Taking the man’s name
Today's Skepchick 'Afternoon Inquisition' asked - slightly shortened - 'What do you think about the practice of a wife taking her husband’s name?'. I remember realising this practice was clearly sexist, and I couldn't understand why I'd never seen it before - it's obviously about the woman becoming the man's possession. Ick! Having had this revelation, I mentioned it to various friends/family, almost all of whom surprised the hell out of me by disagreeing.
A couple of people said 'it's just nice', which I think was code for 'it's traditional'. As a general rule I reject any argument that includes the word 'traditional', so that didn't convince me. Then there was 'what would we name the children?', which made me laugh. Why does that matter? Sure, there might be the occasional administrative slip, but that's hardly a deal-breaker. Just choose a name. It's not like the kid is any less yours.
The main comeback was 'it's just what you do'. Or that it's the expected thing, and so is easier for others. These people disliked the sexism, but didn't think of the issue in those terms - it's unimportant because marriage isn't one-way possessive. Which is fair enough. And I've since read of people who disliked their original name and wanted to change. Obviously fine too.
Still, personally: ick. While I see it needn't matter, I'd have trouble shedding the sexist connotations. Marriage is a partnership, not a takeover, and I'd rather have nothing suggesting otherwise. Of course, in the unlikely event of any woman wanting to marry me, she'll do what she likes. I can't see my marrying someone who'd be swayed by my opinion anyway.
My house, my rules
What's this drivel about 'my house, my rules'? Where does this idea come from?
There are currently bonkers people on the radio, discussing how their 20-year-old daughter isn't allowed boyfriends in her room when back from university. 'My house, my rules' is the usual explanation, which of course isn't an explanation at all, but doesn't even make sense in itself. You don't own your kids. Maybe you can impose rules while they're effectively grown up but still under 18, but 20? Get a grip. If there are actual reasons, spell them out. But you don't get to declare yourself sovereign of your own little territory - who said you could do that? How silly.
I suspect the real reasons are 'sky-fairy says no' or 'I don't want to acknowledge my daughter is growing up'. Not brain surgery. Here are some of the other meaningless justifications:
- It's about decorum.
- My parents never let me.
- I was brought up this way.
- I just don't think it's appropriate.
- I don't want to think about it.
- I'm a single mother and I'm very aware what people think of me. (srsly)
I also like the mother who, when she visits her daughter's house, demands the boyfriend sleep in another room. 2009, people.
And this is all discussed on Radio 2, at midday. The daughter in question must be mortified - poor woman.
Congratulations to Tom and Lil
Many many congratulations to Lil and Tom, who just announced they are engaged! Lil's one of my oldest and best friends, and I couldn't be happier for her.
They're the first of my friends to get married, and I'm looking forward to the wedding already 
It actually only works if you’re in front of a mirror, during the witching hour
I know somebody who has entire conversations in his sleep. He's been overheard discussing the next day's shopping, for example. I'm not in touch with him any more, but hopefully he hasn't converted to Islam in the meantime:
A Muslim couple in India has been told by local Islamic leaders they must separate after the husband "divorced" his wife in his sleep, the Press Trust of India reported.
Sohela Ansari told friends that her husband Aftab had uttered the word "talaq," or divorce, three times in his sleep, according to the report published in newspapers Monday.
Some obscure religious law, no doubt. Presumably this is easily solved? Not so much.
[If] the couple, married for 11 years with three children...wanted to remarry they would have to wait at least 100 days. Sohela would also have to spend a night with another man and be divorced by him in turn.
Hey, look. If it's what god says, who are we to argue that it's completely stupid?
Actually, it turns out that other muslims are saying this makes no sense.
"This is a totally unnecessary controversy and the local 'community leaders' or whosoever has said it are totally ignorant of Islamic law," said Zafarul-Islam Khan, an Islamic scholar and editor of The Milli Gazette, a popular Muslim newspaper.
After all, what kind of system would it be where enunciating a particular word could cause a divorce that nobody wants? That would be silly. Let's all laugh and get on with our lives.
"The law clearly says any action under compulsion or in a state of intoxication has no effect. The case of someone uttering something while asleep falls under this category and will have no impact whatsoever,"
Ah. So there exists a law that says repeating a word three times requires forced divorce, then. That's not a law, that's a spell.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
