MaxedOutMama
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Dizzy
Enraged at the chauvinism on Democratic Underground, some of the women have started a DU Feminist's forum. You are allowed to join if you are a male feminist; that topic has been debated and decided.
My favorite thread so far began:
The issue of changing your name or not comes up. That's very patriarchal:
(Although I have read that in very progressive states such as CA they basically assign parentage at random. They pick a guy out of the phone book. If he knows the super-secret code and the secret court at which to show up he can dispute the matter, but apparently you get the secret code and the court assignment through the US mail, which makes it pretty much a crapshoot. They seem to be better at tracking down the very surprised fathers after the secret court date, though.)
I've never been able to understand this feminist doctrine. It seems to me that marriage is obviously designed for the protection of kids and mothers. Men did not think this one up; women did. Surely there should be something in it for men, too? I'm all for equality, but biology dictates some objective imbalances. Men can sleep with four hundred women; it's a good guess that 200 or so of their progeny will survive. Women have to invest more in the kids they have. We are the ones who have the incentive to recruit some assistance. Surely marriage is an attempt to impose some equality and reciprocity on a biological situation that's grossly unfair?
I have to get off the feminist merry-go-round now. Every time I try to get on I get dizzy and sick to my stomach.
My favorite thread so far began:
Marriage...a relic of an age when women were property...?The first response:
Well, yes of course, it is but it does not have to be any more. It can be something that is good for both parties.Generous of her. Another:
I so totally agree with you.They discuss the fact that it's kind of bad to get married because their GL friends can't:
I hate being "married". It is not the choice of partner it is the way you are perceived after that fact.
I love what that couple did. I would love to be able to do the same but getting divorced is so difficult and I would imagine my husband would not appreciate it even if we did do a CU. He is less feminist than I would like but getting better as time passes.Maybe he's just dazed into submission. I kind of wish I could be sitting around for that conversation. "Honey, I want to get divorced in solidarity with my oppressed brothers and sisters. Then we can have a non-heteronormative civil union." That's only going to sell if you're standing there nude, and at some point in the legal proceedings you'll have to put your clothes back on.
The issue of changing your name or not comes up. That's very patriarchal:
Anyway, as the wedding date approached I had to tell him that I wasn't sure I could change my name, and also wasn't sure I could wear a wedding ring. I thought about the name thing long and hard when I was going thru my divorce, actually. I would have LOVED my own name, but there was NO NAME I could pick (aside from a made-up one, which was an option that didn't feel right to me) that didn't belong to some man first and foremost, before it was bestowed on the woman, either as child or in marriage. I came sorta close to adopting my maternal grandmother's maiden name, but decided in the final analysis that it was just so much simpler to keep the name I had....Well, let's put it this way. You find it harder to get guys to take care of kids who they're not sure are their own. It seems to me that some feminists want it both ways. They want the state to ensure that their child's father pays child support. But if no one is sure who that child's father is, isn't that an impossibility?
However, there is something to be said for bringing the people you love and care for, and who love and care for you, together to witness your commitment, experience your joy and celebrate with you. As someone who not only believes but has experienced the "presence" of those who have gone before us in THIS world, I know that our loved ones who've made the transition come back at key moments of this type -- births, weddings, deaths and funerals. They're here to lend support and aid, and their love. For weddings and births, to celebrate with us as well. A wedding ceremony brings all that together and is a joyous event.
BUT, it isn't necessary, and I heartily support the right of ANY woman -- or couple actually -- to forego all that.
Because the state's involvement in such things is most definitely a holdover from attitudes and practices about women as chattel, AND to control women's sexuality. After all, in a society where women and children are property and property is IMPORTANT, you can't have women going around giving birth to little people whose lineage isn't known. You just can't!
(Although I have read that in very progressive states such as CA they basically assign parentage at random. They pick a guy out of the phone book. If he knows the super-secret code and the secret court at which to show up he can dispute the matter, but apparently you get the secret code and the court assignment through the US mail, which makes it pretty much a crapshoot. They seem to be better at tracking down the very surprised fathers after the secret court date, though.)
I've never been able to understand this feminist doctrine. It seems to me that marriage is obviously designed for the protection of kids and mothers. Men did not think this one up; women did. Surely there should be something in it for men, too? I'm all for equality, but biology dictates some objective imbalances. Men can sleep with four hundred women; it's a good guess that 200 or so of their progeny will survive. Women have to invest more in the kids they have. We are the ones who have the incentive to recruit some assistance. Surely marriage is an attempt to impose some equality and reciprocity on a biological situation that's grossly unfair?
I have to get off the feminist merry-go-round now. Every time I try to get on I get dizzy and sick to my stomach.
Comments:
<< Home
I just read the DU thread.
MOM, Dingo, SC&A etc., et al, are the picture of mental health.
That's some scary stuff.
MOM, Dingo, SC&A etc., et al, are the picture of mental health.
That's some scary stuff.
It's disturbing me. Society survives on a mixture of kindness, fairness and good sense. There is something here that fails on all three counts.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If most people really could change their sexual orientation half the men in America would be gay. It's safer and more predictable.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If most people really could change their sexual orientation half the men in America would be gay. It's safer and more predictable.
Nice how they bring in their dead relatives' ghosts as a good reason to get married. Way to cloud their reasoning even more.
Almost like the relationship itself is bad, but the ceremony makes your ancestors happy. But that's one posters view only.
In all honesty I don't remember when I last read nonsensical crap.
Women in the U.S. ARE NOT chattel. If that were true, why do most women choose marriage?
Prior to the feminist influence, husbands took the role of providing for their wives and children. They could go off to work knowing that Mom was there to take care of their children in their pre-school years.
If she chose to, a wife could return to the working world once the children were in school. A part-time job is ideal; working at a school allows one to be home with the children afterwards.
You can disagree with my opinion, but my observation has convinced me that too many young parents of recent decades exhibit materialistic and self-gratifying traits. Children are sacrified to the never-ending need for more money, which often demands the income of both parents.
The soaring price of homes must be put, to some extent, at the feet of two-income families. Otherwise, SALE signs would be up for a long, long time.
Also, responding to "half the men would be gay", idiotic fantasy. Enjoy your outlandish imaginings.
Women in the U.S. ARE NOT chattel. If that were true, why do most women choose marriage?
Prior to the feminist influence, husbands took the role of providing for their wives and children. They could go off to work knowing that Mom was there to take care of their children in their pre-school years.
If she chose to, a wife could return to the working world once the children were in school. A part-time job is ideal; working at a school allows one to be home with the children afterwards.
You can disagree with my opinion, but my observation has convinced me that too many young parents of recent decades exhibit materialistic and self-gratifying traits. Children are sacrified to the never-ending need for more money, which often demands the income of both parents.
The soaring price of homes must be put, to some extent, at the feet of two-income families. Otherwise, SALE signs would be up for a long, long time.
Also, responding to "half the men would be gay", idiotic fantasy. Enjoy your outlandish imaginings.
# posted by 
: 10:43 PM
: 10:43 PM
Well, Anon, the thread is not my idea of the way relations between men and women should be.
As to your comments about women staying home, unfortunately this is absolutely not financially possible for most of the couples I know. Most of the women I know are working to provide the basics for their children - a safe home, food, medical care, etc. It's not for the purpose of living a wealthy lifestyle. Most women I know would rather stay home when their children are very young.
However, that desire is rather controversial in feminist circles, and if you ever get into one of those debates, a lot of stay-at-home women get ripped for their decision.
I must be doing something right, because now I'm getting it from both sides - the feminists and the anti-feminists.
Post a Comment
As to your comments about women staying home, unfortunately this is absolutely not financially possible for most of the couples I know. Most of the women I know are working to provide the basics for their children - a safe home, food, medical care, etc. It's not for the purpose of living a wealthy lifestyle. Most women I know would rather stay home when their children are very young.
However, that desire is rather controversial in feminist circles, and if you ever get into one of those debates, a lot of stay-at-home women get ripped for their decision.
I must be doing something right, because now I'm getting it from both sides - the feminists and the anti-feminists.
<< Home
