This Chicago Tribune headline? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...wife-wins-bronze-olympics-20160807-story.html Her name's literally the first thing in the article. They shortened it on Twitter, as basically nobody knows who she is. She competes in a relatively niche sport and wouldn't have even got a headline if it wasn't for who her husband is. Similar things for men? "Oprah's partner's daughter gives birth". He's a successful author and businessman, CEO of a marketing and consulting firm and has two degrees. Would that make the papers if he wasn't with Oprah? Nope. Famous people get top billing on stories that even vaguely have anything to do with them. Is that sexist? Apparently...
Point taken, to a degree. The fame thing is also as relevant as the gender-role thing. But in the larger context of society as a whole there is still very clearly the remnants of gigantically powerful forces that took away women's identities, made them in some senses appendages of men and all done in the names of all-powerful male figures of authority. People *still* address letters to Mr and Mrs PleaseNotPoll etc. It is still common for women to take their new husband's name. It is still normally the case that, at the ceremony where this happens, only male voices are heard and only male authority legitimizes this change. I'm just pointing out (though anyone who still needs this to be pointed out will absolutely not listen, obviously) that there (gasp!) *is* still a patriarchy. I was also being hilariously funny, as I'm sure you appreciated.
People address letters in various ways and it's up to women whether they want to change their surnames or not. Women can officiate wedding ceremonies, except in the case of some religions. That's not society, that's religion. Taking a man's surname is not an oppressive act, it's a choice that some people choose to make. There is no patriarchy. There's tradition and conservative attitudes. The heads of the society in this country are literally two women: The Queen and Theresa May. The President of the USA looks like it's going to switch from a black man to a white woman. Is society perfect? No, not by any means. This sort of divisive crap just splits people and makes them ignore the actual problems and real oppressors.
I mean obviously the still-present effects of centuries of divinity, religion, monarchy, politics, art, science, property rights, business, sport ALL being by men (on pain of death in some cases) for men are as nothing compared to a corner of the Twitterspere and the cataclysmic effects of a solicitor's interview in the Daily Express. That's where the real power is. All that other stuff got totally, utterly sorted out in, ooh, 1993 I think it was. Some time in March? It was definitely a Wednesday... If something like, oh tradition or society or memory existed there might be a problem. Luckily they definitely don't.
Always makes me laugh when people try to attribute their values to those who didnt share them. This idea that women have felt opressed for centuries is simply a post feminist comstruct. It's a complete misrepresentation as to how socoety and the human race has evolved and developed. If you went back in time and asked women down he centuries whether they felt opressed by heir husbands or by society, they would just think you were mad. Dont let that stop you telling us they felt opressed though !
This is total horse ****. Anyway, I'm finally going to get round to explaining the reality of the situation to you tomorrow, so hopefully you and lenny might be able to learn a thing or two
"That's not society, that's religion"?! Yes. Now women choose to follow arcane traditions. But do you know how people are? Do you know how psychology intertwines with society? I can "choose" to wear a dress in public. That does not mean that it is just as easy as wearing trousers. Societal attitudes have a bearing! We're all "free" to do lots of things. That does not make those things equally easy or equally acceptable or that whatever I "freely choose" I'm as likely to be accepted by more powerful social groups. Anyway. You say there's no patriarchy. So no convincing you of anything via some tapping on my phone. When did the effects of patriarchy end, btw? I mean, seriously, isn't that question a little bit useful here?
Generally speaking, the role of men as the leaders of society, diminishes broadly in relation to society's progression away from a culture of war, and into a society in which there is strong security, law and order.
Youve got evidence that women have felt opressed down the centuries then have you ? Must have missed that.
I don't think that anybody's claiming that all of the effects of history are sorted out. You appear to be downplaying anything that men can point out as a problem by claiming that women have and have had it worse, though. That's rather irrelevant, especially with the example you've given. You're literally echoing those that would play down feminist issues in the west by pointing out worse ones elsewhere. By that standard, shouldn't you set aside all attempts at equality in the workplace until the male mortality rate is far, far lower? Men are dying in much higher numbers than women! How can you talk about a difference in pay, you sexist heathen?! Can you not remove agency from women, please? You picked things that they can freely choose not to do. Nobody's forcing them (as a group) to take a different surname or have a man officiate at their wedding. That's up to them and it seems sexist to suggest that they're powerless, frankly. When did the effects of patriarchy end? I don't remember saying that they did. I don't even think that anyone's clarified exactly what they are or were.
This strikes me as a facile argument again. If the man had indicated any kind of threat against her, or attempt to blackmail her or use sexual pressure, then it might be a different matter. As it is he complimented her photograph. There was no indication whatsoever that he intended to threaten any kind of negative influence on her career if she did not succumb to his sexual advances, and indeed it is not even clear that his comments were intended to amount to sexual advances. Besides, it is self evident from her response that she did not care one not jot for any influence that he might have for her career. It might very well be that she had the opportunity to develop a personable relationship to benefit her and chambers' prospects of securing work - as is the normal manner for securing work in any industry, irrespective of gender - but she decided to blow that, and to use the man to 'promote' herself and the causes she represented in the press. As for the effects of her actions, well I very much hope that her career has been adversly affected by her ill considered and immoral and unprofessional actions. It's truly the least that she deserves, and she has unquestionably brought all of that on herself. This is not some 20 year old student we're talking about here, it's a woman in the prime of her life,min an extremely 'hardened' practise area, who had he self confidence to parade herself in front of the media apparantly without a care in the world. That is very clearly not somebody who would be genuinely intimidated by somebody saying that they liked her photograph, and to suggest the contrary, is again an absurdity. Furthermore, to suggest that her actions caused the man no harm, is obtuse. Whatever long term effect it had on his career - and it certainly can not have strengthened his position wihin his company - any reasonable person would have been exceptionally stressed and distressed by the whole process that she put him through. Again, those standing up for her show their lack of compassion, empathy and reasonableness by claiming anything to the contrary. To suggest that being told you have a nice photograph, can be more distressing than being expressly threatened, and having your name dragged through the mud in the most public manner imagainagable, is frankly ridiculous. She controlled the whole process. She put him at her mercy, and she showed absoloutely none.
"Taking a man's surname is not an oppressive act, it's a choice that some people choose to make" Seriously PNP I really respect so much you say on this site. You are insightful, intelligent, even-handed. But that sentence is mind-blowing. Just quickly: the unfortunate reality of patriarchy is not due to men being evil. It's, in a nutshell, due to men being naturally bigger and stronger in a world where being good at hitting people with sticks was *the* most important thing. Also the physiological realities of having periods, being pregnant, suckling, dying at childbirth had an influence on how structures and gender-roles evolved. Now *no-one* intelligent thinks that this was women being oppressed or men being evil. It was the best way for things to develop and morally neutral. Fast forward a few MILLENNIA and it became a bit funny to some that women (for example) couldn't go to university. Now this was not because evil men had planned it that way. It was one of the many, many, many unnecessary and unhelpful unintended consequences of men being better at hitting people with sticks all those millennia ago. But the fact that It Had Always Been That Way and the fact that men would, in the short term, lose out and have their lives and society altered in a way that was a bit of a pain meant that the obvious fact that women can read books too was massively resisted. By almost everyone for centuries. It doesn't make sense does it? But society is a very complex, very valuable thing and changing it is dangerous, scary and, for anyone in power and enjoying it's advantages the most, completely unnecessary-seeming. During the MILLENNIA of men running society because they were good at hitting people with sticks then clubs then other people's swords then other people's cannonballs then other people's bullets a very complex society built up. And that society reflected the fact that men were in charge. A man created the universe, only men could tell you about the deepest truths of the universe. Only men could own things, do maths, do science, do art etc etc. The law (and then tradition - a more slippery and insidious beast) that women take their husbands' names came from this time. A time when the woman could be beaten, raped and sold into slavery by her husband. She was literally his property. 99.9% of women throughout history have not "chosen" to take their husband's name. Nowadays, with the invisible hand of tradition, wider social expectation and worry about such things as what Great Uncle Tom might say, I would be amazed if most women "freely chose" to alter their identity in this way. Some do, sure. But it reeks of huge disingenuousness to say "it's a free choice" as if there is no history creating a society of which we are all a part. It reminds me of people arguing against a minimum wage saying that people who work for $2 an hour in the US "freely choose" to do so, so no harm done. And please bear in mind that the very ceremony where this name-change takes place has all the other male-dominance going on. And by the way the institution of marriage is just something that I mentioned as a random side-note. But blimey - there's a lot of patriarchy tied up in it isn't there? Imagine if I had specifically chosen an institution that I feel best reflects the hang-over of millennia of male dominance in all power-structures in society! Yes women can now officiate weddings! That changed very recently didn't it? And did it happen because everyone was saying "What? Thatcher's a woman! Everything's sorted! In fact do you know who's truly oppressed nowadays? White British men and I'll tell you why..."? A re-aligning of society is still happening and is still in need of happening. It's not about calling men monsters or saying any of the bizarre things Rob and other MRAs claim feminists are saying. It's just about being aware that, in this instance, traditions which come loaded with concious and sub-concious baggage still exist and maybe have an effect.
Just picking a strand of lunacy at random here... You appear to suggest that women being escorted down the aisle during wedding ceremonies by their father, amounts to sexual discrimination and repression, and an example of women being "hard done by". Are you aware of instances in western culture where the bride has been forced to give this role to her father ? I thouht that this was done out of choice ? Surely this isnt another example of you claiming victimisation or opression, on behalf of those who do not consider themselves in the least bit victimised or opressed ????? By the same token, I would query whether in your culture/social circle, most of the planning for weddings done by and controlled by men, rather than women ? Because generally speaking from my experience it would be the other way around. Does this mean that men should wake up and consider themsleves 'hard done by' in this respect, or is this also some mysogynistic ritual that women should somehow consider themselves victims of ?
"You appear to suggest that women being escorted down the aisle during wedding ceremonies by their father, amounts to sexual discrimination and repression," Seriously, Rob. You need to read what people write.
Firstly, this is a very Anglocentric view of names and naming practices. Scandinavians didn't adopt this practice until fairly recently and it's still not used in Iceland. Portuguese and Spanish speaking countries use alternative systems and that's just in Europe. Don't be racist. Secondly, you're suggesting that women are forced to change their identity by altering their surname. I don't buy the premise, as many choose not to or want to change it, while others don't see it as effecting their identity at all. The act of marriage itself could be said to do that anyway, regardless of any name change. You also seem to be conflating marriage with the Abrahamic ceremony and it's not the only type. Lastly, I think that everyone accepted that society isn't perfect. I've explicitly stated that it isn't on several occasions. Changes still need to be made, but people can freely oppose some of the suggested changes. Shutting them down by saying that they're privileged, white men is not the way to go. Civil marriages performed by registrars became legal in 1836, by the way. Nothing to do with Thatcher. They were only made an issue a little less than a hundred years before that, though. People were free to marry however they liked before that.
No intelligent feminist thinks it's a question of women being victims, men being perpetrators. This is a myth. Any kind of feminist analysis of history and society will clearly uncover the disadvantages that men and women suffer through an unnecessary clinging on to Patriachal ways of doing things that are outmoded. Men should be allowed to be nurses and play netball and cry. Men are the main victims of a society that values male aggression. I'm only playing down the negstives of being a man because there's been this mood-music on this thread of poor old men being oppressed by women. I just think that white middle class men in Btitsin bitching about how society has done them wrong is, literally, laughable. Like a toddler complaining to their mum that their mum never does anything for them because she won't put CBeebies on for another hour. And do you *really* want a list of the effects of patriarchy were/are? I'd google that if I were you cos I'm not gonna have the time. Try googling "What happened in all of history and has it had any effect on today's society "
