I think I've burned me bra...
Monday, December 12th, 2011 11:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caddymanThe text conversation started with my darling sister asking for Furtle’s surname so she could address a Christmas card. Then she followed it up with something along the lines of, “of course next year it will be Mr and Mrs Lea”. Sometimes my sister can be a little opaque, so when I texted back to say that that hadn’t been decided yet, she responded with “what hasn’t?”
And so it began.
There are several factors at work here: firstly, she never knows when a text conversation has ended; secondly, she never properly reads a text and thirdly, if challenged she immediately drops onto the defensive and displays unparalleled gifts in passive aggression. I’m used to it. Furtle less so.
Having explained the reasons, it boiled down for her to a) it’s traditional (it shows commitment) and b) there’s no point getting married if you don’t change your name…
I have to confess that I found myself at something of a loss. Having made a playful jibe about her not being up on feminist principles, I found myself trying to argue from a feminist viewpoint and not really getting anywhere, including pointing out archaic and outdated ideas on ownership, the one-sidedness of it all and so on ad nauseam. It all pretty much ground to a halt when I was pretty much told that it’s political correctness gone mad and that the family couldn’t possibly be expected to understand because they are just traditional country bumpkins…
It makes me weak, it really does. I could really have done with some input from someone more learned in the field. Anyway, there was a little more following my ‘no, not really’ but that’s essentially where I left it.
Directly afterwards, being a little bemused by the whole thing, I mentioned it casually to Ann, my boss and to Victoria (of whom I have written before). Ann, as I expected understood the point I had been trying to make, but Victoria came in on my sister’s side. In her view it is the woman’s duty to change her name, so I asked why and here we get the so-called biblical angle, “Well in the Bible, God created Adam first and…” I had to cut her off at that point. I managed to stop myself after pointing out that “with all due respect, that argument is rot”.
Happily she didn’t take me treading on her religion badly, but frankly that argument definitely is rot.
Talking to Furtle about it later, she made the point that I wish had occurred to me at the time (and which I am not likely to have the opportunity to deploy): Adam didn’t have a surname (nor, now I think of it, did any Old Testament characters – though I am sure I’ll be corrected on that) and Eve was never known as Mrs Adam.
Who’d have though that it would be me trying to put over (albeit hamfistedly) a feminist viewpoint to two women and failing to get through the weight of tradition..?
And so it began.
There are several factors at work here: firstly, she never knows when a text conversation has ended; secondly, she never properly reads a text and thirdly, if challenged she immediately drops onto the defensive and displays unparalleled gifts in passive aggression. I’m used to it. Furtle less so.
Having explained the reasons, it boiled down for her to a) it’s traditional (it shows commitment) and b) there’s no point getting married if you don’t change your name…
I have to confess that I found myself at something of a loss. Having made a playful jibe about her not being up on feminist principles, I found myself trying to argue from a feminist viewpoint and not really getting anywhere, including pointing out archaic and outdated ideas on ownership, the one-sidedness of it all and so on ad nauseam. It all pretty much ground to a halt when I was pretty much told that it’s political correctness gone mad and that the family couldn’t possibly be expected to understand because they are just traditional country bumpkins…
It makes me weak, it really does. I could really have done with some input from someone more learned in the field. Anyway, there was a little more following my ‘no, not really’ but that’s essentially where I left it.
Directly afterwards, being a little bemused by the whole thing, I mentioned it casually to Ann, my boss and to Victoria (of whom I have written before). Ann, as I expected understood the point I had been trying to make, but Victoria came in on my sister’s side. In her view it is the woman’s duty to change her name, so I asked why and here we get the so-called biblical angle, “Well in the Bible, God created Adam first and…” I had to cut her off at that point. I managed to stop myself after pointing out that “with all due respect, that argument is rot”.
Happily she didn’t take me treading on her religion badly, but frankly that argument definitely is rot.
Talking to Furtle about it later, she made the point that I wish had occurred to me at the time (and which I am not likely to have the opportunity to deploy): Adam didn’t have a surname (nor, now I think of it, did any Old Testament characters – though I am sure I’ll be corrected on that) and Eve was never known as Mrs Adam.
Who’d have though that it would be me trying to put over (albeit hamfistedly) a feminist viewpoint to two women and failing to get through the weight of tradition..?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-12 02:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-12 02:09 pm (UTC)As to the general principle, as I say (and I'm willing to be corrected) there are no surnames in the Old Testament and relatively few if any in the new - I'm not sure if Pontius Pilate is a name or a title with a name after it. (I wonder what a Pontius might have been..?).
In England, surnames were something that didn't really exist before the 14th century anyway, which means over 1,300 years of marriages with no-one taking anybody's surname!
(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-13 12:20 am (UTC)Isn't that how surnames came about, though? I'm sure you know this, well-read lad that you are. Johnson obviously means son of John, McDonald being son of Donald, and all those spiffing foreign prefixes like de, van, von and so on (though a lot of those referred to place names, didn't they? Like Marie de Guise, etc). In some countries they still use the patronymic, and in Iceland that odd girl Bjork is Björk Guðmundsdóttir, Gudmund's daughter.
Either that or people were named for their professions, like cooper, weaver, wain, archer, fletcher, falconer (therefore Faulkner). I love all that stuff.
According to that paragon of accuracy, Wikipedia, (t)here are several possible origins for the cognomen Pilatus. A commonly accepted one is that it means "skilled with the javelin". The pilum (= javelin) was five feet of wooden shaft and two feet of tapered iron. Pontius Pilate's family name signifies he was from the tribe Pontii, an ancient Samnite name.
So there we have it. I love the Internet.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-13 12:52 am (UTC)It is interesting stuff all round, but my original point rests: it's Adam and Eve, not Mr & Mrs Adam, so Victoria's point of view is, respectfully, utter rot.