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.

Dear Houellie,

I'm shocked you even ask ...

Marilyn, Madonna, Pink, and of course - Foxy!

Need I say more?

Very interesting question about the store one puts in a surname.
I mentioned some time ago that I'm adopted. Lately I have been doing a lot of genealogical research on my biological connections - this is quite novel for me because for a long time I had no idea of my origins.
Because I have almost zero info on my father, at the moment I'm tracing the male line through my mother's side. This name is the one that I identify with. I'm feeling connected to this family and am finding great pleasure tracing the generations (two more and I might get to a scottish castle).
I've noticed, like pelican said, that many times the firstborn sons were given the mother's maiden names as their middle names in times gone by - there used to be quite well followed guidelines in this respect to naming children depending on which nationality you were and the traditions they employed.

I agree with Piorot.
I am a great follower of geneology, and enjoy reading about the past lives of my ancestors.

There is something oddly comforting about being able to trace your ancestors using your family names as far back as you can. This would have been more difficult to do if the women did not take their husbands name

I have no problem with women taking their husbands name, or giving their children that name as well.
However, I agree it should be a personal choice.

Imagine marrying a guy whose second name is Crapper, Bastarde, Pigg, Bogg or Shittz? I know of women with these names!

Sorry if anyone reading these pages have these second names, but honestly, they must be the reason why we can change our names by deed poll if need be!

Dear Suze,

You also have to be careful with children's
Christian names ... taking the surname into
account. What's in a name sometimes can have
unexpected consequences... for example giving
a little girl the Christian name of "Ima,"
might be fine - but when the surname is "Belcher,"
put the two together and you get:

"Ima Belcher!"

or

"Jack Frost!"

And so on...

Hey, we have the makings of another thread here...

Mike Hunt.

Wayne Kerr.

I actually knew a guy called Richard Horn.

But As the author states...

'Readers will doubtless attempt to undermine the importance of the issue, then me personally. They'll announce their ''special circumstances''. Declare that it ended up going paternal because his name sounded better, his family name was dying out, it was important to his family, my surname is in the middle, etc.

Why are so many people still clinging to this convention in this day and age of divorce and DNA? A convention that insidiously reinforces power, control and ownership.'

Ah, where's pynchme and SJF when you need them.

Can't resist to join in here.

Alison Catt
Hector Pascal
Peter Ness
Name squared (eg Grace Grace)
Alan Packer

In my twenties, I actually worked in the same office as a Mike Hunt.

And that's exactly how he used to introduce himself.

He even used to answer the phone, "Hello, Mike Hunt"

I admired him immensely. Seriously.

It taught me to meet embarrassment, or even potential embarrassment, of any kind, head-on.

Great bloke, never forget him.

Houellebecq,

Isn't the snooker analogy more about the white ball going around and ethnically cleansing the table, or have I stumbled into the wrong thread?

Maybe they adapted it. I think the ethnic leansing was part of it, but I definitely remember the quote 'White man's fear of the potency of black balls'

Dunno if Houellie is serious or not, but here goes

I changed my surname when I married because I didn't like my family name particularly and there were always problems with spelling. After I divorced I couldn't decide what surname to use - my mother's? my father's?, grandparent's paternal side or maternal side? Too confusing, so I just stuck with my married name.

I remember a girlfriend of mine called Robyn who refused for years to marry her de facto, his surname: Hood.

She wouldn't hear of keeping her own surname and eventually she did become Mrs Robyn Hood.

In the past taking on the husband's surname was part being of chattel, but that doesn't apply to women any more. Therefore I agree with Foxy that its a personal choice.

OMG pericles! I have been laughing for ages about the name Mike Hunt!

I have changed my mind. We should all be able to choose our own name when we are old enough- rather than risk the above sort of name being given to us by our parents!

Lol, Suze.

Pericles, in another department at the university at which I last worked there was a guy named Michael Hunt. His boss was an ebullient professor who used to turn up at the Staff Club on occasions bellowing out "Has anybody seen Mike Hunt?", "Where's Mike Hunt?" etc etc.

Much mirth all round. Not sure what became of the poor guy.

Poor Mr Hunt. Wouldn't you be tempted to change your name legally rather than live with constant ridicule?

It would be interesting to know the origin of some names like my old high school teachers Mr Longbottom and Mrs Lillecrappe.

Perhaps Longbottom derived from a long line of tailoring families or Lillecrappe...no on that one I'm lost.

Mind you I was once tempted to name my girls botanically, choices being - Rose, Sage, Lily, or Willow.

That's what impressed me so much about him, Pelican.

>>Poor Mr Hunt. Wouldn't you be tempted to change your name legally rather than live with constant ridicule?<<

By meeting the challenge head-on, he made it other people's problem, rather than his own. And in doing so, made ridicule impossible.

The (unspoken, I have to say) subtext was "Hey, it's my name. Deal with it".

Posted by Severin, Friday, 26 February 2010 2:13:42 PM:



"She wouldn't hear of keeping her own surname
and eventually she did become Mrs Robyn Hood."



Evidently she was of the Marion kind, after all.

Did people start referring to her in Freudian slips as Marion, after her marriage, Severin? Just curious. And apologies for unintentionally decapitalising your new userID on david f's topic yesterday.

It all comes down to moving with the times. Many members of earlier generations of women may have felt the need to make a symbolic gesture, that reminded people that they weren't their husband's property. In 2010, attitudes towards marrage have changed sufficiently to make this symbolic gesture look petty.

'In 2010, attitudes towards marrage have changed sufficiently to make this symbolic gesture look petty.'

Hmmm, could that be expanded to encapsulate much much more feminist doctrine. I think you better have a word to pynchme.

Houllie

Would having an argument with Pynchme over this issue be petty? I doubt that Pynchme would get too fired up, that would be more SJF's style. Think twice before posting in praise of pettiness, that would be a predictable Houllie response.