From: uunet!mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!meshugge.media.mit.edu!cindy@ncar.ucar.EDU (Cindy Blank-Edelman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Why she took my name/ narrow minded views..
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:54:14 GMT
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory

Ismail writes:

> In Article: 4484 of soc.feminism
> cindy@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Cindy Blank-Edelman) writes:

>> .....
>> To clarify: let's say that an organization has instituted
>> participatory democracy and consensus-style decision making.  Yay.
>> The organization has a meeting.  Because of their previous
>> positions, all of the women at the meeting are referred to as
>> "secretaries", and called by their first names, while all of the
>> men are referred to as "bosses" and called "Mr. Last Name".

> In such an institution there would be no "bosses".
> However, years of workplace "tradition" of referring
> someone "Mr/Ms Last Name" might continue for sometime
> without interfering with the workplace democracy.

Such a "tradition" would definitely interfere with the workplace
democracy, in my opinion.  I'm not sure how to prove this to you; I
see it as obvious.  Perhaps I just think that language is more
powerful than you do.

How about this extended example: In the above workplace scenario,
because of previous workplace tradition, all of the women are still
referred to as "Honey" and all of the men are referred to as "Sir".
(Whether or not this is likely in a workplace that has instituted
participatory democracy is not relevant to my point.)  I don't see how
one could assert that the women's opinions will be taken as seriously
as the men's in this case, nor that this naming tradition will not
affect the workplace democracy.  The hierarchical nature of the
previous workplace has been preserved in the naming traditions of the
current one.  The question is: will the naming tradition die out in
such a setting and give way to workplace democracy?  Or will the
recently established democracy die out and give way to the
hierarchical workplace that the naming tradition represents?

[. . .]

> Nothing. All my argument was that if "last name" is still a
> controversial issue in the society, it must be due to men having
> still not realized why oppression of women in a society or in a
> family has been destructive/unproductive/unhappy experience in
> general. [. . .]  It must be due to us being not aware of how subtle
> forms this oppressive, authoritarian behaviors can take.

Yes.  I agree.

> It is quite clear to me that if family members are quite sincere in
> and conscious of their consensus seeking efforts, their names
> neither would be any problem nor would hold anyone back.

Isn't it possible that the naming tradition *is* a "subtle form of
this oppressive, authoritarian behavior"?  You are saying we should
recognize these types of oppressions, yet you are unable to recognize
this one and fight against it.  Why?

> It is very easy to test if the lack of your name would really hold
> you back.  Why don't you drop your maiden name for a year and see
> how much of "equality" you loose in your domestic life:-) I bet, the
> only difference you would ever notice would be how easy it is to
> sign your name.  Otherwise you are just showing off:-)

You could just as well have said: "It is very easy to test if the lack
of your effort to vote would really hold you back.  Why don't you not
vote for a year and see how much of 'equality' you lose in your
political life :-) I bet, the only difference you would ever notice
would be how easy it is for you on voting day.  Otherwise you are just
showing off:-)"

My not voting for a year probably would not make a difference in the
political life of this country as a whole.  It probably wouldn't
bother me personally for just a year, either; there are still ways for
me to be involved in the political process.

But if the vast majority of women decided not to vote, that would be a
different story.  And if I decided never to vote again, that would
also be different.  Both of these cases are more analogous to the
naming issue.  My name choice is not only a personal one, it is a
political one made as part of a group.  It is not one that will affect
me for only a year, but one that will affect me for the rest of my
life, and will affect my children and their children, etc etc.

As for me personally, you are probably right.  But my name is part of
my identity, and I don't see the point of changing it (again).  Would
you change your last name to your mother's maiden name to see if it
made a difference in your life for a year?  Otherwise ... *who* is
showing off? :-)

--Cindy Blank-Edelman

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.