Some cultures trace heritage both patrilineal and matrilineal, so taking the first last name of your father as your first and the second last name of your mother as your second would be that.
I read it in Everyday Utopia. A totally worthwhile book that includes discussions about alternatives to the nuclear family we are so accustomed to. I didn’t find this exact example but in general, hunter gatherers have a much broader sense of heritage and family than we have. That’s why it’s so stupid when people claim they only care about their own family. Well, if you meet someone whose mother’s father had the same totem animal as one of your caregiving adults who joined your group late in life, you might not share a language with this someone, but you are family. And once you live long enough in a group, you become family anyway.
Yeah I’ve always thought it was weird that women are supposed to give up their identity to a man to be married. I’m not really sure why hyphenated names aren’t as popular in the western world or why people don’t occasionally chose to take the woman’s name. I know that women don’t have to change their names, but then often you’ll have the kids as the same name as the father anyway but not the mother. So I’ve heard many women say that they did it so their kids would share their last name.
Hell, I don’t even like my father. But my name is who I am and I like it.
with hyphenated names: what would the children do then? you can’t keep adding more and more names like that (both practically and legally in some cases). serious question because I’ve also thought about that
I think it varies with culture, but from my understanding, usually they take the first name of the two hyphens for their own marriage.
So you have John Doe and Jane Smith. They hyphenate their names as Doe-Smith and the children do as well.
Say they have a daughter Sally Doe-Smith who meets Tim Johnson-Star. So they marry and hyphenate their names as Johnson-Doe. Both Smith and Star get dropped.
Yes, in examples like this, it still ends up as getting rid of the maternal aspect of the lineage in the very end…but the point is still that both parties are keeping part of and changing another part of their names. It’s not an all or nothing total switch of identity. The lineage is male, but the here and now is an equal compromise of identity.
The way that I’m gonna do it is whoever has the coolest/most unique last name is the one whose name is adopted. If they’re both equally cool, then hyphenated it is.
Hyphenated names are too long. One of my good friends has one and people just refer to him and his siblings by the initials of their last name, like “Tim MP”
How do hyphenated names work after the next generation? Seems like that would get out of hand quickly when people with hyphenated last names start having kids with each other.
It is weird because we as a civilization believe women are persons and corporations are not. And sooner or later, Molotovs will be thrown in support of this notion, since silence is being interpreted as consent.
Been divorced twice, neither of them gave much of a shit and never changed their surname back. My wife’s Filipino and was very proud to take my surname. Ran right out and changed all her documents. Her enthusiasm was touching!
I’m in the opposite place! Met my dad when I was 20 and he really wanted me to change to his surname. Sorry dad, that would have felt really weird.
I would think it would be just as weird to collectively switch to matronymic last names as a society. It would make more sense to me if couples just decided which name they liked better and went with that, be it coming from the man or woman. So a more even split of that sort of pattern is what I mean.
Why would that be the case? How would marriage between two equals in a non-patriarchy be patriarchal? What about marriage between two women?
What about last names in a society of beings without gender?
Maybe all my downvotes come from people who say it’s the latter? I’ve been in bubbles that see it as a well known fact, I’ve talked to left leaning people who didn’t. Maybe it’s just a wording I used to attract attention, maybe not, we will never know for sure.
my instance doesn’t show downvotes, so all I see is that you have lots of upvotes 😊
I suspect downvotes would come from people who disagree that marriage is patriarchal, tbh - I think a lot of people don’t really understand patriarchy or feminism, so they might thing you are being hyperbolic, like claiming marriage is akin to beating your wife or something.
Or they could just be responding merely to the language and not even the content, i.e. by talking about patriarchy at all or posing it in social terms they might think you have been duped by woke propaganda.
Whether it’s an unpopular opinion just depends on what crowd you are in. I think a lot of people understand marriage is a patriarchal institution, that a patrilineal naming scheme is part of that patriarchy, etc., but I’m sure there are lots of people who think that is false, or over-stated, or who aren’t entirely sure what ten-dollar words like “patrilineal” actually mean, lol.
My point is, by looking at one of the replies, that people might just be misunderstanding the argument being presented, as they have a different understanding of what ‘inherent’ means, and if you look up a dictionary definition, you can understand why.
For example: in “existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.”, the first two clauses are immutable, but third is mutable.
As last names are a social construct, their characteristics and usage can change over time. Just because they started as, or are predominately used as a tool of patriarchy, doesn’t mean that’s what they will be in the future. If you believe that something ‘inherent’ is an immutable trait, that you would disagree with the premise of the argument, but if you think it’s just a characteristic trait, then you would generally agree - if I change my last name to ‘Orange’ to signify my love of the fruit/colour, it is still a last name, but has nothing to do with patriarchy, proving that patriarchy is not an immutable trait of last names.
Personally, I think that both marriage and last names are predominately used as tools to enforce patriarchy historically and currently, but can imagine that changing in the future. But when I initially looked at the OP’s statement, I disagreed, because I understood ‘inherent’ to be an immutable trait.
Unpopular opinion: Patriarchy as defined by feminists is a nebulous and unfalsifiable concept that can be replaced by “the devil” without changing the meaning of the sentence it’s used in.
you could swap the subject of criticism with “the devil” in any sentence and it would be the same though?
“the devil (covid-19) caused a pandemic”
“the devil (billionaires) is pushing more people into poverty”
“the devil (adhd) is making me procrastinate doing the dishes”
“the devil (you) has really weak criticisms of feminism, since if only he read about it, he’d realise he can see and feel the effects of the patriarchy everywhere. and the way he talks right now makes me believe he only knows the concept from strawman memes”
“i refuse to listen to what feminists say, and because of that i have no concept of their actual positions and it’s all really nebulous and confusing to me” —that user
(edit: by “that user” i mean @rooty, if that wasn’t clear? @shneancy@lemmy.world you are totally correct)
Which feminists are you even referring to exactly? There are different waves of feminism and different strands (like liberal feminism, marxist feminism, black feminism, …). Either you picked a few straw(wo)men who have a shitty definition or you are confused by the variety of definitions and approaches and that confuses you.
my comment was about @rooty who said “Patriarchy as defined by feminists is a nebulous and unfalsifiable concept” not you or anyone else. because of course, people who actually read any wave or subsect of feminism will immediately find feminists have a whole host of concrete and evidenced conceptions of the term patriarchy.
i was seeking to laugh at @rooty who has clearly never done any work to listen to any feminist and gets all their undestanding of it from straw man memes.
it seems people like yourself are misunderstanding my language to mean the opposite, sorry for any confusion.
In these examples you used “the devil” as a placeholder for explainable phenomena with varying causes, none of them being unfalsifiable. Now consider the following sentence:
“The wage gap is causes by the patriarchy” – Surely there are no complex causes being substituted by a nebulous concept here, is it?
the concept is only “nebulous” to people who are talking out of their asses, when they haven’t even bothered to look past the word definition and strawman memes about the patriarchy
man, please, stop making yourself look like a fool, go read about it, it’s really not that hard
none of us would judge you @Rooty@lemmy.world if you picked up and perused this free copy of Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks right now. in fact that would be really cool.
the patriarchy doesn’t benefit the male. in fact, most men are overall harmed by the forces of patriarchy.
the goal of patriarchy is to subjugate and repress an “other,” that is, women. it’s true that patriarchy gives privelege to men, but equating privilege and benefit is to misunderstand the core components of the system.
An aspect of patriarchy is patrilineality. Belonging to your fathers lineage rather than your mother’s or even being stripped of your heritage and being a mere adjunct to your husband isn’t materially benefiting the man but lays the ground for that
Except that it’s older than that, even in Europe, there was quite some time between the Black Plague and capitalism. But they originate in China where they are much older. Sure, capitalism is composed of many aspects and maybe China had some aspect associated with capitalism back than as well and I’m not too sure about the connection between Europe and China regarding last names. I donno.
In The Second Sex, De Beauvoir quotes Engels as he argues that patriarchy (as we know it today) likely arose with the advent of private property. So there is some relation to capitalism (of which private property is a core component), but it goes back way further than the Black Plague and marking it down to “trade promotion” is over-simplistic at best in that it’s wayyyy worse than that.
Unpopular opinion: Last names are inherently patriarchal and so is marriage
On Spain we have two last names, one for the father other for the mother.
And while before the father’s was always the first, since many years couples of newborn babies can choose the order of the surnames.
Is the latter your mother’s first or second last name?
First last name. Example:
Mother: Maria García Perez
Father: Juan Rodríguez Domínguez
Their kids can be named:
Adela García Rodríguez
or
Adela Rodríguez García
Ans once selected the order with the first kid all the kids from the same couple must follow the same order.
So it’s the mother’s father’s name, or the names of both grandfathers. Still patrilineal
I mean, if you go that way, when surnames where created in the middle ages it was the name of the man.
All spanish surnames ending in -ez mean “son of”. And it’s always male names.
But change has to start at some point.
Some cultures trace heritage both patrilineal and matrilineal, so taking the first last name of your father as your first and the second last name of your mother as your second would be that.
I’m curious, which country does it like that? Seems pretty interesting.
I read it in Everyday Utopia. A totally worthwhile book that includes discussions about alternatives to the nuclear family we are so accustomed to. I didn’t find this exact example but in general, hunter gatherers have a much broader sense of heritage and family than we have. That’s why it’s so stupid when people claim they only care about their own family. Well, if you meet someone whose mother’s father had the same totem animal as one of your caregiving adults who joined your group late in life, you might not share a language with this someone, but you are family. And once you live long enough in a group, you become family anyway.
Yeah I’ve always thought it was weird that women are supposed to give up their identity to a man to be married. I’m not really sure why hyphenated names aren’t as popular in the western world or why people don’t occasionally chose to take the woman’s name. I know that women don’t have to change their names, but then often you’ll have the kids as the same name as the father anyway but not the mother. So I’ve heard many women say that they did it so their kids would share their last name.
Hell, I don’t even like my father. But my name is who I am and I like it.
with hyphenated names: what would the children do then? you can’t keep adding more and more names like that (both practically and legally in some cases). serious question because I’ve also thought about that
I think it varies with culture, but from my understanding, usually they take the first name of the two hyphens for their own marriage.
So you have John Doe and Jane Smith. They hyphenate their names as Doe-Smith and the children do as well.
Say they have a daughter Sally Doe-Smith who meets Tim Johnson-Star. So they marry and hyphenate their names as Johnson-Doe. Both Smith and Star get dropped.
Yes, in examples like this, it still ends up as getting rid of the maternal aspect of the lineage in the very end…but the point is still that both parties are keeping part of and changing another part of their names. It’s not an all or nothing total switch of identity. The lineage is male, but the here and now is an equal compromise of identity.
Not enough to balance things out
Maybe not quite, but iml it’s certainly leaps and bounds better that altering your identity entirely in submission of a partner.
You clearly haven’t met Brazilians
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_blending
In Canada, you legally pick up to 2 of your parents’ last names for your last name
In
SovietRussia you pick a last name. Any last name. Except containing numbers, non-letters, more than one hyphen, rank or job title.My name is Maximus Decimus Arnold Garfield Butcher Smith Hendrickson Meridius, and you shall have my name.
The way that I’m gonna do it is whoever has the coolest/most unique last name is the one whose name is adopted. If they’re both equally cool, then hyphenated it is.
Hyphenated names are too long. One of my good friends has one and people just refer to him and his siblings by the initials of their last name, like “Tim MP”
How do hyphenated names work after the next generation? Seems like that would get out of hand quickly when people with hyphenated last names start having kids with each other.
“Gifting” kids with absurdly long names isn’t new.
It is weird because we as a civilization believe women are persons and corporations are not. And sooner or later, Molotovs will be thrown in support of this notion, since silence is being interpreted as consent.
Whoops. That was my outside voice.🪀🪀💣🪀
Sorry I’m not understanding what you mean
The reason women take their husband’s name is because they’re property, and rights to their person transfers from their father to their husband.
That’s it.
And right now (at least in the States, maybe in some parts of Europe) there are large far-right movements trying to return society to those days.
Find your crew or your fam, and have them give you your given name. Then choose your surname. Break free.
Ah ok yeah your first comment was sarcastic then haha
Been divorced twice, neither of them gave much of a shit and never changed their surname back. My wife’s Filipino and was very proud to take my surname. Ran right out and changed all her documents. Her enthusiasm was touching!
I’m in the opposite place! Met my dad when I was 20 and he really wanted me to change to his surname. Sorry dad, that would have felt really weird.
So, just do what a few couples in my circle of friends did and use her last name after marriage?
I would think it would be just as weird to collectively switch to matronymic last names as a society. It would make more sense to me if couples just decided which name they liked better and went with that, be it coming from the man or woman. So a more even split of that sort of pattern is what I mean.
Yeah, that’s what people do here in Germany.
Ah I didn’t know that! Interesting!
Why would that be the case? How would marriage between two equals in a non-patriarchy be patriarchal? What about marriage between two women? What about last names in a society of beings without gender?
I think you didnt mean ‘inherently’
is that an unpopular opinion, or just a well-known fact?
Maybe all my downvotes come from people who say it’s the latter? I’ve been in bubbles that see it as a well known fact, I’ve talked to left leaning people who didn’t. Maybe it’s just a wording I used to attract attention, maybe not, we will never know for sure.
my instance doesn’t show downvotes, so all I see is that you have lots of upvotes 😊
I suspect downvotes would come from people who disagree that marriage is patriarchal, tbh - I think a lot of people don’t really understand patriarchy or feminism, so they might thing you are being hyperbolic, like claiming marriage is akin to beating your wife or something.
Or they could just be responding merely to the language and not even the content, i.e. by talking about patriarchy at all or posing it in social terms they might think you have been duped by woke propaganda.
Whether it’s an unpopular opinion just depends on what crowd you are in. I think a lot of people understand marriage is a patriarchal institution, that a patrilineal naming scheme is part of that patriarchy, etc., but I’m sure there are lots of people who think that is false, or over-stated, or who aren’t entirely sure what ten-dollar words like “patrilineal” actually mean, lol.
In that case: the majority is still upvotes so I’m not complaining or anything :)
I think the downvotes come from a semantic disagreement, based on a strong or weak definition of the word ‘inherent’.
huh, that sounds like a rationalization, a way to find a problem with a critique that sounds more defensible or reasonable than defending patriarchy
My point is, by looking at one of the replies, that people might just be misunderstanding the argument being presented, as they have a different understanding of what ‘inherent’ means, and if you look up a dictionary definition, you can understand why.
For example: in “existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.”, the first two clauses are immutable, but third is mutable.
As last names are a social construct, their characteristics and usage can change over time. Just because they started as, or are predominately used as a tool of patriarchy, doesn’t mean that’s what they will be in the future. If you believe that something ‘inherent’ is an immutable trait, that you would disagree with the premise of the argument, but if you think it’s just a characteristic trait, then you would generally agree - if I change my last name to ‘Orange’ to signify my love of the fruit/colour, it is still a last name, but has nothing to do with patriarchy, proving that patriarchy is not an immutable trait of last names.
Personally, I think that both marriage and last names are predominately used as tools to enforce patriarchy historically and currently, but can imagine that changing in the future. But when I initially looked at the OP’s statement, I disagreed, because I understood ‘inherent’ to be an immutable trait.
Unpopular opinion: Patriarchy as defined by feminists is a nebulous and unfalsifiable concept that can be replaced by “the devil” without changing the meaning of the sentence it’s used in.
Also, serious posting in a shitposting thread.
I donno but this sounds like something the devil would say
you could swap the subject of criticism with “the devil” in any sentence and it would be the same though?
“the devil (covid-19) caused a pandemic”
“the devil (billionaires) is pushing more people into poverty”
“the devil (adhd) is making me procrastinate doing the dishes”
“the devil (you) has really weak criticisms of feminism, since if only he read about it, he’d realise he can see and feel the effects of the patriarchy everywhere. and the way he talks right now makes me believe he only knows the concept from strawman memes”
“i refuse to listen to what feminists say, and because of that i have no concept of their actual positions and it’s all really nebulous and confusing to me” —that user
(edit: by “that user” i mean @rooty, if that wasn’t clear? @shneancy@lemmy.world you are totally correct)
Which feminists are you even referring to exactly? There are different waves of feminism and different strands (like liberal feminism, marxist feminism, black feminism, …). Either you picked a few straw(wo)men who have a shitty definition or you are confused by the variety of definitions and approaches and that confuses you.
my comment was about @rooty who said “Patriarchy as defined by feminists is a nebulous and unfalsifiable concept” not you or anyone else. because of course, people who actually read any wave or subsect of feminism will immediately find feminists have a whole host of concrete and evidenced conceptions of the term patriarchy.
i was seeking to laugh at @rooty who has clearly never done any work to listen to any feminist and gets all their undestanding of it from straw man memes.
it seems people like yourself are misunderstanding my language to mean the opposite, sorry for any confusion.
Sorry, I didn’t read the username and thought it’s rooty again
ohh that might explain some of the other downvotes too lol
In these examples you used “the devil” as a placeholder for explainable phenomena with varying causes, none of them being unfalsifiable. Now consider the following sentence:
“The wage gap is causes by the patriarchy” – Surely there are no complex causes being substituted by a nebulous concept here, is it?
the concept is only “nebulous” to people who are talking out of their asses, when they haven’t even bothered to look past the word definition and strawman memes about the patriarchy
man, please, stop making yourself look like a fool, go read about it, it’s really not that hard
none of us would judge you @Rooty@lemmy.world if you picked up and perused this free copy of Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks right now. in fact that would be really cool.
yep and it’s good that opinion stays unpopular
Okay well, whats the benefit to the male?
the patriarchy doesn’t benefit the male. in fact, most men are overall harmed by the forces of patriarchy.
the goal of patriarchy is to subjugate and repress an “other,” that is, women. it’s true that patriarchy gives privelege to men, but equating privilege and benefit is to misunderstand the core components of the system.
An aspect of patriarchy is patrilineality. Belonging to your fathers lineage rather than your mother’s or even being stripped of your heritage and being a mere adjunct to your husband isn’t materially benefiting the man but lays the ground for that
deleted by creator
Sigh. Lemmy in a nutshell.
Except that it’s older than that, even in Europe, there was quite some time between the Black Plague and capitalism. But they originate in China where they are much older. Sure, capitalism is composed of many aspects and maybe China had some aspect associated with capitalism back than as well and I’m not too sure about the connection between Europe and China regarding last names. I donno.
In The Second Sex, De Beauvoir quotes Engels as he argues that patriarchy (as we know it today) likely arose with the advent of private property. So there is some relation to capitalism (of which private property is a core component), but it goes back way further than the Black Plague and marking it down to “trade promotion” is over-simplistic at best in that it’s wayyyy worse than that.
What you are saying is that private property laid the basis for patriarchy and (much later) for capitalism
That is what I am quoting De Beauvoir and Engels as saying, yes.
that’s right, promoting your trade is capitalism folks