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.
61 comments
What you're describing is masochism and doesn't happen in nature. The female doesn't "submit" to any male. They do it by instinct, in exchange of a sexual reward. Taking the husband's surname is a social convention, not a natural one. Following your logic, the Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese or Cave men, for that matter, would have extinguished long ago.
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.
No. Women who get tired of being treated like shit initiate divorce. Whether they take their husband's name or not is irrelevant, whereas being treated like a doormat (or being expected to act like one) is.
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."
No. That is Stokholm Syndrome, which is a survival instict to please one's captor so as not to be outright killed by them. It is, effectively, brainwashing.
these fundies really do take sexual dimorphism to extremes - dainty little girlie woman needing protection and guidance from big butch-man man.
It may have been necessary in the stone and bronze age, but in the 21st century women have a right and a dutty to take full part in society.
WOW! Although she sounds rather fundie here, she actually has some brains in her head and is really very thoughtful. Go forward and read some of her other essays; she believes couples should enjoy sex, isn't against same-sex marriages, and believes that a couple should only have children if both really want them AFTER being married for at least 4 years to make sure the marriage is solid. I think I like this lady, in most ways.
When I was a kid I heard all kinds of "horror" stories about the mistakes missionaries made, which made them look like brainless fools to people they were hoping to 'convert' (you know -- like Catholics)
The one thing all those horror stories had in common is those missionaries were eternally confusing cultural differences with religious creed.
You know, like this site. Full of people who are not aware there are or ever were humans outside a 20 mile radius of where they were born.
Not just monocults, ignorant on a whole different embarrassing scale.
Actually, this isn't a fundie. Go to that site and read a few pages, and you'll realize that. Read the entire page this is posted on, instead of assuming she's some kind of Stockholm Syndrome freak.
If, as you claim in the article, names aren't that important, that "Names don't represent our souls" then why are you making a big stink about women who choose to keep their maiden names?
So how do I know if a woman feels metaphysically submissive to me or if they're just going along with tradition?
Besides, if the man's an abusive asshole, the woman should divorce his sorry ass...and vice versa.
cui bono wrote: "so the Duke of Edinburgh doesn't fancy E. Regina then."
Nope, at least not much any more, according to what I've read in the tabloids - but the name has nothing to do with it.
She sounds like a character from a John Norman novel.
...On that note, may I bring up the subject of hyphenated names? What does it mean when she takes his and hers, hmm?
I had a read of the full article, and I don't understand why it only goes one way. I understand her reasoning behind honouring one's husband by taking his name (the name of someone she chose, as opposed to retaining the name of her father, to whom she didn't choose to be born). However, the members of a married couple are equal, so why should one take the name of the other? I might like her argument if she suggested that a couple honour each other by swapping names.
"...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..."
- you know this how?
"...When a woman feels metaphysically submissive to a man, when she admires all the masculine qualities he exhibits..."
- you mean he has to go about with his genitals on display? Isn't this illegal?
"...and deems him worthy of submitting to, sexually speaking, she will gladly become "his" and take his name..."
- Become 'his' what? His bitch? Is this 'submitting' in terms of bondage?
"...This is the essence of femininity..."
- I cannot relate this in the least to my parents and their relationship.
*bzzzt* Sorry, Ms. Bell, but that's incorrect.
My wife and I were recently married; before that, we dated for over a year. The sex was initiated by her as often as by myself, and she was the one who asked me to marry.
(Note: We are considering an annulment, but that's a mutual personal preference, mostly regarding taxes.)
/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./
[img]http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/238.jpg[/img]
/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./
A marriage is a partnership. A woman is a fully functioning, independent human being, regardless of whether or not she is married. She does not have to take her husband's name in order to love him and marry him.
/This is the essence of femininity./
No, this is the essence of masochistic, Stockholm Syndrome-esque slavery.
[img]http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/342.JPG[/img]
"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."
- Groundless assertion. My wife kept her birth name for business purposes.
- I have always regarded my wife's assertiveness and self assurance as attractive traits. I would never have married a brainless, submissive dolt.
- Being feminine does not mean being a doormat, except to cowardly men who are afraid of women and the self-loathing women who pander to their pathetic fears.
“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.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
