Wow. These people crawling out of the woodwork into your journal, where are they coming from? Condolences.
I thought you were perhaps referring to this very annoying snippet from Sunday's Observer (also posted in the sublime oursin's journal: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2226776,00.html
We love nothing more than a celebrity wedding. The dress, the guests, the romance - even the pre-nup. But now the stars have found another way to express their love that's practical, yet strangely endearing: taking their husbands' surnames.
I don't find it cute either.
Any historian or scholar of the past will acknowledge that women found ways to negotiate power within the social/political/legal structures imposed on them by men (such as coverture). But anyone who wants to argue that coverture was a Good Thing Overall for early European women doesn't know their history very well. Sorry.
There is also the small matter of gender-based discrimination and domestic inequalities continuing to exist today, and of these injustices being the ongoing legacy of the "Mrs Tom Jones" mindset. Again, not cute.
Wow. These people crawling out of the woodwork into your journal, where are they coming from?
These people, eh? Terrible sorts, of course, and obviously more to be pitied than treated as fellow human beings who might have a point (no matter how poorly expressed!).
For the record; some of us having been reading this journal as long as it has existed. Some of us remember Ailbhe as a teenager, before she moved to the UK; some of us were there in the Porterhouse on her 18th birthday; some of us have seen the ups and downs of the last few years with her, and care very much about her welfare and that of her family.
Speaking personally; I am her friend. That does not mean that I have to see eye-to-eye with her on everything; nor does it mean that she would expect me to.
Condolences.
Indeed.
I thought you were perhaps referring to this very annoying snippet from Sunday's Observer (also posted in the sublime oursin's journal:
Who is also a friend of myself and my wife, and will (I hope) attest to the fact that I am neither a cretin nor a troglodyte.
Well, if oursin doesn't consider you a cretin or a troglodyte, then obviously you're not. Sorry.
However, I'm still less than impressed by your grasp of history. And by your opening gambit, "History is dead," however tongue-in-cheek it might have been.
Believe it or not, I'm normally a fairly mild-mannered person with (on my better days) a sense of humour. Unfortunately you pressed one of my particular buttons and sent me crawling out of the woodwork.
It's a possibility. Though I suspect it's about equally possible that you read troglodytism into what is only a facet of somewhat differing opinion. I don't honestly believe that grumpyolddog sees women as anything lesser than men, but if he does, I am fairly sure he'll jump up and tell us so.
I don't live in a cave, unless they're made of bricks and have windows and doors these days. And sofas and stuff.
To clarify previous statements:
1. I agree that anyone can choose to be called whatever they want and good luck to 'em.
2. I dispute that couverture was 100% an Evil Masculine Thing Of Much Badness Which We Should All Remember To Prevent Recurrance! The reagarding of both parties as a single legal entity worked both ways. For example (just one example) in 1485 in Bath, a man was hanged for a murder committed by his (ansent) wife. One could also find positive aspects working both ways, too. It's not evil although like most things, it could be used in a variety of ways. What it is now is just old, gone and obsolete.
The comparison is a little like claiming to perform an action (or not) because people were once imprisoned or flogged for homosexuality.
And finally, since this kind of massed wrath and outrage is something I do not wish to see again (it's not only misplaced, it's ugly and unnecessary), I'll regard Ailbhe's opinion in Ailbhe's journal as implicitly sacrosanct from now on and keep my big mouth shut.
I thought you were perhaps referring to this very annoying snippet from Sunday's Observer (also posted in the sublime oursin's journal: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2226776,00.html
Well, if she was, she might have said so. But I note the piece mentions taking a partner's surname, not the whole name as in "Mrs Robert Collier". I binned everything except the Magic supplement from that Observer unread. Do we real people care what a few overpaid airheads do? I hope not.
anyone who wants to argue that coverture was a Good Thing Overall for early European women doesn't know their history very well
What bothered me was the sentence, "I could produce literally hundreds of other examples where the law was empoering rather than restrictive." As though the law did not have a restrictive effect on married women overall.
Yes, I see that. Feminists are practised at reading between the lines of what men say. As a poker player I'm practised at reading between the lines of what players say&do. In this instance I think it's a little early to ascribe that implication to grumpyolddog's words, until we see what else he comes out with.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 03:00 pm (UTC)I thought you were perhaps referring to this very annoying snippet from Sunday's Observer (also posted in the sublime
We love nothing more than a celebrity wedding. The dress, the guests, the romance - even the pre-nup. But now the stars have found another way to express their love that's practical, yet strangely endearing: taking their husbands' surnames.
I don't find it cute either.
Any historian or scholar of the past will acknowledge that women found ways to negotiate power within the social/political/legal structures imposed on them by men (such as coverture). But anyone who wants to argue that coverture was a Good Thing Overall for early European women doesn't know their history very well. Sorry.
There is also the small matter of gender-based discrimination and domestic inequalities continuing to exist today, and of these injustices being the ongoing legacy of the "Mrs Tom Jones" mindset. Again, not cute.
I'm married, but just call me Ms (or Dr, even).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 03:37 pm (UTC)These people, eh? Terrible sorts, of course, and obviously more to be pitied than treated as fellow human beings who might have a point (no matter how poorly expressed!).
For the record; some of us having been reading this journal as long as it has existed. Some of us remember Ailbhe as a teenager, before she moved to the UK; some of us were there in the Porterhouse on her 18th birthday; some of us have seen the ups and downs of the last few years with her, and care very much about her welfare and that of her family.
Speaking personally; I am her friend. That does not mean that I have to see eye-to-eye with her on everything; nor does it mean that she would expect me to.
Condolences.
Indeed.
I thought you were perhaps referring to this very annoying snippet from Sunday's Observer (also posted in the sublime
Who is also a friend of myself and my wife, and will (I hope) attest to the fact that I am neither a cretin nor a troglodyte.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 03:54 pm (UTC)Why am I wearing a scarf indoors?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-21 02:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 03:56 pm (UTC)However, I'm still less than impressed by your grasp of history. And by your opening gambit, "History is dead," however tongue-in-cheek it might have been.
Believe it or not, I'm normally a fairly mild-mannered person with (on my better days) a sense of humour. Unfortunately you pressed one of my particular buttons and sent me crawling out of the woodwork.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 04:08 pm (UTC)It wasn't gmh who said that.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 08:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 05:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 07:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 08:54 pm (UTC)Now boggle.
I'm still boggling.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 10:07 pm (UTC)Wronger than, uh, I don't know, salty liquorice ice-cream. At least. No, vastly more wrong.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 08:45 pm (UTC)(Does that mean that
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 10:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-20 02:04 am (UTC)To clarify previous statements:
1. I agree that anyone can choose to be called whatever they want and good luck to 'em.
2. I dispute that couverture was 100% an Evil Masculine Thing Of Much Badness Which We Should All Remember To Prevent Recurrance! The reagarding of both parties as a single legal entity worked both ways. For example (just one example) in 1485 in Bath, a man was hanged for a murder committed by his (ansent) wife. One could also find positive aspects working both ways, too. It's not evil although like most things, it could be used in a variety of ways. What it is now is just old, gone and obsolete.
The comparison is a little like claiming to perform an action (or not) because people were once imprisoned or flogged for homosexuality.
And finally, since this kind of massed wrath and outrage is something I do not wish to see again (it's not only misplaced, it's ugly and unnecessary), I'll regard Ailbhe's opinion in Ailbhe's journal as implicitly sacrosanct from now on and keep my big mouth shut.
Self-censorship 4tw?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 05:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 08:58 pm (UTC)Also, for the record, it's not people disagreeing with each other that bothers me, it's people making inaccurate claims.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-20 12:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 04:05 pm (UTC)Well, if she was, she might have said so. But I note the piece mentions taking a partner's surname, not the whole name as in "Mrs Robert Collier". I binned everything except the Magic supplement from that Observer unread. Do we real people care what a few overpaid airheads do? I hope not.
I haven't seen anybody suggest such a thing here.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 08:52 pm (UTC)What bothered me was the sentence, "I could produce literally hundreds of other examples where the law was empoering rather than restrictive." As though the law did not have a restrictive effect on married women overall.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 08:56 pm (UTC)Next thread: Hitler.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-20 08:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-19 09:41 pm (UTC)