11.29.2005

more completely out of context posts not sent to WOMPO -- maybe I should post my whole set --- this posted due to the locution "social language"




Well, I'll disagree with that. Feminism and sexism are different. I can definitely say that patriarchal naming is a sexist practice ingrained in American society, and support my point well, without referring to any of the anecdotes shared on this list (individual contexts). I can also say that name changing at marriage is not a feminist practice, because name changing is a sexist survival in our social language.

To say these things is neither meaningless, nor does it particularly condemn feminists who do not take great umbrage at sexist language and its social applications.

this from my REFORMATION research

Well, marriage wasn’t a sacrament – it wasn’t sacred & it wasn’t a church-mediated ritual – until just before the reformation (about the time of the institution of mandatory celibacy for catholic priests (note: not monastics)).

There is nothing sacred about marriage in the christian religious sense, or, rather, there is nothing sacred about marriage in the religious sense which is not an example of cultural imperialism.

Interestingly, during the cold war, the nuns who were my teachers emphasized the small size of the state weddings (you just sign a book! you take the train! there aren’t a bajillion attendants!) in the soviet union and the cultural survivors of christian weddings in them, which I faultily recall as “top of cake” dresses and VEILS of all things.


this about adjuncting and marriage, which ended up in this discussion being not about career and marriage and feminism but nepotism:

I've been trying to follow this, but I'm not quite sure I understand -- are these just couples who have dual appointments and different surnames? Or are these couples who have dual appointments and different surnames _and_ deliberately attempt to disguise their marital status?

That a new adjunct would not be aware of everyone's marital status is not surprising; that an adjunct would be badmouthing anyone would be.

That a married woman who chose to keep her name would also choose to keep her career path, even one at the same company, as separate as possible from her husband's is not surprising, and seems really healthy.

But this bitterness at dual appointment couples where the women keeps her maiden name is somewhat difficult for me to identify except as adjunct bitterness, which is real, especially in the case where the adjunct of the couple is making a career sacrifice. For example, I myself am not in a location where *any* of the many careers and opportunities I have had elsewhere are available.

I ever pursue an academic position again, I will probably need to use my husband's teaching and work experience -- the possibility of getting him to teach part time if I am hired -- as an inducement. And he has no desire to teach when he is retired.

Yet I did not take his surname because of the status being Catherine Daly confers upon me? Sure, and for other reasons as well. Catherine Burch has no identity, and I see no need to waste my time trying to invest the name with some.

No comments: