05-04-2008, 05:58 PM
05-04-2008, 06:13 PM
jiggeryqua Wrote:
A misogynist is someone moved by a hatred of women, not just a man who disagrees with one.
Well, at the very least this one is Partriarchal, which I consider to be good evidence of a hatred of women.
05-04-2008, 06:59 PM
Gareth Wrote:
Quote:
Essentially, it's down to personal choice and preference. It's only a convention that the woman takes the husband's name, nothing more.
bingo
The historical source of the convention is kind of relevant.
05-04-2008, 07:43 PM
Marcia Wrote:
Louise18 Wrote:
Gareth Wrote:
Quote:
Essentially, it's down to personal choice and preference. It's only a convention that the woman takes the husband's name, nothing more.
bingo
The historical source of the convention is kind of relevant.
I'd be interested to hear more about the history of it, Louise18. In Scotland it's a fairly recent convention, as far as I know.
Its historically controversial but the prevailing view is:
Scriptures mandate this," informs Bishop Jakes, founder and senior pastor of the Pentecostal church The Potter's House in Dallas, TX. "When the Bible deals with marriage, it deals with the male as the aggressor, and it says he `takes unto him a wife.' In Ephesians 5:22-24 it discusses that wives should submit to their husbands. It is God's will, according to scripture, that man not ordy be successful but be prepared to share that success with the woman of his choice."
Bishop Jakes cites that although the Bible eludes to the woman following her husband, which would include taking his name, says the evangelist"
05-04-2008, 08:57 PM
It is the prevailing view that the convention originated in religion and was part of the husbands' "ownership" of the wife, and a symbol of her submission to him.
Whether or not you consider that answer to be historically correct, the name change could still be said to symbolise the submission of a woman to her husband, and you are right that without that political charge it would be a subject unworthy of debate.
Perhaps misogynist was an inaccurate word to use. The accurate word for the man in question would be a chauvanist, and not purely on the basis of that thread but because he frequently in posts throughout the site described women as "weaker" and asserted that they should be "good little wives and girfriends" and that it was a "mistake to let them out of the kitchen". He went far beyond "I'd like my life to have my surname". To be honest, I would have more respect for a misogynist than a chauvanist: hatred is a product of childhood or of being hurt at some point in your life, chauvanism is just evidence of a repulsive level of arrogance and an irrational association of that with some personal characteristic that gives them a sense of solidarity with others.
Whether or not you consider that answer to be historically correct, the name change could still be said to symbolise the submission of a woman to her husband, and you are right that without that political charge it would be a subject unworthy of debate.
Perhaps misogynist was an inaccurate word to use. The accurate word for the man in question would be a chauvanist, and not purely on the basis of that thread but because he frequently in posts throughout the site described women as "weaker" and asserted that they should be "good little wives and girfriends" and that it was a "mistake to let them out of the kitchen". He went far beyond "I'd like my life to have my surname". To be honest, I would have more respect for a misogynist than a chauvanist: hatred is a product of childhood or of being hurt at some point in your life, chauvanism is just evidence of a repulsive level of arrogance and an irrational association of that with some personal characteristic that gives them a sense of solidarity with others.
05-05-2008, 05:01 AM
Bella, do you find that it causes confusion when people expect you to put both married and pre-married names into different boxes on forms, and you put the same one in both? 
I took my husband's name. I have now had it way longer than I had my father's name.
Not all cultures have the concept of paternal family names. Iceland, for instance, names each person as "so-and-so's daughter" or "so-and-so's son", just as the Roman's did. That obviously doesn't change on marriage!
These days it is entirely up to the couple concerned, even down to whether they bothered to get married or not!
I took my husband's name. I have now had it way longer than I had my father's name.
Not all cultures have the concept of paternal family names. Iceland, for instance, names each person as "so-and-so's daughter" or "so-and-so's son", just as the Roman's did. That obviously doesn't change on marriage!
These days it is entirely up to the couple concerned, even down to whether they bothered to get married or not!
05-06-2008, 01:03 PM
M Wrote:
What I find most amusing is when the most ardent feminists are getting married, they will tell you they are not taking their husband's surname. Then there is always some degrading wedding tradition during or following the ceremony. During the ceremony a male relative usually accompanies the bride down to meet the groom and is "given away" by him. After the ceremony there is a ritual involving the groom removing a piece of the bride's underwear and throwing it to "eligible men" to provide an omen of good luck for their finding a spouse. The bride is supposed to throw a bouquet of flowers at a group of "young eligible women" to provide an omen of good luck for their finding a spouse. Other cultural rituals involve cutting the cake (symbol of bride's virginity), throwing old shoes, people throwing rice (to wish them fertility but really kills birds) or other objects.
Why is removing a garter degrading? It is usually considerably below normal skirt height and clearly there for the tradition rather than actually forming part of her underwear. Plus the "eligible young men/women thing is done for both parties, so I don't see what is anti-feminist about that.
Also, how are you going to eat the cake without cutting it? And if the cake is chocolate, does that mean its not anti-feminist anymore as it wouldn't be white?
Hmmmmmm. I am getting worried about all the other things I have to think about now. I thought fixing the vows, not taking his name and not being given away would get rid of all the ownership of the bride things.
05-07-2008, 06:55 AM
Oh, we escaped the 'hung-over-hubby-to-be' by getting married on Boxing Day - Christmas Day being the only day of the year when it was impossible to buy alcohol anywhere!
And why not put shrimps on barbies? *confused*
And why not put shrimps on barbies? *confused*
05-07-2008, 09:46 AM
Bella, that is great!!!!!
Did you win anything?
Did you win anything?
05-07-2008, 05:15 PM
M Wrote:
throwing bird seed would be better. The cake could be cut and served out in the kitchen if you don't want to do that ritual.
What are gay/bisexual people supposed to do when they throw the garter and bouquet? I think if you have gay/bisexual people at a wedding, maybe you better not do that. I was at a wedding where two women didn't go to catch the bouquet. One was a nun and the other said she was not eligible because her marriage had been annulled. People were asking them why they didn't go up and they maybe seemed embarrassed.
it is better if people have a choice of what to do for their wedding.
What are gay/bisexual people supposed to do when they throw the garter and bouquet? I think if you have gay/bisexual people at a wedding, maybe you better not do that. I was at a wedding where two women didn't go to catch the bouquet. One was a nun and the other said she was not eligible because her marriage had been annulled. People were asking them why they didn't go up and they maybe seemed embarrassed.
it is better if people have a choice of what to do for their wedding.
I am having both of those traditions and its going to be a gay wedding!
05-08-2008, 08:11 AM
Warkminter Wrote:
Jiggerqua is making an excellent point on the bias posed by this innocent question, although he makes the point very badly and in an abrasive manner.
Louise18 started the discussion with a severe feminist bias. Marriage and all it entails was projected into a feminist, anti-male framework and as a response from a misogynist male's opinion.
The automatic response is of course - "If you feel this way about men why the hell would you want to marry one?"
Of course she countered the obvious feminist concerns with the stance that it was not her intention.
If I was to say something equally as inflamatory like "You know I saw a woman having a really bad mood swing the other day. She wasn't being rational at all. Many aren't at certain times depending on their menstral cycle. Do you think that women ought to have decision making roles in government?" I can not say then "Oh I was not being a mindless, misogynist creep, my question was completely seperate to some innocent observations."
Both are obviously biased, unhelpful, inflamatory, stupid and insulting.
But then Louise that seems to be part of your charm. You present stupid positions and defend them well. Unfortunately poor, ignorant or hateful ideology presented well, does not make the ideologies insightful, clever or realistic. They are still unpalatable. I think you have a mind that obviously works well enough to present a point of view or perspective adequately. If you could be equally clever enough to change your, all too often stupid ideas of the world and others' place in it, you would gain the respect that you would then deserve.
The "I am an Oxfordian scholar and I am a failure" approach looks suspiciously like Socrates' "I know nothing - but at least I know enough to know that I know nothing" approach to life. Equally as arrogant and offensive in its false humility. It annoys people. It got him drinking hemlock. We are more charitable than the ancient Greeks but your behaviour is no more acceptable today than what it was thousands of years ago in ancient Greece.
Louise18 started the discussion with a severe feminist bias. Marriage and all it entails was projected into a feminist, anti-male framework and as a response from a misogynist male's opinion.
The automatic response is of course - "If you feel this way about men why the hell would you want to marry one?"
Of course she countered the obvious feminist concerns with the stance that it was not her intention.
If I was to say something equally as inflamatory like "You know I saw a woman having a really bad mood swing the other day. She wasn't being rational at all. Many aren't at certain times depending on their menstral cycle. Do you think that women ought to have decision making roles in government?" I can not say then "Oh I was not being a mindless, misogynist creep, my question was completely seperate to some innocent observations."
Both are obviously biased, unhelpful, inflamatory, stupid and insulting.
But then Louise that seems to be part of your charm. You present stupid positions and defend them well. Unfortunately poor, ignorant or hateful ideology presented well, does not make the ideologies insightful, clever or realistic. They are still unpalatable. I think you have a mind that obviously works well enough to present a point of view or perspective adequately. If you could be equally clever enough to change your, all too often stupid ideas of the world and others' place in it, you would gain the respect that you would then deserve.
The "I am an Oxfordian scholar and I am a failure" approach looks suspiciously like Socrates' "I know nothing - but at least I know enough to know that I know nothing" approach to life. Equally as arrogant and offensive in its false humility. It annoys people. It got him drinking hemlock. We are more charitable than the ancient Greeks but your behaviour is no more acceptable today than what it was thousands of years ago in ancient Greece.
1. I never said that my question did not have a feminist bent. The question was essentially asking whether the women on the board would reject their husbands' name on the basis that it originated in and suggests ownership, or whether they consider it a harmless tradition.
2. The only thing I backtracked on was to say that this man was a chauvanist rather than a misogynist. I consider the former to be worse.
3. Asking whether you would take your husbands' name is not the same as asking whether a group of women should have decision making powers. It is about personal choice, not discrimination
4. I agree with Socrates, but I fail to see how that is relevant to this thread.
5. I am not interested in your respect. The people whose respect I care for judge me on academic merit, and the logical merits of my argument not some emotional namby pamby feeling about how I should treat people.
05-08-2008, 08:16 AM
Batman55 Wrote:
Louise, are you going to take your husband's name when you marry him?
If I marry a man I will not take his name, but that is currently unlikely.
05-08-2008, 08:35 AM
Warkminter Wrote:
1. I never said that my question did not have a feminist bent. The question was essentially asking whether the women on the board would reject their husbands' name on the basis that it originated in and suggests ownership, or whether they consider it a harmless tradition.
2. The only thing I backtracked on was to say that this man was a chauvanist rather than a misogynist. I consider the former to be worse.
3. Asking whether you would take your husbands' name is not the same as asking whether a group of women should have decision making powers. It is about personal choice, not discrimination
4. I agree with Socrates, but I fail to see how that is relevant to this thread.
5. I am not interested in your respect. The people whose respect I care for judge me on academic merit, and the logical merits of my argument not some emotional namby pamby feeling about how I should treat people.
You aren't being deliberately dense here are you Louise?
Your arguments are not well thought out. They are based on very weak foundations. Irrespective of how you attempt to build a case for a flawed ideology, the result is not likely to be very cohesive or logical. We are a charitable bunch here though and have tried not to laugh too hard at a lot of your attempt at communication.
Why would we respect you? Why would we not question your academic brillance when the believe you have of having an intelligent mind is so difficult to display.
[/quote]
I have already said, I have no particular interest in your respect.
This thread is about a particular tradition, and what it signifies and what people would do about it. It is about name-changing. If you want to debate some other aspect of my ideology debate it where it is relevant.
I do not believe I am intelligent. I am more intelligent than some people and less intelligent than others. I don't think my position on that scale qualifies me as "intelligent", so no I don't expect you to believe that I am.
05-08-2008, 08:57 AM
Batman55 Wrote:
Louise18 Wrote:
Batman55 Wrote:
Louise, are you going to take your husband's name when you marry him?
If I marry a man I will not take his name, but that is currently unlikely.
I just want to know why it took you so long to "come out" so to speak. There was a Gay and Aspie thread that's very welcoming to the LGBT crowd among us, I didn't see you there.
You were off talking about how retarded people should be treated like lower animals.
I do wonder if your "hidden" shame about your sexual orientation is behind some of your incredibly cruel statements.
errrm, no.
05-08-2008, 08:59 AM
Batman55 Wrote:
Louise18 Wrote:
I do not believe I am intelligent. I am more intelligent than some people and less intelligent than others. I don't think my position on that scale qualifies me as "intelligent", so no I don't expect you to believe that I am.
If the best humility you can muster is that some Oxonians are more gifted than you, and in comparison to them you are "pathetic", I fear for your well-being.
The rest of the time I hear you mention your worth as being much greater than someone who takes out trash for a living.
There must be something amiss here.
I am not going to respond to this, as I don't see how it is relevant to the thread. There are plenty of threads on this site where you could discuss those types of things. Lets keep this particular one free of it.