Outdated heteronormative habits... why?- Page 2

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/19/24 at 6:44pm

It would be considered demeaning for a man to take his wife's name and lose his own. Most, if not all, grooms never for a moment even consider  it.

Why is this? My theory. Women have NEVER had their own names. Let's cite the Clintons. Hillary Rodham's original surname is her father's name. Not her mother's, which was originally Howell. Which in turn was her own father's, Hillary's grandfather. Even a modern thinker like Hillary who retains her own surname, at least partially, then passes on her husband's name to her own daughter. Chelsea Clinton. It all comes back to the woman being the "property" of the husband, and the man the "head of the household"...

Am I making any sense?

A groom taking his bride's name is really just taking his father-in-law's name, which is why it doesn't happen.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 1/19/24 at 10:20pm

Jay, on page one, Kdogg made a comment about how women should not be judged for changing their last name. You responded, and I am quoting you here, “Well... I feel I can judge them at least alittle. For carrying forward patriarchal norms.”

And now, you’re spending your time right now essentially coming up with ways to try to prove why you’re right. And, I don’t think you have any footing when it comes to this topic because not only are you not a woman, but, you’re not a woman getting married and facing this personal decision. All you’ve been doing is coming up with examples of why what women choose to do is wrong. Something that, quite frankly, a guy shouldn’t do. After all, who are you to say that what a women chooses to do is wrong, specially when it impacts a life decision that you yourself will never have to consider or deal with. 

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/21/24 at 4:37pm

Do you see any merit at all in the points I’m making? There’s not much point in conversation if we are both so entrenched in our positions that we’re not even listening to each other.

Updated On: 1/21/24 at 04:37 PM

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 1/22/24 at 3:31am

I do hear what you’re saying, I do. But, by blaming all men for issues that men don’t face shows that you’re out of touch with reality. Everyone has and is entitled to their own opinions but sometimes it’s not best to voice them. You even said it yourself, you’re able to judge them for something that you think isn’t right. Furthermore, it doesn’t personally impact you in any form or fashion whatsoever. And, by virtue of that you shoot your own cause of championing for women’s rights against the patriarchy right in the foot. 

It’s great to have conversations but there’s no harm in admitting a screw up in the process of one either. 

Updated On: 1/22/24 at 03:31 AM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/22/24 at 1:18pm

Again, the patriarchal society effects everybody. Obviously yes, to varying degrees, with cis women as its primary victim. Still, it reinforces gender stereotypes by placing the “man” as the head of the household, the breadwinner, the boss. Expectations fall on young boys and men that put pressure on them to conform. Be manly.

Every member of society in all capacities has a right to comment on it.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/22/24 at 1:20pm

P.S. I don’t remember ever blaming all men.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 1/22/24 at 6:38pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "P.S. I don’t remember ever blamingall men."

Ok perhaps not all men. But, you come pretty damn close or at least imply it. But, regardless, you do blame men. Furthermore, you yourself said that it’s totally okay to judge women for making choices such as taking their husband’s last name etc. By virtue of doing so you may not realize this, but you’re also judging personal choices they may make. 
 

Let me honestly ask you something. Say, for the sake of argument, every woman who posts here says that they like the idea of taking their husbands name or having them pop the question or that they don’t mind their husbands being the head of the household etc. what would you say in response to that ?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/30/24 at 4:19pm

In response to that, I would say “I believe that to be wrong, that it is harmful to society”. If they then said, “We don’t need your permission, we can make up our own minds”, I would agree.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 1/30/24 at 10:14pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "In response to that, I would say “I believe that to be wrong, that it is harmful to society”. If they then said, “We don’t need your permission, we can make up our own minds”, I would agree."

Now, let me pose a responding question using the same example I laid out in my previous post. After being told by the same group that they can make up their own mind, do you then think it fair or even right to then judge them based on whatever choice on the matter they seem to make? After all, when it comes down to it, it’s really an individual decision. I mean, at the end of the day, you can have two couples. One where the wife keeps her last name and another where the wife takes the husband’s last name. Kinda hard to suggest which one is better or not without placing judgment over one’s choice vs another.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/30/24 at 10:58pm

I think it both right and fair that I judge them. Equally, I judge the man for NOT taking the bride’s name. Or both for being so brainwashed by cultural norms. I don’t decry them as scum of the earth or anything, I just think it is unfortunate. Older generations of women I don’t judge at all because the further back we go the more stifling the climate for women gets.

Obviously everybody needs a name and it has to come from somewhere. What to call the family?

This might sound dramatic to you, but like I said earlier - women have never actually had surnames. The names that passes on down the generations have always been a man’s. The best way to start afresh is to completely ditch any existing surname a woman might have. Their label that denotes them as property of a man. Their “slavename”, which might sound like an obscene exaggeration.... but isn’t really.

Be like Malcolm X.

Updated On: 1/31/24 at 10:58 PM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 1/31/24 at 5:30pm

Islander_fan said: "I mean, at the end of the day, you can have two couples. One where the wife keeps her last name and another where the wife takes the husband’s last name. Kinda hard to suggest which one is better or not without placing judgment over one’s choice vs another."

The problem for me doesn't lie with individual decisions; it's that we live in a world where your second option is common but the third logical possibility is basically nonexistent

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/31/24 at 6:45pm

I know a couple who had a compromise I (kinda) like. They took each others' surnames and added them together. Mike Ross and Sandi Lee became Mike Lee Ross and Sandi Lee Ross*... which is still the man’s name last, but better than nothing. Children then also got the “Lee Ross” moniker. The problem with this approach that the surnames keep getting longer and longer with each passing generation.

* Names changed for security reasons 

 

Updated On: 1/31/24 at 06:45 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 2/1/24 at 1:15pm

Why is marriage limited to two people??

Should polygamy be legalized? Is there any good reason why it isn't already?

How would the surname system work out then?

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 2/4/24 at 9:24pm

First off, I know I have been away so there’s a few things I need to unpack here. Let me share with you this clip from Kevin Smith’s Clerks 2. I think it provides in a humorous way, a better way than I can, talking about how certain groups are not in a position to alter how other populations decide to go about doing things. Something that I have said, or at least tried to say earlier in this conversation. 

https://youtu.be/IYITxGniww4?si=Jx99RY3ivFXjzYp5

Secondly, are you kidding when you ask why polygamy isn’t legal? Or were you exaggerating when you said that. I am honestly asking. 

[darquegk]

Posted: 2/4/24 at 9:39pm

Traditional two-person marriage will be made illegal or no longer state-regulated before polygamy is made legal or state-regulated.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 2/4/24 at 9:56pm

I don't actually expect it to happen, but I just can not understand the rationale in keeping it illegal. This is the 21st century. Puritanism should be dead. If a throuple want to get hitched... why not?

As long as every person is completely informed and consents, what is the problem?

Yes, islander fan, I'm serious.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 2/5/24 at 12:13am

Wow. Ok, well, you might wanna do some google research before you jump to the conclusion that A. It’s purely puritan in nature and B that if it’s an all around across the board consensual thing, then why not?

There have been cases of a strong power imbalance between the man and his wives, leading to it typically being a male dominated relationships. It’s not uncommon to have a woman face lack of autonomy, thereby making it hard for her to leave should things go south badly or even get a job of her own. Not to mention, there’s been cases of children not doing well both academically and emotionally. Oftentimes in this sort of marriage, there’s cases of children falling through the cracks due to them having to fight for attention from their mothers as well as other children in the families. 

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 2/5/24 at 12:26am

By “polygamy”, I don’t mean one man with more than one wife, each in a different house. I mean all one in the one home, living together. There doesn’t even need to be a man at all, it could be four women living happily together in a Manhattan penthouse. Or three men living in suburban St.Louis. Equal partners in every aspect of the relationship.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 2/5/24 at 1:35am

Yeah, that was what I meant too. What we were both talking about was what polygamy is. And the facts I spelled out for you occur when it’s all under one roof.

Furthermore, I think that what you think can occur or should isn’t always in touch with reality.

Updated On: 2/5/24 at 01:35 AM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 2/5/24 at 11:34am

Islander_fan said: "There have been cases of a strong power imbalance between the man and his wives, leading to it typically being a male dominated relationships."

The fact that "there have been cases..." is not an argument for punishing people who are in relationships with more than one other partner who don't engage in these bad practices.

When marriage equality was being debated here in Maryland, experts came before the relevant legislative committee with statistics to show that the incidence of domestic abuse was significantly higher among same-sex partners than opposite-sex partners. This was used as an argument against legal recognition of same-sex partnerships (and this kind of thing worked for a while). I don't think the numbers were made up; they were just irrelevant, because the existence of domestic abuse among some (or even, for the sake of argument, many) same-sex partnerships is not a reason to condemn all of them.

Your argument about polygamy is exactly parallel to this. You can point out as many unhealthy multiple partnerships as you want; this will never be a reason to refuse to recognize others that aren't like that.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 2/5/24 at 1:42pm

You need to understand that the fact that there are a handful of polygamy relationships where what I mentioned doesn’t happen. But, the fact is that it also does occur in decent numbers as well. Tell me, how would anyone who’s legally capable of performing a marriage supposed to know that one polygamy marriage will be fine but the other will be filled with a husband who treats the women as if what he says is law they have kids who have issues that fall through the cracks because they go unnoticed etc. The fact is that we have know way of knowing either way. And, law is not something that works in a fashion where one person could say I should be allowed to do X because I will behave but this other person shouldn’t be able to do X because he will not.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 2/5/24 at 6:30pm

Islander_fan said: "Tell me, how would anyone who’s legally capable of performing a marriage supposed to know that one polygamy marriage will be fine but the other will be filled with a husband who treats the women as if what he says is law they have kids who have issues that fall through the cracks because they go unnoticed etc. The fact is that we have know way of knowing either way."

No officiant of any marriage can know whether the spouses will treat each other well, or if one of them will shoot the other in bed, or if they'll neglect their kids. All of these things and more happen with binary marriages, but that's not a reason to question their legitimacy. The same goes for relationships with multiple partners. I guess you could argue that certain relationships are statistically more likely to have certain problems, like the anti-gay experts I talked about in my earlier comment, but that seems as irrelevant here as it was there.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 2/27/24 at 7:49pm

Anniversaries.

Big ones, or even regular ones. A lovely romantic meal out, or a weekend getaway, or jewelry and perfume... is the pressure on the husband to be the gift giver, or does it work both ways?

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 3/4/24 at 10:41pm

"Anniversaries. Big ones, or even regular ones. A lovely romantic meal out, or a weekend getaway, or jewelry and perfume... is the pressure on the husband to be the gift giver, or does it work both ways?"

It works both ways in our marriage. My wife has picked out restaurants to celebrate our anniversary and arranged a surprise weekend getaway when our children were young. This year, I am taking her to Las Vegas as an anniversary gift which I mentioned in the Super Bowl thread. 

Updated On: 3/4/24 at 10:41 PM