Houellebecq,

(Love your pseudonym!)

‘I agree SJF, it's a valid gripe. But I wouldn't say it's as important as reducing the incidence of rape.’

By whose criteria?

Why must the more ‘important’ feminist issues be mainly those that involve death and injury towards women (rape, domestic violence etc) or those that involve their ability to be cogs in the commerce wheel (childcare, EEO etc) or those that make us Westerners feel superior to other cultures (FGM, stoning adulteresses etc)?

Perhaps because I am an editor by trade, I have always been more interested in linguistic sexism than any other form. I believe that it is the sense of gender inferiority that linguistic sexism manifests in the universal female psyche – regardless of the caring and support little girls receive from their families or how 'progressive' their society is – that is the biggest enemy of women’s advancement.

If, as you say, the author's essay was a 'platform for content like that in [my] last post', then why can't that be a good thing? Issues about gender word usage have to keep on being raised, as our very own language keeps subliminally conditioning new generations of women to feel that they are the culturally inferior gender.

A 'famous feminist hobby-horse', maybe ... but far from a dead one.

Antiseptic

‘Young children may end up with little else of their father but a surname ...’

Ah! So you do admit that the retaining of a surname DOES carry symbolic importance. Or does the anti-feminist’s rule book state that symbolic importances must only apply to men?

JamesH

‘I may be mistaken but it is my very strong impression that feminists do regard men as an inferior sub-group.’

Permit me to clear up your indecision, James. Yes, you ARE mistaken.

Well, from my perspective, this thread has lots its value. We have descended into the following:

1) People arguing that calling others 'conditioned' is a valid debating style.

To me on the other hand, this is utter rot that people use against others who disagree with them. It's pseudo-intellectual shorthand for 'waaah! you disagree with me! Your opinions aren't actually your own unless they're MINE too!'

Like I said. It's rubbish.

2) "I may be mistaken but it is my very strong impression that feminists do regard men as an inferior sub-group."

Also, rubbish. Some might. They're idiots. Regard them as idiots who also happen to hold some feminist beliefs.
I may be mistaken, but it's my very strong impression that this is a foolish statement. Does this mean men are fools?

3)"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?"

Theoretically, we could tattoo them too. How about some kind of barcode for easy electronic tracking?

4) "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."

Hooray for more idiotic generalisations! Can I join!

Those who criticise feminism are idiots!

No? Does that sound like a sweeping generalisation that insults many people who are making valid points and doing good work?

Yes, it probably is. But regrettably, this thread can't help but contribute to the former perception, rather than the latter. I don't hold this belief, but were I to adopt the debating style displayed here, that's basically what my argument would sound like.

Good grief. I must bid you adieu, lest this descend further into half-arsed rhetoric.

SJF - loved reading your posts (and Spikey's and Romany's). The scenario was especially well put but so far I haven't seen any responses where people have actually reflected on it and honestly expressed how they'd react.

"...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."

Really, if a law was made overnight that the scenario be brought into reality - how would each of you feel; how would you react? What do you think the longer term consequences would be ?

TRTL - Yes I tend to agree that it's a pity when what could be an interesting discussion is gobbled up in nasty generalizations, untruths and silly, hateful statements. I think what astonishes me most, however, is that the people who have posted such things have some preconceived mental image of what a feminist is and believes. It seems they forget that we're people who have children, parents, spouses; or that our convictions have some valid base to them.

TRTL:"To me on the other hand, this is utter rot that people use against others who disagree with them. It's pseudo-intellectual shorthand for 'waaah! you disagree with me!"

I gave you a perfectly rational explanation for my use of the term and that's the best rebuttal you can come up with? Conditioned much? Perhaps you might make some effort to point out why I'm wrong if that's your opinion, rather than simply spouting the same unsupported statement over?

The fact is that the conditioning is constant and on-going and quite deliberate. When people like Michael Flood refer to "social constructs" they're referring in large part to the mostly unquestioned assumptions inherent in our responses to given situations and their position is that through proper conditioning, those responses can be manipulated.

As for the rest of your argument, it was nicely summarised by you yourself:"'waaah! you disagree with me!" Not a substantial point made in the entire melange.

You are capable of much better, so try to overcome your conditioning and see if you can't produce it.

SJF:"Ah! So you do admit that the retaining of a surname DOES carry symbolic importance"

I have no opinion on a woman choosing whatever surname she likes, my point was in relation to children, who benefit from having the patronymic in that they are thus linked to their father, even if their parents are estranged, when they might have no other link. Do try to keep up with the game.

Seeker:"default assumptions about paternity"

Well, in most cases the default is the true state. If certainty is required, it can be determined.

SJF,

Language is powerful. I aggree. I'm always banging on about the business leaders and union bosses myself. But if a world had say limited government funding and limited attention span for issues in the community, and you were talking to a woman who'd been raped, do you think she would be comforted to know that you couldn't speak about her or help her as you were concerntrating on the more long term goal of politically correct language.

'then why can't that be a good thing?'
It can be, I just said let's be honest. I won't have it that the article was made for a 'whimsical and amusing thread utilising word-play'

SJF
As someone whose work has always been primarily concerned with language I also was interested in your posts. Long before I had ever heard of feminism or misogynism I remember asking my parents why we used the words “mankind” or “man” when we were talking about everybody. Neither of them were in the habit of giving glib replies and both of them, after a lot of discussion, agreed it was a rather silly convention.

But then, when I started studying history, I realized that The History of Mankind was exactly that: a recording of the world of men – battles, treaties etc.

I was very lucky though, to have a mother who was a born storyteller and she used to tell me stories of the “other” side of history.

She also used to answer all my questions about things history books didn’t tell me like: how women used to give birth, what they used to do about their menses before the days of packaged sanitary products, when and why they started wearing knickers, when bras were first invented, and even about attitudes towards sex.

But I found that at tertiary level, in order to continue to learn about history and literature in a well rounded way one had to depart from the well worn paths of academic study and strike out on ones own, and then fight incredibly hard to get permission to submit theses that required twice the research than if sticking to the world of men.

I had grown up honestly thinking that women simply were not present in the fields that I specialized in – Literature and Drama – until relatively recent times. It was a revelation to discover not only that this wasn’t historically true, but that “The Woman Question” (now called Feminism) has a 400 year old history.

The fact that this is still not common knowledge speaks rather volubly I think.