this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
61 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13607 readers
744 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Why can't it be something fun like swapping surnames and then creating a portmaneau or blended name for the kids.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 45 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

"We should reject the patriarchy and refuse to adopt our husband's surnames as our own!""

"Right on!"

"We must take back what is ours and overthrow men's dominance over women. We should fight to keep our maiden names."

"Yeah!!
Wait a sec - we're going to reject the cultural practice of taking on our husband's surnames and we're going to keep the ones that we were born with?"

"Exactly!"

"So we will keep the surnames that our fathers gave us in order to reject the patriarchy?"

"I... uhh... hang on, let me check my notes here."


(I'm not shitting on anyone who chooses to do this btw; you do you. After all you aren't property to be transferred from one owner to another. I'm just illustrating why bourgeois feminism is a dead end and why Marxist feminism is the only real path forward for women's liberation.)

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 27 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I mean you gotta start somewhere. My surname might also be my grandfather's surname, but people don't think about that, they think about how my surname is my mother's surname instead of my father's.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] utopologist@hexbear.net 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

When my ex and I got married, we picked a new surname that we both liked but didn't have any connection to. We're not together anymore but I have no plans to return to my original name b/c I still like it and basically all of my friends and colleagues know me by the current name

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AutomatedPossum@hexbear.net 42 points 7 months ago (3 children)

This is incorrect, the feminist stance is that women decide if they or their wife get to keep the surname in a game of axe throwing. In case of a draw, both women end up with a hyphenated double name.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net 35 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The couple should be presented with a bowl of beans and whoever can eat it the fastest gets to keep their name

[–] pooh@hexbear.net 15 points 7 months ago

This should be included as part of the typical wedding ceremony

[–] supafuzz@hexbear.net 33 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Women keeping their last names as in such notoriously feminist paradises as all of Latin America

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's still from the woman's patriline though.

If we had one name transmitted patrilineally and one name transmitted matrilineally, that'd be really cool, and would also not cascade beyond 2 surnames.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 23 points 7 months ago (3 children)

No, children should get all their parents' surnames ad infinitum. My grandkids will have 8 surnames. Their grandkids will have 32.

Say what you want, but this system has the fewest edge cases.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Why's it gotta start with you, rather than retroactively accounting for as far back in your ancestry as you can go?

And how do you do the ordering of all those names?

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It starts with me because I'm a special boy.

The ordering is alphabetical of course.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 14 points 7 months ago

Jugemu Jugemu Gokou no Surikire Kaijari Suigyou no Suigyou Matsu Unrai Matsu Fuurai Matsu Kuuneru Tokoro ni Sumu Tokoro Yabura Kouji no Bura Kouji Paipo Paipo Paipo no Shuuringan Shuuringan no Guurindai Guurindai no Ponpokopii no Ponpokonaa no Choukyuumei no Chousuke but every part except "Chousuke" was actually the surname

[–] Thordros@hexbear.net 12 points 7 months ago

No, children should get all their parents' surnames ad infinitum. My grandkids will have 8 surnames. Their grandkids will have 32.

Say what you want, but this system has the fewest edge cases.

Having names like the ones breeders give to purebred dogs would be hilarious.

[–] lil_tank@lemmygrad.ml 30 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Abolish surnames, also abolish names, replace everything by 72 alphanumeric characters codes that are absolutely unique so we abolish all discrimination and administrative ambiguity ^/s^

[–] Parsani@hexbear.net 34 points 7 months ago

Getting married on the blockchain

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The advent of surnames in Europe heralded the downfall of feudalism so I have a soft spot in my heart for them based on that historical fact.

[–] TheDoctor@hexbear.net 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 27 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

So in Europe up until this point, people stayed in their own villages and if there were two Johns in the same village then one would be Tall John and the other would be Pious John, or Strong John or Fair(haired) John. Basically you were your first name because there was absolutely no need for a surname.

The only use for surnames was for the aristocracy to lay claim to their incestuous lineage and their ancestral holdings and shit.

Anyway, suddenly the black death rolls around and wipes out 1/3 to 1/2 of the population in Europe. Crops are lying in the field to rot because there just isn't enough labour available to do what needs to be done to survive until next season.

So the landlords smell trouble brewing and it becomes obvious that unless somebody harvests that grain then their village is fucked, and they sure as hell aren't about to roll up their velvet sleeves, so they begin to lure nearby villagers to abandon their lord and the crops of their home village in favour of shifting next door and harvesting this lord's crops with the promise of better pay and conditions.

Suddenly, where feudalism was once virtually set in stone, you have this black swan event and all this labour begins to get freed up to move around and labour starts to get a little bit of leverage as the foundations of feudalism begin to crack.

So next thing you have people from all sorts of villages moving around from place to place and everyone is named John and Henry and Margaret and Catherine and shit but also nobody knows anyone else because suddenly there's this influx of people from everywhere else. So this ain't cutting it anymore, and people begin to get named after their professions (John the blacksmith = John Blacksmith = John Smith, Henry the fuller = Henry Fuller, Margaret the baxter = Margaret Baxter etc.) or by things like patronymics (Johnson, Smithson, Ericson) or their personally-distinguishing characteristics or landmarks (in German this is really common with surnames like Bach, Bohm, Berger, Engel).

Anyway this is the moment where the tide started to shift and where feudalism was moribund - it would take other factors like the enclosure of the commons, the advent of chartered corporations for naval looting/trading/mass slaughter and enslavement expeditions, and the invention of the steam engine before we would see capitalism develop into its fully-fledged form but this freeing up of labour power and a rebalancing of economic and political power that shifted slightly in favour of serfs was enough that the house of cards that was feudalism would eventually come tumbling down.

And that's why surnames heralded the downfall of feudalism - as soon as labour stopped being bound to one ancestral plot of land and lords started competing against one another for "employees" (if you'll forgive me for using an anarchronism), where people needed a new way to distinguish between people who shared the same name, there the proto-capitalist/nascent capitalist market forces began to emerge within the cracks in the foundations of the old feudal material conditions.

[–] TheDoctor@hexbear.net 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

History is so cool. I should read more about it.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yes, I cannot emphasise how much I would encourage you to read more history.

There are so many threads you can tug at and they always lead back to the same themes, if not the very same things themselves. There's a reason why historians often end up implicitly Marxist, if not out and out card-carrying communists, and it's not by accident. (There's another comment I wrote under this post somewhere where another person also nudged me to talk about some completely different threads of history which I wove together into a little crash course in history that you might find interesting too.)

I have my criticisms of Joseph Jacotot but he was one of the good liberals imo and I really think that, at least when it comes to matters of history and pedagogy, his panécastique model is valid and I think the spirit of it is embodied in that Carl Sagan quip: "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe"; I genuinely believe that if you tug at one thread of history long enough you can arrive at anything else in history. (This might be my galaxy-brain autistic/ADHD mind speaking lol - genuinely, this is kinda how combined-type ADHDers describe their thinking.)

The trick is to find whatever sparks inspiration in history and to just chase that down every rabbit hole it leads you to. It doesn't matter what it is. It could be guns, it could be cars, it could be knitting, it could be the complex economic and social organisation of a particular aboriginal Australian country that sprang up around the aquaculture of eels. It doesn't matter in the slightest; one of the most captivating books I've ever read was a book about Salt by Mark Kurlansky. Just find that topic that sparks wonder in you and wring it for all you can because you'll end up following it across countries and time periods and all sorts of events and figures in history.

The more you learn, the more exciting and wilder it gets.

There's literally a direct through-line that runs between fish that display iridescent colours on their scales, British-Australian imperialism and the displacement of the Banaba people, the Incan word for shit and the genocide and colonization of the Americas, the two world wars and the German chemical industry that would go on to enable Nazis putting "undesirables" to the gas chamber, the invention of methamphetamine, all the way to Rockefeller and the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.
(And there's so many detours along that route: do you want to follow IBM and how US industry such as Ford enabled the Nazi war machine and its industrial-scale genocide and how during WWII Germans learned to take shelter in Ford factories if there weren't any bomb shelters nearby when bombs started dropping? Do you want to learn about the early German concentration camps in Namibia that formed the blueprint for the Nazi concentration camps? Do you want to go down the Operation Paperclip route and to examine how post-WWII was a renazification in the west? Do you want to go down the Ha'avara Agreement path? Do you want to go down the eugenics path to learn about Carnegie and how his fortune is a direct product of the Opium Wars, the century of humiliation, the Chinese civil war and the establishment of the CPC and how this ties into the Forbes dynasty and the genocide of Native Americans?)

You can legit go from what makes shiny fish shiny to the goddamn Opium Wars and the US politician John F Kerry, and in doing so you will travel across the whole world.

Just find that one thing and dive in then chase it until you tire of it. Then find the next thing and do the same. The real trick, though, is seeing if you can find a way that the first and second things happen to connect up. And just keep doing that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 27 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I propose the following:

  1. Upon marriage, check who has the rarer surname
  2. The spouse with the more common surname should change it to the rarer surname
  3. In the case of divorce, the spouse with the changed surname should keep the surname

Of course, people are free to do whatever they want, but this is just an idea. Because unlike the convention of always taking the husband's surname — which inevitably leads to surname extinction and a thoroughly unequal distribution of surnames — this system would by my reckoning gradually lead to a completely equal distribution of surnames.

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This done in Spain, e.g. Pablo Ruiz Picasso is called Pablo Picasso

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 12 points 7 months ago

That's related but it's not quite the same thing.

[–] PapaEmeritusIII@hexbear.net 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

? Is this really the feminist stance? I thought it was that women should have the choice of doing what they want with their surnames

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

This is a historical quirk but, in case you had any illusions about us living in the 20s, the (bourgeois) feminist movement for women to keep their surnames upon marriage kicked off in the 1920s in the US.

There's a whole essay in here somewhere about how bourgeois feminism was co-opted by capitalism from its very outset, how women became a target demographic for smoking, the colour green, why you have to add eggs into box cake mix, and the Guatemalan coup of Jacobo Arbenz and the Cuban revolution. Oh and Nazis and Sigmund Freud too, of course.

[–] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There's a whole essay in here somewhere about how bourgeois feminism was co-opted by capitalism from its very outset, how women became a target demographic for smoking, the colour green, why you have to add eggs into box cake mix, and the Guatemalan coup of Jacobo Arbenz and the Cuban revolution. Oh and Nazis and Sigmund Freud too, of course.

I want this as a tagline just for the immediate transition from putting eggs in cake mix to the Guatemalan coup. I got whiplash lol

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This story itself is a real trip. If I didn't know it by doing my own reading into all of it, there's zero chance I'd believe this is anything but some Pepe Silvia-tier rambling.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheDoctor@hexbear.net 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I desperately need this essay

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I need to sleep so I'm going to be a bit brief on this one but here goes:

Edward Bernays is the self-styled "father" of modern PR. This is a half-truth but it's not entirely a lie. He's the nephew of Sigmund Freud and he lives in high society in New York. Bernays decides that he wants to apply Freud's psychoanalytic model to marketing and PR. He literally writes a book titled Propaganda, which would one day find its way onto the bookshelf of none other than Goebbels, who used it as his bible to persecute Jews like Bernays and, of course, Freud himself who fled Nazi Germany at the behest of Bernays.

Anyway, Bernays' wife is a socialite and she is a key figure in the Lucy Stone League (linked in the comment above) as well as other bourgeois feminist organisations and movements.

Bernays, ever the opportunist and in the employ of a tobacco company, uses this as an opportunity to start marketing to women and in one famous coup of the early PR industry, he staged a situation where a feminist demonstration in New York would have a photograph taken of one of the main organisers smoking - women smoking in public was seen as scandalous at this time - to be published as the lead story in the newspapers, putting cigarette consumption front-and-centre in women's struggle for equality.

He dubs this the "Torches of Freedom" movement and associates the idea of women smoking closely with the statue of liberty and her blazing torch.

Suddenly it becomes edgy and cool and seriously rebellious for women—upper class women who don't have the same risk of social backlash—so it becomes a trend, cigarette sales skyrocket, and Bernays starts working on marketing cigarettes to women. This is also an early example of gender division in marketing. There's the annual equivalent of the Met Gala taking place and so Bernays attempts to associate the colour green—a key colour in Lucky Strike packaging at the time—with this Green Gala held for rich socialites so that it would tie in with the cigarette packaging.

At some point, idk exactly when, box cake mix gets developed but it's not selling very well. This is at a point where I think all of the ingredients except for water and maybe butter/oil (but maybe not) were already powdered and you literally just add water to make a cake. Bernays, high on the Freudian supply, decides that what needs to happen is that there needs to be some symbolic action of feminity in these instant cake mixes so he instructs the company to remove the powdered egg and change the recipe to call for adding fresh eggs because, like, women and eggs and ovulation and feminine energy and weird shit like that. This works, not for the tortured Freudian symbolic reasoning Bernays held but because women felt like they were still making a cake rather than just making a bowl of cereal. (Not gonna go into the advent of the hearty American bacon and eggs breakfast or the "9 out of 10 [professionals] recommend..." marketing trope, but that's also tangentially related to this story.)

At some point you have Chiquita (then United Fruit Company) basically running Guatemala as an imperial outpost. Then Jacobo Arbenz, a milquetoast social democrat reformer, gets elected on a very popular platform of land reform - Chiquita maintained an effective monopoly on banana growing in Guatemala by purchasing all of the land and only using a proportion of it to actually grow crops with the rest left fallow. People were borderline starving and they were prevented from primary production to create products to sell because Chiquita owned all the good, arable land so the people of Guatemala were condemned to poverty and hard labour on—you guessed it—Chiquita banana plantations so the US could have cheap bananas and Chiquita could turn a mean profit doing so. Chiquita also grossly underestimated the value of the land for taxation purposes so Arbenz quite cleverly decides that his government will compulsorily acquire the fallow land to redistribute to the people and he compensated Chiquita based on the grossly underreported value of the land.

Chiquita wasn't having a bar of it.

So they get Bernays to organise a press junket tour of Guatemala so that the newspapers can drum up support for a military invasion of Guatemala to establish what would later become known as a banana republic. (From memory the US political machinery was less interested in committing to war at this point in history, but don't quote me on that part.) And this strategy works. (I feel like Bernays had some connections to the CIA that he leveraged in this but I forget.)

Anyway, who happens to be in Guatemala at the time of the coup? None other than the man, the legend, the hero of the people himself - Che Guevara. Che has front row tickets to witnessing US imperialism and the lengths that they will go to when their precious bottom line faces a minor speed bump. And this is a deeply radicalising moment for Che because he understands that there is no reform delicate enough, there is no popular support massive enough, there is no cause morally just enough that would stay the US' hand.

So Che learns that political power comes out the barrel of a gun and this goes on to directly shape his politics, his strategy, and the Cuban revolution itself.

And that's the story. Some of it anyway lol.

Sources:
Bitter Fruit by Steven Kinzer

The Father of Spin by Larry Tye (honestly not a great book - pretty piss-poor writing tbh but obviously the compelling subject redeems it somewhat)

Idk what else, I think that's mostly it. I'm missing out on a source for Che's part of the story but maybe someone will chime in with a good one - surely he wrote about it in The Motorcycle Diaries right?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 12 points 7 months ago

Ultimately yeah, but it's the difference between what an egalitarian world should look like vs how to normalise that choice in a patriarchal hegemony like the UK. Various european countries' past feminist/egalitarianism movements have resulted in laws that neither men nor women can change their names when married.

[–] rio@hexbear.net 20 points 7 months ago

We should give children a number starting at 7 trillion and counting backwards so future generations get worried about what happens when the number reaches zero

[–] Acute_Engles@hexbear.net 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It costs money to legally change your name without a marriage certificate and making a fun portmanteau would cost a lot since you'd both have to pay.

That being said I know two couples who just go by the portmanteau but on legal documents use their birth last names

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's ridiculous that you have to pay now to change your designator. Back in the late 40's my grandpa's name legally changed from "John" to "Jack" simply because he started writing his nickname on forms instead of his "real" name.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] radiofreeval@hexbear.net 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hyphenated names but both names are passed down so you get mgm-mgf-pgm-pgf

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The portmaneau/blending suggestion was specifically to stop hyperhyphenation, but we could lean into it like Discworld vampires and in a few generations have people with surnames like Smith-Huber-Кузнецо́в-김-García-Carvalho-सिंह-გელაშვილი.

[–] radiofreeval@hexbear.net 13 points 7 months ago

The longer the better

[–] absolutefuckinidiot@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You should both be forced to each separately pick a new completely unrelated name once married to make genealogy has hard as possible

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 15 points 7 months ago

i think it would be awfully confusing if we had lots of couples running around called pordmanitou. why would it be french anyway?

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Everybody gets a new surname after an extremely specific value on a color wheel. When you get married you both take a new name halfway between. I have the best ideas.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

M #007D90 4 F #008270

Looking to marry up

[–] culpritus@hexbear.net 13 points 7 months ago

Just put all the letters from both names together and mix them up like you’re playing scrabble. Then see what the best single word score you can come up with together, or just a fun name that has a funky pronunciation.

[–] TheDoctor@hexbear.net 12 points 7 months ago

I know people who blended their surnames together when they got married. You can both change your names upon marriage. Taking one over the other is pure convention.

[–] RedWizard@hexbear.net 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"No I want to keep my name."
"What, the name you got from your father??"

I've had that short circuit a few people. Honestly though, the paperwork is a super obnoxious.

[–] PapaEmeritusIII@hexbear.net 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I’m keeping my name when I get married, and if someone said this to me I’d think they were being super obnoxious.

I don’t think of it as my father’s name, I think of it as my name, since I’ve had it my entire life.

EDIT: Seriously though, why is this even something you’re trying to “short-circuit” people on? Women get enough flak for their decisions as it is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Stoatmilk@hexbear.net 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The married couple should have to draw a random surname from the top 1000 most popular ones but with 1 % obvious joke names sprinkled in, no refunds

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›