Woman's "right" to have an abortion. I think the quotation marks tell you where I stand on this. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed in order to support women who are pregnant in difficult situations; however, I do not believe that it is right to ever purposefully take the life of a child.
Equal pay for equal work. Okay. I agree with this, who wouldn't? There are a lot of issues to consider here as well. For example, I don't know how great the disparity is right now, but would it make any difference to consider maternity leave? Would that close the gap at all?
A married woman's right to keep her name. This just doesn't seem like something that's really worth fighting over. I can't help but think there is a reaction here to a time where perhaps men did not acknowledge the personhood of their wives. Maybe? Did that happen? Otherwise, why would it be such a big deal? Personally, I'm a fan of my name and it is a large part of my identity. If I ever get married, I will miss it. However, I will gladly give it up. It is a way to unify us as a family.
Women's equal access to credit. Yeah, sure. Although maybe 2008 demonstrated a little too much access to credit all around, hmm?
No-fault divorce. Umm, in what way could this possibly advance the cause of women?
A lot of these things do not seem to me to help women at all. Especially abortion rights and no-fault divorce. It may give women more options, but it also gives men a greater chance to have other excuses out of their responsibilities.
Where do the rest of you fall on these issues?
I think it's absurd how feminism encapsulated profound issues of right or wrong: no-fault divorce, abortion, equal pay for equal work...and somehow managed to sandwich in trite issues of socially acceptable behaviors...as EFG later states on page 15, 'We delighted in small new opportunities: going out to dinner, ordering drinks, inviting single women to dinner parties...having one night a week to ourselves seemed almost radical.'
ReplyDeleteI just wonder if abortion and divorce would have had such a large initial following if the other "rights" weren't included...
That's a good point. If there wasn't a real need for parts of feminism, it wouldn't have gained such a following.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the trite issues are concerned, I, for one, am very glad that is is now socially acceptable to invite single women to dinner parties!
I think it's important to point out that the "fledgling feminists movement" shes discussing is in fact 2nd Wave feminism and not 1st Wave as many 1st Wave feminists did not support abortive rights and were mainly focused on the "equal contract and property" rights of a woman and an opposition of the idea that women were "property" of their fathers or husbands.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on all points except the question of names. Now that women have won the rights to be recognized as legal persons & conduct financial transactions, I do not think that it matters so much what an individual couple chooses to do about names. But the tradition of the woman assuming her husband’s name was directly related to the fact that without her husband’s consent she was not legally entitled to do anything from determining the best method of schooling for the children, to conducting a financial transaction; whereas the husband had full legal rights to act without his wife’s consent.
ReplyDeleteUS law was based off of Britain’s common law system and what I have always heard was that the idea was that “the married couple is legally one person, and that person is the husband.” What Blackstone actually said was:
"By marriage, the husband and the wife are one person in the law... the very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing (and) protection she performs everything."
And so it only made sense that women *had* to take their husband’s names because they had severely limited legal/economic rights apart from their husbands. So it was also important that women be free to keep their own names, as a recognition of the fact that they actually have an existence aside from being a subservient extension of their husbands.
So now you have the ability to “gladly give up” your name as you see it as an important way to unify your family. But no one is forcing you to take your husband’s name because his name is the only one valid for legal/business transactions. And I think that is great because it means that the meaning of you taking his name is positive rather than negative for you.
One quick note on the disparity of income between men and women; women still make 77 cents for every male dollar. And that's after you adjust for the fact that women are more likely to unskilled hourly wage labor, rather than skilled salaried work.
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to see how much we've accomplished. It'd be amazing to know what would have happened if the feminist movement had continued to focus on equal pay instead of turning NOW into an abortion rights party. We might even be making oh, say, 85 cents for every male dollar here in 2010.
Sorry for the sarcasm; it must be because of the 23 cents I lost today. ;)
I'm basically right with you on all these things, Monica. I think you really hit a good point in your last sentence: "[Abortion and no-fault divorce] may give women more options, but it also gives men a greater chance to have other excuses out of their responsibilities."
ReplyDeleteRae, thanks for the discussion on taking the husband's name. That was really helpful! I do think it's a positive thing.
My sister-in-law didn't end up taking my BIL's name, and that's been a little awkward. It's not that we think they'll get divorced or anything, but it just seems strange, almost like she's not quite part of the family. I think that some ppl do feel like they're just making things easier on themselves by not changing their names just in case they do divorce. I know two female professors (one who hyphenated and one who didn't take it at all) who've divorced, and the sentiment of "At least she didn't change her name" was voiced.
Sarah, thanks for the info on pay disparities. It makes me wonder if women really did make the same amount, do you think the near-necessity of dual-income families would be greater?
Elizabeth, it is very interesting to me that you feel as if your SIL is somewhat less a part of the family due to her not taking your BIL's name. Do you also feel that you are a bit less a part of your birth family since you took your husband's name? I am not being snarky, seriously just trying to understand.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons that Josh and I chose to go with a new name rather than me "taking" his name was because we do not see it as me joining his family any more than him joining my family. He even joked that according to Genesis, he was the one who was supposed to be "leaving father and mother" and joining me.
I have not known many women who kept their names, so I have not known any who got divorced. But I know so many women who have gone through 3+ last names that it really boggles my mind how they can see it as such an important "sign of unity" to take their new husband's name when it almost seems like (for their relationships) it is a band-aid for serious disunity!
Hey Rae, no worries on being snarky. I can't really explain it myself, because I don't feel any less a part of my family for changing my name, and I feel like my husband is fully a member of my family.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to my SIL, it's not that this is a really strong feeling or anything, and never something I would bring up with someone other than my husband, or apparently the vast world of the internet :) Maybe it's more because of our personal situation at the time, when we were craving family unity: my MIL passed away a few months before their wedding, and it was just weird to think that I was the only woman in the family with that name. My husband and I joked that I was the new matriarch (even moreso since we moved in with my FIL and I took over the cooking and such!), since I was the only woman with our name.
Of course I love my SIL and am glad she is a part of the family. I guess if I think hard on it, we were all just a little disappointed in her choice (and maybe the guys were disappointed in my BIL's seemingly-easy acceptance of it?), just because we're all fairly traditional.
Now that I've written a novel on that, I will just end by agreeing that the serial wives and all their name changes are fairly ridiculous!
Rae- I really liked your explanation of why not having to change your name could be such a big deal. To me it seemed almost a non-issue, but I haven't really thought about it much. It's interesting how the feminist movement has influenced all of our lives so much. If not for the gains made by feminists towards property rights and individual rights, then I would not be able to afford to be so cavalier about this.
ReplyDeleteI think each married couple has to decide what's best for them. I think that you and Josh have come up with a good way to do it, and I don't mean to judge those that keep their own names. I have to admit that, like Elizabeth, I tend to feel a vague sense of disappointment when women keep their own names. I don't know if there's anything behind it other than traditionalism, and I don't know why it should make a difference whether the family takes the husband's name or the wife's name or a new name.
Sarah- I have to admit that I am really curious as to what my colleagues (many of whom are male) are making. If I am making 77 cents to their dollar, then I want a raise! On the other hand, many of the males in our company tend to be directors or owners. We have female directors, but many of our women tend to prefer the flexibility of being part time or not having quite as much responsibility so that they can have more time for their families. I don't see any of our female therapists being as interested in pursuing part ownership of the business as some of our male therapists have done. I am fairly confident that I am making as much or more than the males in a similar position to mine, but I'm also sure that I am making less than the owners. Is the disparity because of gender or because of the opportunities we seek? I have no desire to be part owner!
Late in coming to the conversation, I know.
ReplyDeleteThe name clarifications are really interesting. I also tended to see it as taking my husband's name to show our unity as a family and I too have a SIL (hubs sis) who did not take her husband's last name and it is a bit awkward even in logistics. Do you address things to the D. family (his last name) or the the D. and R. family (his and her last names)? I totally get wanting to keep an identity, but I also wonder about family ties.
And CM, a great question you raise at the end, is it really that women make less $ or is it because of the opportunities we seek. For example I am a Director of a Child Care Facility and I'm sure I make less money than a man who is a Director of say a bank, but is it because of the industry in which I choose to work?