He's a Stud, She's a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Knowby Jessica Valenti
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
He's a Stud, She's a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know / 9781580052450
I really loved Valenti's "The Purity Myth", and I've been reading Feministing off and on for years, so I was pretty primed to like this book, but now that I've read it I'm not quite sure how to rate it. The material here is good, and each of these double standards are absolutely worth calling out for explanation as to why they are harmful to women (as well as other minorities who may or may not overlap but who nonetheless get hurt by institutionalized misogyny). So from that perspective, this is a wonderful book that calls out genuine problems and gathers them all up for a precise take-down.
On the other hand, though, this is really very "intro" material -- people who have been involved in feminist blogging for an extended length of time may end up being a bit disappointed by the fast-and-furious tone that effectively means that each of the double standards gets a mere four pages dedicated to it. That's probably to be expected in a book that covers as many topics as this, but I was nevertheless a little disappointed.
Little things, too, niggled at me a bit. Valenti does address fat acceptance here, especially in a wonderful piece on why "fat suits" in movies are problematic, but the heading for each chapter (and the cover of the book) contains the silhouette of an hourglass-shaped woman, very femme, with long straight hair and her feet turned in such a way as to suggest high heels or deliberately pointed toes. Very probably, Valenti had minimum input into the cover art and chapter layout, but after seeing 50 repeated silhouettes of an Every Woman who strongly suggests straight-haired, thin, and conventionally attractive, I started feeling like I was getting a bit of a mixed message.
Also here on display is some unfortunate use of ableist words, such as when Valenti uses the words "insane" and "crazy" to refer to things that she considers unfortunate or unfair. On the one hand, who am I to judge, seeing that in 2009 (when this book was written), I didn't even know what ableism was? On the other hand, it's here in a feminist book where some readers may not expect to find it, so I feel bound to mention in it my review as a sort of "content note". I will say that in a 180+ page book, I only counted about a dozen instances of "insane" and/or "crazy", so at least it's kept to a relative minimum.
I think "He's a Stud, She's a Slut" is probably a really great book for a feminism introduction. The topics are absolutely germane, the analysis is quick but largely spot-on, and all of this adds up to be worthwhile for an audience that may not be entirely receptive to something meatier. Every movement needs 101 material, and I think having a strong addition to the Feminism 101 lineup is a very good thing. However, folks who are more deeply versed in feminism may be disappointed with the necessarily shallow handling of some of these topics, and some of the accidental ableism and/or absolutism* may leave advanced readers a little disappointed and looking elsewhere for something more nuanced.
(* Such as when Valenti says that women who take their husband's last name aren't bad feminists but need to define their actions in very specific terms: "But if you do [take a man's last name], be honest about it. Don't say it's because it's tradition or because you don't like your last name. As Amanda noted, just be honest that it's sexist". Personally, I strongly feel that the issues around name-changing are complicated and that feminism is emphatically not about dictating women how to frame their life choices, nor about implying they are dishonest if they use different words to describe those choices.)
~ Ana Mardoll
70 comments:
I hope the name change thing is the worst example in the book, because that's the kind of thing that makes me want to toss books. Not only is it claiming to know why people do things better than the people themselves (never a good stance to take), but it's classist: marriage is the one shot poor people have to change their names without having to scrape up money and jump through a zillion hoops. Your choices, at least in the state I live in are 1) both parties take the man's name, 2) both parties take the woman's name, or 3) one or both parties hyphenate their names.
I know 101 material is important, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with 101 material that gives people license to be assholes to other people.
My sister took her Husband's last name because she didn't like our name. After the divorce she didn't keep his name and didn't change her name back either. She just got rid of his name and let her middle name become her last name. She really, really didn't like our last name, apparently.
The idea that my sister isn't being honest about the reason why she dropped the name seems insulting and silly. She didn't like it, she dropped at a time when it was easy for her to get rid of it. At the first time it was easy for her to get rid of it.
For any given action there are all kinds of reasons one can have for doing it, claiming that the only honest answer is the one that you would give is insulting to everyone who doesn't think just like you.
As with depizan, I hope that was the worst example in the book. Because it seems like a book that ought to exist.
CN: Abuse, Sexual Practices
It stood out especially to me, because I knew a woman who didn't like her father's name because he had abused her. So for her "I don't like my birth surname" was perfectly valid and true.
There is a brand of feminism that makes me uncomfortable, where a common statement is "it's alright to do X as long as you frame it as Y". I remember one feminist board making the argument that it was okay for women to enjoy "facials" (the sex act, not the spa treatment) but only as long as the women 'admitted' that the appeal of the act was based in humiliation and that there was no other possible reason to enjoy it. Several women on the board, quite naturally, objected to being told how to frame their sexual preferences.
I'm terribly sensitive to that, and I try to avoid it as much as possible in my own writings. I may not understand why other people make the choices they do, but I try not to assume that there are One Size Fits All reasons for those choices.
As for this book, I can't think of any worse examples, but there were bits that made me squirm a little. I am glad I own the book, and there was a lot of thought provoking material in it, but it wasn't perfect. (Though I'm hardly perfect, either, obviously.)
I used to joke that if I ever married, I would take my boyfriend's last name, and write in the pre-nup that if we ever divorced I got to keep his last name and he had to take mine.
My parents were feminist-hippy types, and gave me a hyphenated last name from two different cultures, both of which are hard for native English speakers to spell. I understand the motivations for what they did, but I really wish they'd just given me my father's name.
Ha! I kind of like that, Smilodon. I can see how in certain situations, the swapping of last names could be a great thing. Unfortunately, I immediately recall my sister's divorce and the reasons behind it (after 13 months of marriage - I feel so awful for her that everything went sour so quickly, but thankfully it was a matter of the exhusband not growing up and being an adult, rather than something worse) - it was not a situation where she wanted anything of her exhusband's. She would have probably considered something like it in the prenup back then, though now she's been completely disillusioned by marriage. Swears the only reason she'll marry again is for the legal benefits/protections (if one of them is jobless or if they have a kid together), and there's no way she's going to change her name again.
And now I'm reminded of more double-standards regarding my sister and her ex-husband, but I'm not sure how to articulate them. The idea that women have to be responsible and grown-ups and whatnot, but their husbands have the freedom to indulge in childish behaviors (even if they get disapproving looks, it's somewhat expected - at least, this is what I perceived from my sister's situation, and the way that she assumed it was normal).
My parents kept their own names when they married, but since my mum came from a family of only sisters, and my dad came from a family of only brothers, they decide that, to balance out the ratios, if I was female I'd take my dad's surname, and since I'm (biologically) male, I took my mum's surname...which has caused so much confusion it's stopped being annoying and has become a running gag in my life.
Yeah, the intense skepticism of women who say they took their husband's name because they didn't like the one they had has always made me roll my eyes. Because yeah, I know a LOT of people who don't like their name -- some male, some female -- but if you're a woman and you get married, you can change it FOR FREE with a minimum of hassle and (this part is important) no risk of parental butthurt.
There's a grass-is-greener aspect to this, of course -- I know women who've happily shed hard-to-spell names for a super-easy everyone-knows-that-one name, and I know women who've just as happily traded a super-generic one-of-eight-million-johnsons last names for a lovely and interesting one. I know women who viewed the name change as "divorcing" their father.
And I know women who changed their name because they were pressured to do so by their husband out of pure, unadulterated sexism, but among my close friends this is not terribly common, actually.
(I didn't change my name because I liked the one I had and changing it sounded like a hassle. But I don't judge my friends who changed theirs.)
If hating your name is really that common a reason to use marriage to change it, where are all the dudes doing it? Its not like there aren't guys who had shitty fathers.
Probably because only something like 9 out of 50 states give men that option. Which is brought up in this book, and is a very important point, and is very good example of how sexism is codified in USA laws.
But which says nothing about why an *individual* woman chooses to do one thing or another with her name.
There are also vastly greater pressures on men to not change their names, because that's Something Girls Do.
I like mine much too much to completely change it, but I'd consider hyphenation based solely on the criterion of whether it would sound even cooler.
I have a friend with a son and a daughter. Son has the dad's last name and the daughter has the mom's. Confusing? Not a bit! I thought they were being logical and came up with the same solution as I did when I was eight.
Speaking of being confused by usage...
As a little kid, I wondered why Lt. Pat Meyer, Dr. Pat Meyer, Senator Pat Meyer, President Pat Meyer, Sgt Pat Meyer, Governor Pat Meyer were all the same person but Mr. Pat Meyer and Mrs. Pat Meyer weren't. That was what I found confusing. I used to take mail to my dad that was addressed to "Mrs. My Dad". I also thought I could use the restroom that said "men" because in church they said that Jesus died for all men and for all creation and it was explained to me that men meant all people, even six-year-old girls like I was at the time. I was confused as to when I was a man and when I wasn't since the rules seemed arbitrary to me. I would bet that I was not the only native English-speaking little kid who was confused by that.
Even the word "everyone" doesn't always include all people. (In high school history class when learning about ancient Athens and it's perfect democracy in which "everyone" could vote, "everyone" only referred to land-owning adult males.) Now, I'm careful to say what I mean.
Spouse didn't realize just how attached he was to his surname until he'd already promised me he'd change his name to mine, and I'd told my entire family that he was going to do so. (I'd legally changed it, away from my family name, the year before, which they all thought was astonishingly stupid.) They told me he never would change his name, and I was being ridiculous and naive. I insisted I knew him better than they did, and he would've never said he would if he didn't mean it.
And then they turned out to be right. o.O
To save face with my family, I suggested we both hyphenate, but he couldn't bring himself to do that either.
It's probably just as well that we didn't have kids, because I ... really didn't like his surname after that.
When I was a practicing Wiccan I would change my "craft name" a lot, because I feel like a name is something that needs to stretch and grow and sometimes shift completely as a person does.
I changed my last name when I got married because getting married really felt like a paradigm shift. I felt like I was transitioning from the person I'd been throughout high school and college into this adult that would be giving birth to and taking care of a child in the next few months. That person needed a new name.
Well and it was kind of expected, and I don't like rocking boats unnecessarily. I don't think anyone in our families would have objected if I'd wanted to keep my name, but as I felt like the name change was something I needed to do anyway, I didn't mind.
My mom kept her maidan name, and I think I would do the same if/when I marry, if nothing than for simple convenience. There are too many cards and other paperwork that need updated or fixed when the name change happens, and I don't want someone to not accept a credit card because it has a maidan name instead of a married one.
Women change their names on marriage for all sorts of reasons, good or bad or indifferent, and it doesn't make them bad people, or even bad feminists. However, that doesn't mean that changing your name is a feminist act. It isn't, whatever your reasons are. (With the exception of both people changing their name to a new name or a hyphenated name which they then use.) That doesn't make it bad, just not a feminist act.
That said, the "It's just my father's name, so what does it matter if I give it up and take my husband's name" argument I find very objectionable. If it is your father's name that you are giving up, then it is your father-in-law's name that you are taking.
You can take your wife's last name in Colorado, too. You can even make a new last name out of the letters of both parties last names (I forgot that one when I posted before). What you can't do is both taken an entirely different last name. (Which, unfortunately, is what my friends had hoped to do. They each just kept their own until they've got the money and patience to hop through hoops and get the last name they both want.)
I would say that not changing your name on marriage is only a feminist act if you do so for feminist reasons. Otherwise it is just as neutral an act as changing it. (And I haven't noticed anyone claiming that taking one's husband's name is a feminist act, only that doing so doesn't make you a bad feminist. World of difference there.)
Had a friend who went by "Carrie." Her stepfather adopted her legally, which she was very moved by, but then her name was "Carrie Berrie."
There is no world where I question her motives for taking her husband's name and keeping it after the divorce. Feminism had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I know in my case I wanted to have the same surname as my husband. I am pretty sure that that is not unusual at all.
And here's another double standard: a woman can probably get away with keeping her name with only a few rolled eyes, comments about uppity feminists (I haven't experienced that obviously, but I have had two instances of people telling me they are relieved/glad I am doing the "right" thing in taking my husband's name gahhhhh. I managed not to punch them in the face). But my husband is not an Activist and it would take a lot more explanations and justifications for him to take my surname or even to hyphenate.
It is sexist but it is the world and society that is sexist. Husband would have been more than happy for me to keep my name (he liked my old name better than my new one) but after I made the declaration that I wanted us to be a family with a shared surname it makes me sad that "Your name or mine?" was never a balanced choice.
a woman can probably get away with keeping her name with only a few rolled eyes, comments about uppity feminists
That is a recent turn of events (last 30-40 years), and may still not be true in all parts of the country.
My mom kept her name when she married my dad. I was born in the '70s. I spent my childhood explaining that my parents were married and watching my mom go through various hassles because of her choice. She also got a lot of "are you married" crap, she and my dad had a hell of a time getting banks and other businesses to get their names right, people refusing to use her legal name (which some members of my family still do), and other fun stuff. Though the absolute winner was when the Social Security Administration changed the name associated with her Social Security Number without her permission or knowledge and she had to fight with them to get it changed back. (Why did that happen? Apparently, some busybody decided to "fix" her account when my parents got me my SSN. That was in the 1980s.)
Oh boy. A share of a screencap of a Finnish financial magazine's article titles went up at friend's facebook wall. First title: "Woman to head [state alcohol monopoly store]" and two or three titles down "Dude Someguy to chair [lotto etc money making racket]" because women, y'know, they're all interchangeable and pod persons anyway. *twitch*
I've changed my name three times in my life. I don't recommend it in the absence of compelling personal reasons, as it *is* a paperwork nightmare.
However, so are many things, and of course that doesn't make them automatically not worth doing on a personal, case by case, basis. :)
*headdesk*
That's so annoying. And so common.
depizan, that's outrageous!
It's also kinda surreal because when I legally changed my name 20 years ago, I gathered together all sorts of paperwork to take to SSA to get everything fixed on my SSN card, and ... the people at our local SSA office didn't ask to see ANY of my paperwork. They just changed everything over on my say-so. Which was kinda creepy actually.
When we lived in Indiana, no one 'rolled their eyes at uppity feminists', they just refused to believe I was actually married to Spouse.
My sister-in-law took my brother's name; my sister took her husband's name; Spouse's brother's wife took Spouse's family name; my sorta-feminist BFF took her husband's name. For almost 20 years, I've been hoping to meet other women who made the choice I made, but I mostly haven't. So that, even now, when I do meet a married couple with different last names, I'm kinda gobsmacked (in a good way).
Ooh, now that I think about it, I met someone this past weekend who kept her maiden name. Someone who's a Baby Boomer (and therefore, older than me). But I found that out by Googling her; she didn't mention it.
Probably because only something like 9 out of 50 states give men that option.
Nope.
In Scotland it is exactly as easy for a man to change his surname to his wife's as it is for woman to change her surname to her husband's. Legally a woman never changed her surname on marriage (on old Scottish tombstones - older than the Victorian era where Scottish families seemed to start adopting the English custom - a married woman is buried under her own name, Mary MacPherson, wife of Robert Locke).
But customarily a woman would be addressed as "Mrs [husband surname]" and in fact the law in Scotland about nane-changes is that if you've consistently used a name without fraudulent intent it becomes your real name. So a woman could legally change her name to her husband's just by consistently using his name as hers.
These days (law change thanks to trans equality, I think) if you want to really change your name permanently for good and all, you can apply to Register House to have your name changed on your birth certficate, once you can show that for two years minimum you've gone by the name you want it changed to.
But still, most men don't change their surnames to their wife's surname, and many women still do, and it stands out as unusual when a woman gives her children her surname.
Not to say that there are no other reasons for changing your name. But the underlying one is mostly sexism.
(And I haven't noticed anyone claiming that taking one's husband's name is a feminist act, only that doing so doesn't make you a bad feminist. World of difference there.)
Absolutely. A woman taking her husband's surname / giving her husband's surname to her children, is such a societally-weighted thing to do that doing it can simply mean you're in a situation where it's just not going to work to stand up against the tide. There are lots of times where the sexist tide's coming in (drawn by the Moonrise of Patriarchy, of course) and just nobody has the kind of spoons it would take to build a sea-wall against it.
Indeed, we live in a culture where many women are taught not to think of their surname as really their own name. There is so much sexist weight placed on erasing women's surnames that it would be wrong for anyone to say (as I have heard some women say) "I know this makes me a bad feminist, but ..." and usually go on to say "so I'm changing my name." I hate that, because nobody should feel like a bad feminist over what should be such a personal/family decision. The culture that makes it impossible for this to be just a personal decision is what's wrong, even though the individual feminists making the decision feel it's theirs.
My mother didn't change her name. Both my parents have PhDs. My mother goes by 'Doctor' and my dad does not. The correct address is therefore Dr Momsname and Mr Dadsname (or the opposite order). This never actually occurs.
First, of course, there's the assumption that if there's a Dr Momsname involved, then the couple must be Dr Momsname and Mrs Momsname. Then there's the fallback of Dr Dadsname and Mrs Momsname. I don't recall them ever getting Dr and Dr Dadsname, which would seem like the sort of thing that 'ought' to have come up more often. It only gets worse when we add the near-pathological inability of people to spell/pronounce Momsname correctly, leading to more of a situation of Dr Dadsname and Mrs Who The Hell Are You.
My spouse and I have different last names, and our adopted child has a hyphenated last name that is neither of those; so we have four last names among three people. (Our son demanded keeping his own name as a condition of adoption. I fought with his social workers over this, because I feel it's very much his business and not theirs.)
I can sympathize with someone who doesn't wish to do this. It is a pain, and when I answer the phone "name/name/name/name, MaryKaye speaking" people think we are a business. (I refuse to answer it with our first names as they are collectively super-Biblical and none of us are Christians....)
My sister has an exotic first name to go with our exotic family name, and got very tired of having both names misspelled. (The best one, from a concert program, was having her first name Gwynne spelt "Gaewoo". No, we are not Korean....) So she changed her name when she married. I also sympathize with this, and I think making a fuss over "was that a feminist act" is meddlesome and harmful.
My reasons for keeping my last name were (a) I had already published several papers under it, and didn't want to confuse the literature, and (b) my spouse is Japanese and I felt that being a European woman with a Japanese name would be really confusing. He could have changed his, but his family was already upset enough over his marrying a gaijin--why make things worse?
My last name was, incidentally, not my birth name but the name of my adoptive father. But I've never been tempted to go back to birth-father's name as he didn't raise me. It does weird me out, though, that my birth certificate is falsified and shows my current name; so is my son's; I wish they wouldn't do that. I hate seeing a legal document expressing a clear and blatant falsehood (i.e. that a child was born on such-and-such day and given such-and-such name). I don't know how I'd feel if these were closed adoptions, but neither was, and that birth certificate was already bothering me at seven (and my son at ten) when we were adopted.
Yeah, my parents run into some of that, too. On the bright side, if the person on the phone asks for Mrs. Dadsname or Mr. Momsname, they know right away it's a telemarketer! (Times have improved, and they don't live in the midwest anymore.)
I have an (older) cousin who married a man of Japanese descent, and she did take his name. When they divorced, she kept that same name, presumably because their 2 kids also had it. I wonder if she ever thought of the cultural issues involved.
It does weird me out, though, that my birth certificate is falsified and shows my current name; so is my son's; I wish they wouldn't do that. I hate seeing a legal document expressing a clear and blatant falsehood (i.e. that a child was born on such-and-such day and given such-and-such name).
Huh. I still need to get around to fixing my birth certificate, but I feel like it's more false now than it will be after it properly says MyName as opposed to BirthName. BirthName doesn't exist. While I had that name for sixteen years, it was never me. It's also presently completely useless because, hey, I'm not legally BirthName, so I can't use it for anything. At least not without my name change decree as well, and since that works as legal identification, what would the point be?
Though I do want to get it fixed, because I don't want to have to use the name change decree as my identification. It is no ones business but mine.
Not to say that there are no other reasons for changing your name. But the underlying one is mostly sexism.
I am aware of that.
But there is a difference between saying "mostly sexism" (which is a charge I would not disagree with based on my anecdotal experience with the world) and "always sexist" (which was the charge leveled by the author, as I understand her words).
I felt like I made my position on this clear in both the thread and the OP. May I ask, did I not?
Re: Telemarketers,
When I married, I went from First Middle Last to First Middle Last Husband. We have noticed that unsolicited mail often comes addressed to First Middle Lasthusband. Just like that, run together with the second name in lowercase letters.
Those mailers go directly into the trash.
"But if you do [take a man's last name], be honest about it. Don't say it's because it's tradition or because you don't like your last name. As Amanda noted, just be honest that it's sexist".
I keep thinking about this phrasing and I find it endlessly confusing. The tradition is based in sexism; that's why it exists to begin with. I'm not sure what distinction the author is trying to draw here. 'I'm changing my name, not because a sexist culture has indoctrinated me with the idea that it is appropriate for me to take my husband's name, but because I wish to take an active role in my own subjugation'? I'm sure someone out there thinks like that, but is Valenti trying to make a case that everyone who values the (sexist) tradition is honestly buying into and seeking to support the notion that they are secondary to their husband?
Here is the full quote, if it helps:
So... what to do?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again—keep your last name! Or choose a new one. Or hyphenate. I just don’t see any reason to do otherwise. That’s not to say I think you’re a bad feminist if you do choose to take a man’s last name. But if you do, be honest about it. Don’t say it’s because it’s tradition or because you don’t like your last name. As Amanda noted, just be honest that it’s sexist: “So are high heels and I wear those. Hell, I wear those despite the complaints of boyfriends in the past who preferred displays of female subservience that didn’t slow down how fast we could walk. We’re all guilty, so that’s not the issue. The issue is the amount of effort put into pretending that the name change isn’t sexist.” Word.
Amanda Marcotte was also the person alluded to up-thread who talked about the appropriate way to frame a certain sexual practice:
But on the subject of whether one is a Bad Feminist if you like someone ejaculating in your face, my opinion is close to Amanda Hess’s: No, of course not. I’d even go a step further than Amanda and say that it’s not really a compromise with the patriarchy if you do it like getting married is. Sex is a wild and woolly thing, and I don’t blame anyone who has integrated sexual shaming into their libido and really gets off on being degraded and shamed. If that’s your thing, go with Jesus. Seriously. Get off how you want. I’m glad you’re having fun. But for the love of god, please quit constructing self-serving arguments where you both get to get off on being demeaned while denying that’s what it is. This sort of thing has ramifications for people that aren’t interested in being demeaned and don’t find it fun.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2009/08/25/pandagon-if_its_so_great_we_can_be_honest_about_it/
In my personal opinion, it's one thing to say, "I, Ana Mardoll, took my Husband's name for reasons that were fundamentally sexist -- for example, I didn't want to deal with the hassle of constantly correcting people." I believe it's another thing to imply that women who say they took their husband's names because they didn't like their old last name are therefore being dishonest.
I'm not sure that Valenti meant to imply that -- possibly I'm reading her incorrectly -- but it sounded that way to me. Certainly, the "we're all guilty" quote from Marcotte was a little irksome because, again, it's one thing for ME to claim guilt for X, it's another thing for me to imply that ALL women are guilty for X. I strongly dislike blanket statements.
Wow, I'm really uncomfortable with all of that. It makes me want to pull out a giant neon sign that says: "You do not know what's going on in other people's heads. Pretending you do is an asshatty thing to do."
No one could like having their face ejaculated on for any reason other than having "integrated sexual shaming into their libido" and "get[ting] off on being degraded and shamed"? I'm a frickin' virgin and I'm calling bullshit on that.
No one could like high heels for reasons that do not map tidily onto sexism? Really? Then why in frack does Amanda Marcotte wear them? To embrace the sexism? I highly doubt it.
No one could have reasons for changing their name that aren't sexism made me do it? REALLY?
Marriage is inherently sexist? What the what? (Originally, sure. Traditionally, even. But to claim that getting married period is inherently a compromise with the patriarchy? Whut. And where does that leave same sex marriage, exactly?)
There is a HUGE difference between acknowledging that in general/historically/originally/whatever something is sexist or part of the patriarchy or whatever and stating that it flat out is and always will be. In every instance ever. I'm feeling not so comfortable with this version of feminism. It seems way too judgmental of other people in a way that does not seem good. (And seems likely to run into very bad cases of failing at intersectionality.)
That's where I am, too. There's a vast gulf between "all" and "many" or "most".
Yeah, the beef she has with marriage is always been the one thing I've parted ways with her.
The thing I'm sure she realizes is that if her stance on marriage is true, than as a corollary homophobes objections to gay marriage are also true.
Amanda's central argument is that marriage is so hopelessly patriarchal in nature and foundation that it remains sexist no matter the intent of the parties involved. If that is indeed the case, then same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.
As the homophobe's "clever" taunt goes, who's the wife?
I don't particularly like my last name either; I'd have seriously considered changing it if I'd married a man with a last name I liked. (Which probably would have irritated my die-hard Second Wave Feminist mother no end.) But I wound up marrying a man with a last name I like even less than my own. (And no, I'm not doing the hyphenation thing - I find it clunky in the best of circumstances. Hyphenation of two names I don't like is RIGHT OUT.)
On the broader issue - occasionally, an instance of ingrained societal sexism gives some women a minor advantage in something. Are they "internalizing sexism" or some such if they choose to take that advantage?
Well, the problem with "x is a feminist act depending on why you do it" is that, overall, I can't see why Jane changed her name and Margaret didn't, so overall, one is feeding into the patriarchy (in the sense that it continues to support the idea that women do and should change their names, that a woman's last name isn't hers but a man's is, etc), and one isn't, whatever your actual reasons are for doing so. Again, I want to be clear that I am not saying this in judgement of people who do change their names: I do all sorts of things that feed into the patriarchy, for all sorts of reasons, good or bad or indifferent. We're all human. Changing your name is just one act in a complicated life, and nothing can be summed up by one action.
And I do see comments like "Well, I'm a feminist and I chose to change my name when I got married and therefore it is a feminist act because I chose" -- not here, but in general -- which is essentially saying that anything people who claim to be feminists do is a feminist choice, which dilutes feminism down to meaninglessness.
Amanda Marcotte is not a great example of feminist writing, imo. She's got huge racism and classism blinders. (So does Jessica Valenti, for that matter, but I think she's more willing to listen to criticism.)
"There are also vastly greater pressures on men to not change their names, because that's Something Girls Do."
Yeah, my mother's step-brother (my step-uncle?) changed his name to his wife's when he married, and I remember that his mother - my lovely, feminist grandmother who had divorced her first husband, my step-uncle's father, because he was a sexist asshole - was upset about it. It may have had something to do with her not liking his wife much, but I think there was some societal "men don't change their names, that's for women" stuff going on there.
"I would say that not changing your name on marriage is only a feminist act if you do so for feminist reasons."
Thank you. My mother didn't change her name because to her, the name change represented a sexist institution based around who "owned" a woman, and she didn't feel that her husband owned her, thankyouverymuch, so she was keeping her name. For her, keeping her name was a feminist act. It may not be for everyone, but for my mother it was.
(I don't mean to imply that she (or I) think that a name change means that for everyone; that's just what it meant to her.)
You know, things seem to have improved, because I didn't change my name when I got married, and just moved from Indiana and I only had one instance of people being skeptical about my marital status. We went to get season tickets for football and wanted to get the spouse of student discount for me and were told we would need to prove we were married (this was clearly because we had different last names). So we asked what documentation we would need (with somewhat sarcastic references to our marriage license) and were told that a bill in both our names would suffice. When we came back later with the bill, the person (a different one) looked at it and said "well, this just proves you live together." I said, rather aggressively, that the last person had said it would fine, and the person sold us the tickets, but we left fuming. What really pissed me off was that it was clear that it was the different last name that was the problem. I don't actually mind if they had a policy saying that you need to bring proof of marital status to get the discount, but they obviously normally took people at their word and were unwilling to do so for us because I didn't change my name.
Still, in 6 years in Indiana, that's the only time we got pushback on the name issue, so I guess things are getting better? Or maybe we were just lucky.
Ahh, that makes far more sense. Yes, unfortunately, it's probably impossible to exist without doing some things that in some way or from some point of view feed into the patriarchy (and other such systems). Because of that, I'm really uncomfortable with the sort of labeling the book engages in. Saying something on the order of "If you do take your husband's name - for whatever reason - it has the unfortunate effect of feeding into the patriarchy" is not pulling out the magic mind reading powers that the book seems to be. The practice is sexist (historically, traditionally, and still), but labeling the act of doing so as intrinsically sexist seems to be placing a judgement that can't be made. (And could be applied to so many things. If we label every act and choice that could be seen as feeding into the patriarchy as intrinsically sexist, doesn't that go to very bad places?)
I don't know, I just feel like labeling personal choices is different than, say, calling out the use of sexist tropes (even accidentally) in someone's fiction. That doesn't mean that the practices in generally shouldn't be called out, just that it's one thing to say "culturally, wearing makeup is sexist" and another to say that "Susie's choice to wear makeup is sexist." I think it's the implication that the best feminist will do the smallest number of patriarchy supporting things, which seems to end up with feminism = dumping all things traditionally female. That's... not good.
Technically, at the library I work at (in Colorado), we're only supposed to let people pick up books on hold for people with the same last name as theirs, but that has problems out the wazoo, so I go with whether the address matches. (And, frankly, I think there's more chance of someone kiping a hold for someone who happens to share their common last name than there is of housemates not really supposed to be picking up the hold.)
I think we're generally in agreement, dezipan. I was not agreeing with the book -- I have no particular opinion about why any particular person might have chosen to change their name. But no matter how feminist the reasons are, they're internal. They matter, but so does the effect, which is to prop up the patriarchy a tiny little bit, and make it a tiny little bit harder for other women not to change their names. Now, again: I do all sorts of things that prop up the patriarchy and make it harder for other people not to do so. I shave my lower legs. I shave my underarms. I often try to look attractive in a way that this society mostly approves of. And, though changing one's name is a fairly long-term decision, I make these choices day after day. (Well, with the shaving, more fortnight after fortnight.)
Are these actions sexist? I don't know. I think sexist is the wrong word, but the idea of what that is trying to get across -- that actions can prop up or pull down the patriarchy, in tiny tiny little amounts -- is correct. The problem with the idea of "best feminist" is that it turns it into a scale or a contest instead of mutually reinforcing work at making the world more equal.
And I agree that when we mark "being a woman doing traditionally female things" as "supporting the patriarchy", we get into all sorts of trouble. Because really, there's nothing a priori morally problematic about changing one's name on marriage, or shaving, or wearing high heels, or etc etc, it's only in the context of a sexist society where women, and only women, feel pressure to do these things where doing them gets that kind of weight.
So it's a complex issue. I don't condemn people for doing things, but at the same time people aren't making neutral choices in a vacuum.
I felt like I made my position on this clear in both the thread and the OP. May I ask, did I not?
I was responding specifically with detailed example to the sentence I quoted.
Someone pointed out that men tend not to change their names, though the non-sexist set of reasons for name-change applies to both women and to men. A couple of people responded, arguing that it's legally more difficult/more expensive for a man to change his surname than for a woman to change hers - in most of the US.
I thought, hey, I have an example from my own country which proves it's not the legal difficulties/expense that hold men back from changing their surnames and ensure that women change theirs.
So I cited it. With some (I felt) interesting detail about how historically in Scotland women didn't change their surname on marriage. (Which may have been clan-orientated, at least in parts of Scotland, because a woman would remain part of her own clan even though she married a man of another clan.)
Re. Telemarketers,. I don;t use my first name: I go by second name/surname. Also, even if I were married, I would not use Mrs Surname. Anyone calls me wanting to speak to firstname surname, or Mrs Surname, they're a telemarketer.
Will: but is Valenti trying to make a case that everyone who values the (sexist) tradition is honestly buying into and seeking to support the notion that they are secondary to their husband?
Well, I think feminists are aware that a woman who changes her surname to her husband's is being part of the sexism culture that says a woman is secondary to her husband (especially if she identifies her surname as "her father's surname"). That obviously doesn't mean everyone who does it is "buying into it" or seeking to support it. But in the generic way of things, their actions are supporting that trope, even though it is most likely very much against their will to do so.
And I agree that when we mark "being a woman doing traditionally female things" as "supporting the patriarchy", we get into all sorts of trouble. Because really, there's nothing a priori morally problematic about changing one's name on marriage, or shaving, or wearing high heels, or etc etc, it's only in the context of a sexist society where women, and only women, feel pressure to do these things where doing them gets that kind of weight.
Yes.
Amanda's central argument is that marriage is so hopelessly patriarchal in nature and foundation that it remains sexist no matter the intent of the parties involved. If that is indeed the case, then same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.
Indeed. Same-sex marriage will destroy the patriarchy, the homophobes are right!
Unfortunately, it's going to take a while...
(1. Buy milk.
2. Go to gym.
3. Destroy the patriarchy.
4. Tweet about it!)
And I agree that when we mark "being a woman doing traditionally female things" as "supporting the patriarchy", we get into all sorts of trouble.
The example that came into my mind this morning was wearing a skirt. Does a woman choosing to wear a skirt prop up traditional gender images and this prop or the patriarchy? Yes, definitely. And unlike a name change it broadcasts that to anyone who happens to get a glance at her providing a visual example of how the patriarchy says women should look to the world for so long as the choice should endure.
Does that mean that a woman who wears a skirt is doing it because sexism? Is it supporting the patriarchy in any way worthy of the term without a footnote to the effect that unless one is willing to completely obliterate any hope of ever following through on their own wants and desires they will, technically, be supporting the patriarchy so applying the term like this is almost meaningless? I don't really think so. I think we come down with a case of not enough information.
To treat it any other way leaves me with a question of, "What about the women who like wearing skirts?" Somehow I don't see someone saying that you can only do it if you "Just be honest that it's sexist," as doing anything but trying to control how women act to further their own personal agenda, and if we're talking about things that prop up the patriarchy, treating the actions of women as yours to control has to fall way above changing your name in the lists of acts that support it.
Because the message is still, "You don't matter, your claims about what you think and feel and believe and experience don't matter, all that matters is the larger society and how it views you," and that is the foundation on which the patriarchy is built. I don't see tearing out, or rather trying to tear out, some of the smaller elements by reenforcing the foundation as a great blow against the patriarchy, and I don't see telling women, 'Ok, you can do that, so long as you're honest and admit that you're a dirty rotten sexist,' as being the best form of feminism.
Which is, more or less, just echoing what everyone else here has been saying.
But Chris, there are actually practical reasons for wearing skirts. It's way cooler in hot weather to wear a light skirt than a pair of trousers. A hiker friend notes that wearing a long skirt makes peeing on the trail a piece of p*ss, literally (she just squats down). I'm sure there are others, I'm just a habitual trousers-wearer most of the time (hot weather is my "Woo, skirts!" moment).
Plus there are specific design attractions to any item of clothing. That red skirt, that blue shirt, that pair of black jeans, etc.
While there are reasons why someone might want to change their own surname independently of "well, you're a woman, you have your father's surname and it gets changed to your husband's surname when you marry" that assumption is the real message: "You don't matter, your claims about what you think and feel and believe and experience don't matter, all that matters is the larger society and how it views you."
That's how girls get taught their surnames aren't theirs.
Somehow I don't see someone saying that you can only do it if you "Just be honest that it's sexist," as doing anything but trying to control how women act to further their own personal agenda
I think i missed where Jessica Valenti is Queen of the States and has power to control what anyone does. Do you feel she should have written a more passive, less active sentence?
Do you feel she should have written a more passive, less active sentence?
No, I feel she should have written a sentence that didn't tell other people what they were really thinking. The claim that anything other than agreeing with her is not being honest is an accusation of lying, furthermore the claim that she's telling people to make is one of shame. "It's ok if you do this thing provided that you shame yourself first," is a nasty thing to say to others indeed. Particularly people who are already part of a class that has millennia of privilege working against them.
People's reasons for what they do matter. They are not magic, but they matter. Whether they choose to make them public or not is up to them. Telling them that if they state any reason other than your own chosen reason they're not being honest is claiming to know their mind and calling them either liars or deluded. Telling them that the only acceptable answer is the one that you want them to give is not cool given that there are so many possible reasons here.
Consider my sister, who wanted to be rid of our last name for reasons I'm not entirely sure of but were in part due to what she perceived as teasing as a child. She wanted it gone. I don't think it had to do with our father, she's never indicated that it did, but since we're talking patriarchy lets bring the emotionally abusive father into this. Much of the abuse centered around almost always false accusations of lying.
Here we have a false accusation of lying leveled against her and everyone who shares reasons with her.
The only purpose I can see it serving is shaming. And one doesn't need to have institutional power to engage in shaming. Quite a lot of the use of shaming is by people who don't have such power. Children do it in schools, they're not Emperor Norton and it doesn't matter, because one doesn't need to have power over the states to use shaming as a weapon against those who make choices they disapprove of. Anyone can engage in shaming to try to control the behavior of others, all they need is a voice. Or a book deal.
It helps, of course, if it's not just one voice. If you can say, "Look it's not just me, published author multiple times over in books magazines, newspapers and blogs, I'm just quoting this other blogger and book author, who even worked for a presidential campaign," that sort of thing tends to make it more effective because the addition of voices adds weight to the shaming, and the variety of media adds volume.
/Random Derail on Statistics and Numerous Causes to a Single Effect
It seems like I was unclear, so hopefully I can clarify my position.
Nathaniel (as I understood him) asked for reasons (note: multiple) why more men don't change their names. I provided one reason besides the obvious Because Sexism one: the fact that in the culture under discussion (Valenti is American, and her book is written with American laws and statistics in mind), there are significant legal hurdles to men changing their names. This reason does prevent some men who *want* to change their names from doing so. (Some of those men have even been mentioned already in this thread.) This prevention ultimately contributes, however minutely, to the bottom-line statistic of Men Not Changing Their Names.
Your response was to say "Nope." And then to provide statistics for an entirely different country which you say "proves" that legal hurdles don't contribute to the cause of men not changing their names. Setting aside for the moment that that's not how statistics work -- your data is valid and interesting, but it's (a) from an entirely different country, and (more germane to the issue here) (b) it simply cannot "prove" that legal hurdles don't contribute to the bottom-line, it can only prove that in the absence of legal hurdles, we don't suddenly achieve name changing parity in a different country, and (c) once again it's worth repeating that statistics tell us WHAT, but they do not tell us WHY -- your "nope" seemed to indicate that there had been a miscommunication in the sense that you seemed to think your data refuted something I had said.
I was contributing the comment above in support of a nuanced point of view, in this case that there is more going on in Men Not Changing Names than merely Because Sexist. That doesn't mean that I think there are no sexist men or that no men act in a sexist manner. It means that I think there are numerous causes that feed into the ultimate effect being observed. So, respectfully, I disagree that your data "proves" that "it's not the legal difficulties/expense that hold [some] men" back from changing their names. I do agree that it's not the legal hurdles that hold all men back from changing their names, but I don't understand how I apparently created the impression that I thought that in the first place.
Moderator Notice
I think i missed where Jessica Valenti is Queen of the States and has power to control what anyone does. Do you feel she should have written a more passive, less active sentence?
Alright, halt. Here is a spoon.
Pulling out heavy snark with someone who is engaging in perfectly good faith as far as I can tell and with an entirely different commenter is beyond what I'm in the mood for this morning. Chris' issues as expressed with what Valenti said are issues that have been echoed multiple times in this thread AND in the OP. If you want to pull out heavy snark in response to the opinion that Valenti was apparently telling women how they should frame things, you can -- next time -- direct it at me, and not whoever happens to be online and in the thread at the moment.
EdinburghEye, tone it down or leave the thread, please. You're rapidly getting on my tits with your combative debate style, and since this is my board and I have to read all the comments before my morning coffee, my tits are what matter right now.
I think i missed where Jessica Valenti is Queen of the States and has power to control what anyone does. Do you feel she should have written a more passive, less active sentence?
And replying more substantially to the question, for the benefit of the viewers at home:
Yes.
Because that is why we say that Words Matter and Intent Is Not Magic.
Part of my feminism is taking *very* great care to express myself in a way that conveys my opinions without implying that I'm casting blame on other people for thinking or choosing differently. It's not uncommon for me to spend minutes or even hours on a single sentence in an attempt to convey my point clearly without accidentally causing harm.
That may not be Valenti's feminism, or she may have made a simple mistake, or I may have grievously misinterpreted her. All of these things are possible, and more. But the idea that we should express ourselves with care is not something that I'm particularly open to having mocked. Not here of all places.
If Valenti had said:
That’s not to say I think you’re a bad feminist if you do choose to take a man’s last name. But if you do, and if you do so because of institutionalized sexism, my advice would be to be honest about it. Don’t say it’s because it’s tradition or because you don’t like your last name if that's really not why you made your choice. As Amanda noted, just be honest that it’s sexist
... then we would not even be having this conversation, because I would not have called out the quote in the OP. So, yes, words matter, and yes, there's nothing wrong with a reader asking a published author to please be more clear about what zie is trying to communicate to hir readers in order to mitigate confusion.
Okay. I'm sorry: this is clearly not a good thread for me to be on. I apologise for getting on your tits, Ana. *takes spoon*
Thank you.
(And in case everyone has missed the comment policy update, spoons are no longer additive in the sense that X spoons equal a ban or anything like that. It's just my way of saying, for whatever reason, I can't handle what is going on at the moment and folks need to recalibrate.)
And, again, thank you.
I'm off to get coffee and a shower, everyone. MORE UPDATES TO FOLLOW.
Wow, that seems ripe for abuse. I mean, I have a really common last name. I could walk out with all kinds of books not on hold for me in a situation like that (and have a strong chance of someone else walking with my book). I mean, surely people don't regularly skim the hold shelf for books to steal, but still...if you are going to have a policy on it, surely it could at least make sense!
At the pharmacies in our area, all we have to do is walk up to the counter and say "I have a prescription waiting for Lastname", and the techs always get it for you without asking for any ID whatsoever. My mother, my husband, and my father have all picked up medication for me in the past without any problems, from multiple pharmacies.
I recognize that a lot of this is privilege (straight, white, local, cis, and probably others), but it BOGGLES MY MIND that it's so easy to get prescription meds. And keep in mind that some of my meds are so restricted that they keep them in the pharmacy safe.
the sex act, not the spa treatment
I enjoy this parenthetical.
Changing your name because shitty parent isn't that uncommon. A prominent guy example I can think of is Jon Stewart, though I don't know if he did it legally. And then people are all, "You really did because you wanted a stage name that wasn't too Jewish." Which...some things are complicated, but you don't get to tell people their reasons.
On high heels: I know a transwoman who wears high heels because they relieve her back pain. At least that's what she told me.
My mom took my dad's surname. It's amusing because both of them are/were MDs. My mom's work related mail was always addressed to Dr. Momsfirstname. Up until I started applying for college, her non-work related mail, including family correspondence was addressed to Mrs. Momsfirstname or Dadsfirstname depending on context. When I was applying for college, Bryn Mawr addressed correspondence to my parents as "Drs. Momsfirstname and Dadsfirstname." AFAIK, they're the only ones who did that although they're not the only women's college I applied to. I don't recall Smith doing that, and I'd be really surprised if the co-ed schools I applied to did.
This is a really insightful comment, Ana. I went through a little evolution of my own opinion on name changing that is sort of a microcosm of this. At first, I was bothered by other women changing their names for any reason, then I marked off some reasons as "acceptable" with the corollary of course that some reasons are not acceptable. Then I finally realized that part of what bothered me about other women changing their names was that it made me feel defensive about not changing mine, like I was being judged. And I had this sudden aha moment of realizing I felt that way because that was exactly what I was doing to them! So I've finally come around to the idea that I don't judge other women for their name choices because I don't want to be judged for my choice. Or in other words, "[I'm not in] feminism for the business of judging women." Thanks for putting it so well, Ana.
TW: Fat Acceptance
Thank you. Credit for this particular idea must go to Kate Harding and Marianne Kirby from their book "Lessons From The Fat-O-Sphere" on their chapter "Stop Judging Women":
Stop Judging Other Women
Her roots are three inches long. Her gut makes her look pregnant. Her ass has its own ZIP code. Who told her that top goes with that skirt? She is SO much fatter than I am.
It’s like a litany in our heads whenever we’re out in public, surrounded by other women, or even just watching them on TV: a constant stream of judgment that assigns ranks to every woman we see, as though we’ll be lost unless we know our place. At some point in your adult life, you’ve probably walked into a party and felt a frisson of relief upon discovering at least one woman there who was fatter, uglier, and/or dressed more inappropriately than you. We sure have. But if you want to have any hope of making peace with your own body, you need to knock that shit off.
We’re not even telling you to stop just because it’s nasty, petty, and beneath you to judge other women so harshly; it is, but you’re not a saint, and neither are we. We’re telling you to stop because it’s actually in your own self-interest to stop being such a bitch. ’Cause you know what happens when you quit saying that crap about other women? You magically stop saying it about yourself so much, too.
Judging other women negatively creates a constant stream of nasty thoughts in your head. It is inevitable that you will end up applying those same standards to yourself. We think we’re building ourselves up when we do this but, really, we’re just tearing other people down to our level. And we hate to go all Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood on you, but tearing other people down isn’t really productive. It leaves you in the same place you started, which is full of loathing for your own body.
The context, of course, is fat acceptance, but I think it applies also to self acceptance in general. Once we start making allowances for others ("I don't know her situation, probably she's doing the best she can with the tools she has") then I feel like it's easier to do the same for ourselves. Which is... back to front? But it works for me.
I strongly dislike blanket statements, as well as statements that smell and look blankety.
Mmmm, soft, blanket...
By which I mean, yes, THIS.
I don't have much to add, other than, like depizan, my library system allows for checkout to spouses and family members, which is "easiest" when the names all match up... and then there are the kids who have parents living in separate houses, and it only gets more complex from there. So there are definitely advantages other than sexism to making the names line up...
Another problem with Valenti's statement occurs to me - one that's been kind of brought up tangentally, but not directly: it puts all of the pressure (and the shaming) on the woman. A man who keeps his name is just as guilty of propping up the patriarchy.
There's also the small matter that it doesn't matter if she takes his name, he takes her name, or they pick a new name, Mr. and Ms. Smith will still appear to be propping up the patriarchy. Even Mr. Smith and Ms. Jones could as easily be two people who opted to live together without marriage. (Which, granted, is defying the patriarchy in a different way.) So people's decisions regarding names and marriage mostly only chip away at the patriarchy for people who know them well. (Though, obviously, doing something different does make it a little easier for others to follow suit. I doubt the SSA would pull what it did with my mom now. At least, I hope they wouldn't.)
it puts all of the pressure (and the shaming) on the woman. A man who keeps his name is just as guilty of propping up the patriarchy.
Yes. Excellent point.
...I think I was awesomely lucky to be raised by a mother whose default attitude to that kind of questioning was "None of your damn business".
Thank you.
Thank you. I appreciate how very clear you've been about your expectations of behaviour and what you want us to do when handed a spoon, and why. It really helps. You're an excellent moderator and a star blogger. If my blog ever gets to be as busy as yours, I hope I handle difficult commenters as neatly and as well as you do yours.
And I'm sorry again for getting on your tits. Will try not to let it happen again.
Post a Comment