Comments on: It ain’t what you say, it’s the way you say it

By: No wonder I cancelled my subscription to The Age « The Legal Soapbox

No wonder I cancelled my subscription to The Age « The Legal Soapbox — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:32:28 +0000

[...] Deveny and Tracee Hutchison. I think the final straw was Deveny’s opinion piece about changing one’s surname after marriage. I don’t mind if someone has a different opinion to me, as long as it’s [...]

By: Cherry Ripe

Cherry Ripe — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:26:05 +0000

Just wanted to reflect on all the posts so far on this subject… my trick was to have the kid and not get married, and work it out from there…!

I reckon my partner would be fine with the girl having my name, and the boy having his, but there’s no telling what you’re going to have, and you might end up with a gaggle of girls with your name and none with his. Would he accept that? Maybe… but then there’s the problem of siblings not having the same surname. Possibly a worse problem than just Mum or Dad being the odd one out. I suspect schools and kinders are used to Mums having different surnames now.

A hyphenated surname for us was out of the question, as it was ridiculous (imagine one surname was licorice and the other was sticks for example).

My aunty also made an interesting point about child naming - she does heaps of genealogy now. She said that names that include both sides are really useful for tracing family history. She was very happy to hear that we had put my surname as my daughter’s middle name.

By: blonde canadian

blonde canadian — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:36:05 +0000

Oh Catherine Deveny, please shut up.

Well done, LE. I’d have much preferred my subscription money to be spent on your well-thought out, reasoned piece rather than the emotional, ‘they’re picking on me’ hystrionics served up by Deveny.

I particularly liked her sweeping claim that “there was a stunning lack of clear rational thinking in every response”.

So, Miss/Ms/DEFINITELY NOT MRS Deveny, are you telling me that every single person who disagreed with you couldn’t formulate a rational thought? All of them? My, you must feel safe and superior in your righteousness if you’re laying claim to that.

Please. Even my year 7s know that that doesn’t fly as a retort.

By: armagnac esq

armagnac esq — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:03:57 +0000

Just ranted on this to the point of exhaustion at Larva Pee. Funny, considering that yourself and Mrs Gnac are probably both at least as smart as the idiot columnist, earn well, yada yada but she’s managed to dig up an argument to say you’re both insecure conservative petals. Beyond me. I think our whole approach to names, which included me offering to take her’s or make up a new one, was along the lines of there being more important things to worry about.

If I *told* my wife to take my name, or frankly to do anything else, she’d put the future of our extending family in a garlic crusher until I apologised…

By: Backroom Girl

Backroom Girl — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:09:08 +0000

“Perhaps it’s something about fathers wanting to stamp ownership on a child. It’s obvious that a child belongs to a mother, because a mother bears that child within her body.”

I don’t see it as the father stamping his ownership - as a woman who has kept her own birth surname but has two daughters with their father’s surname, I see it as my public acknowledgement that he is their father. (It is an easier surname to live with, I’ll grant, but I think I would still stand by that principle even if it weren’t.)

By: pete m

pete m — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:30:33 +0000

Someone pointed out part of the historical basis for the name choice was based on the man’s obligation to financially support his wife and children - hence they took his name in return.

these days with more women working, earning more, and same sex couples - this tradition has become eroded.

we didn’t have to deal with this issue as my wife hated her maiden name, and her first married name, so gladly took my surname

which btw i didn’t particularly like given who gave it to me

sometimes I think it is about that feeling of family that you mention, LE, but sometimes I think it is just because it’s easier!

funny how in some instances, feminism seems to complicate our lives, and not free them

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:14:04 +0000

Absolutely, historically speaking, women and children taking a man’s name is to do with ownership. As I said in my earlier post, the father handing the bride over to the groom is another example of this.

But personally speaking, my own decision to take my husband’s surname was definitely not a statement that he somehow “owns” me. From a personal point of view, it was about me making a statement that we all three belong together, sharing a common surname. We don’t “own” each other, our relationships are built on mutual respect and love, not ownership. That’s the reality of my life.

Here’s another question - in societies where women do not take a man’s name upon marriage, is there any less sexism? Somehow I very much doubt it. It’s symbolism, which is important, don’t get me wrong - but the real disadvantages suffered by women (regardless of whose surname they have taken) are the more important issues to my mind.

I was just teaching a class this morning where in a few cases, women’s contributions to the household had been written off as “mere love and affection” which did not give rise to any legal rights in the family home - that’s the kind of thing that makes me mad. And these are relatively recent cases…

By: Helen

Helen — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:08:43 +0000

So, I think it’s far more complex than Deveny’s rather glib attempt to blame the patriarchy. Perhaps children take the father’s name because men are insecure.
But that is an element of the patriarchy.
It’s a common mistake to think that all elements of patriarchy must make (all) men happy, or seem in control, or whatever. The patriarchy just growed, and some men certainly got some rough with the smooth. Swings and roundabouts. (Which doesn’t mean to imply that the swings and roundabouts end up equal, as we are now.)

The point Deveny is making is “yes, you “just” decided to take your husband’s name, but why? I think a term in the blogosphere might do her a bit of good, as she’s throwing away the civility thing but being quite surprised when people react in kind. but her point is valid. You didn’t just do that for no reason. The reason is historical, and yes, it is to do with ownership.

By: lostinsuburbia

lostinsuburbia — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:58:18 +0000

I read that article yesterday online. It bristled my feathers in the sense that she tried to defend her stance on the name enforcing patriarchy by asking what was wrong with keeping the name you were born with, yet that name is generally your fathers, unless you were born outside a marriage which in that case would be your mothers fathers name. (At least until you have permission from the father to use his name outside marital partnerships)

Isn’t that still cowtowing to the patriarchy?
In my opinion, (my unpaid and knee jerk reacting opinion) the articles read like a vent. Not something well written or worth being paid for.

By: guera

guera — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:51:29 +0000

I completely agree! Thanks for the comment on my post, BTW. I’m new to this blogging thing and its exciting to know someone actually read my blog! Deveny’s opinions are so flawed in their reasoning - on the one hand she says “Why would anyone care what I think? Who’d give a monkey’s about what a stranger writing in a newspaper would think about their choice? If someone had a go at something I’d decided to do, I wouldn’t give a rat’s. I’m happy with my choices.”, yet she’s not happy to extend that argument to the women out there who have chosen to change their name. My gut reaction is to be outraged by what she says, but I suspect that is what she wants. She is essentially a shock jock on paper. It seems the practice of journalists blogging instead of writing “articles” is just a licence to forget about facts and research and go for the extreme and sensationalist view.