Banjo

You claim this to be a 'trivial' issue. I beg to differ.

The issue of a woman's surname as an expression of her identity is not a trivial issue even though it is routinely treated as such. The issue of gendered names and titles is every bit as important as it is underrated.

Assuming that you are male, I wonder to what extent you would see this as a trivial issue if you suddenly woke up tomorrow morning to find yourself in a world in which social convention required all married men to operate under their wives' surnames. And I wonder if you would deem it 'progressive' if we 'tolerated' some men 'choosing' to use their own surname. And I wonder how you would feel if social convention required your children to use your wife's surname, even if you kept your own.

To continue the scenario, I wonder how you would feel if social convention required 'womankind' to be the generic name for the human species (instead of 'mankind') and that 'she' (instead of 'he') were the default generic pronoun. And I wonder how you would feel if forms routinely required you to circle either 'Mr' or 'Master', while women only had to circle 'Ms'. I wonder how you would feel if you routinely had to read wording that rendered men invisible ... such as: 'Womankind needs God, because without Her, our lives would hold no meaning ...'.

After living under this system for a while, I wonder to what extent you would start to feel that the quintessential human being was female and that men were an inferior sub-group. I wonder if, over time, you would start to feel inferior to women and if your confidence as a human being would start to wane.

The really sad thing is that women have been conditioned from the cradle to accept this linguistic double standard as perfectly normal - to the extent of believing that to 'choose' their own surname is the sign of a progressive society!

I agree SJF, it's a valid gripe. But I wouldn't say it's as important as reducing the incidence of rape. The way I see it, this 'humour' filled article that supposedly creates an opportunity for a wholesome 'whimsical and amusing thread utilising word-play' (Romany's words, I obviously have very, very different taste) fell well short of it's potential.

Some would say it's due to the belligerence of the anti-feminist nutters, but I would say equally by the very existence of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Lets face it, the topic is a famous feminist hobby horse, and the response was exactly as anticipated and intended; A platform for content like that in your last post.

I'm sure Nina would have enjoyed reading that little spiel just as much as you did writing it. And good luck to you both.

BTW: I have a book of politically correct bedtime stories that would enthral you.

SJF, the social convention of giving children the father's surname is quite useful, especially in an age in which it is increasingly common for the children to be estranged from their father. The maternal link is usually obvious due to the fact that it is mostly the mother who has majority care of the children, especially post-divorce.

Young children may end up with little else of their father but a surname if a mother decides to sever contact and you are arguing to remove even that. Do you think the children in question would be well-served by such a situation?

<that men were an inferior sub-group.> SJF

I may be mistaken but it is my very strong impression that feminists do regard men as an inferior sub-group. Women as a group often occupy the high moral ground.

In fact I have heard it said by some women that they beleive, "Women are better people than men!"

Antiseptic:” SJF, the social convention of giving children the father's surname is quite useful, especially in an age in which it is increasingly common for the children to be estranged from their father.”

Useful but often dishonest. Hidden advantage of not doing so, could be to avoid default assumptions about paternity.

JamesH: ‘In fact I have heard it said by some women that they beleive, "Women are better people than men!’

Nothing fringe about that, James. That’s bedrock feminist fact.

<that men were an inferior sub-group.> SJF

I should also add feminist research relies heavily on taking the worst case senario, (which doesnt happen too often) and extrapolating that to applying to the majority. Alot involves demonising men as a group.

<Social work literature is biased against heterosexual males, leading to "unfair and untrue" stereotypes about men and hampering social workers' ability to counsel men, an Alabama professor has concluded after reviewing articles in two social work journals from the last decade.>

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0301/wt030108.htm

Notice that social work is fairly strongly a female domain.

<"Most males are not delinquent, neglectful, abusers, AIDS victims or gay," Mr. Kosberg wrote. Yet in the last 10 years, "just a handful of studies at best" addressed "normative issues" of males.>