I just read an article confirming my opinions on the pettiness of many symbolic fights, particularly with feminism.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/named-and-shamed-20100223-p0ty.html?comments=210#comments

Now obviously pettiness is in the eye of the beholder, but for this beholder a lot of the gripes about 'the patriarchy' forcing women to use the fathers surname for children, how it would mean ownership, really just betray a deep seated anger and hatred of men. The assumption that the man is forcing this issue, and the women is obviously compliant is offensive to men and women.

Surely someone brought up in these times can understand that even if the issue is so vitally important to them, others may just not really care. And that they don't care bares no relation on their feelings about gender equity or politics.

I was heartened greatly by this reply....

'I feel that since my children grew in my body, fed from my breast, spend their first few years practically attached, they are mine through the unbreakable bond of mother to child. I don't feel the need to also bond them with my name. I give this right to my partner. I love it that they have his name. They are mine. They are his. Although the burden and joy of children is shared far more equally between both partners these days, the mother, through the sheer facts of biology, is usually (tho not always of course) destined to form the closer bond in the early days. While I was busy with babe attached to my breast, giving his name was a special contribution I was happy to let my partner make.'

That, to me, highlights a mature loving individual that has made their own choices, and is happy with them. More 'self-actualised' and powerful than the author that's for sure.

My sadness comes about from many feminist commentators like the author projecting their internal struggles onto all women and arrogantly thinking that a woman making the response above is somehow kidding herself, and letting the sisterhood down.

Now, I wonder if the author has a symbolic $5000 engagement ring...

By doggedly hanging on to symbolism that has no relevance in the modern world you're perpetuating the negative power the symbols once may have had. Not everyone who mentions fried chicken in the same sentence as black people is a raving red-neck racist.

It's this lack of an ability to let go of things that is detrimental to the feminist cause. Not the supposed 'ignorance' of those who have flippantly decided the symbolism that was once attributed to this phenomena has been swallowed by the changing of the times, and has no relevance to them and their lives. It's almost like the feminist wants the relevance to return so they have more to complain about.

Some things are just traditional. People don't really think into the symbolism in the same way as those who are bitter with an axe to grind. Look at the pagan ceremonies at Christmas. Creatures of habit, conformists, humans don't really need to be attaching outdated symbolism to every little thing.

It's fun to pick on Feminism, but many causes suffer the same intense micro-analysis that attributes meaning where there more likely is none. Constantly harping on that meaning actually perpetuates the antithesis of what they're trying to achieve.

One of my favourite examples I heard in a movie about racism. This guy was convinced a snooker table was symbolic. It portrayed the fear the white man had of the sexual potency of black balls. Think about it! The object of the game is to sink all the coloured balls off the table, with the final prestigious winning prize being to sink the black ball!

Dear Houellie,

Life is about choice -
and it's up to each individual as to how they choose
to live their life and the choices they make.

The only women I know with $5,000 + rings -
are celebrities that appear in magazines.

We're all individuals - multi-faceted - and one size does
not fit all.

However, having said that - some things are better rich ...

Chocolate, coffee, men ...

This is meant to be a joke, right Howler?

I mean you've told us so many times how you regard OLO and the people who post earnest opinions here as a joke, that you can't expect to be taken seriously?

What's the punch line?

Right of course Foxy.

BTW: Are you a down-trodden chattel women who was forced into using your husbands surname? Were your children? If so, how do you live with the guilt? How does your partner?

CJ,

Haven't you got some racists to catch? Don't waste your time here with me. Anti will be jealous of the attention.

I copped a lot of flak from some friends for taking my husband's name but part of the reason (other than not giving a toss) was my surname was one that I had to constantly spell to people and even then they got it wrong.

If you get married the children have to take on someone's name. Unless we go down the track of hypenated hyphenated names (and so on) it does get a bit ridiculous.

The comment from the paper you posted Houlley tends to sum up my feelings.

We waste too much time on trivialities but, a couple can legally decide to choose the wife's name if they want to. I also know many people with their mother's family name as their middle name.

The irony is that taking your mother's maiden name is not symbolically 'maternal' in any case as it is actually your mother's father's name.

As Foxy said it is a family and personal choice. Respect and equality does not come via a name but via behaviour and actions.