain can demand that the husband change his name to
>hers to preserve the family name.
>
Actually in Spain, the married woman preserves her maiden name for all
purposes, legally, and familiarly. And the children has two last names
ther father's first last name, and the mother's first last name.
Appending names can only be done by legal request. As the hyphenation
of two last names is done by legal procedures.
And another think "Ortega y Gasset" are two last names, not one.
Jorge Francisco Torne y Garcia
Muffy Barkocy
>In article <MUFFY.92J...@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy%remarque.B...@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>the primary goal of feminism is to free women from the various roles
>>they are being forced into *specifically because they are women* by
>>society (or whoever) and allow them to make their own choices. Yes, I
>>know that society forces men into roles, too, and I know that it forces
>>people in general into roles, but I do not think that all feminists
>>consider these two latter to be feminist issues.
>1) What do YOU think?
See above, starting with "It seems to me." That's what I think. Also,
check out my other articles for more on what I think.
>2) How are MEN affected by women being forced into roles?
Some men think this is a good thing for them, others think it is a bad
thing. I don't think you can really separate the two; I think if
changes are made to one side, changes will be necessary on the other
side.
>3) To what extent are men also liberated by the liberation of
>women (from the stereotyped roles)?
Some men believe that they are not at all. Some believe that they
will be greatly liberated. I'm not sure what the answer is; I think
the balance will shift, but I think that society will always be
somewhat restrictive, so I don't know if the overall effect will be
"more liberating" for men or not.
>4) And the converse: how are women affect by men's being
>forced into roles, and how would their liberation
>affect women?
Same as above.
>5) How many *male* feminists do you think would deny
>that male roles/liberation are feminist issues?
Well, I know at least two, but since I don't know that many male
feminists (even though I know a lot of men), I can't make any guesses
on this. However, since you may have been expecting the answer
"zero," I'll say "at least two."
>6) If feminism is against sexism, try swapping
> the genders your above paragraph.
*sigh*...here we go again. It is NOT "sexism" to choose which battles
you want to fight. If you are interested in working on "women's
rights," it is no more sexist than giving to the AIDS Foundation but
not the Cancer Society is disease-ist. I'm sure that there are many
men who do not believe that oppression of women is a "men's rights"
issue as well, and that is not sexist, either. So, yes, I'll reverse
the genders, and no, my paragraph still does not illustrate any
sexism. There are feminists who include men's rights/issues in their
feminism and feminists who don't.
Muffy
--
Muffy Barkocy | mu...@mica.berkeley.edu | wi....@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> I guess my way of thinking is that equality in a relationship is not
> and cannot be achieved by external gestures. It is something that
> both partners must believe in for it to work. If they do, then it
> doesn't matter who is called what, or who makes the money, or who does
> the dishes. However, if they don't, in their hearts, believe
> themselves to be equal, no amount of display is going to alter that
> fact.
I agree with you. But I have two points to make:
First, the names we take upon marriage can be a result of the equality
we feel inside, and can also be a statement about that equality to the
rest of the world and to our children.
Second, I wonder how many of us, women or men, really believe
themselves to be equal, in their hearts. Given the sexist messages
that society bombards us with, I think we have all absorbed some of
it. For me, despite my "feminist consciousness", I am constantly
becoming aware of my subtle feelings of inequality, deep down. It is
a continual learning process, and one that I celebrate. So, for me,
the choice of my name might have been a step towards feeling fully
equal.
I do wonder about men and women "believing themselves to be equal"
deep down. Anyone have any comments on this?
> Really? I was under the impression that a name change required some
> sort of fee paid to the state, and that it *was* a hassle (info
> gleaned from the few people around me who have done it).
For us, all we did was fill out the marriage license to say that our
names after marriage would be "Blank-Edelman". If we had waited to do
this after we were married, we would have had to pay a fee, and the
same if we had wanted to do it before marriage. But the way we timed
it, there was no expense.
Of course, the laws and costs may be different outside of
Massachusetts.
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
Bonita Kale
>From article <10JUL199...@erich.triumf.ca>, by his...@erich.triumf.ca (Mary Olin):
>>
>> A ring is a public symbol making a traditional statement. It says
>> "I'm in a permanent relationship sanctioned by Authority in which I
>> have become someone's exclusive sexual property." One cannot simply
>> declare that MY ring doesn't mean that property stuff when it's a
>> symbol with a meaning that's already been assigned long ago.
>
> I have to disagree - it *may* mean that to you, to others
> and/or to the majority, but as far as I am concerned, it means
> what my wife and I feel it means to us. We *both* have a ring
> as an outward sign of our continuing love for each other.
My husband and I both have rings. I no longer wear mine (or any
rings) because I keep fiddling with the damn things and losing them.
But to me, they mean both of the above. We -are-, after all, in a
permanent relationship sanctioned by Authority in which we have become
each other's exclusive sexual property! I don't need a ring to remind
me of that, though, so after it was lost for two years (to turn up
under the back seat of a car we were junking), I stopped wearing it.
And if anyone thinks my -not- wearing a ring is a statement of some
sort, that's too bad. -My- not wearing a ring doesn't have the heavy
symbolic overtones the first quote above would assign it.
Do people still notice? Maybe they do, on younger women.
Bonita Kale
Avri Doria
...[much deleted]
Cindy> I do wonder about men and women "believing themselves to be equal"
Cindy> deep down. Anyone have any comments on this?
i believe that as long as men are the cultural/power elite, it is
impossible for any sort of natural equality to come about. it is
probably necessary to create a power reversal in order to be able to
some day come to actual equality. if the female spouse in a
relationship does not have the dominant position, then the male
dominates by virtue of societal pressure. in order for equality to
someday happen, men must abdicate, as much as possible, the advantages
of their gender and freely subject themselves to their spouses
control.
in the context of this discussion, it probably boils down to a
recommendation that men take their wives last names - even it is
awkward or requires a fee. it also requires that we think of men as
joining the wife's family as opposed to the woman joining the man's.
(this of course totaly ignores the situation where the woman cannot
stand her last name and likes the man's)
...[much deleted]
Cindy> --Cindy Blank-Edelman
avri
--
"A liitle subversion is good for the soul" A. Schwietzer
Cindy Blank-Edelman
>>But doesn't what you're saying about rings hold true for the
>>institution of marriage in general? Seems to me that is the real
>>issue, and the rings are just the symbols.
> Yes. Just like the issue of names.
Point well taken.
>>The question is: can we transform the institution of marriage and
>>its attendant symbols, and reclaim it as feminists? (I certainly
>>hope so -- considering I'm already married :-)
> Why 'reclaim' it? It is an institution of oppression. What
>needs transformation is out personal relationships, and the best way
>to do that is refuse to be conned by the state, church, or other
>totalitarian body that uses marriage to control people.
> If you are already married, fine. You were probably brought
>up with certain expectation and cultural values, just as many people,
>especially older ones, were brought up with strong gender prejudice.
>Like them, you cannot help the past, but you can continue to learn.
I understand what you are saying, and agree with it to a certain
extent. For me, my marriage was important to me to a large extent
because of my Jewish beliefs. It was very meaningful to me to have a
traditional Jewish ceremony. It was also meaningful that my husband
and I took great pains to balance the patriarchal nature of much of
the ceremony with feminist creations of our own.
Judaism is as important to me as feminism. Therefore, I try to unite
those two parts of my identity. I don't always succeed, but I
continue to try.
My brother, who is less involved with Judaism, and his partner, who is
not Jewish, would agree with you. They are living together with no
intention of marrying. In their case, I think your assertions are
right on the mark.
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
Robert Coleman
>On 15 Jul 92 01:49:03 GMT, uunet!mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!meshugge.media.mit.edu!ci...@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Cindy Blank-Edelman) said:
>i believe that as long as men are the cultural/power elite, it is
>impossible for any sort of natural equality to come about. it is
>probably necessary to create a power reversal in order to be able to
>some day come to actual equality. if the female spouse in a
>relationship does not have the dominant position, then the male
>dominates by virtue of societal pressure. in order for equality to
>someday happen, men must abdicate, as much as possible, the advantages
>of their gender and freely subject themselves to their spouses
>control.
Naaah. 30 years ago, by wife probably wouldn't have been working.
She certainly wouldn't have been making more money than I, since she would
probably not have been in computer science, even if such a thing really
existed.
Today, she graduated with a computer science degree, works, and makes
more money than I do. Yet I haven't had to knuckle under and be subservient.
What changed?
Why, societal pressure, of course. There is now a significant societal
pressure for women to *have* to work, as well as for parents to prepare their
daughters for college, engineering degrees, etc. We aren't there yet, but
the trend is definitely promising.
Your premise is that because of societal pressure, men will
automatically lead if they aren't subservient. It fails because societal
pressures change, and are changing in such a direction and such a fashion as to
encourage equality.
So, some things she leads in, and others I lead in. Mostly, we both
participate in most decisions. And neither of us has to knuckle under
individually, because society is knuckling under in general.
>in the context of this discussion, it probably boils down to a
>recommendation that men take their wives last names - even it is
>awkward or requires a fee. it also requires that we think of men as
>joining the wife's family as opposed to the woman joining the man's.
It requires that we encourage women to make their own decisions,
and support them in the decisions they make. As soon as anyone decides that
if a woman takes her husbands name, she is betraying women, then we're just
designing a *new* set of rules for women...with a new set of rulers. What's
liberating about that?
Robert C.
--
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
John MAX Skaller
In article <14006f...@agate.berkeley.edu> uunet!mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!meshugge.media.mit.edu!ci...@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Cindy Blank-Edelman) writes:
>Daniel Welch writes:
>
>I do wonder about men and women "believing themselves to be equal"
>deep down. Anyone have any comments on this?
No. Deep down I feel women are superior.
They have the same ability to think and act as men.
In addition they can bear children.
Furthermore in the social context the have effective
power to control their sex lives where as men do not.
--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
Rich Berlin
>i believe that as long as men are the cultural/power elite, it is
>impossible for any sort of natural equality to come about. it is
>probably necessary to create a power reversal in order to be able to
>some day come to actual equality. if the female spouse in a
>relationship does not have the dominant position, then the male
>dominates by virtue of societal pressure. in order for equality to
>someday happen, men must abdicate, as much as possible, the advantages
>of their gender and freely subject themselves to their spouses
>control.
The fact that this paragraph makes me furious is an indication that
I'm going to have to go explore my own attitudes about this some more.
Are these hypothetical women going to "abdicate, as much as possible,
the advantages of their gender" as well??! I don't want to be
controlled by a woman. Nor do I feel I should want to or need to
control a woman in order to avoid being controlled by her. "Control
or be controlled" is not marriage, it is war.
I can interpret Avri's statements two ways. The first way, the
underlying paradigm seems to be one of scarcity, i.e. "Life is a
zero-sum game." If you hold (or are held by) this point of view,
turnabout-is-fair-play seems quite obvious. But so does "two wrongs
don't make a right." I would prefer to think that there are other
ways to look at the world, some of which are fair, more compassionate
and more constructive than "You win, I lose; I win, you lose."
The second way seems to be that "in order to hit the midpoint, you
have to overcorrect so that things average out." This makes sense as
far as a population goes, but applying it to an individual
relationship is destructive. It reminds me of the definition of a
statistician: someone who observes that with your head in an oven and
your feet in a bucket of ice, on the average you must be comfortable.
A turnabout doesn't decrease the amount of dominance or sexism in the
world, only the genders of some of the victims some of the time.
I would propose a dilution theory instead: when enough relationships
are truly equal, those based on domination and subjugation will be
outliers. And everyone should think about this: which spouse is more
likely to be able to support you in your efforts to change sexism (or,
in fact, to face any challenge) in other areas of your life: one who
is subjugated to you, or one who is an equal? And why?
I support every woman's right to self-determination: economic, social
and educational opportunity; control over her own body; equal
treatment under fair laws. But I can't support a "Female Supremacy"
movement; it's no more correct than "Male Supremacy." Domination and
subjugation might be a fun sex game between two fully-consenting
adults, but it does not strike me as a positive way to live one's
life, no matter which role one occupies. Perhaps my perspective is
too limited in this regard, but I don't think so; domination violates
principle as well as people.
-- Rich
--
===============================================================================
Richard...@Eng.Sun.COM | The significant problems we face cannot be
| solved at the same level of thinking we were
| at when we created them. -- Albert Einstein
Terrance Heath
>[Moderator's note: subject line changed to be more appropriate.]
[lines deleted concerning the "superiority" of women]
>
> Furthermore in the social context the have effective
> power to control their sex lives where as men do not.
>
I simply don't buy this. Is the assumption that a man, somehow, cannot
control his sex life? How is it that a woman has more control over her
sex life?
It seems (if I follow some of the logic I've heard from other
feminists) that what is really implied here is that women have more
control over their sex "drives", which plays in to the popular myths
of female superiority already bandied about in this bandwith (i.e.
women do not commit violence, women cannot rape, etc.). I don't buy it
in any case, but if I have misunderstood something here, please
enlighten me.
Interestingly enough, the "moral superiority of women" has been
effectively used to keep women oppressed, by casting them in the role
of "dainty flowers" who sensibilities, etc., must be protected. In
short, moral superiority has been used to place women on a pedastel.
However, in placing someone on a pedastel you often have to hobble
them in order to keep them there.
--
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath
he...@athena.cs.uga.edu
max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
>max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au ("John (MAX") writes:
>
>> Why get married? That is the question.
>
>As far as relationships go, I agree in that my relationship with my
>partner hasn't been made stronger or more solid by us getting married.
>However, married people do get:
>
>* certain housing options (at the University of Illinois, I don't
> know about other colleges).
>* much better insurance rates.
>* to file joint tax returns and, thusly, get more money on them.
>
>I can't think of any other monetary/property advantages at the moment,
>but those are a few.
Clearly prejudice against unmarried people.
And note: in Australia, the tax business works the OTHER
way: if you are married you get a small concession, but
you CANNOT split your joint incomes. But if you form a partnership,
you can.
There are also implications here for the 'family home',
it is exempt from capital gains tax. If you are two
friendly singles you can own TWO houses exempt from tax,
if married only one.
If married, you BOTH have to be out of work to get
unemployment benefits. If unmarried you can get supporting
parents benefits, but not if you're married.
>
>If it could be that married people were not given preferential
>treatment in certain circumstances, I'd say there's no need for
>marriage for me.
Sure. For a large enough bribe you will get married.
Fair enough, I would too.
>There's no additional love or respect that I have
>for my partner simply because we are married. Other people feel that
>they should get married because not doing so could conflict with their
>religious beliefs.
They also are constrained by prejudices.
>
>> Personally, I've never been able to understand how anyone
>>could possibly claim to be a feminist and then go and get married.
>
>Here, I disagree.
You surely cant disagree with my lack of understanding,
I'm *telling* you I don't understand. Don't you believe me?
>It is possible for a person to be both a feminist
>and married if their religious beliefs are taken into account.
I don't see how anyone can have religious beliefs
and be a feminist either.
>It is
>not always the case that marriage means being bound to another's rules
>or that one must give up their interest in pursuing equality for
>people of either sex.
Perhaps. But for me feminism means a lot more than that.
It means freeing peoples personal lives from authoritarian
control (patriarchial if you like, although I think matriarchial
is just as sexist). Getting married is precisely the opposite,
it is *submitting* to such control. It is placing
yourself in the hands of the courts, for example, if you choose
to part and cannot agree on things.
>Also, I don't think that marriage (outside of
>religion) has anything to do with anything but gaining the
>aforementioned advantages and some signatures on a piece of paper.
That is your personal feeling, but if you examined
the role of marriage in history you might change your view
of it. Marriage today is one of the last vestiges of
the sort of society where power was inherited. And I
thought that was the opposite of the goals of feminism.
>
>I also feel that marriage should have no place in the discussion of
>raising children (max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au brought up the nuclear
>family and family values, so I shall address my thoughts on the
>issue). If people (it's irrelevant how many) are willing to care for a
>child, I'd say those are the children's parents (I won't get into
>details on what I mean by caring, it's outside of the topic).
But the married couple are the default legal guardians.
Marrying more than one person is ILLEGAL.
>
>What I do object to, however, is how homosexuals cannot obtain the
>same advantages heterosexual couples can obtain by getting married.
What I object to is that ANYONE gets any state recognition
for getting married. Why restrict your thoughts to couples?
Why cant I form a tribe, for example? It is historically a much
older social unit than the married couple and nuclear family.
>--
>-- Jeff (je...@uiuc.edu)
>-- No NeXTmail please
>
>
>--
>Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
>Questions and comments may be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
>news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
>article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
--
Ronnie Falcao
>My wife and I both kept our names when we were married. I have a
>stepson, who is named after his father (last name, that is), so to the
>inifinite confusion of the schools (My, but those smart people get
>confused easily ;-), we now have three people with three last names in
>the family.
>
>A question we have been discussing half in jest, but half seriously,
>is what we do when we have another child. If we give it either my
>wife's name or mine, we create imbalance, not only with regard to my
>wife and me, but respecting my stepson, who might feel that this child
>is somehow closer to my wife and me since s/he shares one of our
>names. We're sure that the best solution is to give the child a fourth
>last name, but we don't know if we'll be allowed to do it or how to
>pick one when the time comes (I suppose that it can't be any harder
>than picking a first name).
Would you consider naming the child after the older sibling?
Then you wouldn't have to think of a new last name, and you'd
be encouraging closeness between the children. And it sounds
as if the people at your schools would be able to handle this,
now that you've got them trained.
By the way, I think that in most places there are no laws
about what name you give your child.
- Ronnie
Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]
>(Cindy Blank-Edelman) said:
>
>...[much deleted]
>
>Cindy> I do wonder about men and women "believing themselves to be
Well, we are more or less equal in that we are more or less
similar; I submit that we tend to notice the differences
more than the equalities, and this is where joy and despair
can come in. . .
>i believe that as long as men are the cultural/power elite, it is
I do not. For every white, anglo-saxon, 50+ year old male in power
there is (usually) a wife and family, not to mention relatives, kith
and kin, all of whom are equally interested in maintaining the status
quo.
I think the *real* issue is power politics in the dominant culture has
to do with class, followed by race, and finally by gender. I think
those who would have you think otherwise have a vested interest in
obfuscating the nature of the dominant paradigm.
Dano
John MAX Skaller
>
>> Now, the other side of your question. There are people who believe
>> that, for example, a woman *refusing* to take a man's name is
>> *always* a feminist action. What if she just doesn't like his name?
>> She's not trying to make any sort of statement, she doesn't consider
>> it oppressive to women to change her name, she just prefers her own
>> and doesn't want to go to the trouble of changing her name to
>> something she doesn't like. Is her action feminist just because
>> many feminists would think that that is the right thing to do?
>
>Well, this is certainly a tough question.
Really? I would say
1) Who cares about such trivia? Lets talk about important
issues, like how having a surname
'surname' = NAME of SIRE (male parent)
approx= having name of either parent
is all about inherited power. So lets talk about
the role of inheritance and power. Thats a real
issue.
2) I dont see how an action can be feminist. An action is
an action. Feminism, I thought at least, was a mode
of analysis, a way of thinking, a constant challange
to hidden assumptions, to bring those hidden
assumptions out and analyse them.
That is *radicalism*: the refusal to accept on face value
the old accepted 'truths'.
So: what are the underlying assumptions in talking about
'will it be the womans sire-name or the mans sire-name
that is chosen for the woman/man/child'?
1) Implicit acceptance of permanent heterosexual
exclusive pair bonding
2) Implicit acceptance of patriarchy. (Or matriarchy: same
difference) That is, of inheritance of power as a principle
of social organisation and distribution of resources.
3) Implicit agreement that the state and church have a right
to control our personal relationships.
4) Implicit acceptance of the right to control children,
i.e. to in effect own them.
5) Implicit acceptance that children will be and should
be raised by their name-givers (parents)
Anymore? Oh, and such implicit acceptances imply that
there is prejudice---just try NOT accepting some of the
above and see what trouble you get in.
[Example: in Australia recently, a group of religious people
lived cooperatively and raised their children that way.
They were arrested. The children were put in institutions.
They were released when claims of over-strict and spartan
upbringing of the children were debunked.
Example: look at the effect of 'sex-scandals' on both
American and British politicians. Their sexual morals
are more important than their policies.
]
--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
--
John MAX Skaller
>>My name choice was one small part of my larger choice to be an equal
>>partner in my marriage.
Impossible. You can bear children, your husband can't.
You cannot be 'equal'. Not even if you were the same sex:
you are different people.
So I dont see how you can be any differently different than
you are by choice of names.
>I guess my way of thinking is that equality in a relationship is not
>and cannot be achieved by external gestures.
Equal ownership of property can be achived by registering
the property as owned by a company in which you have equal shares
(amoung other things).
Sharing of income can be arranged by legal means too.
These things are not merely guestures though.
>It is something that both partners must believe in for it to work.
>If they do, then it doesn't matter who is called what, or who makes
>the money, or who does the dishes.
Sorry: it is not enough to believe in it. you have
to LIVE it, which is much more than mere intellectual belief.
I dont believe in discriminating against women:
but I know I sometimes do it.
--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
--
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
> Sure. For a large enough bribe you will get married.
>Fair enough, I would too.
No, I wouldn't. Not to mention that you don't know me at all
therefore you cannot determine whether that statement is true or
false about me.
> I don't see how anyone can have religious beliefs
>and be a feminist either.
That depends on the religious beliefs themselves. There is more than
one religion and not all religions are the same. I doubt that you
know about all religions, therefore there could be a religion that
supports equality for all (I won't go into what equality means, the
jist of my argument is clear: until you know about every religion, you
don't know enough to say that one cannot be a feminist and have
religious beliefs at the same time).
>Getting married is precisely the opposite,
>it is *submitting* to such control. It is placing
>yourself in the hands of the courts, for example, if you choose
>to part and cannot agree on things.
What if you don't choose to part? How then do you become controlled
by the courts in the way that you speak of above? How can one become
uniquely controlled by the courts if one gets married to another and
their relationship is good for the rest of their lives? There are
plenty of ways to go to jail, for instance, even if you don't speak of
marriage at all. How can marriage alone be a unique contributor to
one's pursuit of staying out of jail?
My marriage is nothing like what you said above. I have not
submitted anything to any court beyond some signatures on paper and I
have no intention on breaking up my relationship with my partner,
therefore what you said above is not true for everyone. I am not
submitting to the control of my partner and she is not submitting to
my control, that's why we are *partners*; we make decisions that
affect both of us *together*.
> That is your personal feeling, but if you examined
>the role of marriage in history you might change your view
>of it. Marriage today is one of the last vestiges of
>the sort of society where power was inherited. And I
>thought that was the opposite of the goals of feminism.
Yes, that is my personal feeling. So? Even if I said everyone felt
that way, I'd be wrong, so what? Also, marriage is what the people
getting married make of it. I now know that it is possible to control
the aspects by which people get married to a degree that makes most
people wonder if it's legal. Check out information on what the legal
definition of a church is. In the US, It's vague, open to different
interpretations, short enough to be almost anything, whatever you want
to call it. Given this, I don't think that the history of marriage
makes a difference when determining how one should guide their own
marriage.
Also, give me some examples of how today's marriage, "is one of the
last vestiges of the sort of society where power was inherited."
I wrote:
>>I also feel that marriage should have no place in the discussion of
>>raising children (max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au brought up the nuclear
>>family and family values, so I shall address my thoughts on the
>>issue). If people (it's irrelevant how many) are willing to care for a
>>child, I'd say those are the children's parents (I won't get into
>>details on what I mean by caring, it's outside of the topic).
> But the married couple are the default legal guardians.
A legal guardian can be a lot of people, not necessarily one or two
people who are married.
>Marrying more than one person is ILLEGAL.
I know that, what's your point? I wrote about how I felt on the
issue.
> What I object to is that ANYONE gets any state recognition
>for getting married. Why restrict your thoughts to couples?
I didn't restrict my thoughts to couples. I said that any group of
people who wish to get married, I think should be able to.
>Why cant I form a tribe, for example? It is historically a much
>older social unit than the married couple and nuclear family.
I won't stop you. I don't know anyone who would. What is your point
here?
Lenore Levine
> Personally, I've never been able to understand how anyone
>could possibly claim to be a feminist and then go and get married.
and,
> I don't see how anyone can have religious beliefs
>and be a feminist either.
For someone who claims to be a feminist, you seem to be against
a lot of things that give joy and meaning to the lives of ordinary
women.
> Perhaps. But for me feminism means a lot more than that.
>It means freeing peoples personal lives from authoritarian
>control (patriarchial if you like, although I think matriarchial
>is just as sexist).
And isn't it authoritarian, to judge human institutions absolutely
and not in the context of ordinary people's lives?
Of course, there are some institutions that, while they will probably
not completely disappear, are overvalued by the culture and will be less
valued, and less ubiquitous, in a better, less sexist world.
But my intuition is that marriage and religion, unlike beauty contests
and boxing matches, will be just as common in this future culture as
in the present. (Though their nature may change, and change greatly.)
Both are symbolic ways of expressing commitment; one, to a life spent
with another person; and the other, to one's conscience. And while not
all commitments are wise to make, or keep, it isn't wrong to attempt
them.
Lenore Levine
lev...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
P.S. The poster may be, to a certain extent, talking about the current
*legal* definitions of marriage. I am not opposed to the idea that
they need some reform. But marriage is more than that to many people.
Cindy Blank-Edelman
> Impossible. You can bear children, your husband can't.
> You cannot be 'equal'. Not even if you were the same sex:
> you are different people.
> So I dont see how you can be any differently different than
> you are by choice of names.
According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:
"*equal*. . . b: like in quality, nature, or status c: like for each
member of a group, class, or society. . ."
My name is a (small) part of my identity, as my husband's is for him.
By choosing to combine our names, that part of our identity made us
more "like in status" -- more equal partners.
By your definition, "equal" is meaningless. "Equal" does not mean
"identical". The fact that my husband cannot give birth to children
and I cannot produce sperm doesn't mean we can't be equal partners.
It just means we are different.
--Cindy Blank-Edelman
Dan Welch
>In article <13uudk...@agate.berkeley.edu> dwe...@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>>>My name choice was one small part of my larger choice to be an equal
>>>partner in my marriage.
>
> Impossible. You can bear children, your husband can't.
>You cannot be 'equal'. Not even if you were the same sex:
>you are different people.
First of all, John, get your attributations straight. Cindy B-E said
that, not me. It appears from your response that you knew that, but
please be careful.
Second, "equal" does not mean "identical", unless you are a
mathematician, or maybe a Fortran programmer. I think of myself and
my fiance as being completely equal, even though we are as opposite as
two people can be, physically (and to some extent, mentally).
"Equal", in human relations, does not mean "the same" it means "just
as good, bad, worthy, or unworthy".
>>I guess my way of thinking is that equality in a relationship is not
>>and cannot be achieved by external gestures.
>
> Equal ownership of property can be achived by registering the
>property as owned by a company in which you have equal shares (amoung
>other things).
Did you come into this discussion late? Just to make a point, how
about this scene: a husband and wife both own equal parts in a
property, but the wife does whatever the husband tells her to do with
her part. Are they acting as equals?
Daniel Welch
----
Two men say they're Jesus -- one of 'em must be wrong!
-- Dire Straits, "Industrial Disease"
John MAX Skaller
>In article <149es8...@agate.berkeley.edu> max...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
>>
>> Furthermore in the social context the have effective
>> power to control their sex lives where as men do not.
>>
>
>I simply don't buy this. Is the assumption that a man, somehow, cannot
>control his sex life? How is it that a woman has more control over her
>sex life?
Evolution.
Male and female sexuality is different.
Women have to live with the consequences of sex (children)
longer than men (at least 9 months longer).
>It seems (if I follow some of the logic I've heard from other
>feminists) that what is really implied here is that women have more
>control over their sex "drives", which plays in to the popular myths
>of female superiority already bandied about in this bandwith (i.e.
>women do not commit violence, women cannot rape, etc.). I don't buy
>it in any case, but if I have misunderstood something here, please
>enlighten me.
There's no issue of moral superiority.
Perhaps the men and women I know are all freaks.
But, at risk of overgeneralising, women seem to need intimacy
for arousal to a greater extent than men. For example.
I really don't want to make a catalog of differences and start
a flame war!
Suffice it to say, it is more often the female
that has the choice of whether to have sex or not, in
particular where the two people in question do not
have an existing relationship.
Witness the professed advantage of Wedding rings
mentioned by some in this group at keeping men at bay.
--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
--
John MAX Skaller
>In article <1992Jul18.1...@ucc.su.OZ.AU> max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (John MAX Skaller) writes:
>>In article <13uudk...@agate.berkeley.edu> dwe...@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>>>>My name choice was one small part of my larger choice to be an equal
>>>>partner in my marriage.
>>
>> Impossible. You can bear children, your husband can't.
>>You cannot be 'equal'. Not even if you were the same sex:
>>you are different people.
>
>First of all, John, get your attributations straight. Cindy B-E said
>that, not me. It appears from your response that you knew that, but
>please be careful.
I was just replying to comment, but I guess i knocked out
some of the >>>>> at the top for brevity. Sorry.
>Second, "equal" does not mean "identical", unless you are a
>mathematician, or maybe a Fortran programmer. I think of myself and
>my fiance as being completely equal, even though we are as opposite
>as two people can be, physically (and to some extent, mentally).
>"Equal", in human relations, does not mean "the same" it means "just
>as good, bad, worthy, or unworthy".
Oh. Well, for me personally then, it is a meaningless word,
everyone would be equal, if only because good, bad, worthy, and
unworthy are totally subjective and relatively meaningless concepts.
>Did you come into this discussion late? Just to make a point, how
>about this scene: a husband and wife both own equal parts in a
>property, but the wife does whatever the husband tells her to do with
>her part. Are they acting as equals?
Of course they are from my point of view, now you have
said 'equal' is to do with being 'worthy' or 'good', how
can I possibly judge them unequal when I starty with the
useless axiom that everyone is equal?
If you mean are they jointly deciding what to do
with their property, each with an equal vote in determining
the decision, I *still* cant answer for a different reason.
It would be eminently sensible for the wife to simply
do what the husband says if she were uninterested in property,
totally trusted him, and they had mutually decided it would be
best if he simply told her what to do. Thats called division
of labour, its one of the things makes civilisation possible.
Let me say that if you refer to 'Equal Opportunities
in Employemnt', that is a different thing. That means
something specific: it means, in the case of equal opportunity
for men and women that their gender will not be considered
in making employment decisions.
--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, max...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
--