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.
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.
