Xref: utzoo soc.singles:68433 soc.feminism:736 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ora!ora!daemon From: md89mch@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Martin Howe) Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.feminism Subject: Name change on marriage & ``possessist'' language. Summary: Reflect upon your point of view, don't just DOGMATISE it ! Message-ID: <1795@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> Date: 15 Sep 90 04:44:22 GMT References: <11860024@hpspdra.HP.COM> <790373@hp-ptp.HP.COM> <1990Aug28.163912.29539@ecn.purdue.edu> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Followup-To: soc.feminism Organization: Dept. of Elec. Eng. & Electronics, Brunel Univ., Uxbridge, UK Lines: 58 Approved: ambar@ora.com [note Followup-To: line -- AMBAR] In article <1990Aug28.163912.29539@ecn.purdue.edu> in soc.singles, kelley@molecules.ecn.purdue.edu (Stephen Kelley) writes: [In response to how to introduce one's SO] >What's wrong with "This is " ? >Why is it so important to brag about what you do with her, >or how you own her, or how she's attached to you at >the hip, or how she doesn't exist without your presence? This interpretation of "my x" as ALWAYS being sexist (``possessist'') if used about an SO would be amusing if it weren't so horrifying. For example, last time I used the English language, "this is my ", wasn't considered offensive. While it is true that the phrase "this is my girlfriend, " can indeed mean all the nasty things Stephen refers to above, it can also mean "this is the woman __that associates with me as a love-partner__". Note that "I own her" and "she accepted me as her SO" are two different things. Of course, to those who don't bother to THINK about it, the attribute of exclusivity in a monagamous relationship **sounds** like property ownership to many people (especially if a MAN refers to it). I have frequently been flamed for using this sort of talk because for some reason, the people concerned cannot differentiate between a _woman_ (who can choose to, or not to, be my girlfriend or wife) and an _object_ which I actually own, and has no choice in who owns it. Likewise, I am asked to believe that if my wife takes my surname on marriage, that it means that I think I own her, or that she is in some way inferior. Of course, what it ACTUALLY means is that she is the woman who accepted ME as her husband (hence the use of MY surname) as opposed to any other men that may have been vying for her affections at the same time. Only recently, someone said that in some matriarchal societies, the women start things off and so the men take THEIR surnames; I don't see net.women flaming about this. There are various facets of the "taking of names" that have been beaten to death recently (myself nearly included :-) but the original reason (irrespective of any others) is because one gender is predominantly the initiator of courtship, and the name change shows who has been accepted by who. I suggest, therefore, that whatever else you may believe about the matter, name-changing does NOT imply subservience or ownership, whatever other problems it may have. Let's put a stop to this myth now. If you want, flame those men who still expect that it DOES mean that, and those women who let them get away with it. -- - /| . . JCXZ ! MOVSB ! SGDT ! iAPX ! | "Good morning Citizens. I would \`O.O' . Martin Howe, Microelectronics| remind you that Armed Robbery ={___}= System Design MSc, Brunel U. | is illegal in Megacity One." - JD ` U ' Any unattributed opinions are mine -- Brunel U. can't afford them.