And on the subject of gender...
It's tripe like this that has me, as a successful and yet happily married female, fuming.
To go through a few gems from Ms O'Reilly:
"Once a woman has a ring on her finger she is no longer an individual, but a wife. Her existence is defined by her husband. This is an archaic concept, but one that still stalks us like a dark spectre."
No longer an individual? Is that why I am still able to own property in my own name? To vote? To travel on my own? To drive? To have my work recognised as being done by me? Frankly, other than the beaurocratic paperfest involved with changing my name, no one seems to care either way: I'm still known as me, because that is who I am. My existence is not defined purely by my husband, but being married to my husband is an important part of what makes me me. If I make a mistake, that's my fault, not my husband's. If I do well, it's my credit, not my husband's. But when my husband and I do things together, that's our responsibility. There is a distinction, and it's important.
And archaic? Well, yes, maybe, but then all traditions must therefore be archaic. I fully intend to put up a Christmas tree this year. Does this make me an atavistic moron stuck in the nineteenth century?
"If a woman retains her maiden name following marriage, she enters into the commitment as an equal partner, maintaining the individuality and the history she forged during her pre-married days. If she loses her surname, she buys into a tradition that has kept women subservient since Eve ate that apple."
No, Ms O'Reilly. Let me explain. A woman in this country can always enter into marriage as an equal partner. No one compels her to change her surname to that of her husband once she's signed on the dotted line and nor do they compel her to stamp "Doormat" on her forehead at the same time. And you've used an important word there. PARTNER. Here's a thought. Perhaps the name change is a sign of the new partnership? Not to mention that any children (and yes, it may come as a shock here, but some married women intend to have them, even in the UK) would then share their surname with both parents. I'm sure if it were a burning issue (and she didn't mind the extra expenditure on ink for her cheques), she could hyphenate, or they both could. But, hey, if we're going down this route, why not just go the whole hog and make up random surnames to adopt when we marry? So, my husband and I like the countryside and we like dogs, so maybe our surname should be Mr and Mrs Open Spaces Spaniel? Sounds dumb, doesn't it? Or maybe, we could do something else, which partners always do, but which doesn't seem to have occurred to Ms O'Reilly. Wait for it, COMPROMISE, and choose one name. Given my husband agreed that any children we have would be brought up with my religion rather than his, giving our family his surname seemed perfectly reasonable. And even if we weren't compromising on other things, I still don't have a problem with our family brand being my husband's surname rather than my father's.
And that brings me onto another logical inconsistency in Ms O'Reilly's thinking. The names we are born with include our parents' surname: most usually, it would be our father's, but even if it is our mother's, it's still the same form of labelling - from birth we are tagged as "belonging" to someone.
"Cheryl Cole and Sarah Michelle Prinze have highlighted the social pressures placed on women to appear secondary to their husbands in the public eye. Cheryl Cole married in 2006, and by being branded Mrs Cole she wants to centralise her marriage as part of her identity."
So what if Mrs Cole wants to centralise her marriage as part of her identity? Ms O'Reilly, you seem to think that this is a bad thing. Every person I know builds their identity on a series of characteristics, such as their job, their age, their appearance, and yes, their family. Marriage, in case it escaped you, is actually quite a serious commitment. You don't just pop out to the shops and get hitched: you think about it, you get a nice outfit and if you can, you have a nice party, because it's important, and as such I see no reason why women should choose not to advertise this by adopting a new family name. It doesn't mean they "appear secondary" to their husbands. All it shows is that they have entered into a new partnership and that that partnership matters to them.
"The sudden decision to change, and conform to tradition, can be considered the direct result of sex-role stereotyping that would have wider society believe that a woman who fails to taker her husband's name is not fully committed to her partner."
And since the whole point of this post seems to be that these two women were uber-successful compared to their husbands (one of whom is a premiership footballer and is clearly a complete wastrel, in Ms O'Reilly's book), it seems rather strange that she hasn't considered the possibility that both of these women make their living in the public gaze, and that perhaps, just perhaps, these name changes may also have given them some free, wholesome publicity, which may have been more of a factor in their decision than the wish to subjugate themselves to their jealous husbands.
To go through a few gems from Ms O'Reilly:
"Once a woman has a ring on her finger she is no longer an individual, but a wife. Her existence is defined by her husband. This is an archaic concept, but one that still stalks us like a dark spectre."
No longer an individual? Is that why I am still able to own property in my own name? To vote? To travel on my own? To drive? To have my work recognised as being done by me? Frankly, other than the beaurocratic paperfest involved with changing my name, no one seems to care either way: I'm still known as me, because that is who I am. My existence is not defined purely by my husband, but being married to my husband is an important part of what makes me me. If I make a mistake, that's my fault, not my husband's. If I do well, it's my credit, not my husband's. But when my husband and I do things together, that's our responsibility. There is a distinction, and it's important.
And archaic? Well, yes, maybe, but then all traditions must therefore be archaic. I fully intend to put up a Christmas tree this year. Does this make me an atavistic moron stuck in the nineteenth century?
"If a woman retains her maiden name following marriage, she enters into the commitment as an equal partner, maintaining the individuality and the history she forged during her pre-married days. If she loses her surname, she buys into a tradition that has kept women subservient since Eve ate that apple."
No, Ms O'Reilly. Let me explain. A woman in this country can always enter into marriage as an equal partner. No one compels her to change her surname to that of her husband once she's signed on the dotted line and nor do they compel her to stamp "Doormat" on her forehead at the same time. And you've used an important word there. PARTNER. Here's a thought. Perhaps the name change is a sign of the new partnership? Not to mention that any children (and yes, it may come as a shock here, but some married women intend to have them, even in the UK) would then share their surname with both parents. I'm sure if it were a burning issue (and she didn't mind the extra expenditure on ink for her cheques), she could hyphenate, or they both could. But, hey, if we're going down this route, why not just go the whole hog and make up random surnames to adopt when we marry? So, my husband and I like the countryside and we like dogs, so maybe our surname should be Mr and Mrs Open Spaces Spaniel? Sounds dumb, doesn't it? Or maybe, we could do something else, which partners always do, but which doesn't seem to have occurred to Ms O'Reilly. Wait for it, COMPROMISE, and choose one name. Given my husband agreed that any children we have would be brought up with my religion rather than his, giving our family his surname seemed perfectly reasonable. And even if we weren't compromising on other things, I still don't have a problem with our family brand being my husband's surname rather than my father's.
And that brings me onto another logical inconsistency in Ms O'Reilly's thinking. The names we are born with include our parents' surname: most usually, it would be our father's, but even if it is our mother's, it's still the same form of labelling - from birth we are tagged as "belonging" to someone.
"Cheryl Cole and Sarah Michelle Prinze have highlighted the social pressures placed on women to appear secondary to their husbands in the public eye. Cheryl Cole married in 2006, and by being branded Mrs Cole she wants to centralise her marriage as part of her identity."
So what if Mrs Cole wants to centralise her marriage as part of her identity? Ms O'Reilly, you seem to think that this is a bad thing. Every person I know builds their identity on a series of characteristics, such as their job, their age, their appearance, and yes, their family. Marriage, in case it escaped you, is actually quite a serious commitment. You don't just pop out to the shops and get hitched: you think about it, you get a nice outfit and if you can, you have a nice party, because it's important, and as such I see no reason why women should choose not to advertise this by adopting a new family name. It doesn't mean they "appear secondary" to their husbands. All it shows is that they have entered into a new partnership and that that partnership matters to them.
"The sudden decision to change, and conform to tradition, can be considered the direct result of sex-role stereotyping that would have wider society believe that a woman who fails to taker her husband's name is not fully committed to her partner."
And since the whole point of this post seems to be that these two women were uber-successful compared to their husbands (one of whom is a premiership footballer and is clearly a complete wastrel, in Ms O'Reilly's book), it seems rather strange that she hasn't considered the possibility that both of these women make their living in the public gaze, and that perhaps, just perhaps, these name changes may also have given them some free, wholesome publicity, which may have been more of a factor in their decision than the wish to subjugate themselves to their jealous husbands.
posted by Token Bird at 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home