I think there's a couple of people here that have been through divorce, and others that probably know the score, so tell it like it is here...
The scenario: It's our 20th wedding anniversary next January and Mrs Dang thinks it would be nice to celebrate this by getting divorced. Mrs Dang is a mad by-the-way, but I try to humour her as best I can. She doesn't want to split up or move apart, she just doesn't want to be married any more. I'm not that bothered either way, and wasn't that bothered when we got married in the first place. (Not that bothered about the action of getting married and the bit of paper I mean, not that I wasn't bothered about being with Mrs Dang.)
So, the question is, what are the legal implications of getting divorced, and what are the financial implications regarding stuff like pensions and life insurance? And how much does it actually cost? Can you just buy a pack from W H Smiths for 3 quid and send it to HM Office of Bits of Paper in that London?
It's dead easy to get married in the first place, so I imagine it's just as easy to get divorced, right? No? What do you mean?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
I don't understand. What benefits (apart from being able to remarry, which it doesn't sound like she wants to do) would you get from being divorced? Is it just to chalk divorce off a life list? Or am I missing something?
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
It takes longer and costs more money than getting married.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I think that's a brilliant idea. You hear about all these ***** fucking off to Hawaii to renew their vows... fuck that! Getting divorced for your anniversary is an excellent plan. That's quite a woman you've got there, dang.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
That is the most completely insane thing ever. Are you sure she's not just doing this so you can amicable get divorced then she can run off with Pete the gardner leaving you holding the horde of small Dangs?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Pete? Your horticulturalist porn is substandard if the sexy gardeners are called Pete.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
The only way I can think of possibly topping that is if you both had gender reassignment surgery. And then got divorced.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Pete? Your horticulturalist porn is substandard if the sexy gardeners are called Pete.
Jonesy - she wasn't talking about porn. This is Dang's actual life we're talking about here. It's not all just fodder for you to wank over. I - exactly how many times have you wanked over someone else's misfortune on TMO? And how many times have you wished that their fortunes were worse, so it would make it easier for you to get your rocks off?
[ 22.02.2006, 07:59: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Thorn exactly how many times have you wanked over someone else's misfortune on TMO?
I'm wanking pretty much constantly when Infinite Jones is around. Every tragic post, it's amazing: from semen, to blood until I'm coming pure bone. There are still shards of clotted red femur on my monitor from the last time his gibberish danced for me.
[ 22.02.2006, 07:30: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
This is the coolest idea ever! I love your wife! Ask my sister, she's got divorced looooads of times.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
i don't understand.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
I'm with Vikram.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
this can only go wrong. surely?
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: The only way I can think of possibly topping that is if you both had gender reassignment surgery. And then got divorced.
Nah, what you wanna do is have the divorce first. Then you have the gender reassignment and then get re-married.
Posted by not... (Member # 25) on :
For starters you can't just get divorced. You have to have a proper reason. That means one of you is going to have to
a) Have an affair b) Beat up your partner c) Get institutionalised
or something else that counts as "a viable reason"
Actually maybe you can get your wife on (c). Seeing as it's her idea.
[ 22.02.2006, 08:11: Message edited by: not... ]
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
This is the oddest thing I have heard in like, ages. Well done.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by not...: For starters you can't just get divorced. You have to have a proper reason.
For real? You can't just say, "We fancy a divorce. Do it."?
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
Are divorces granted abroad valid under British law? If so you could gather the family together and go somewhere for the event. Anti-eloping. All you need to do is find someplace exactly unlike Vegas where quickie divorce huts abound.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: I don't understand. What benefits (apart from being able to remarry, which it doesn't sound like she wants to do) would you get from being divorced? Is it just to chalk divorce off a life list? Or am I missing something?
Well, it's a strange situation. It basically boils down to a midlife crisis and wanting to be an individual and get a life and not be referred to as "Mrs Dang" (d'oh, there I go again).
I don't really get the thing about reasonable grounds for divorce. You don't have to have reasonable grounds to get married. I can understand they make it a bit difficult so people don't just have a minor row and go straight down the Post Office and get divorced then regret it when they make up again the next day. But you should be able to reverse the original decision just because... well, because you want to. Same as you can change your name if you want.
What about if you changed religion and didn't want to be Christian married any more? But I suppose it's the legal bit of marriage that's the issue.
I want to hear from people that have done it. If they want to talk about it that is.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
You don't have to have a proper reason, you can just cite 'irreconcilable differences'. As long as neither party contests it, that's basically it. Or you could fake adultery, like they had to in the old days.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by froopyscot: Anti-eloping. All you need to do is find someplace exactly unlike Vegas where quickie divorce huts abound.
LOL ($$ unconfetti)
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: Or you could fake adultery, like they had to in the old days.
Ah... the fun part.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
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.
I'm pretty sure that being divorced would upset pensions and all that other kind of financial stuff and I think you'd have to make sure that you wrote a really explicit will stating what you wanted to go to her and your children.
Couldn't she just change her surname back to her maiden name by deed poll and use Ms. or Miss. Pre-Dang? That only costs £25 and you can buy the pack from WHSmiths. Even after you're divorced you still have to change your passport and then write to loads of places before you can officially use your maiden name again, as I have discovered.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Dang, is it just a name issue? I've never understood why all my friends what have got married recently have been so keen to change their names and become Mrs Boyfriend. She can easily change her surname back to her maiden name and be referred to as Ms.
But she'll still be a housewife to 4 kids. How would not being married make that less depressing? No offence, like.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
Yeah, and no offence to people who do take their husband's name Lisa, but girls who take on the man's name these days might as well have a giant sign on their heads saying I AM A FUCKING GIMP, don't you think?
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
I got married in teh 1990s. That is like way in the past. You were allowed to do stuff like that then. If you're going to do something as traditional as getting married at the tender age of 23 you might as well go the whole hog and have a nice new name to go with it. I used to get a bit of a boner from being called Mrs. Lisa Margreet Baltruschat sounding like some old posh lady but being a young cool chick.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
x
[ 22.02.2006, 09:02: Message edited by: Louche ]
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
No, I still don't understand.
I mean I get the midlife crisis thing and I get the idea that years of marriage might have eroded someone's sense of individuality, but I can't see why getting a divorce would be anything other than an expensive and time consuming pain in the arse way of achieving absolutely nothing. Surely being married is more about how you behave than it is about the piece of paper that is your marriage licence. She's better off going on a road trip with a recently divorced friend, no underwear and a boot full of drugs if she wants to feel individual again. Getting divorced and then carrying on as before just seems futile to me.
Sorry, I want to understand but my little brain won't let me.
[ 22.02.2006, 09:04: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
Lets see how long it takes my sister to make her favourite joke about my married surname...
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: x
You are a spineless gimp.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
Why'd you take it away, Louche?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: Yeah, and no offence to people who do take their husband's name Lisa, but girls who take on the man's name these days might as well have a giant sign on their heads saying I AM A FUCKING GIMP, don't you think?
Not really, no.
But then I'm, like, evil.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Not sure I can be bothered getting into it. Also, a bit bored with doing it. I mean, it's not as though I haven't had precisely the same conversation with every single one of my mates.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Couldn't you pretend for the sake of the thread that the forum is the last in the list of your friends that you need to discuss it with?
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
If I ever get married again I will probably change my name, again.
Posted by not... (Member # 25) on :
You know what. Thinking about this a bit more.
1. Mrs Dang, in an attempt to break her happy go lucky hubby, Mr Dang, forces him to buy house that is beyond his means She rubs hands together in sinister beadle-like manner.
2. Mr Dang panics but to his wife's dismay manages to get a new job and continues to support his many childes He is relocated out of the country!
3. Realising that she needs to push him further, she instructs and engineers a scheme to rid Mr Dang of his beloved Landrover.
4. The ever compliant Mr Dang sighs and agrees to said scheme.
5. Mrs Dang then initiates further irritiation by ordering the rental of a new car - something practical she says, has to be new registration she says, has to be leased she says.
6. Mr Dang still does not break, sells Land Rover to evil neighbour looks on internet for best lease deals.
7. Mrs Dang loses it. Decides upon divorce. The date - their 20th Anninversary! Should get a reaction out of him this time!
8. Mr Dang puts it down to a mid-life crisis and starts looking at the interweb for ideas.
....
9. Mrs Dang sells children to slave trader. Puts house on ebay for 99p buy it now. hangs puppy on the handlebars of Mr Dangs mountain bike. Has sex with every man and woman in the neigbourhood. Videos it too. Distributes it on ebanned.
10. Mr Dang raises eyebrow.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Couldn't you pretend for the sake of the thread that the forum is the last in the list of your friends that you need to discuss it with?
I dunno, is the forum going to adopt an expression of unalloyed horror and mutter things like you are capitulating to the patriachy, you sell out bitch? Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Just post it, drama-queen.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Not unless the forum is fucking gay.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I just actually wanted confirmation that suddenly you are not controlled like an automated electrical spazbot just for taking someones surname.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
louche is a fucking pussy louche is gay louche is losing her edge louche lost her edge years ago at the laundrette where she was washing her husband's pants by hand in issey miyake shower gelee
PS - You can't wash things by hand at the laundrette, can you? Shows how much I know.
[ 22.02.2006, 09:21: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
I changed my name when I got married because shock horror I quite liked my husband's name. I also felt like a bit of a change. I mean, I'd been Louch One Thing all my life and I quite fancied being Louche Another Thing. Thatisall.
The level of opprobium and lack of understanding I have encountered over this has been totally surprising to me. I've had my feminist credentials questioned. I've had people look at me like they're reassessing me. It's totally bizarre. OJ even posted on here about 'the shiver of cold fear' that went through her when, after she got an email from me in my new married name, she realised she could never ever face changing her name.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Also, screw you London.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Are you mates with OJ then?
If so, shouldn't your response be to email her back and mention the quake of ring-scrunching embarrassment that went through the entire forum when she flounced off the boards because of something in her imagination?
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Are you mates with OJ then?
Just a bit. She was my witness when I got married.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I need a witness.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Can I get a witness?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Wow.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I said...
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Sorry, I want to understand but my little brain won't let me.
Me neither, to be honest. I just know that it's been really bugging her recently that she's got to 40 and suddenly realised that she's "had no life". Having several jobs, a rented bedsit behind Brixton Prison, our first little 1-bed flat in Wandsworth, our first kid, our ex-council house, two more kids, move to the Isle of Man, move to Cheshire, another kid, a proper big house at last... and all that crisis and adventure along the way.
It's certainly no less a life than the schoolfriends she keeps in touch with, or anyone else we know really. It's just a life innit. It's what you do.
But. She's a bit of a rebel underneath it all see. We got married at 21 y'know. Not because we were straight and religious but because we wanted to stick two fingers up at everyone that thought we were too young.
She's also a restless sort, never satisfied with her lot. Basically, she would be just as pissed off if she'd become a high-powered lawyer in New York with no husband and no kids.
So, the latest thing is to get divorced. I just wanted to know if it's viable, and to know exactly what sort of freedom individuals have in these cases.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
What's the problem with changing your name when you get married? Do school children get picked on these days, if their parents have matching surnames?
Christ, I am so old and out of touch with moderne wayes.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Cant you just taker her out to a rave or Glastonburry or something? Or she could get a tatoo?
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
Didn't mean to be rude, Louche, I can't imagine you out of all people would have taken that decision lightly.
I just dislike the assumption that every girl automatically wants to change their name, and the expectation from bloke and bloke's family that it's some kind of honour (makes it sound like I have personal experience of this, I'm mainly talking as a shamefully addicted lurker of the strange-yet-fascinating world of Handbag Weddings). And also the way it's described as "sharing" when it's clearly an unequal amount of sacrafice and effort. I'm not a particularly virulent feminist or anything, but I find it surprising that it's still so common.
[ 22.02.2006, 09:37: Message edited by: Vogon Poetess ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65:
So, the latest thing is to get divorced.
Would I be right in thinking that this is one of those things that's going to happen whether you like it or not?
Maybe best to just belt up and look encouraging.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: Cant you just taker her out to a rave or Glastonburry or something? Or she could get a tatoo?
lol
Abby's been on top form lately.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche:
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Are you mates with OJ then?
Just a bit. She was my witness when I got married.
Couldn't you have left when she did. Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: Didn't mean to be rude, Louche, I can't imagine you out of all people would have taken that decision lightly.
I just dislike the assumption that every girl automatically wants to change their name, and the expectation from bloke and bloke's family that it's some kind of honour (makes it sound like I have personal experience of this, I'm mainly talking as a shamefully addicted lurker of the strange-yet-fascinating world of Handbag Weddings). And also the way it's described as "sharing" when it's clearly an unequal amount of sacrafice and effort. I'm not a particularly virulent feminist or anything, but I find it surprising that it's still so common.
Who makes that assumption anyway? And who in the name of christ would get a shiver of disgust or whatever it was when their mate changed their name. I mean - it's hardly a big fucking deal. Chnage your name; don't change it. Like, whatever. I'd change my name to my girlfriend's name if we got married, if it was an option. I'm not particularly attached to my surname or my first name, for that matter. Bland and stupid. I wish I was called Thorn Davis.
So anyway, why do girls seem so resistant to the idea of other women changing their names. Why care? Why do you really think your name is bound up in your identity? Is it a feminist thing? Isn't it a bit of hollow argument to keep 'your' surname on feminist grounds, when that name would have been handed down from your father's side of the family, and his father, and his father anyway? What are you protecting? Just another symbol of the patriachal society anyway. Unless you're going out there and changing your name to X, what difference does it make?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Would I be right in thinking that this is one of those things that's going to happen whether you like it or not?
Oh yeah. Almost certainly. I'm just trying to get a few facts together first.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Isn't it a bit of hollow argument to keep 'your' surname on feminist grounds, when that name would have been handed down from your father's side of the family, and his father, and his father anyway? What are you protecting? Just another symbol of the patriachal society anyway.
I agree that in theory it's pretty moot, when the name you're holding on to is your father's name, yes. On the other hand I'd question the assertion that names have nothing to do with identity. Naming things, turning objects into language: this is how we make sense of the world, how we communicate that world to others.
My friends and I were discussing the other night what we'd all wanted to change our names to when we were 15 - it turned out we'd all at some point announced to our families that we wanted to be called by a name other than that which our families had seen fit to donate to us. (Mine was Roxanne. Me so classy.) You know - 15, identity crisis, rebellion, attempts at self-redefinition - and we each chose the renaming of the self to attempt this.
Surely we can't be the only ones to have done this? Can you honestly claim that names aren't bound up with identity? If I run into a room and call you 'Jane', because I feel you seem like a Jane, will you respond? No, you'll respond to 'Ian'. By the time a woman comes to be married, she'll have lived a whole life under her particular name - her particular identity. By that point the surname will be more than just 'her father's name', surely... it will have become incorporated into her sense of self.
Abandoning that identity - in formal, legal, language terms at least - has shades of days when the married woman left to live with her husband's family; when she had no identity beyond his (no longer Miss Ruth Lucas, just Mrs James Payne, a female adjunct to his independent life); when she had no right to own property; when she had no right to a divorce; when she had no right to refuse sex and there was no such thing as rape in marriage; when, essentially, her body was no longer her own, but his. When she had no right to an education or a vote. When she was invisible in legal terms.
Perhaps women these days 'have a problem' with women changing their name on marriage because it seems like a slap in the face to everything that women's liberation has managed to achieve. It just seems a bit...ungrateful somehow.
And I'm not having a go at you personally Louche as I'm sure you know. And from your weary tone you've probably heard the above arguments a hundred million times, so if you can't be assed to respond, I understand. But there's just something really grim to me about taking the man's name. It just seems so incredibly submissive.
[ 22.02.2006, 10:23: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
But you don't have to take your man's name any more. You can choose to. Or not to. It's the fact that the choice exists and that it is a choice that is important, not what choice is made.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Hello Niffer. Did I see cross your path at Reading station last night? If not, you either have a twin, a clone or a frighteningly realistic stunt double.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: [QUOTE]Perhaps women these days 'have a problem' with women changing their name on marriage because it seems like a slap in the face to everything that women's liberation has managed to achieve. It just seems a bit...ungrateful somehow.
It seems a bit like you're missing the point to me. What would be the purpose in hundreds of people fighting to liberate you, if you're just going to end up feeling bound by their rules instead. Not changing your name, because you feel you somehow owe it to history's feminists is just as much an act of submission as changing your name because you're deferring to your husband's supremacy. So it's by malinging people who choose to change their name that you're actually eroding the legacy of the people who fought for women to be free. You're just turning on other women and trying to force them to do what *you* think is best, what you want, while the whole point of feminism - surely - was to emancipate women from doing what men thought was best.
It's hardly a slap in the face to everything feminism has helped to achieve - it's an embracing of it - because you now have a choice, and now because of what feminism has done you can change your name, and be equal to your husband. You know, be a family with the same name - if that's what you want - without actually being his plaything.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Surely we can't be the only ones to have done this? Can you honestly claim that names aren't bound up with identity? If I run into a room and call you 'Jane', because I feel you seem like a Jane, will you respond? No, you'll respond to 'Ian'. By the time a woman comes to be married, she'll have lived a whole life under her particular name - her particular identity. By that point the surname will be more than just 'her father's name', surely... it will have become incorporated into her sense of self.
I’ll cheerfully agree with this. Yes, names are inextricably caught up with identity. Does it explain part of my decision if I say that part of it was liking the idea of having a new name? Not because this gave a chance for a new identity or because I was subsuming my identity into my husbands but I quite fancied a slightly different ‘me’?
quote:Abandoning that identity - in formal, legal, language terms at least - has shades of days when the married woman left to live with her husband's family; when she had no identity beyond his (no longer Miss Ruth Lucas, just Mrs James Payne, a female adjunct to his independent life); when she had no right to own property; when she had no right to a divorce; when she had no right to refuse sex and there was no such thing as rape in marriage; when, essentially, her body was no longer her own, but his. When she had no right to an education or a vote. When she was invisible in legal terms.
Perhaps women these days 'have a problem' with women changing their name on marriage because it seems like a slap in the face to everything that women's liberation has managed to achieve. It just seems a bit...ungrateful somehow.
This is an argument which has been trotted out by my feminist friends. And I can totally see their point. But I don’t feel like I’m slapping our feminist forebears in the face. I have the choice about whether I want to marry, I have the choice whether I want to change my name and for that I thank them. But I chose to change my name for personal –and actually rather flighty – reasons. I think the reason I can’t see it as a slap in the face is because to me it seems a very minor thing. When I’m saying minor thing compared to equal rights in marriage, equal pay, right to vote all that sort of thing. I find it difficult to see a simple thing like changing my name to be quite as redolent of all that as you do. It’s just a difference in perception, I think.
quote:And I'm not having a go at you personally Louche as I'm sure you know. And from your weary tone you've probably heard the above arguments a hundred million times, so if you can't be assed to respond, I understand. But there's just something really grim to me about taking the man's name. It just seems so incredibly submissive.
I see the name change in the context of my relationship with my husband and therefore don’t find it grim or submissive.
On a related note, I find women who do that godawful double barrelling thing to be particularly annoying as it seems to be queasy compromise. Either keep your name or change it – don’t sit on the fence. It can’t be comfortable.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Also: Kovacs, have you been taking lessons in posting from ralph?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Either keep your name or change it – don’t sit on the fence. It can’t be comfortable.
I bet they get skid marks.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: Surely we can't be the only ones to have done this? Can you honestly claim that names aren't bound up with identity? If I run into a room and call you 'Jane', because I feel you seem like a Jane, will you respond? No, you'll respond to 'Ian'. By the time a woman comes to be married, she'll have lived a whole life under her particular name - her particular identity. By that point the surname will be more than just 'her father's name', surely... it will have become incorporated into her sense of self.
I dunno - it's not that big of a deal. If you ran into a room and called me Thorn, I'd still respond, and when I joined the forum I'd lived my whole life with the name my parents gave me. When I've been at meets everyone calls me Thorn and I don't feel my sense of self is being eroded in any significant way. I'd probably also respond to 'oi', and 'sir', and also if you came up with a nick name based on what you thought I looked like, and it stuck, then I'd respond to that, too.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
Yeah, the double-barreled thing is even worse. What are they supposed to do when all the double-barreled kids grow up - quadruple-barrel it? I wish we did the whole son / dottir thing they do in Iceland. Though I'm not entirely clear on how that works.
Yeah, I understand it's great that women have the choice and that that is the fundamental difference between then and now etc etc. But it's my right to make conclusions about someone by the choices they make - whether to attend church, call the newsagents the 'Paki' shop, read the Mail - some choices just seem to be a dead giveaway in terms of fundamental underlying attitudes, and I guess I will make judgements based upon them. It just seems sort of...gay, somehow.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: [QUOTE]I dunno - it's not that big of a deal. If you ran into a room and called me Thorn, I'd still respond, and when I joined the forum I'd lived my whole life with the name my parents gave me. When I've been at meets everyone calls me Thorn and I don't feel my sense of self is being eroded in any significant way. I'd probably also respond to 'oi', and 'sir', and also if you came up with a nick name based on what you thought I looked like, and it stuck, then I'd respond to that, too.
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. You'll respond to a sound like 'oi' and 'sir' because it's a general attention-seeking sound, and as a human, you'll respond to these. And you'd respond to a nickname that 'stuck' because that too would be intrinsically bound to your identity - and presumably it would only stick if it did accurately sum up something about you - e.g. conveyed aspects of your identity. Name = identity.
[ 22.02.2006, 10:51: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: Hello Niffer. Did I see cross your path at Reading station last night? If not, you either have a twin, a clone or a frighteningly realistic stunt double.
[shaggy]It wasn't me[/shaggy]. I was in Greenwich.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: Yeah, I understand it's great that women have the choice and that that is the fundamental difference between then and now etc etc. But it's my right to make conclusions about someone by the choices they make - whether to attend church, call the newsagents the 'Paki' shop, read the Mail - some choices just seem to be a dead giveaway in terms of fundamental underlying attitudes, and I guess I will make judgements based upon them. It just seems sort of...gay, somehow.
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?
Lol.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
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.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
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.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
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?
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
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.
[ 22.02.2006, 11:21: Message edited by: Louche ]
Posted by Ghost of George (Member # 860) on :
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.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
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.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
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.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
[irrelevant aside] thorn - did you used to work for Faversham House? Do you know anything about them[/IA]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
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 by ben (Member # 13) on :
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.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
My Dad is going to set the dogs on Kirsty if she's tries any double-barrelled sneakery.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
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?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: Are there any guys called Smith out there looking for love?
Posted by Ghost of George (Member # 860) on :
For some reason, I feel dirty.
[ 22.02.2006, 12:07: Message edited by: Ghost of George ]
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
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?
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
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.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
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.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I plan to marry a Miss Television and so I have gone to the trouble to prepare myself for her.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Menstruation=Class posts
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
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?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Come on TMO. Decide. It's one or the other...
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
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?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Congratulations on your anniversary Dang!!!
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
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.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
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.
[ 22.02.2006, 13:01: Message edited by: vikram ]
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
'Whatevs' is not an answer, Vikram.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
oh i don't know, i'm just a dumb guy.
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
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?
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
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.
[ 22.02.2006, 13:21: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
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.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
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 by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
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 by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
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 ]
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: Curse you vikram!
Don't blame me, dude. I have no soul Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
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?
[ 22.02.2006, 17:21: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: *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!
Well, yeah, that's true and that did cross my mind. But I guess it's the whole "Women died so that you didn't have to do what they tell you, so you'd damn well better do this," thing. It's not really progress. It's not really any different at all. And I don't think women did fight so that you had to not take your husband's name, I think it's more like the fight was one when it became the case that, if you did take your husband's name it was no longer symbolic of his ownership of you.
I dunno, it's like say there was this black kid and all she wanted to do was become a lawyer or something, and black activists kept ragging on her going "Malcolm X died for your emancipation and all you're doing is working for the man and paying your tax to feed white society", wouldn't you be a bit like "Leave them alone and let them walk their own path for fuck's sake." It's like, it's not doing any harm, so butt the fuck out. London actually said she thinks less of people who change their name and slung a couple of low grade insults around, but once you've got to the point where it really isn't doing any harm in any way why even care about it?
I dunno - I've just sat in all evening waiting for the third time for a pair of speakers that never arrived so really I'm just lashing out unfairly at someone, and I'm sorry if it sounds like that, which it must do. But you know, I do kind of mean what I say at the same time.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Hey, Thorn. Did you ever make that cd you wanted to send to me? I haven't received anything see. Just want to be sure it's not lost in the post sort of thing.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I dunno - I've just sat in all evening waiting for the third time for a pair of speakers that never arrived so really I'm just lashing out unfairly at someone, and I'm sorry if it sounds like that, which it must do. But you know, I do kind of mean what I say at the same time.
I hope that ya dished the venom like a silver service viper, my friend.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: OJ even posted on here about 'the shiver of cold fear' that went through her when, after she got an email from me in my new married name, she realised she could never ever face changing her name.
D and I went out for a meal last night to celebrate our second wedding anniversary ('cotton', apparently). When I related the above gem to her - adding the bit about OJ being your witness - she got so angry she glassed a passing waiter. While I think this reaction was a little excessive, I can understand where it came from.
'fwiw' though there's no technical rigmarole for a husband to go through, (informing banks etc.) having D take my surname did alter the way I felt about our relationship - though it wasn't something I was really aware of at the time, looking back the change was pretty profound. To put it crudely, it symbolised that - even before Sam was born - we were a family... a single unit rather than 'two people together'. For both of us, this was what our marriage was/is about and the name change reinforced the symbolism.
Though historically the name change might have had more to do with ownership and patriarchy, well, so did the whole concept of 'being married'. Surely if you reject the first on those grounds you have to reject the second as well. You don't even have to look into history - in the present day, in this country and around the world, marriage continues to be a from of slavery, certainly submission, for millions of women. Forget the past: for women living today, on your street 'marriage/name change = subservience'. The point, surely, is that though this may be the case for some, it needn't be the case for all.
To make out that a symbolic gesture can only ever have one meaning - and that meaning remains forever immutable - is to deny human reality.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: So, the question is, what are the legal implications of getting divorced, and what are the financial implications regarding stuff like pensions and life insurance? And how much does it actually cost? Can you just buy a pack from W H Smiths for 3 quid and send it to HM Office of Bits of Paper in that London?
More fundamental, surely, is how you're going to explain this to your kids in a way that won't leave them confused and resentful.
This isn't the sort of thing you can 'just go along with', Dang - you have to decide how you feel about it and you have to make your feelings clear to your wife and children. Looking like you don't give a fuck either way could irreparably damage your relationship with each one of them.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Plus it doesn't make any sense.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: This isn't the sort of thing you can 'just go along with', Dang - you have to decide how you feel about it and you have to make your feelings clear to your wife and children. Looking like you don't give a fuck either way could irreparably damage your relationship with each one of them.
FWIW, I would agree. I know this isn't the advice you came looking for but the man is talking sense.
Have you sat down with her and really tried to find out why she would want this? It is certainly a unique idea but there seems to be more to it than that.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben:
This isn't the sort of thing you can 'just go along with', Dang
Typical Northern male attitude.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Plus it doesn't make any sense.
Since when did women have to make sense? Some of them don't even want to change their names on marriage for God's sake.
Seriously though Dang, I completely agree with the Ben on this one. I can kind of understand your lady's reasoning, but I really don't think this is something you can just blithely accept, for precisely the reasons ben states above.
In terms of names at marriage I'm all for it being a woman's choice, or in theory a man's as Thorn suggested. But really I would like the woman I marry to take my name, and I'm not entirely sure why, it may be as simple as Ms Fanjita senior's reasoning that it just seems a nice thing to do (I equally agree with Fanjita Snr keeping her professional name), or maybe I'm just an evil man who wants to stamp his possession of his woman on her.
Oh and here's something on how the Icelandic surnames thing works, though I'm stumped as to how this is more egalitarian than our system.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
I appreciate you have tried to explain it here, Dang, and that you are still trying to understand your wife's position yourself, but the whole idea still seems to be a lot of cobblers to me. Your wife feels twenty years of marriage and raising a family have robbed her of her individuality? Fine, I can understand that. Whatever paths a person takes they can always look back and brood over the experiences they missed out on. Each decision in life compromises the alternatives, so anyone can take stock and feel cheated by what they haven't done. As you say, whatever Mrs Dang had done, whether she was a housewife, a D.A, a charity worker or the first person on Mars, she'd likely feel restless and find her life lacking. She obviously can't get back the years and the opportunities but she'd like to address the problem now. Fine. Your fragile china wedding anniversary would seem a nicely symbolic time to do it. Well enough. She wants to stay together but needs to recapture her own unique life. Again, fine. What is the best way to do this? I don't know, maybe pursue her individual drives and interests, develop a life independent of the family unit, be a little selfish and focus on what she wants to do. All fine, assuming it isn't detrimental to the kids – which I suppose it could be, but let's leave that there for now. Does she do any of that? No, not yet. I don't know, perhaps this symbolic section of her journey is a necessary first step towards her reclamation of the self, but as an independent gesture it fucking blows. It's clear from this thread alone that marriage still holds a powerful symbolic sway for many people, so maybe I'm failing to grasp the logic of getting divorced (even though you want to remain together and it seems nothing else will change) in an effort to get one's freedom back.
I'm so far from understanding this that it's making me feel like a moron.
If futile gestures to appease an irrepressible soul are the norm with her then I don't think there's a lot you can do. If they aren't then I'd point out to her just how fucking stupid this is as an idea. By all means try and understand her position, but if you do, surely you have got a duty to help her cope with this sense of deficiency by coming up with a decent solution, rather than just agreeing with her crack pot divorce idea.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: This isn't the sort of thing you can 'just go along with', Dang - you have to decide how you feel about it and you have to make your feelings clear to your wife and children. Looking like you don't give a fuck either way could irreparably damage your relationship with each one of them.
I don't think so. They're happy-go-lucky kids and nothing will change for them anyway. We don't need to make some grand announcement that we're no longer married, we'll just do it and then carry on.
I know this sounds eccentric to some/most people, but it's the way we've always done things, and it works for us. We've been married nearly 20 years, but we've been together longer than that, known each other since we were 14, and will probably be together till one of us decides to find out what this 'death' business actually involves, out of curiosity.
I've read up on the divorce process now and it looks like it's just a formality anyway as long as it's not contested. The finances and children aspect is separate and only of interest to the courts if there is a dispute of some sort. If you fill out the form to say, "We're agreed on childcare, it's all sorted, mate" then the judge will just stamp the form and off you go.
That's what I've read anyway, and it makes sense. Why make a big fuss if two people don't want to be married any more?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Dang We don't need to make some grand announcement that we're no longer married, we'll just do it and then carry on.
Arrrgrrgrrgrgrhrghrgrhgrhrgrhgrhgrh!
[ 23.02.2006, 04:28: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Why make a big fuss if two people don't want to be married any more?
Why make the big fuss? Well, firstly, you did ask. I know you were more concerned with the practicalities of the divorce rather than people's opinions on the decision but, well, this is the internet, it is TMO and you had to expect it. Secondly, it isn't really a big fuss (I'm not going to turn up at the divorce court like Benjamin Braddock or anything), it's just something I can't seem to shut up about. I think I'd be the same if I opened the curtains this morning to find someone I liked saying, "you know, I really miss my long lost brother so I'm going to build a scale model of the twin towers out of edam and the dog’s nail clippings. Wish me luck."
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65:
quote:Originally posted by ben: This isn't the sort of thing you can 'just go along with', Dang - you have to decide how you feel about it and you have to make your feelings clear to your wife and children. Looking like you don't give a fuck either way could irreparably damage your relationship with each one of them.
I don't think so. They're happy-go-lucky kids and nothing will change for them anyway. We don't need to make some grand announcement that we're no longer married, we'll just do it and then carry on.
I think something like this could be instructive for your kids. Make a day of it. Have a party! Explain to your kids that they can do anything they like, that they don't have to be suffocated by conformity and toe the line. Tell them to stick two fingers up to tradition and authority and expectation. Show them there are other ways of doing things and that social institutions are essentially garbage.
[ 23.02.2006, 04:36: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: That's what I've read anyway, and it makes sense. Why make a big fuss if two people don't want to be married any more?
I think this is where you are loosing people. When two people don't want to be married anymore it normally involves not living together or even talking to one another.
On the plus side she could never give you shit for forgetting your anniversary.
Also, what do you have planned for your 30th? Or would that just be your 10th anniversary of not being married?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: If futile gestures to appease an irrepressible soul are the norm with her then I don't think there's a lot you can do. If they aren't then I'd point out to her just how fucking stupid this is as an idea.
I'm not really clear why it's a stupid idea to get divorced? I mean, plenty of people told us it was a stupid idea to get married in the first place. One would think that those people would say, "Oh well done for getting divorced, I always said it was a stupid idea to get married didn't I?" But, no doubt, the same people will actually say, "What? You're getting divorced? That's a terrible idea."
People also told us that having one child was stupid, then two, then three. They told us that it was stupid to buy a flat at the height of the 80s house price freak out. That I was stupid to change jobs, each and every time I changed jobs. Because the old job was so comfortable and consistent. Fuck that. People even tell me I'm stupid to cycle everywhere because it's so dangerous. ffs!
Thing to do in life is whatever the fuck you want to do. No truer a cliché was ever included in the Oxford Dictionary of Clichés than "Life's too short..."
Sorry Jonesy, that's not a rant at you, just a statement of my philosophy.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Would Mrs Dang be angry if you brought a new girlfriend home to meet the family? What would the girlfriend think of you living with your ex-wife?
Or are you writing off that possibility?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Sorry Jonesy, that's not a rant at you, just a statement of my philosophy.
It's fine, and I dig your philosophy, I really do. I guess my problem is that I don't properly understand what this divorce will achieve. The way you've painted things above, the idea of the divorce as a reflection of the type of relationship you have and the kind of people you are, rather than as an act that will have any noticeable effect whatsoever (other than unnecessary admin), helps me come to grips with your plan a little. If Mrs D has a burning desire to get her life back, perhaps a key part of that life was a propensity towards original acts – and getting divorced would be enough to rekindle that sense of originality and individuality. If that's the case then you have my blessing, son. If not, and five minutes after the ink is dry on the divorce she's like, "Hmmm, nothing's really changed. I better go join the Taliban for a couple of years" then you'll just be, like, wow my wife's a terrorist and what's more, I've got to fucking write to HSBC to change the name on the VISA card, so she's got cash for bombs and burkas and shit.
[ 23.02.2006, 04:52: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Thing to do in life is whatever the fuck you want to do. No truer a cliché was ever included in the Oxford Dictionary of Clichés than "Life's too short..."
Life's too short - more importantly, too precious - to endanger your closest relationships on a whim.
At the very least you need to consult with your kids to find out they think of this idea. 'Happy go lucky' they may be, but if they're presented with this as a fait accompli there's a strong possibility you'll pull the ground from under their feet. Detailed consideration of what that conversation will actually sound like and where it might go may well cause you to think again.
Whatever the unwelcome grief you'll have had to bear from gobby friends and relatives on getting married, having a second child etc etc is as nothing compared to the reproach you'll direct at yourself if this divorce transforms your family in unforeseen ways.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
I imagine you're struggling to explain yourself Dang, as only you know your wife and she sounds like a very unique and intriguing person.
If it really is a simple bit of paperwork, and nothing else changes in your domestic routine, and your attitude to each other, then I think it could be quite interesting. How would friends, family and neighbours react? Would they forget to refer to you as "partners" rather than "husband and wife"? Would they refuse to, thinking you're just being silly? Would your wife/partner get annoyed by still being addressed as Mrs? Would she refuse to answer to this? Also, if you eventually decide to get remarried that could be fun.
I get the impression that you have a very solid family unit that can take whatever is thrown at it, so fair play.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: They're happy-go-lucky kids and nothing will change for them anyway.
Although I don't claim to know the first thing about your children, please don't assume that because of their generally sunny disposition what you're planning won't affect them at all.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: If not, and five minutes after the ink is dry on the divorce she's like, "Hmmm, nothing's really changed. I better go join the Taliban..."
I don't deny that this could happen. Perhaps not the Taliban, but she's quite likely to do some training and get a full time job and stuff.
Things will change in that she won't be there all the time for the kids. But at this stage in the family cycle that's what many people do anyway, people that have been at home with several young children go back to work as the children start school and there's more free time. Our youngest starts school in September, just as our eldest finishes school. Routines from the last few years will be changing anyway. Kids can handle that, no sweat.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I think the forum ladies would like to know if you will be allowed to date, Dang.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: she sounds like a very unique and intriguing person.
If one of the forum's female posters had this proposition made to her by her husband, I reckon the general reaction might be 'somewhat different' from the above.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
If Dang's just planning on carrying on as normal anyway, why does he even have to tell the children? It can just be mummy and daddys 'cool little sercret', surely?
Anyway.
quote:Originally posted by ben: Though historically the name change might have had more to do with ownership and patriarchy, well, so did the whole concept of 'being married'. Surely if you reject the first on those grounds you have to reject the second as well. You don't even have to look into history - in the present day, in this country and around the world, marriage continues to be a form of slavery, certainly submission, for millions of women. Forget the past: for women living today, on your street 'marriage/name change = subservience'. The point, surely, is that though this may be the case for some, it needn't be the case for all.
To make out that a symbolic gesture can only ever have one meaning - and that meaning remains forever immutable - is to deny human reality.
Well, yeah. For a long time I did want to reject the notion of marriage entirely on those grounds – that it in itself was a completely outdated notion, redolent of slavery etc etc etc. But then as I grew older I started trying to separate my actual beliefs from 80s feminist doctrine – to work out what I wanted, what I believed in, what experience had taught me and how that might differ from traditional 2nd-wave feminist schools of thought. Whether the desire to cleave to another was more than just ‘HERE Is how MAN oppresses the WOMAN’, whether to pair off was a basic human need or not – could we live without it? Whether female weakness /male strength mean that the way society has evolved is inevitable, has indeed ultimately been good for the female, has eventually led to the situation we’re in now, where technological advance (created by men) has freed women from the drudgery of housework to the point where we CAN go out and get careers, that women are immensely privileged at this point in and essentially owe that to male thought BLAH BLAH BLAH…
And then I thought that maybe that desire to make a statement in front of all those people, a statement of your togetherness and intent to make that togetherness permanent, was beautiful, and right, and that maybe that was why marriage had evolved. When I broke up with Jake we were three months shy of the 14th anniversary of the day we got together. We’d been going out for 13 years, and yet now, looking back, my sister’s five-year marriage gets far more respect from family and friends than a 13-year completely monogamous relationship did, a relationship that took me through my late teens and all through my twenties – my whole fucking adult life. Yes, marriage is important, I now realise; and yes, marriage is beautiful. I wish I had married Jake. I wish I could now say ‘my ex-husband’ because then people would, well...get it.
But that doesn’t mean that, in accepting that, you have to swallow wholesale all the traditions and ties that have evolved to go along with it. I’m just questioning those rituals and whether they have a place, what that meaning is. I’m trying to separate feminist doctrine from human experience, and human experience from post-feminist thought, and so on and so forth. I don’t buy this whole ‘you have no right to comment on the personal lives of others’ thing that Thorn’s pushing because, as Benway pointed out, the personal is political. What else, historically, have women had? The domestic realm was pretty much all they were allowed to access or influence; to speak of women’s lives at all was to speak of their personal lives.
I’m not sure how to take Thorn’s attack since he later undermined it by saying that he was just annoyed because he was having to stay in to wait for some speakers. Somehow that’s how Thorn seems, like this big angry weird parasite that sits up in a tree waiting for someone who’s dared to express a strong opinion to walk past so he can jump down out of the tree and ARGUE THE FUCK OUT OF THEM. I think that claiming that I’m oppressing women by expressing my opinions is pretty fucking rich. Am I supposed to take this seriously, Thorn? Is it worth getting into? Why am I not a feminist just because I’m able to say that 2000 years of male-dominated society may have twisted women around – me included of course – just as it’s twisted men around? What the fuck is this ‘personal agenda’ that I’m supposed to be pushing, that I’m furious / confused if women deviate from, this personal agenda that is apparently as virulent and aggressive as anything men may have done under the patriarchy? What are you talking about?
ps - and also, you don't actually know anything about what I write, what it's about, who likes it, what I say, whether or not my writing could be seen to come from a feminist viewpoint, etc etc - so please don't dismiss what I do with it as 'writing like a teenager for a website' when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
[ 23.02.2006, 05:27: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
If the wife no longer adopts the husbands name then how do family names continue ?
Time was a man with only daughters knew his family name wouuld die out, like me really I was the last male Reeds till Beckett was born (though Femke and I are not married, in Holland you can have the fathers surname for the childe if you wish).
Are you allowed to choose your surname or the origins of the surname in England ?
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
As I'm aware of it my surname isn't entirely from the male line of my family, it has been for a few generations but some way back it was passed down from the female side of the family. I think that was around the point the Portugeuse fisherman was invovled though.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
[off topic] Darryn, what's happening with the blog? Are you still going strong?[/off topic]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: I think that claiming that I’m oppressing women by expressing my opinions is pretty fucking rich. Am I supposed to take this seriously, Thorn? Is it worth getting into? Why am I not a feminist just because I’m able to say that 2000 years of male-dominated society may have twisted women around – me included of course – just as it’s twisted men around? What the fuck is this ‘personal agenda’ that I’m supposed to be pushing, that I’m furious / confused if women deviate from, this personal agenda that is apparently as virulent and aggressive as anything men may have done under the patriarchy? What are you talking about?
It's not just 'expressing your opinion', though. Expressing your opinion would be saying "I wouldn't take my husband's name", but instead you said that other women shouldn't take their husband's name and that they were delivering a slap in their face to their forebears by doing so. It's telling people what they sould be doing - that's the parallel between 2000 years of patriarchy. It may not be as virulent, but it's much the same attitude. "This is what you should be doing". It was the same when there was a debate about body image and you said
quote:What I meant is that, if, in attempting to praise the fuller-figured female, our skinnier sisters get insulted in the process, this is not something which concerns me overly.
Kovacs went on to describe it as 'self-centred and offensive to millions of women', which I agree with. Where's the progress? You're advocating using feminist rhetoric to make women feel bad, and to urge them to do what you think is best. It really annoys me. It's just swapping in one set of bullying for another.
The parasite comment, I dunno. It's not a case of me pouncing on anyone daring to express an opinion as it is 'me disagreeing with you'. Don't insult me because I've dared to express my own opinion etc etc.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
my surname is utterly stupid but if i could find someone who'd take it i'd be delighted.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
[off topic]I've been in a deep blue funk and as such I can't honestly be 'bothered' to do anything, in fact just getting out of bed is a struggle in itself, I will make an update today, though it won't be much to read... But yes, I'm still off the booze and there's only a week to go[/off topic]
[ 23.02.2006, 05:38: Message edited by: Darryn.R ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Hmmm... 'Off the booze'... 'Deep blue funk'... Hmmm... I wonder...
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
excellent work, holmes!
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Elementary, my dear Boozehound.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Over three weeks in BM, if it was booze related I would have thought it would have arrived earlier.
And I know why I'm miserable, and it has nothing to do with a booze free diet.
Trust me, if I thought it would lift me out of it I'd be pissed in a heartbeat.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Maybe you're gluten intolerant?
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
the guy's depressed, bm, no need to call him a racist.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
those glutens have a hell of a time of it, anyway.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Maybe you're gluten intolerant?
What's a gluten ?
[ 23.02.2006, 06:01: Message edited by: Darryn.R ]
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
poor lads.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
fella at work found out he was gluten intolerant and when he changed his diet accordingly he lost about 3 stone.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:Originally posted by omikin: fella at work found out he was gluten intolerant and when he changed his diet accordingly he lost about 3 stone.
That's because once you cut out gluten there's FUCK ALL LEFT TO EAT
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
he only weighed 3.5 stone to start with as well. poor fella looks like a peperami in a cheap shirt now.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
to tell the truth i'm still a little pissed from last night.
apologies.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: Trust me, if I thought it would lift me out of it I'd be pissed in a heartbeat.
But would you drink your own piss? It's gotta be worth a shot.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Fair enough. Let's get back to the subject at hand, why ben loathes and distrusts women and children so much.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: But that doesn’t mean that, in accepting that, you have to swallow wholesale all the traditions and ties that have evolved to go along with it.
Of course. Thing is, 'swallowing wholesale' implies an unthinking, undiscriminating submission to a whole range of accrued tradition - regardless of the cost to one's integrity. I don't think it's fair to issue this as a blanket condemnation purely on the name-change thing, particularly since people have clearly given it an awful lot of consideration when it applies to their own situation (ie. Louche's prenuptial agonising).
quote:Originally posted by London: I’m just questioning those rituals and whether they have a place, what that meaning is. I’m trying to separate feminist doctrine from human experience, and human experience from post-feminist thought, and so on and so forth. I don’t buy this whole ‘you have no right to comment on the personal lives of others’ thing that Thorn’s pushing because, as Benway pointed out, the personal is political.
I fairness, I don't think Thorn was challenging your right to comment so much as your right to condemn. Blanket condemnation, readings of the riot act, hyperbole and condescension have their uses - I use them all often enough, ffs - but it's a bit disingenuous to switch into brow-furrowing-seeker-of-TEH-SIMPLE-TRUTH-FFS mode when people react to provocation.
quote:Originally posted by London: What else, historically, have women had? The domestic realm was pretty much all they were allowed to access or influence; to speak of women’s lives at all was to speak of their personal lives.
I dig this - but when descriptive bleeds into proscriptive and finally into "y'all are just gimps anyhow, sheeit" people are going to call you out on it.
[ 23.02.2006, 06:23: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by omikin: my surname is utterly stupid but if i could find someone who'd take it i'd be delighted.
Apparently, the name "Gunnison" came about because some C18th yokel misread/miswrote the existing name "Jameson" - perhaps you could do the same.
You could go for "Strummer" or, still more plausibly, "Duuwwuer",
[ 23.02.2006, 06:20: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: If Dang's just planning on carrying on as normal anyway, why does he even have to tell the children? It can just be mummy and daddys 'cool little sercret', surely?
Please say you were joshing Amp, because this would be the most brain-breaking thing to do. Dang. Pushing 103 years old into the ground. Laying in intensive care, the children all sat around the bed. He announces that 'children, your mother and I haven't been married since 2006' and their world falls apart. The oldest falls into a crack den. The youngest knocks back scotch in a titty bar repeating 'I luff you mum n dwaddy' into a tear-soaked jacket sleeve. This is the most dangerous thing to do. To keep it quiet.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I guess it's the whole "Women died so that you didn't have to do what they tell you, so you'd damn well better do this," thing. It's not really progress. It's not really any different at all.
[...]
It's telling people what they should be doing - that's the parallel between 2000 years of patriarchy.
[...]
You're advocating using feminist rhetoric to make women feel bad, and to urge them to do what you think is best. It really annoys me. It's just swapping in one set of bullying for another.
I don't know - I mean, I did actually use that phrase - semi-ironically (of course!) but with some serious intent, at the time of the election last year. My sister and my best friend weren't registered to vote. I even downloaded a voting form and gave it to my friend, and I said, please register to vote! Voting is important! And women DID die so you can have the vote! And you're just chucking that away!'
It seems that we're only allowed to say 'I vote, but if you don't want to, that's cool, baby, your choice baby, stay beautiful yeah?' Surely the whole point of having any kind of political opinion, as Benway pointed out, is to want to mobilise some kind of change? It just seems so apathetic to just wave your hands and say '*I* believe this, but this has no meaning in the world out there at large'. I dunno, it reminds me of the old arguments about female genital mutilation or whatever in Africa and Egypt. People rubbing their chins and going 'yeah well it's horrific, course it is, but it's their culture, you know? It'd be, like, wrong to dismiss it out of hand? What do we know about their rituals? I hear it's the women that enforce it anyway, so what can we do?' Surely we're allowed to say that that is a wrong thing to do to women?
Before anyone jumps in and says 'London just compared a woman taking a man's name at marriage to FGM': I did NOT. I'm just questioning this notion that the only opinions you're allowed to hold are those that pertain to your own life, and you're seemingly not allowed to question the choices of others in any way, shape or form.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: I dig this - but when descriptive bleeds into proscriptive and finally into "y'all are just gimps anyhow, sheeit" people are going to call you out on it.
As I recall it didn't 'bleed into' anything: I started the whole thing with an off-the-cuff 'might as well wear a gimp mask' thing so I think we all knew what was gonna happen. I didn't know I was dissing Louche when I said that though. I was only trying to diss Ubertrick!
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Please say you were joshing Amp, because this would be the most brain-breaking thing to do. Dang. Pushing 103 years old into the ground. Laying in intensive care, the children all sat around the bed. He announces that 'children, your mother and I haven't been married since 2006' and their world falls apart. The oldest falls into a crack den. The youngest knocks back scotch in a titty bar repeating 'I luff you mum n dwaddy' into a tear-soaked jacket sleeve. This is the most dangerous thing to do. To keep it quiet.
Doh - the flaw here is that the secret is revealed. Announced, even. Secrets should go to the grave, that's why they're secrets. Otherwise they're just gossip.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben:
quote:Originally posted by omikin: my surname is utterly stupid but if i could find someone who'd take it i'd be delighted.
Apparently, the name "Gunnison" came about because some C18th yokel misread/miswrote the existing name "Jameson" - perhaps you could do the same.
You could go for "Strummer" or, still more plausibly, "Duuwwuer",
you can't polish a turn, you know.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: I'm just questioning this notion that the only opinions you're allowed to hold are those that pertain to your own life, and you're seemingly not allowed to question the choices of others in any way, shape or form.
Come off it - there's a big difference between questioning someone's opinion and laying into them for it - actually ben's already made this point.
Actually, one other thing that sprung to mind - and I'm genuinely curious about how you square this. You've also mentioned how you dig depraved pornography, something which - it is frequently argued - demeans women. You've posted quite a lot of stuff about how you get off on being abused by guys. If the private is political isn't an extreme submissive sex life - drinking spoonfuls of cum until you cry or throw up - several leagues beyond taking your husband's surname? Does that make you a hypocrite? Should women be telling you not to do that stuff? Or is it no-one's goddamn business?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: Before anyone jumps in and says 'London just compared a woman taking a man's name at marriage to FGM': I did NOT.
Well, ok, I can see what you are saying, but not to back track I just wanted to single this paragraph out:
quote:Abandoning that identity - in formal, legal, language terms at least - has shades of days when the married woman left to live with her husband's family; when she had no identity beyond his (no longer Miss Ruth Lucas, just Mrs James Payne, a female adjunct to his independent life); when she had no right to own property; when she had no right to a divorce; when she had no right to refuse sex and there was no such thing as rape in marriage; when, essentially, her body was no longer her own, but his. When she had no right to an education or a vote. When she was invisible in legal terms.
Genuinely I feel that while there may be an intrinsic link through history to suggest that yes, before the freedom was won for women to lead (a slightly more equal) role in society, that taking a surname was another part of the ritual ownership of women, I believe with absoloute resoloution that the average british women today would be happy to take their husbands surname for their own personal agenda, not because they are thick and weak and letting the side down.
Bonus: In that case, I'm sure it will all be good for them. Gossip never killed anyone.
[ 23.02.2006, 06:31: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
If it's any help, Dummer, my name is Payne, and there's a girl at work whose surname is Cumming. Zoe Cumming. Oh and my friend goes by the name H0rt0n Jupiter, but his real name is Michael Bottoms. And there was a boy at college called Matthew Raper!
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Actually I'll just shut up, it's like the anti Amp squad in here.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Thorn, you're just making yourself look foolish by revealing your profound ignorance of radical feminism.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
dummer's actually really cool, isn't it? i've become more and more proud of it as i've got older.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
quote:Originally posted by omikin: you can't polish a turn, you know.
Yes you can: tzjyrn. Easy.
Sorry omikin. Sorry everyone.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
have you been dinking, bandy?
more than normal, i mean.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
"dinking" ffs.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I was just about to do a Stevie, but then I thought: No. Leave it alone.
You don't know where it's been.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
Polish
Polish
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
oh, i get it alright.
there are no flies on me.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Actually, one other thing that sprung to mind - and I'm genuinely curious about how you square this. You've also mentioned how you dig depraved pornography, something which - it is frequently argued - demeans women. You've posted quite a lot of stuff about how you get off on being abused by guys. If the private is political isn't an extreme submissive sex life - drinking spoonfuls of cum until you cry or throw up - several leagues beyond taking your husband's surname? Does that make you a hypocrite? Should women be telling you not to do that stuff? Or is it no-one's goddamn business?
That was ages ago! Anyway, I can't really square it, and if I could, it wouldn't be hot. There's a lot of discussion within feminism itself about this very subject: Pat Califia, Suzy Bright, etc. Lots of third wave thinking is about examining things that were dismissed out of hand before, like S/M.
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: If the private is political isn't an extreme submissive sex life several leagues beyond taking your husband's surname?
It would be if the person advocating all this stuff was getting properly abused by someone who beat the shit out of them, wouldn't let them leave the house, blah de blah, and if they didn't enjoy that and hadn't chosen that, obviously. But I guess ultimately I don't see consensual stuff as contradicting anything I might say in the wider world, do you? Just like the way you might wank to (fake) rape porn but you wouldn't actually rape a woman.
[ 23.02.2006, 07:15: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by London: It would be if the person advocating all this stuff was getting properly abused by someone who beat the shit out of them, wouldn't let them leave the house, blah de blah, and if they didn't enjoy that and hadn't chosen that, obviously. But I guess ultimately I don't see consensual stuff as contradicting anything I might say in the wider world, do you?
So. The taking the name in marriage thing. I can see how it would be a problem for the feminist viewpoint if the woman taking her husband's name really was becoming his property, didn't have any rights over money, or her body. And how she had to take his name, and didn't want that and hadn't chosen it. But I guess ultimately I don't see consensual stuff as contradicting the legacy of feminism in the wider world.
[ 23.02.2006, 07:30: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
But doing something in the bedroom isn't in the wider world, it's in the bedroom. Changing your name isn't something you do in the bedroom - you keep your name change everywhere.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
But, really it's still a personal decision. The wider world doesn't have any claim over your name. The presence of your name in the wider world is roughly the same as - say - writing a piece of journalism, or something on a public discussion board about getting off on being abused during sex.
ETA
quote:Originally posted by London: But doing something in the bedroom isn't in the wider world, it's in the bedroom. Changing your name isn't something you do in the bedroom - you keep your name change everywhere.
Also - the private is political. Up until recently to discuss women's presence in the world was to discuss their private life.
Hang on, where did I get that from?
[ 23.02.2006, 07:34: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
Fine, forget it then.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Can you double barrel ? is that fairer ?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
After weeks of heated discussion Amp folded: she would drink his piss on their wedding day after all.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Bottoms up!
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
[ 23.02.2006, 07:59: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
aaaaaaaawww.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: Over three weeks in BM, if it was booze related I would have thought it would have arrived earlier.
And I know why I'm miserable, and it has nothing to do with a booze free diet.
Trust me, if I thought it would lift me out of it I'd be pissed in a heartbeat.
dazzle: at three weeks in i was still All About The Glumness. i havent really started to feel the full effects of not drinking until about maybe ten days ago, and even then it can be a bumpy ride. ive made the decision to stop drinking forevz if i can, for reasons we dont really need to go into here, and from talking to people who have stopped it can take a lot longer than three weeks for the depressant effects of al- kee- hol to dissipate if youve been drinking regularly and in significant quantities for a while in the period beforehand. which is not to say that if you keep choosing no boozing for another three weeks then you will feel that the world is a brighter and more giving place all of a sudden, especially when you say you know the reasons for your current depression. but i have found that a longer abstension does begin to reap rewards mood- wise eventually, and certainly at this stage i would agree that drinking on your current mood is very unlikely to help matters.
okay, well i will go as far as this to explain why i have given up drinking: a male nurse with a kindly beard asked me at the end of last year; how long have you been depressed, alice?' answer: 15 years. which is also the same amount of time i have been drinking. coincidence? in a pig's eye, sherlock, said nurse kindly beard. he then drew me a lovely mind picture, a picture of Booze and Anti- depressants having a big fuck off ruck in my head, with booze rope- a- doping the anti- d's and the anti- d's tussling the Booze into a headlock, and neither of them coming off any the better for this constant men- in- love- style wrestle, and it was as if the scales fell from my eyes. i cant drink any more if i want to have any control over my moods or my life. its that simple for me, pretty much.
i cant speak for your situation because i know nothing of it bar what youve told us, and that seeing you in this protracted state of Black Doggishness makes me sad because you are Teh Rule. But at the risk of sounding like some enculturated AA Big- Book- Basher, id keep on with the not drinking for a iddy longer because it might at the very least give your anti- d's a chance to get their groove on without constant bundling. it might not. but in my experience what depression and booze share is an ability to rob you blind of your perspective on life; once you stop letting booze egg depression on like the cheeky and sometimes malicious little tinker it is sometimes wont to be, then life might slowly begin to feel like a bigger and brighter sort of deal.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Cheers for that DM Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
nae probs! also: here is a picture of a monkey making disco tunes.
who needs booze when you have disco monkeys!
[ 23.02.2006, 08:26: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
A full Oprah UGOGURL (complete with neck gimble head movement) to Dank Fanjita, even if that monkey is giving me the fear.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
I actually fear it may haunt my dreams.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
my work here is done.
[ 23.02.2006, 09:35: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
God I need a drink.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
Just not Thorn's wee please.
Posted by Doctor Agamemnon When (Member # 189) on :
quote:Originally posted by dance margarita: here is a picture of a monkey making disco tunes.
Not only that, but making them on analogue synthesisers with unusual flashing knobs.
Hehe. Knobs.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
[ 23.02.2006, 13:20: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by Kellifer (Member # 187) on :
Where do I get this, 'I AM A FUCKING GIMP' sticker that's been refered to? I quite fancy the idea of becomming Mrs M Files. If it's just a matter of nipping down to WHSmith's then I'll nip out and get one. Once I manage to get this rusty chain from around my ankles and put my shoes on, of course.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
actually i was thinking about this thread all day yesterday and it has made me realise that there is no way i am giving up my surname- and its not like i have a professional reputation to protect; i just fucking love my surname. i love the way that my friends bellow it at me across rooms, i love the vowel sounds of it, i love the way it sounds when people use it as a comedy chastisement. i love the way i cant really say it because my r's are a bit flabby, and i love it when people notice that. i love that of the few tangible things that my father ever gave me this is the thing i carry around with me every day of my life. ive been alice bridget sian rooney for 30 years now, and im stopping for no motherfucker. this is my name, alice bridget sian rooney is who i am, and changing that would involve too much doublethink.
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
When I get married I will change my name. There is no doubt about that - I've always known that that is what I'll do. I'm all for sexual equality and all that, but if you're going to go for the whole shebang anyway - wedding cake, rings, pretty dress, witnesses, vows - then why not take your husband's name? It's a kind of old-fashioned, traditional thing to do, but isn't the whole marriage thing traditional and old-fashioned?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by turbo: I'm all for sexual equality and all that
Quote of the week?
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
But here in NL Turbo wont you automatically be Mrs. Whateverheis - Whateveryouwere ?
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
When I was seventeen my (step)father decided to adopt me so I could get citizenship of this fine country I call home. Otherwise I'd be one of those poor white zimbabweans you hear about and who the fuck would want that?
Anyway, once we got all the legal bits and pieces out of the way I had to choose whether I wanted to keep my surname or swap over to his. I chose not to change. My surname is a reminder of my deadbeat dad but I still stuck with it. As DD says, it's who I am. It's my name even if I share it with someone I feel very little for.
thats a bit deep for a friday afternoon... Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by dance margarita: actually i was thinking about this thread all day yesterday and it has made me realise that there is no way i am giving up my surname- and its not like i have a professional reputation to protect; i just fucking love my surname. i love the way that my friends bellow it at me across rooms, i love the vowel sounds of it, i love the way it sounds when people use it as a comedy chastisement. i love the way i cant really say it because my r's are a bit flabby, and i love it when people notice that. i love that of the few tangible things that my father ever gave me this is the thing i carry around with me every day of my life. ive been alice bridget sian rooney for 30 years now, and im stopping for no motherfucker. this is my name, alice bridget sian rooney is who i am, and changing that would involve too much doublethink.
At the risk of sounding obsequious, I was also thinking about this thread and how people's names can be part of who they are yesterday and thinking how you so are Alice (Bridget Sian) Rooney. I found it impossible to imagine your first name without your surname, anything else wouldn't be you, it'd just be Alice Blah, and I couldn't imagine you being Alice Blah at all.
That Disco Monkey is still freaking me the fuck out btw. brrrr, shudder, etc.
[ 24.02.2006, 08:20: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
quote:Originally posted by squeegy: When I was seventeen my (step)father decided to adopt me so I could get citizenship of this fine country I call home. Otherwise I'd be one of those poor white zimbabweans you hear about and who the fuck would want that?
Anyway, once we got all the legal bits and pieces out of the way I had to choose whether I wanted to keep my surname or swap over to his. I chose not to change. My surname is a reminder of my deadbeat dad but I still stuck with it. As DD says, it's who I am. It's my name even if I share it with someone I feel very little for.
thats a bit deep for a friday afternoon...
Y'see, I'm the opposite. I mean I have my Dad's surname and he's a loser. This doesn't bother me. The surname bit I mean. My surname isn't really part of who I am. I mean it is, obviously, but if someone asked me to give it up it wouldn't be a big deal.
Likewise, despite being incesensed by my Dad's behaviour on a regular basis prior to him just dropping out of sight I can't get excited enough to draft the deed poll and pay one of my brethren the fiver to get something more pronouncable.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Hold on, I thought turbo was a woman..?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
that's the worst thing i think i have ever seen.
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: But here in NL Turbo wont you automatically be Mrs. Whateverheis - Whateveryouwere ?
I'm not sure, as I have friends that have and haven't changed their surnames. If I do change my name, I can change it for everything except my passport, in which I would be Mrs Mynamenow, wife of Hisname. That always makes me laugh.
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Hold on, I thought turbo was a woman..?
I was. And I still am.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:All skirts no lower than two inches below the knee (except for Church).
lol
I'm not sure that contract is all it seems. Think a straightforward abusive/ultrademanding husband would express himself in far cruder and less elaborate terms - that document seems to me more like a prop to be used in two-hander sub-dom sex play.
You know, the sort of thing quite a few forites are into.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I'm not sure "ingestion of cum" is a legally correct term.
Niffer?
Posted by jnhoj (Member # 286) on :
If I was getting married I'd change my surname to my fiance's in a flash. I get so fed up with people asking
"so when's your next film out"
"wow it must be great being the pope of filth"
and then I have to explain for the seventh zillion time that I am not the famous film director.
Actually, that never happens. Ever.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
louise is looking at getting divorced, and sent me a link to a site called quickie divorces UK or something, which seemed kind of sad.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
Dang, isn't it nearly time for your divorce? What's going on with that, anyway?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Nice one, London.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
Doing 'show all topics' and then perusing the S&R forum is excellent fun, folks!
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
It's still going through, but I don't think it'll be official before our 20th anniversary which was the original target. 'Er Indoors is organising the whole thing and she tends to leave forms lying around for ages before she gets all excited about the idea again and sends them off. I think we're up to the court judgement bit now, which is where it could all go wrong if the judge feels like arguing about it.
quickiedivorce.com seem quite good. You submit your forms online and they check them over and let you know if anything needs changing, then they print them out and send them to you to sign and post on to the court. It's nothing you couldn't do yourself, but I suppose there's a bit of peace of mind knowing the form is ok and it's not going to get sent straight back.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
But after that, will you not live together? Is it real or a cool jape? I can't remember. Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I dunno really. We're getting on fine at the moment as far as I'm concerned. Like I said ages again in this thread, I'm frankly not bothered either way about being married, but I don't really want to split up and leave the kids and all that.
Posted by Online Poker (Member # 870) on :
Hip Hip Hey Horay, S&R is alive again. Let me share some advice I got on a medical board when I described the condition of me cock after last week's trip to Singapore.
'It seems to me that you have more of a problem, then you think you do. You are damaging yourself, and if you go to www.bible.com it will tell you why, but don't feel bad because I know someone who can cure you in ways that no doctor can. Jesus Loves you, and He is waiting for you to come to Him so that He can give you new life, new hope and a brighter future.'
Fukin doctors.
How does that have anything to do with this ear thread I hear you ask. Well it doesn't. But nor does throwing a bible at my bruised portion so, tough cakky.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
On the bridge at Vauxhall rail station is a load of graffiti signed VOP Enterprises. Was that you?
Posted by Online Poker (Member # 870) on :
If there were doodles of bruised cockage then it may have been my cry for help. Heartless.
Posted by Online Poker (Member # 870) on :
I was in Shoreditch two weeks ago - is that near Vauxhall?
It was bluddy rubbish I can tell you that.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Vauxhall isn't really anywhere near Shoreditch. But is even more rubbish.
Posted by Online Poker (Member # 870) on :
I'd not bin in Lahndahn for over a year, then they send me to Shoreditch. Full o strip bars. Very sleazy. Not my type of place at all.
I love your new icon by the way.
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
Vauxhall is great if you want to go to gay clubs called 'Hoist' or 'Thrust'. Apparently.
Posted by Online Poker (Member # 870) on :
Why do the Gayers choose names like Man-Hole or Tool-Box? These are the same dudes who give such lovely hair-cuts and can knock out a flower-arrangement at the drop of an arab-strap.
Why Gayers Why?
Hang on una momentita, hairdressies and petal pushers are always calling themselves 'HairPort' and 'BLOOMing Great'. Have I stumbled onto the Gay secret? Do they lack a naming gene?
What's the story with this Jimmy Big-Nuts fella?
[ 06.10.2006, 07:47: Message edited by: Online Poker ]
Posted by Grianagh (Member # 583) on :
i was afraid mart might've started this thread havent seen him for days and then this morning i return from a week in london and off he goes to amsterdam and then a 2 day staggering-around-do avoidance - first step in a d.i.v.o.r.c.e well, that denial and er, something or other
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Polish
Polish
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
