Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? I’m raising a very legitimate concern but the default notion that women should be labeled with the names of the men in their family lineage is so strong that many cannot grasp it.

Many common surnames are derived from the location a man lived, the occupation he had, or the lord to whom he owed fealty. So even men’s names are all rooted in a kind of subservience.

I just think it would be interesting to consider another way of naming people.

You are way overthinking this.

The type of person that would have complaints about any type of naming convention that develops and when people instead opt to identify by numbers assigned from a random number generator, would complain about how dehumanizing such a practice is.

If you live in the US we have already assigned you a number.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? I’m raising a very legitimate concern but the default notion that women should be labeled with the names of the men in their family lineage is so strong that many cannot grasp it.

Many common surnames are derived from the location a man lived, the occupation he had, or the lord to whom he owed fealty. So even men’s names are all rooted in a kind of subservience.

I just think it would be interesting to consider another way of naming people.

You are way overthinking this.

The type of person that would have complaints about any type of naming convention that develops and when people instead opt to identify by numbers assigned from a random number generator, would complain about how dehumanizing such a practice is.

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with Mrs? If a woman is married and took her husband’s surname, and it’s what she prefers to be called, isn’t that pretty standard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? I’m raising a very legitimate concern but the default notion that women should be labeled with the names of the men in their family lineage is so strong that many cannot grasp it.

Many common surnames are derived from the location a man lived, the occupation he had, or the lord to whom he owed fealty. So even men’s names are all rooted in a kind of subservience.

I just think it would be interesting to consider another way of naming people.

You are way overthinking this.

The type of person that would have complaints about any type of naming convention that develops and when people instead opt to identify by numbers assigned from a random number generator, would complain about how dehumanizing such a practice is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See? I’m raising a very legitimate concern but the default notion that women should be labeled with the names of the men in their family lineage is so strong that many cannot grasp it.

Many common surnames are derived from the location a man lived, the occupation he had, or the lord to whom he owed fealty. So even men’s names are all rooted in a kind of subservience.

I just think it would be interesting to consider another way of naming people.

You are way overthinking this.

Anonymous wrote:See? I’m raising a very legitimate concern but the default notion that women should be labeled with the names of the men in their family lineage is so strong that many cannot grasp it.

Many common surnames are derived from the location a man lived, the occupation he had, or the lord to whom he owed fealty. So even men’s names are all rooted in a kind of subservience.

I just think it would be interesting to consider another way of naming people.

Anonymous wrote:I thought the whole point was that people could be called or addressed as they liked. Now they need to justify it to you?

You are giving the same vibes as the feminists who are all about "choice" but hate nonstop on SAHMs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it, but then I’m an ardent feminist whose entire life has been focused around the consequences of male violence - first in a family of origin ‘led’ by a raging violent alcoholic bully and later in various adult roles as DV advocate, legal aid attorney , public defender and prosecutor working in the trenches with lives mired in the consequences of male violence.

I’ve been wanting to change my surname for many years now. I haven’t and won’t get married, and I don’t want to die with the name of the man who first abused me and my mother and siblings.

Any ideas for how an adult woman should choose a new surname? I’ve considered choosing a surname from family history, but I recognize that there is a high probability by that method I will choose the name of somebody’s else’s abuser.

Any ideas, let me know!

Your mom’s maiden name would work, no?

No, that name belongs to the man who abused my grandmother into fleeing her home and family and laid the ground work for my mother’s acceptance of my father’s abuse.

I briefly considered my grandmother’s maiden name, but while I never knew my great grandfather I can assume that he was quite possibly also a misogynist whose treatment of my great grandmother and grandmother led to my grandmother’s acceptant of her husband’s abuse for two decades. See it’s an endless cycle.

I appreciate the idea of honoring someone I’ve admired by choosing her name. But going that route could end me up with the name of another abuser - many of the women I’ve admired in my life were driven to their accomplishments as a reaction to toxic patriarchy at the micro or macro level.

It’s a conundrum for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with Mrs? If a woman is married and took her husband’s surname, and it’s what she prefers to be called, isn’t that pretty standard?

I am not going to tell anyone what to do, but there is no male equivalent for Mr. So only women are identified by their courtesy title as married. It's inherently sexist. I go by Ms. and like a PP, have done so since I was a very young adult.

Anonymous wrote:See? I’m raising a very legitimate concern but the default notion that women should be labeled with the names of the men in their family lineage is so strong that many cannot grasp it.

Many common surnames are derived from the location a man lived, the occupation he had, or the lord to whom he owed fealty. So even men’s names are all rooted in a kind of subservience.

I just think it would be interesting to consider another way of naming people.

Anonymous wrote:See? I’m raising a very legitimate concern but the default notion that women should be labeled with the names of the men in their family lineage is so strong that many cannot grasp it.

Many common surnames are derived from the location a man lived, the occupation he had, or the lord to whom he owed fealty. So even men’s names are all rooted in a kind of subservience.

I just think it would be interesting to consider another way of naming people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with Mrs? If a woman is married and took her husband’s surname, and it’s what she prefers to be called, isn’t that pretty standard?

I am not going to tell anyone what to do, but there is no male equivalent for Mr. So only women are identified by their courtesy title as married. It's inherently sexist. I go by Ms. and like a PP, have done so since I was a very young adult.

Anonymous wrote:I'm noticing at both my kids schools several teachers (including ones in their 30s and 40s) go by mrs. x. I personally can't fathom why someone would pick that over Ms. Is it some pride in communicating you're married? Just a preference for tradition? It's just so strange to me when we have Ms. to cover all women like we have Mr. to cover all men.

So if YOU prefer to be called mrs x.....why?