Is Feminism Still Relevant?

[Galeongirl]

I think I would probably choose for hyphenating both names, kinda seems a bit special, like your names are in unity as well.

[LadySpinHead]

DH and I have different last names. Our children have both last names. Not ideal, but the best solution for us.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

How would you go about deciding whose name gets designated for the child? Seems like a very difficult conversation.

I have no idea.

In all honesty, Memphis has a last name that "goes" better with a lot of first names I like, so it might be as arbitrary as that? Or maybe s/he has three full names like lots of married women do?

Once you remove the trappings of "traditional" marriage -- women as baby-makin' property -- a lot of things we take for granted seem really silly.


Sent from

[Hawkmoon269]

Then I guess it goes down to tradition... I'm from Latin america and we have two last names always, when you get married you don't change names, when you have kids they get one last name from each parent.

Although that way we have long names... I was so mad when I was a kid learning how to write my name

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

-- women as baby-makin' property --


Sent from

Context?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Context?

"Giving away" the bride. Transferring her from one man (he father) to another (her husband).

As just one example.


Sent from

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

"Giving away" the bride. Transferring her from one man (he father) to another (her husband).

As just one example.


Sent from

Would you consider that more symbolic and ceremonial (leaving home and starting her own family) vs the assertion that straight men actually think that women are nothing more than baby-making factories?

History is filled with goofy rites of passage. Given enough time, if they haven't already, LGBT people will develop their own.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Would you consider that more symbolic and ceremonial (leaving home and starting her own family) vs the assertion that straight men actually think that women are nothing more than baby-making factories?

History is filled with goofy rites of passage. Given enough time, if they haven't already, LGBT people will develop their own.

Why isn't the groom given away by his family? And most women have long since left home and had apartments, houses, and careers before they get married.

Of course it's symbolic, I hardly think modern peole think in such terms, but it comes from somewhere and I think it's kind of ridiculous.




Sent from

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Of course it's symbolic, I hardly think modern peole think in such terms, but it comes from somewhere and I think it's kind of ridiculous.



Sent from

Perhaps.

Of course - today - in America - it is usually seen a tender moment between a father and his daughter, with the father often crying.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Perhaps.

Of course - today - in America - it is usually seen a tender moment between a father and his daughter, with the father often crying.

Oh I know. I'm sure the sentiment is real.

But think about where that all came from. And many women, particularly women in their 30s and 40s don't do this. Nor do most gay couples they walk down the aisle, hand in hand, together.


Sent from

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

But think about where that all came from. And many women, particularly women in their 30s and 40s don't do this. Nor do most gay couples they walk down the aisle, hand in hand, together.

My husband and I walked down the aisle together.

Shockingly, it's the correct catechismal teaching of the Catholic Church that the couple walks in together and that nobody is "given away" and nobody is property.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

But think about where that all came from.

Sent from

How far back should we go? I'm sure if we go back far enough, you're right, that women were nothing more than a means to carry on the genes. And if you were the alpha male - the other males were just fodder to protect your "harem."

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

How far back should we go? I'm sure if we go back far enough, you're right, that women were nothing more than a means to carry on the genes. And if you were the alpha male - the other males were just fodder to protect your "harem."

Good we've progressed, no?


Sent from

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by anitram

Shockingly, it's the correct catechismal teaching of the Catholic Church that the couple walks in together and that nobody is "given away" and nobody is property.

Yeah, I've only been to Catholic weddings and they're somewhat different from Protestant weddings as I've been led to understand them from television and film. They don't do the "you may kiss the bride" thing at most of them, for example.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Good we've progressed, no?


Sent from

LOL - yes.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by AEON

How far back should we go? I'm sure if we go back far enough, you're right, that women were nothing more than a means to carry on the genes. And if you were the alpha male - the other males were just fodder to protect your "harem."

Not really. If you go far enough back, you get to the place where people didn't understand yet how the male role in conception, and it seemed like women spontaneously conceived because of some sort of magic, or external phenomena like the wind or whatever. It's actually quite tough to determine whose genes a woman is carrying, and fairly recent in human history. If it was easy to identify a man's genetic offspring then a lot of our marriage traditions wouldn't exist. Interestingly, a lot of the oldest, most 'primitive' people groups still existing have much looser marriage and sexuality traditions, and are not as invested in the male line.