(no subject)
Dec. 16th, 2007 08:48 amhttp://desert-vixen.livejournal.com/381821.html
There's an even better follow-up today at FSTDT:
"Women who choose not to take their husband's surname after marriage are not sexually attracted to them, and will likely be the one to initiate divorce.
When a woman feels metaphysically submissive to a man, when she admires all the masculine qualities he exhibits and deems him worthy of submitting to, sexually speaking, she will gladly become "his" and take his name. This is the essence of femininity. "
Brian is going to be so disappointed. All this time, he's been thinking I'm sexually attracted to him. Let me tell you, it's been a hard act to keep up. /sarcasm/wtf?
The actual article they pulled this from is even better.
tepintzin, here's some more LAF stuff for you:
http://www.andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com/9.htm
Here in Canada, and in many parts of the U.S., a woman may legally be known under a new name but doing so does not change her name on her birth certificate or her social insurance account. It's really only credit cards and drivers' licenses that change, bank accounts and such. And changing it back after a divorce is just as easy. Taking your husband's name is viewed more as a genteel custom rather than a hard nosed legal change of identity, one that I'm glad hasn't been chased out of use by militant feminists.
Change on your birth certificate, no. Change on your Social Security card, yes? And your credit cards and bank accounts are such piddly little things. Of course, the same people who espouse this BS also probably don't want women to work anyway after they become mothers, so why would they need an account of their own, or credit history for that matter? They have their husband.
Not to mention the whole "some women don't change their names" = "militant feminists want to force all women to keep their name".
After conceding that women who have made something of themselves professionally may need to keep their names legally and use their husband's name socially (which sounds like it would just confuse me), she throws out this:
Women who have made no strides in the world, who have nothing for which they are known, except, ironically, being someone's wife, insist on holding onto their maiden names or hyphenating their name as some sort of last stab at individuality.
Most men are good and noble creatures who, out of genuine love and respect for women, look to us for guidance and will even try to alter their behaviour and attitudes to please us.
She ends with:
And all women, regardless of what certain fringe groups say about it, know perfectly well that women no longer belong to their husbands, are no longer disrespected socially, legally or economically, and have no need to rail against one of most charming aspects of modern marriage.
Actually the whole site is pretty entertaining.
http://www.andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com/
DV
There's an even better follow-up today at FSTDT:
"Women who choose not to take their husband's surname after marriage are not sexually attracted to them, and will likely be the one to initiate divorce.
When a woman feels metaphysically submissive to a man, when she admires all the masculine qualities he exhibits and deems him worthy of submitting to, sexually speaking, she will gladly become "his" and take his name. This is the essence of femininity. "
Brian is going to be so disappointed. All this time, he's been thinking I'm sexually attracted to him. Let me tell you, it's been a hard act to keep up. /sarcasm/wtf?
The actual article they pulled this from is even better.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
http://www.andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com/9.htm
Here in Canada, and in many parts of the U.S., a woman may legally be known under a new name but doing so does not change her name on her birth certificate or her social insurance account. It's really only credit cards and drivers' licenses that change, bank accounts and such. And changing it back after a divorce is just as easy. Taking your husband's name is viewed more as a genteel custom rather than a hard nosed legal change of identity, one that I'm glad hasn't been chased out of use by militant feminists.
Change on your birth certificate, no. Change on your Social Security card, yes? And your credit cards and bank accounts are such piddly little things. Of course, the same people who espouse this BS also probably don't want women to work anyway after they become mothers, so why would they need an account of their own, or credit history for that matter? They have their husband.
Not to mention the whole "some women don't change their names" = "militant feminists want to force all women to keep their name".
After conceding that women who have made something of themselves professionally may need to keep their names legally and use their husband's name socially (which sounds like it would just confuse me), she throws out this:
Women who have made no strides in the world, who have nothing for which they are known, except, ironically, being someone's wife, insist on holding onto their maiden names or hyphenating their name as some sort of last stab at individuality.
Most men are good and noble creatures who, out of genuine love and respect for women, look to us for guidance and will even try to alter their behaviour and attitudes to please us.
She ends with:
And all women, regardless of what certain fringe groups say about it, know perfectly well that women no longer belong to their husbands, are no longer disrespected socially, legally or economically, and have no need to rail against one of most charming aspects of modern marriage.
Actually the whole site is pretty entertaining.
http://www.andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com/
DV