quote:Originally posted by London: We all respond to our forum names because we've put time, thought and effort into creating personae - e.g. identities - that go along with these names.
Surely you should also put "time, thought and effort" into choosing a life partner.
Posts: 14015
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Louche: So, essentially, because I changed my name, despite the fact I've given you my reasons for doing so, you will now and for the rest of your life consider me to be submissive and a bit gay?
Well. No. I'll just feel a bit puzzled. I get it when you point it out to me, but it'll be like one of those things you understand for about ten minutes, but then, when the person goes away, and they're not standing in front of you, you'll struggle really hard to try to piece together what it was they were saying that you found so convincing. Like when Mrs Pharoah tried to teach us binary.
I'm sorry. I can't help the way that I feel. Men don't take women's names, do they. I dunno, it just makes me feel uncomfortable.
Posts: 6175
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by London: Men don't take women's names, do they.
Why do women have to do exactly as men do? Don't they have their own identity?
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
Louche
Carved TMO on her clit just to make you feel bad
posted
quote:Originally posted by London: I'm sorry. I can't help the way that I feel. Men don't take women's names, do they. I dunno, it just makes me feel uncomfortable.
Fair enough. I don't see it as important enough to make anyone feel anything, but there you go.
Lol@Thorn, though I shouldn't.
Now can everyone go back to telling Dang why he shouldn't let Mrs Dang divorce him. Mainly because it's a completely fucking hideous idea which would result in a massive financial and legal headache and mess and may end with Mrs Dang running off with the apparently unimaginatively named Pete the tree surgeon.
posted
I think I must a have very old fashioned notion of marriage. To get married -- for me -- isn't just something you do after going out for a bit. It's not just a piece of paper that formalises a relationship and provides a legal and financial framework.
To get married is to intertwine your own life with that of the person you love. Surely that's the point of it? To share a name is merely an outward manifestation of that. Yes it's basis is entirely conventional -- so that the union is easily recognised by society. But isn't it also another symbol of the committment you are undertaking in getting married: "Yes we are so sure about the union we're about to make that we will even share a name". Perhaps it's too easy for me to say -- coming as i do from a male perspective -- but I would have thought the shared name itself is irrelevant. Perhaps a better social equilibrium would enable newly married couples to choose whose name they took on? Or even made up a new one to symbolise the new life they're about to go on.
I don't want to comment on Dang's marriage -- seeing as I know nothing about it -- but I imagine that a couple who have been married for 20 years and have several children have become so intertwined that it's largely irreversible. What difference will a piece of paper saying "divorce" make? Or a name change after so long together? I can't really see either offering any real sense of emancipation.
quote:Originally posted by Ghost of George: Perhaps a better social equilibrium would enable newly married couples to choose whose name they took on? Or even made up a new one to symbolise the new life they're about to go on.
It would be pretty embarrassing to be called David Femz4evz or Reginald GirlPower though.
Posts: 14015
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd never be so rude as to shiver with disgust when a friend told me, just slightly surprised. I don't see it as strongly as London, it just seems a little bit unnecessary to me. Slightly quaint somehow.
Especially, to be crude, when you look at the current divorce stats and conclude that half of them are going to have to change it back at some point down the line.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
posted
Fucking hell. Somehow there seems to be some confusion as to why anyone would change their name out of love to appease their partner. Like as if this idea that a women would do that is unfathomable. How in this day and age could a women be so feeble-minded as to get lasooed in this way? Why does this seem so unimaginable? Is this compromise some kind of arcane practice in comparison to it's modern counterpart: being completely bloody minded. If I'm not mistaken, there were parallels above likening a name change to rape? Did anyone else detect that? Am I just going mad?
I read aggressive here, I am genuinely confused.
[ 22.02.2006, 11:44: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
posted
When we married, D adopted my surname. It was great. As she signed the registrar's book I stood behind her, tapping a hunting crop against my boot in menacing fashion and twirling the points of my moustache.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
posted
My Dad is going to set the dogs on Kirsty if she's tries any double-barrelled sneakery.
Posts: 7733
| IP: Logged
H1ppychick
We all prisoners, chickee-baby. We all locked in.
posted
I have a surname which, although not particularly complex, I always have to spell to people, as if I don't they always get it wrong. I'd almost welcome the chance to change it.
Are there any guys called Smith out there looking for love?
-------------------- i'm expressing my inner anguish through the majesty of song Posts: 4243
| IP: Logged
posted
I feel uneasy about giving up my surname if I get married, for similar reasons to London - the tradition is a hangover from 'women as chattels' days. Other things have changed, why not this out-dated tradition? Just because it's a bit of a tricky one to sort out - inventing a new surname upon marriage is an appealing idea, though would make genealogy a nightmare; double-barrelling causes difficulty when double-barrelled children marry - doesn't mean we should stick with it. I'm still quite surprised when ever women of my generation change their name.
An alternative - how about scissors/paper/stone at the altar/register office to see whose name gets taken?
Posts: 4537
| IP: Logged
posted
It just seems to smack of Victorian sexual values: the man's life doesn't change at all; the woman's changes entirely. Even if that's now reduced to re-ordering cheque books, informing the utilities and the council tax or whatever other ramifications are, I don't know - the act seems to suggest that the female identity is less important than the male. It seems to me as though some people here are trying to be really post-modern and claim that nothing means anything, that words and their signifiers are completely separate. 'I just fancied changing my name because I was bored of it! I didn't like it! And then this man came along who just happened to have this nice name, so I just, like did it! Tee hee!' And the conversely, others are claiming that to give up a name and take on the name of another means EVERYTHING, and is the ultimate act of love, a true sacrifice. Which is it? A fun meaningless silly little tradition because you just, like fancied a little change - or THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF TRU LUV? And if it is the latter, why is it only the woman who must make this particular sacrifice, prove her love in this way? It's bollocks is what it is.
Posts: 6175
| IP: Logged
Louche
Carved TMO on her clit just to make you feel bad
posted
quote:Originally posted by London: It seems to me as though some people here are trying to be really post-modern and claim that nothing means anything, that words and their signifiers are completely separate. 'I just fancied changing my name because I was bored of it! I didn't like it! And then this man came along who just happened to have this nice name, so I just, like did it! Tee hee!'
That's bollocks and it's insulting. I was trying to at least give you an insight into a personal decision and if that's the response you feel like coming out with you can go stick it up your arse.
There are other reasons behind my decision but as they're intrinsic to the nature of my relationship with my husband I'm fucked if I am going into them on TMO.
Posts: 5776
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Louche: That's bollocks and it's insulting. I was trying to at least give you an insight into a personal decision and if that's the response you feel like coming out with you can go stick it up your arse. [/QB]
I was attempting to conflate yours and Thorn's and Hippychick's responses into one; in haste I did it as a girly sing-song voice but it wasn't exactly meant to be me impersonating Louche and making her talk in a big gay voice. But I can see why you thought that. So sorry for that. But I do feel that the general response here seems to be that it's both terribly important and unimportant: linked to identity and as tiny a change as changing a pair of socks. Which is it?
Posts: 6175
| IP: Logged
posted
Come on TMO. Decide. It's one or the other...
Posts: 14015
| IP: Logged
Louche
Carved TMO on her clit just to make you feel bad
posted
Fair enough, london.
What about: some people think it's important and some people don't? Isn't that, like, a summary of the gist of the thread? Apart from the bits where Dang's getting a divorce?
Posts: 5776
| IP: Logged
posted
I want answers goddammit. TMO is like my Magic 8 Ball. I just wanna shake it baby shake it and have the truth come out.
Posts: 6175
| IP: Logged
posted
Obviously the tradition is patriarchal, but you know Amp, for some people, most probably, it resonates, it's romantic, makes marriage complete, makes a husband and wife whole. is it sexist? ya, totally, whatevs, it's a choice.
posted
Have to admit I've always been a bit confused by the 'keep your own name' approach. Not when it's just a married couple, because obviously that's very simple, but what about kids? Seems to me you'd have three choices: the kids get the father's surname, the mother's surname, or a hyphenated/concatenated version of the two. Okay, you say, that's well and good, and there are loads of Timmy Smith-Joneses and Emma Miller-Watsons out there, and that's great. But what happens when said Timmy and Emma get married? Do they have little baby Smith-Miller-Jones-Watsons? Or do some of the names eventually get dropped? And wouldn't there be some inherent bias indicated by which names you choose to drop (i.e., if you name the kids Jones-Watson based on the dad's names, and thereby drop Smith and Miller, isn't that sexist also, by favoring surnames from the man's side)?
After a few generations, something would have to give, otherwise you'd have people carrying around passports the size of phonebooks just to capture all the hyphens. No?
-------------------- Give 'em .0139 fathoms and they'll take 80 chains. Posts: 3201
| IP: Logged
posted
i once had a discussion about this subject with someone where we decided that should we marry- it was kind of being mooted at the time- we would try and find a compromise where we took one syllable from each others surname, mixed them in a little metaphorical pot, and made a brand new surname which we would both adopt. one of the results was quite nice- a real surname, which coincidentally is shared by a famous literary whore- and for the duration of this exciting chat i was totally up for us both trotting down to the deed poll office to both change our surnames. unfortunately shortly afterwards i realised the man was mad as badgers and hes now married to a friend of mine. but i liked the fact that despite the discussion starting out as a bit of drunken silliness he totally dug the idea and the reasons behind it and was prepared to go as far as changing his name too. i think he was anyway. like i say, he was as mad as badgers and might just have been humouring me. also, although one of our options actually sounded feasible the others were just schtoopid and sounded like the names of vacuum cleaner manufacturors.
my solution now is to keep my name for some stuff and take the other person's for others. my mum is all like, i am feminist extraordinaire! watch me as i roam the earth like a big titted godzilla woman, and she has kept her original surname for work stuff and taken my step- dads for personal things like banking. when i asked her why she took my step- dad's name she said that it just seemed like a nice thing to do, but that youd have to stab her in the earballs to make her give up the name which she had worked her arse off for twenty years to attach some kind of professional reputation to. which seemed eminently sensible to me.
eta: worked her arse off. my mum did not 'work her arse' for twenty years in order to attain a professional reputation. that would not be feminist at all... i dont think. discuss. whatevzs.
eta two: superlol fanny burney was not a whore she was a respected feminist author! but with a name like fanny burney you can understand why my brain got all confused innit.
quote:Originally posted by London: why is it only the woman who must make this particular sacrifice, prove her love in this way? It's bollocks is what it is.
There's no 'must' about it - it's up to her whether she does it or not. Hello? Is this thing on?
Oh I don't know. It always really annoys me when London wanks on about feminism as though she's a feminist, when really she's only interested in espousing her personal agenda. It's come out before that she hates any woman who doesn't look and act like her and this just seems to be another example of that. Really, her warped view of feminism actually has more in common with the values of the patriarchy that she claims to oppose - ie deciding the way she wants women to be and feeling threatened/ confused when they choose to act differently. It's not really a will to further the lot of womenkind or anything so altruistic, it's just "This is the way I think you should be!" which is no different, really, to a guy coming on here and saying "I think women should take their husbands' names, whether they like it or not." Also - it's probably not worth hiding behind the "women fought for this blah blah blah", nonsense because all it comes down to is having the right to choose. If a woman wants to take her husband's name - fine - it couldn't be less of your business. It's not even comparable to someone referring to a 'paki shop' and making a judgement on that, so don't even pretend it is. A better comparison would be - I dunno - if a woman chose to give up her career to raise kids. Fuck it; let her. It's no less noble than spending your time pretending to write like a teenager for some website or other; it's certainly more admirable than what I do for a living and it's not a further affront to the sacrifices of others. Just - I don't know. Stop railing against women who threaten your idea of what being a woman should be about and calling it 'feminism', because if anything's a betrayal of that legacy, then it's abusing it to beat women over the head with.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
it's worth questioning the continuation of accepted practise though, which is what this is. It's still assumed that the chick should take the guy's name. It's an assumption that this is what will happen. I think that's all London is questioning, not personally having a pop. At least that's how I read it. It's not a 'must', but still, tradition continues to inform the decision - a tradition that began when the woman was given as property to the man.
posted
this really this comes down to the feminist principle regarding the private being the political.
quote:The discovery that apparently private and individual problems were similar formed a basis for the solidarity in the group and with women in general and allowed the social conditions concerning their situation to be questioned. The sentence "the private is the political" became a leading concept of the women's movement
This current argument is probably quite a good example of it.. You know, that you - thorn- would see it to be none of london's business as to how women make decisions, that it's not her right as a so-called feminist to intervene on the private of other women, yet I can sympathise with the position that culture - the political - does not yet allow women to be as free as men in making certain decisions. That isn't to say that women can't make the decisions, but that things like traditional practise and the culture of the family already has a weighted vote in the public imagination... and the private can only be emancipated via the political (as a system for promoting ideas across society). I think it's a valid issue.
ETA: O I don't know. I can see your perspective too thorn. Is the 'private is the political' just a handy thing for being able to dictate a mantra about how people should make decisions - is it more 'think like this' than 'think for yourself'.
*tiny writing* But then, isn't expressing any political position, any -ism, a belief that people should think a certain way. There's no real such thing as apolitical thought. Apart from maybe the thoughts of stoners. See! I just don't know. Curse you vikram!
[ 22.02.2006, 14:43: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
posted
I always seem to be be having a go at thorn. Sorry thorn, it's not personal. It's just that you have interesting arguments. And as the recent winner of Mr. TMO 2006, being challenged is part of your role.
[ 22.02.2006, 14:47: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
quote:Originally posted by Uber Trick: I've done it. It's not just as easy as saying "I want a divorce please" though dang. Yes you can cite irreconcilable differences but even if you both agree to it you have to prove that you have lived apart for 2 years. Costs all in with no property, children, solicitors fees etc for me was about £250 and it took the best part of a year to sort out. As far as I know there's no way around the living separately issue but you'd need to ask an expert.
We were thinking of going for the 'unreasonable behaviour' option. But I'm not sure how you prove that, or if you even have to if it's uncontested.
I think she just wants to be not married, so all the name stuff and informing people could be done at leisure really.
Do the courts really give a toss about reasons and proof and all that, or will they just issue a decree nisi as long as the form's filled out right?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic