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myself trying to argue from a feminist viewpoint and not really getting anywhere, including pointing out archaic and outdated ideas on ownership, the one-sidedness of it all and so on ad nauseam.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..?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-12 02:52 pm (UTC)Quite apart from the romance of it all (altogether now, 'Ahhh'), once we're married, Furtle is my legal next of kin and if I walk under a bus the day after, she can be sure of keeping the house without a legal fight.
In our case in addition to the commitment etc, which is pretty obvious anyway, there's peace of mind. Oh yes - my pension as it stands, is not payable to her if I die, but will be after we are married (with a reassuring clause to say that if she offs me she gets nowt!). ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-12 03:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-12 03:14 pm (UTC)You are wise indeed, sir!