Miss/Mrs./Ms.

[opebo]

I just use first names, period.

Very wise.  However given these choices option number 2, obviously. 

Also it is disturbing that women still take the husband's name in many marriages.  Then again look at the sort of people who get married.

[opebo]

Also it is disturbing that women still take the husband's name in many marriages.

I agree that it's disturbing.

What is so disturbing about it?  Why should it matter to you?

And BTW, it's about 90%, and has increased in the past decade.

Women embracing their ancient role as property.. it is a little disturbing, yes.

[opebo]

Also it is disturbing that women still take the husband's name in many marriages.

I agree that it's disturbing.

What is so disturbing about it?  Why should it matter to you?

And BTW, it's about 90%, and has increased in the past decade.

Women embracing their ancient role as property.. it is a little disturbing, yes.

You use women as property every day in a cruder way than 99.9% of the husbands of the world do.  Who are you to be concerned?

I don't use them as property any more than any employer uses any employee as property, capitalist.

[opebo]

Because keeping one's name is a gesture of equality.

Wrong.  some of the most oppressive, mysogynistic societies in the world (most of them, in fact!) are societies in which a woman does not change her sirname upon marriage.

What does that have to do with anything?  We're talking about this culture.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think the meaning would be if you took someone else's name upon marriage, angus?  Clearly an ownership is implied.  Try to look past your misogyny and see the functional effect of the traditional practice.  If you like women being a subject class, that is fine, but don't pretend it isn't the case.

[opebo]

The tradition of children taking their father's name was begun to give me a concrete connection to their children so as to encourage them to support them.

If anything, children should have their mother's last name since mothers generally do more than half of the child rearing.

Do they provide more than half the financial support to make that child-rearing possible?  Let me give you a hint -- only in poverty-stricken segments of society.  What does that tell you?

Why are you so self-hating that you are bootlicking for man-haters who completely dismiss the role of fathers, and men in general?  I can't understand a man who thinks that way.

nclib is being very even-handed and fair on this issue, dazzleman.  Why are you so misogynistic?

[opebo]

This has nothing to do with mysogyny.  The fact that you think it does is simply part of your own larger elitist view.  And you calling dazzleman mysogynistic is sort of ironic, don't you think?

No, I don't.  dazzleman is quite a bit more misgynistic than I, though I redily admit that I am moderately misogynistic.  With me it is sort of a love/hate relationship. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, this has nothing to do with the sex act, if that is what you mean by 'in the gutter'.  It has to do with political and economic power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What on earth does it matter what the victim's views are on the subject of their victimhood?  That's like saying to a fellow who just got mugged 'do you mind?', and if he didn't letting the mugger off.  Many victims are so immersed in their subjugated condition that they don't realize what is happening to them - for example some blacks and most white-working class.   I don't consider it misogynistic at all to say that many women are the biggest perpetrators of their own subjugation.  This sort of political masochism, the ebrace of the slave-role is commonplace.

[opebo]

I don't think the mugger analogy is really apt, since it is up to the mugged to decide whether to press charges, isn't it?

Actually I don't know, but there must be some right for the State to prosecute without input from the victim, or murders could not be tried.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly there is always choice - the worker can choose to starve rather than participate in his own expoitation, the woman can choose to buck society's pressure and keep her name, etc.  The point is of course that there is a history of women being property, and the name thing is a symbol of this.  The fact that women still do this is telling, I think.  Perhaps they're still more subjugated than you think. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rather subjective, but I doubt it

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all - I'm merely describing a societal condition - engaging in armchair sociology.  They can choose to be servile or whatever they like, but if they do, I'll call 'em like I see 'em.  Just like I call a worker dumb for voting Republican.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't give anyone a damn thing, but I'll speak about anyone powerful or powerless, from black woman to WASP owning class ivy leaguer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like that Lieutenant Popcorn!  But I'm not brooding over what to call people - in fact I hardly ever call anyone anything other than something in Thai (pe kap), or 'excuse me', or a first name.  What I am brooding over is the structure off the social heirarchy that governs our lives.  It is interesting!

[opebo]

Women are more inclined to work shorter hours closer to home, while men travel further and work more in search of a higher income.  So in cases like this, it is perfectly appropriate that the mother does more than half the child rearing.

Pshaw, how do you know women are so inclined?  More likely they are merely taking what scraps are available to them.  One can't commute far when one's average wage is 25% less or whatever it is.

That said, of course among the working classes, men's wages have declined more over the last disastrous 25 years than women's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1/10th?  What do you think she does, babysits for a few hours a week? 

Plenty of women work full time, or among the lower classes, work two part-time jobs (harder than one full time by far).  If they work less it is more commonly because the jobs available are so bad and poorly paid it isn't even worth it, than it is due to any desire for leisure on their part.

[opebo]

To anyone who advocates keeping the titles Miss and Mrs. for traditional reasons, imagine if the discrimination had been against blacks instead of women. In his article on political correctness, Douglas Hofstadter writes that our society would be much more repulsed if we called unemployed blacks "Niss" and employed blacks "Nrs.", when all whites were called Master. (even if that was the tradition)

That article is way too long for me to want to read it, especially considering the argument you are given here. It's really an assinine comparison, I mean, really. How does discriminination against unemployed blacks have ANYTHING to do with calling an unmarried woman Miss <insert name> and and married woman Mrs. <insert name>? I mean really, wtf?

Obviously, dumb dumb, because the oppression of women is precisely analogous to that of blacks. 

Great article nclib!

[opebo]

To anyone who advocates keeping the titles Miss and Mrs. for traditional reasons, imagine if the discrimination had been against blacks instead of women. In his article on political correctness, Douglas Hofstadter writes that our society would be much more repulsed if we called unemployed blacks "Niss" and employed blacks "Nrs.", when all whites were called Master. (even if that was the tradition)

That article is way too long for me to want to read it, especially considering the argument you are given here. It's really an assinine comparison, I mean, really. How does discriminination against unemployed blacks have ANYTHING to do with calling an unmarried woman Miss <insert name> and and married woman Mrs. <insert name>? I mean really, wtf?

Obviously, dumb dumb, because the oppression of women is precisely analogous to that of blacks. 

And what does Miss vs. Mrs. have to do with oppression? They are simply titles and there is nothing offensive implied by them.

No, the implication is ownership of the female by the male.

[opebo]

And what does Miss vs. Mrs. have to do with oppression? They are simply titles and there is nothing offensive implied by them.

No, the implication is ownership of the female by the male.

I fail to see how the title 'Mrs.' has ANYTHING to do with ownership - it's just a title to say a woman is married.

Yes, and the male has no such title that marks him as owned(married, taken, etc.).  Therefore it is a relic of women's past as property of males.

[opebo]

Considering that you know nothing about marriage, opebo,

Yes, I'm lucky that way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lovely image!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do modern marriages have to do with this archaism?  No doubt they are less oppressive than the marriages of yore, though the fact that women and men still embrace the nomenclature of slavery is telling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds a bit tiresome and creepy.  Lets keep a happy face and not burden one another with these 'connections' of which you speak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I'm lucky that way.  (Though I would point out that however much I may care about screwing underaged ones, I only actually screw the overaged.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually no, things are not that different in Thailand - women are definitely 'second-class' citizens, as in the US, but nowhere near the difficulties they suffer in, for example, muslim lands. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, men's wages have declined abominably, while women's have gone up just slightly.  That's the Market for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't want to upset the man of the house now would we?

[opebo]

Give me proof that women are "second-class" citizens and in "slavery", opebo.

The slavery reference is obviously - if you will read carefully- about the past, while the second-class reference is about the present.  How many female senators are there, everett?  What percentage of the House is female?  How many women have been president?  For that matter what precentage of governors, generals, or corporate CEOs are women?  Or to be more general, what percentage of the top 1% of the socio-economic pyramid are female?

Of course that last figure will be somewhat higher due to widows.

[opebo]

Give me proof that women are "second-class" citizens and in "slavery", opebo.

The slavery reference is obviously - if you will read carefully- about the past, while the second-class reference is about the present.  How many female senators are there, everett?  What percentage of the House is female?  How many women have been president?  For that matter what precentage of governors, generals, or corporate CEOs are women?  Or to be more general, what percentage of the top 1% of the socio-economic pyramid are female?

Of course that last figure will be somewhat higher due to widows.

Maybe you spend long, sleepless nights worrying about that, but I certainly don't.

Of course not, as you are a libertarian worker, who sacrifices your interests on the alter of your 'principles'.