Man, the idea of people changing names based on who they bang is so wild to me.
I can’t believe how much of the world just… goes with it and thinks it’s normal. It’s definitely not normal. Just some serious psychosexual patriarchy mindfuck going on for so many people.
Anglosaxon cultures out there arguing about pronouns and it turns out they just casually rewrite their identity based on who’s the owner of their daughters going into the second quarter of the 21st century. Nuts.
You added “a lot of places”. It’s not typical or expected here, so it’s not normal here.
So “normalcy” on this is geographically bound. So is it normal if my normal and your normal are different and the Internet is making us rub our normals together?
It’s normal in those places because it’s usual, typical or expected. If it’s not those things where you live, it’s not normal where you live. It’s not any harder than that.
You were complaining about places where people “just go with it”. If by that you mean places where it’s typical or even expected, then it’s normal there.
It’s not necessarily geographical but just about community, group or societal behaviour.
It’s me speaking, I say it’s not normal here, so it’s not normal. By your definition.
Of course if we dispense with the pendantry we would argue that the point of saying it’s not normal is to highlight how it’s inconsistent with the approach of society towards the rest of itself, so a society where women change their name to take their husband’s is not normal because it’s inconsistent with the rest of the mores regarding the interactions between men and women.
But that’d require not nitpicking a thing to pick a pedantic fight online that is a waste of time, so… not in the scope of this conversation, I suppose.
No, hold on, those two things aren’t remotely the same.
It makes sense to work out which kid belongs to which parent, for sure. For one thing, a whole bunch of the legal system is based on who inherits what when people die. You want some way to keep track of that. There’s some weirdness about keeping track of the father rather than the mother, and some cultures keep track of both or of the mother first, which makes more sense, but that’s a different conversation.
But “who’s paired up with who”? Absolutely not. Why would it be more convenient to be unable to separate sexual partners from descendants? That is not a practical thing. And the stuff that’s preserving, which is that women are historically treated like children without full legal autonomy and part of the stuff being managed by a paterfamilias, is fortunately no longer true.
And of course once that gets recognized enough that even a bunch of Christianity admits that not all relationships are forever and reintroduces divorce (after centuries of treating women like perpetual property of their husbands) it makes absolutely no sense to have half the population ping-pong between names over their lifetime an arbitrary number of times. It’s not only logically absurd, it is actively inconvenient to both the first goal of pairing descendants but also administrative bookkeeping in general. I can only imagine the amount of public records errors induced by women changing their name a bunch of times over their lifetimes.
It is. And young women are kind of forced into it as part of the conventional ideas of marriage and weddings. I didn’t change my last name, because I married an asshole who wanted me to feel bad for wanting “normal” things like that, which is another story, and in the end I’m very glad I didn’t, but my narcissistic mother was OBSESSED with me changing my name.
Man, the idea of people changing names based on who they bang is so wild to me.
I can’t believe how much of the world just… goes with it and thinks it’s normal. It’s definitely not normal. Just some serious psychosexual patriarchy mindfuck going on for so many people.
Anglosaxon cultures out there arguing about pronouns and it turns out they just casually rewrite their identity based on who’s the owner of their daughters going into the second quarter of the 21st century. Nuts.
It’s normal because it’s what most do. That’s what normality is
Every part of that statement is arguable and every argument would be a bit of a waste of time, so we can probably leave it there.
It’s definitely not what most do where I’m from, though. It’s not a thing at all.
Typical and even expected in a lot of places. There it would be considered normal
You added “a lot of places”. It’s not typical or expected here, so it’s not normal here.
So “normalcy” on this is geographically bound. So is it normal if my normal and your normal are different and the Internet is making us rub our normals together?
Told you it was a waste of time.
It’s normal in those places because it’s usual, typical or expected. If it’s not those things where you live, it’s not normal where you live. It’s not any harder than that.
You were complaining about places where people “just go with it”. If by that you mean places where it’s typical or even expected, then it’s normal there.
It’s not necessarily geographical but just about community, group or societal behaviour.
Okay, so it’s not normal.
It’s me speaking, I say it’s not normal here, so it’s not normal. By your definition.
Of course if we dispense with the pendantry we would argue that the point of saying it’s not normal is to highlight how it’s inconsistent with the approach of society towards the rest of itself, so a society where women change their name to take their husband’s is not normal because it’s inconsistent with the rest of the mores regarding the interactions between men and women.
But that’d require not nitpicking a thing to pick a pedantic fight online that is a waste of time, so… not in the scope of this conversation, I suppose.
You don’t think it’s normal but for them it is. Simple as
No, wait, why can you phrase it that way but not “it’s not normal but they think it is”.
Why is one of those statements not equivalent to the other?
It does make it easier to work out who’s paired up with who, and which kid belongs to which parent.
The history of the practice is pretty gross, but there are some benefits.
No, hold on, those two things aren’t remotely the same.
It makes sense to work out which kid belongs to which parent, for sure. For one thing, a whole bunch of the legal system is based on who inherits what when people die. You want some way to keep track of that. There’s some weirdness about keeping track of the father rather than the mother, and some cultures keep track of both or of the mother first, which makes more sense, but that’s a different conversation.
But “who’s paired up with who”? Absolutely not. Why would it be more convenient to be unable to separate sexual partners from descendants? That is not a practical thing. And the stuff that’s preserving, which is that women are historically treated like children without full legal autonomy and part of the stuff being managed by a paterfamilias, is fortunately no longer true.
And of course once that gets recognized enough that even a bunch of Christianity admits that not all relationships are forever and reintroduces divorce (after centuries of treating women like perpetual property of their husbands) it makes absolutely no sense to have half the population ping-pong between names over their lifetime an arbitrary number of times. It’s not only logically absurd, it is actively inconvenient to both the first goal of pairing descendants but also administrative bookkeeping in general. I can only imagine the amount of public records errors induced by women changing their name a bunch of times over their lifetimes.
It is. And young women are kind of forced into it as part of the conventional ideas of marriage and weddings. I didn’t change my last name, because I married an asshole who wanted me to feel bad for wanting “normal” things like that, which is another story, and in the end I’m very glad I didn’t, but my narcissistic mother was OBSESSED with me changing my name.