We all want it over, yesterday
Barbara Kingsolver pulls no punches:
Patriarchy persists because power does not willingly cede its clout; and also, frankly, because women are widely complicit in the assumption that we’re separate and not quite equal. If we’re woke, we inspect ourselves and others for implicit racial bias, while mostly failing to recognise explicit gender bias, which still runs rampant. Religious faiths that subordinate women flourish on every continent. Nearly every American educational institution pours the lion’s share of its athletics budget into the one sport that still excludes women – American football.
Most progressives wouldn’t hesitate to attend a football game, or to praise the enlightened new pope – the one who says he’s sorry, but women still can’t lead his church, or control our reproduction.
[waves madly] I would! I’ve written a lot about what’s wrong with American football (and I wouldn’t go near a game), and even more about how loathsome the pope’s church is.
In heterosexual weddings, religious or secular, the patriarch routinely “gives” his daughter to the groom, after which she’s presented to the audience as “Mrs New Patriarch,” to joyous applause. We have other options, of course: I kept my name in marriage and gave it to my daughters. But most modern brides still embrace the ritual erasure of their identities, taking the legal name of a new male head of household, as enslaved people used to do when they came to a new plantation owner.
I can already hear the outcry against conflating traditional marriage with slavery. Yes, I know, the marital bargain has changed: women are no longer chattels. Tell me this giving-away and name-changing are just vestiges of a cherished tradition. I’ll reply that some of my neighbours here in the south still fly the Confederate flag – not with hate, they insist, but to honour a proud tradition. In either case, a tradition in which people legally control other people doesn’t strike me as worth celebrating, even symbolically.
If any contract between men required the non-white one to adopt the legal identity of his Caucasian companion, would we pop the champagne? If any sport wholly excluded people of colour, would it fill stadiums throughout the land? Would we attend a church whose sacred texts consign Latinos to inferior roles? What about galas where black and Asian participants must wear painful shoes and clothes that reveal lots of titillating, well-toned flesh while white people turn up comfortably covered?
That’s a lot of punches not pulled. [cheers]
Years ago, as a college student, I spent a semester abroad in a beautiful, historic city where the two sentences I heard most in English, usually conjoined, were “You want to go for coffee?” and “You want to have sex with me, baby?” I lived near a huge public garden where I wished I could walk or study, but couldn’t, without being followed, threatened and subjected to jarring revelations of some creep’s penis among the foliages. My experiment in worldliness had me trapped, fuming, in a tiny apartment.
Oh yeah. We were just talking about that the other day.
She solved the problem by pretending to be pregnant, and it worked but of course it was annoying to have to wear a pillow in order to go out unmolested.
Let’s be clear: no woman asks to live in a rape culture: we all want it over, yesterday. Mixed signals about female autonomy won’t help bring it down, and neither will asking nicely. Nothing changes until truly powerful offenders start to fall. Feminine instincts for sweetness and apology have no skin in this game. It’s really not possible to overreact to uncountable, consecutive days of being humiliated by men who say our experience isn’t real, or that we like it actually, or are cute when we’re mad. Anger has to go somewhere – if not out then inward, in a psychic thermodynamics that can turn a nation of women into pressure cookers. Watching the election of a predator-in-chief seems to have popped the lid off the can. We’ve found a voice, and now is a good time to use it, in a tone that will not be mistaken for flirtation.
Beautiful.
Yes, just read the whole thing. A lot of nails are driven effortlessly in.
I was very uncomfortable when Mrs Latsot chose to take the (admittedly venerable) Latsot name when we got married. It was her choice, but it kind of creeped me out. She uses her original name for work, I still have no clear idea why she wanted a new one on her bank statements. I especially don’t know why she’d want to be associated with my family. I’d have been happy to adopt her name for that reason alone.
latsot, I chose to take my husband’s name, as well, not from any patriarchal sense, but because I came from a dysfunctional family who didn’t really like me much, spent much of my life abusing me, and giving me all kinds of crap, including a family member (not my father) who raped me. So I was carrying around the name of the man who raped me.
My husband’s family was decent. They loved me and respected me. They welcomed me completely, and claimed me as a daughter immediately. There was nothing but kindness and pride on their side.
My husband and I discussed the issue of names, and even a combination name, but in the end, my decision was to join his family. Not as property of my husband, but as a coequal member of a family that wanted me.
I understand the arguments over names, but as Kingsolver indicated, you are already carrying around a name of the person who “owns” you – a man’s name that is given to you so people can identify your master. We have come a long way from that period, but I didn’t find having that name particularly comfortable nor feminist. I toyed briefly with making up my own name, but instead, I chose to defy the statement that claims you can’t choose your own family.
I do not claim this as a feminist decision, but I also do not feel that other feminists should give me crap for it (and yes, I get crap for this). Women have reasons for changing their name, and there are times when that all out caveat of “don’t take your husband’s name” may not work. And most of the time the women crapping on me are women who have no problem with make up, high heels, or other trappings of the patriarchy.
Watching the election of a predator-in-chief seems to have popped the lid off the can. We’ve found a voice, and now is a good time to use it, in a tone that will not be mistaken for flirtation.
Hmm… sounds to me as though she wants the entire women’s movment to behave as though it were but a domestic ‘ministry’ of the Democratic Party. That wouldn’t/hasn’t be good for women at all.
Patriarchy persists mainly because women willingly do each other in…like in ‘revolutionary’ Iran in the late 70s…patriarchy’s most successful resurgence.
I can remember a certain progressive feminist back in 2008 suggesting that the female republican candidate for vice-prez at the time be taken up to Harlem and gang-raped by Blacks. That line was spoken in front of an audience composed of inveterate liberals almost all of whom burst into laughter upon hearing it. The candidate was ‘uppity’ and running for the wrong party, and so was subjected, as it were, to threats of forced veiling.
American feminism, much like its canadian counterpart, has utterly failed to hoist itself above and beyond parochial partisan issues. In America, the whole movement is geared, and most dishonestly, to furthering the fortunes of The Democratic Party…and not much else.
That,s why absolutely nothing was done 25 years ago about America’s then paramount “Predator-in-Chief”, Bill Clinton.
Shitloads of women are keenly aware of this …uh…glitch…and want nothing to do with it.
Oh really?
I googled “who said sarah palin should be gang raped harlem” and what do you suppose appeared? A long string of crazed-right sources like the Daily Caller and Breitbart, and zero respectable newspapers.
The woman who said it is Azealia Banks. She’s a rapper. She’s not known for being a “progressive feminist.”
There was no “audience composed of inveterate liberals almost all of whom burst into laughter upon hearing it.”
That’s a complete fabrication that issues from your venomous hatred of your own Breitbartesque fantasy version of “the left.” Banks said what she said on Twitter, so nobody heard it so nobody “burst into laughter upon hearing it.”
Wikipedia on what happened:
I don’t think you’ll be commenting here any more.
I didn’t take my husband’s name when we married and although there were career reasons why it made sense, the truth was I wouldn’t have taken his name in any event. Yeah, I carry my father’s name instead but my Dad’s awesome so that’s OK. I might have considered taking my mother’s maiden name instead, especially since it’s rare and dying out, but I’m lazy and changing your name is a pain in the rear.
It causes no end of confusion. My husband is regularly referred to with my surname (which he bears with good grace and some humor). More irritating is the fact that many people assume that Dr MyName is him and not me, although I’ll admit he enjoys putting them straight about that. I’ve actually had people challenge me on whether we are actually married, even going so far as to insist that it is a legal requirement to take your husband’s name. I tell them to name the statute that says this or go away and stop bothering me. :-D
Lovely article by Barbara Kingsolver. Thanks for sharing.
@2 iknklast,
If this is an argument that keeping one’s name and taking one’s husband’s name are equally feminist decisions, then it’s a bad argument. My husband and I both kept the names we were given at birth. That’s equal. If I had taken his name and he had kept the name he was given at birth, that would not have been equal.
Cressida – it is nothing of the sort, and I think reading the entirety of my comment should have made that clear. My problem is more about carrying around a name that is swathed in pain and loathing. Had my family been like Claire’s apparently was, I would have kept the name.
So please, before you try to pretend that I am saying that taking one’s husband’s name is a feminist decision of any sort, read what I actually said. I do not claim that. I do think that we should rethink the idea of keeping our father’s name, though if you are great with that because your family was great and you loved being part of it, then sure. But if a woman needs…and I do mean needs in many cases…to change her name because her name is too difficult to carry around, then for Christ’s sake, people should stop flagellating her (metaphorically, of course).
And I believe you and I have had this discussion here before, and I do not believe you will ever understand my point, because you did not then. And you will not now. Because changing one’s name has become a symbol of anti-feminism and patriarchy to the extent that a woman cannot do it without everyone piling on.
To summarize my argument: We believe a woman should not have to carry her rapist’s baby, to remind her every single day, every single minute, of the pain and torture she went through. Why in hell would we continue to berate a woman for not wanting to carry her rapist’s last name? And for choosing to join a family that wanted her after years of cold anger (partially because said woman is a feminist, and therefore an embarrassment to the abusive, angry family)? I upset people because I refuse to show “proper” shame for changing my name. Well, fine. They can just be upset. But I speak out because I imagine there are other women besides myself who have been in a similar situation, made a similar decision, and have been made to feel wrong and guilty about doing what they needed for their own dignity and self preservation.
My point is that it’s a red herring, in discussing women taking their husband’s name, to bring up the fact that most women have their father’s last name.
It’s not, though. That’s always been an issue. It’s fathers’ names as far back as we can see. Yes, of course saying “same name from birth” is one answer, but it’s not a conclusive or final answer. It never has been.
How is it a red herring? A ‘family name’, the name a child has bestowed upon them at birth, is (almost invariably; I am open to correction) the name of the male line; the name which erased the family names of all previous generations of foremothers. Every female ancestor gave up her father’s name to take her husband’s name, every child was given the father’s name, not the mother’s. The law in each country makes it easy for a woman to change her name on marriage; not so easy in other circumstances.
So a woman has two options: keep her father’s name or take her husband’s, which was his father’s name (and his paternal grandfather’s, and so on), neither of which is any more ‘feminist’ than the other. It is part of the same patriarchal system. Criticising a woman for taking her husband’s surname is as unfeminist as criticising her for keeping her father’s name. When the law makes it simple for any person to choose their own surname (for non-fraudulent purposes), and men are as commonly changing their name on marriage as women have been, then it will be possible for a woman to have a real choice – until then, back off and accuse no woman of making the ‘wrong’ choice.
I know that patriarchy is the reason most women have their father’s last name. I don’t think that’s a good situation. But mentioning that fact during a discussion of women taking their husband’s last name elides the reality that the latter is a choice and the former is not.
No it doesn’t, not automatically, not merely mentioning it. It’s possible, no doubt, to invoke it in a silly way that ignores differences, but iknklast didn’t do that; her comment is all about differences and complications.
iknklast’s framing is exactly what I object to. She said, paraphrased (first sentence of her fourth paragraph), “I understand why some people think women shouldn’t change their name, BUT women ALREADY carry their father’s name.” The implication is that the position taken by women who think women shouldn’t change their name is undermined by the fact that those women have their father’s name. This framing is common and I think it’s unhelpful.
Cressida, you are misreading me. I am not saying that the idea that women shouldn’t change their name is undermined by that. It is merely a statement of fact that you have chosen to pick on and harp on, when my entire argument is much more complex than that. In short, you are committing a straw man.
The fact is, last names are a fact of ownership – for men, as well as women. That is why we have so many Johnsons and Robinsons and Andersons and so on. It typically passes through the male line. It erases the female, either way you go. It is about him, and who he owns. This is not a red herring; it is a 900-pound gorilla. But…you are still strawmanning me, because you continue to bash at that one particular statement and continue to accuse me of saying things I am not saying, because you are unable to get past that one statement.
You kept your last name, the one you were given at birth. You act as though I am saying there is something wrong with that. I AM NOT. I am merely noting that the whole damn last name thing is a product of the patriarchal culture, and the answer is not as simple as some prefer to make it…but I am mostly making the argument that chewing up and down on women for choosing to get rid of a last name that is repulsive because of the horrific circumstances under which this name was borne is not nice, not feminist, and counterproductive. You have chosen not to engage with this part of the discussion, and so I have decided that there is no reason to discuss this with you anymore. So please, just…let go already, can you? I have had enough being bashed and battered about this subject by every woman who considers herself superior to me because I made a choice that was feasible for my mental health, and join the family that wanted me.
If you wish to argue with me about it anymore, please engage with the body of my argument instead of continuing to beat on one thing that you, but no one else here, thinks is a red herring. If you have some reason to expound why a woman should maintain her last name in the situation I have described above, and care to expound that using logic and reason, then by all means do so. If all you can do is continue to pick on the fact of the birth name, then I have nothing further to say to you on the subject.
iknklast, I’m not interested in your argument or how you feel or what you intended. Nor am I here trying to convince anyone of anything. I’m saying one very specific thing.
You wrote (I’ll quote it this time):
My position is:
A reasonable person could read that sentence and might reasonably conclude that a reasonable position to hold is that feminists who bear their father’s name and believe that women shouldn’t take their husband’s name are hypocrites. I do not want people to think this is a reasonable position to hold. Therefore, I think you should not have written what you wrote.
That’s it. You can write another thousand words if you want, but you’re not going to change my mind.
I don’t think it’s very reasonable to think anyone was talking about hypocrisy.
I agree that no one who posted anything here was likely intentionally talking about hypocrisy. But that doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t read it that way. It wouldn’t require a great leap.
#17: Still reasonably resembles a strawman, I think.