Just Hit That Woman With a Stupid Stick Or Honoring Fools on April Fools Day

Tags

Entertainment, gay rights, GOP, marriage, media crazies, teabaggers

Their back!!! Actually they never left.

The extremists in the GOP just can’t stop blabbering about all things sexual. In their expertise, we learn so much, so much it makes you want to run to the nearest cliff and throw yourself off.

The Chair of the Georgia GOP has some thoughts about legalizing marriage between same-sex persons. Seems, in the ranging meanderings of her tiny pimple of a brain, she’s come up with the REAL reason it should be forbidden–not all that religious stuff (although she points out, it is surely “unnatural” to be sure), but on good old Republican principles: FRAUD.

Yes that which strikes at the very heart of any Republican (the pocketbook) is why we should prevent this awful thing from happening.

Her reasoning? Well let me give you her version:

You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” Everhart said. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”

Ya see the logic there? Sure you do.

I betcha Ms. Sue Everhart first got that notion from hearing about men and women doing the same darn thing to get those benefits. I bet she did. No gay person ever married a straight person for that reason. Nope, logically? Nope.

HIT THAT WOMAN WITH A STUPID STICK

Ô

Yes it’s another Republican. Funny how all these stories end up being about the whacked Right.

North Carolina seems well on the way of figuring out how to support marriage. You are asking for the answer right?

The answer seems obvious when you think about it. Just outlaw divorce. State Senator Austin Allran (R) wants to amend the Healthy Marriage Act to make divorce even more difficult to obtain, raising the wait time from one year to two. AND couples must attend classes hoping to ‘splain to the  parties how to communicate better. And you can’t live together during that time, and apparently it would change current law that says that isolated incidents of “doing the nasty” don’t toll the waiting time.

Austin who is never to be confused with Austin Powers and well powers of mental acuity, doesn’t have a good answer for spouses seeking divorce from abusive spouses. He apparently hasn’t thought through the possible up tick in spousal homicide either.

HIT THAT MAN WITH A STUPID STICK

Ô

Chris Brown is 23 years old.

Chris Brown had 52 weeks of counseling.

Chris Brown now assures us that he FINALLY learned it was absolutely wrong to beat women.

HIT THAT MAN WITH A STUPID STICK (TWICE JUST TO BE SURE)

Ô

Remember our dear friends (NOT) Todd Akins (women who are legitimately raped?) and Allen West (I shoulda been court martialed)? Remember among all their nonsense, they were always railing about government waste, and those terrible spending Democrats? Remember them?

Well, lawdy lawdy, we don’t always do as we say others should now do we? The two who were always for cutting funding to every program that had to do with helping the poor–what did they get caught doing?

Just giving huge bonuses (at taxpayer expense of course) to their staffs as a parting goodbye when both LOST their election bids. Of the top 10 most gifting of congress persons, 9 were Republican and of the top 20, 14 were among those ousted by the electorate.

Let’s all get together and ask them to spell H Y P O C R I T E shall we?

HIT BOTH THOSE MEN WITH A STUPID STICK–IN FACT LEAVE IT EMBEDDED IN THEIR BACKSIDES

Ô

The Outraged Right, is often willfully ignorant. Now I know a thing or two about that, since I have FB “friends” who are determined to be just that, and they think I’m calling them stupid, which is proof enough eh?

Well, if you noticed, Google on its search engine did its usual holiday google doodle and instead of honoring the risen Lord, they chose to honor Cesar Chavez whose 86th birthday it would have been and for which March 31 is set aside to honor him.

Well, the Right went mad indeed, claiming that this was all intentional and of course “organized by the White House” who hates Christians if ya were not already aware.

Well, to gum it up, Michelle Malkin, thought Cesar was Hugo and well, that really really pissed them off.

Even when people said, hey Michelle, you confused Cesar with Hugo, well it made them no difference. It was still awful. And they are all moving to Bing, which showed Easter eggs on its search engine, which as everyone knows is properly reminiscent of Jesus (they had deviled eggs at the last supper I’m told with a hint of horseradish).

Well, as you can see, it signals the demise of Christianity in America. Google has tipped the boulder, and it is now careening down the slippery slope into Muslim/Atheism/Secular/Fascism/JimmineyCricketspantsareonfire/hellanddamnation.

HIT THE ENTIRE RIGHTWING RELIGIOSITY IN NAME NOT IN GAME GROUP WITH THE STUPID STICK.

And all of you have a blessed, or cursed April Fools Day.

Related articles

• GOP Rebranding update: All ‘Chavez’s’ look alike (dailykos.com)
• Conservatives freak out after Google honors Cesar Chavez on Easter (rawstory.com)
• Conservatives Outraged by Cesar Chevaz Google Doodle on Easter (truthdig.com)
• North Carolina lawmaker wants to impose a two-year waiting period for divorce (salon.com)

Bring In the Clowns

Tags

economists, economy, environment, global warming, Humor, Koch Brothers, marriage, personal relationships, political humor, psychology

I used to like clowns. Until they became evil. Now I don’t like them.

Anyway, have a happy Halloween. We don’t get trick or treaters back here in the hollow. So I don’t carve pumpkins. I eat pumpkin instead.

The candidates all were invited to go to a Halloween party I’m told. They all chose to go as clowns.

Campaign managers across the board suggested that might be dressing too close to the mark.

So they are going as statesmen and women, something none of them need worry that they will ever be confused as.

♦

The poor Northeast is getting smacked with a very early year snow storm. I feel for them. Not enough however to wish it were here instead. Here it’s sunny. And seasonable. And the leaves are falling still. I don’t think they can keep that up much longer without become bereft of foliage.  Oh as to that October Nor’easter, that’s not climate change. In case you were wondering.

 Just ask the Koch brothers. They funded a climate change skeptic to prove that the data was all wrong. Except he didn’t. He said it was true. Funny how the MSM, you know, the media that is supposed to be squarely in the lap of progressives, hasn’t much mentioned that. But the Koch brothers and their minions will continue to deny climate change because it suits their interests.  

♦

There is a long but very interesting article at The Atlantic about the changing ideas about romantic relationships. Kate Bolick’s experiences as a child were not at all like mine. Her mother urged her to find herself as a woman and not “settle” for domesticity until she found an emotionally satisfying relationship. My mother, never understood my independence nor could she get why I wasn’t married. I married on the verge of middle age, 49. (Yes, as you age, you push middle age further and further down the road kiddies.)

Where are all the good men? They were there in her 20’s and 30’s. Now they seem to have disappeared from the landscape, leaving only the failures and the predators. But are women looking for the wrong things? The 50’s model of marriage might well be nothing more than a blip on the screen, and not at all what has been normal throughout history.

It’s a long read, but a really interesting and informative one. It’s Saturday. Relax. Or mark it for tomorrow and some lazy day reading.

♦

If you want to engage in some more serious reading, I recommend this one from The Nation. Entitled, How the Austerity Class Rules Washington, it documents the long history of how a minority economic theory has gained control of not only the Republican party, but has controlled the dialogue in Washington. Deficit hawks have gained ascendency and “cut taxes, cut programs”,  plays well to the great uneducated masses who think it makes sense. After all, who doesn’t get–“You are in debt? Stop spending so much.” 

The fact that this is not the way to end a recession has been lost in a howling of cut, cut, cut. Very worth the read.

♦

And since it’s Saturday.

And since I like ya.

Romney puts the “R” in relative. As in “my opinion is relative.”

As in “My opinion is relative as to whether it helps or hurts me with the voters.’

As in “My opinion is relative as to whether it helps or hurts me with the voters. . ., today.”

As in “Tell me what my opinion should be, today.”

As in “I barely have an opinion that I am alive.”

Gingrich puts the G in “go look up the word Grifter.

Or in the word “getting”.

As in “I’m getting your money and giving nothing back in return except more bills.”

As in, “I’m getting to enjoy making a living by funneling off ‘expenses’ from all of my bogus organizations that I set up for the collection of donations to my lifestyle.

As in, “I’m glad you people are this stupid. I might have to actual find a job otherwise.”

As in, ” I never met a scam I didn’t like.”

Cain puts the C in “Can I interest you in this fine used car.”

As in, “Can I count on your being slightly stupider than me?”

As in, “Can you buy my book.?”

As in, “Can you tell me tell me anything about any foreign country?”

As in, “Can I dance a little soft-shoe for ya?”

As in, “Can you believe that all my supporters are white people?”

And just cuz:

What’s on the Stove? Stuffed portabella mushrooms and homemade onion rings. Recipes to follow on the food site. 

Related articles

• Koch brothers accidentally fund study that proves global warming (csmonitor.com)
• Is Herman Cain, GOP Clown of the Week, the Koch Bros’ Manchurian Candidate? (my.firedoglake.com)

Marriage 101

Tags

emotions, growth, inspiration, lifestyle, marriage, psychology, relationships

First, let’s get this straight. I am not a marriage counselor, and I don’t play one on TV. Still, I think I’ve learned a thing or two in 61 years of which nearly twelve have been lived in fair wedded bliss.

We’ve been watching a show most of you probably haven’t heard of. It’s called Addicted to Food. It revolves around a treatment center and the work of around eight men and women who suffer from extreme eating disorders, ranging from compulsive eaters, bulimics, and purgers. I don’t suffer from any of these, but I do flirt with compulsive eating. Eating emotionally. So I figured I might get a tip or two.

As one might suspect,emotional eating usually stems from issues one has from early childhood, or some other traumatic event in youth or young adulthood. One eats to keep from feeling and then dealing with the underlying issues.

Let’s face it. Most of us come from dysfunctional families to one degree or another. That is the key, here, the degree. For the degree and our personal psychological “givens” determine whether we will suppress our pain through addiction (be in food, alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, or anything that we can dream up), or whether we will grow up, take control and responsibility and build healthy lives. 

We bring  our unresolved issues to the marriage, and whether we believe it or not, realize it or not, we expect the other person, this love of our lives, to fill the hole, making everything all better. They cannot of course, for they come with the same hole, caused by something very different, and expect the same of us.

That is the child we are. Most of us are in fact children no matter our age. Some of us, thankfully are adult about parts of our lives, and those parts allow us to function fairly normally most of the time. Some of us are fully adult and they are our models. We are lucky indeed if we have someone who can model adulthood to us.

We are children, mostly because we, most of us, most of the time, are ego driven. We are out for ourselves, out to protect ourselves at every cost. Taken to an extreme, such narcissism causes us a great deal of trouble. But even if we are empathetic and compassionate to a degree, we still look out for number one most of the time.

As babies, we cried and screamed if we were wet, hungry, or uncomfortable. As young children we began to learn boundaries–that the entire world didn’t revolve around us all of the time. As teens and young adults, we perfected and fine tuned the art of manipulation. We learned to “do for others” to get a reward. We learned to bat our eyes, we learned to laugh at the bosses jokes. We learned how to read the emotional needs of others and use them to get what we wanted.

And mostly we never saw ourselves in this way. We saw ourselves as successfully negotiating the social world. Give and take, befriend and be befriended.

Marriage, because it is based first and foremost on emotion, presents a person with a whole new animal. In the first months and perhaps years, we are all directed to the other person in our lives. We put them first, we think of their needs, we do for them, often without any real conscious thought for ourselves.

But passion fades, and one day one wakes up and finds a very ordinary person beside oneself. This person has bad breath, snores, scratches and burps, and well the list goes on. They vomit and have dirty underwear. They have bad habits, they say the “wrong thing” sometimes. They are all too normal.

This is where one’s level of adulthood becomes important.

For if we are still children, still into blaming others for past events, still victims, still looking and expecting someone to fix us and everything, we are headed for a disaster. For now, we will return to the manipulation game we have come to know so well.

Except now we are manipulating the beloved. We are doing things for them, but now we expect reward. We are choosing the right moment–their time of weakness–to get our way on some issue of the moment. We are “keeping score”.

Unless we have some measure of adulthood. If we have come to this marriage, or during it, arrived at the place where we are responsible for ourselves, then we never get to “keeping score.” We do for the beloved because we still wish to, without expectation of repayment. We take delight in the doing of it.

More especially , we don’t look to play upon our beloved vulnerabilities, rather, we approach serious issues when they are in most control, so they have the ability to make good decisions, negotiate fairly, and arrive at a mutual decision that will stand the test of time. We don’t take advantage, we don’t want to.

We don’t use the other person to shore up our own shortcomings. We can know that we are right on issue A and never have to beat a discussion into the ground until our spouse agrees that we are right. We can let them think they have won, because we know that it’s “not worth a fight”.

We don’t care about clothes on the floor, toothpaste squeezed wrongly, or toilet paper placed incorrectly. If there are pliers on the kitchen counter, or the wrappings of a candy bar on the bedroom dresser, we smile, place things where they belong and thank our lucky stars that we have someone who is otherwise so good to wake up next to.

We don’t sweat the small stuff. We work on our own failings and missteps. We know that as we mature, our ability to bring a mature attitude to the partnership of marriage increases. We can ask for help, we can ask for opinion, but in the end, the work is ours. And if we are very lucky, we married someone who pretty much does the same.

If the benefits were only to ourselves, that would be enough. But they redound to the marriage itself, making it stronger, more flexible, more compassionate.

And that is what makes a marriage something to be prized as a most precious possession.

Related articles

• ‘Til Death Do Americans Part: What Makes Marriages Last Longer? (abcnews.go.com)
• Divorce rates falling, report finds (cnn.com)

NOTHING’S WRONG!!!!

Tags

depression, life in the meadow, lifestyle, marriage, Mental Health, Security, stress, The Contrarian

Okay, so life has been a little stressful lately. Well, a lot stressful. It may surprise you, but when two people live together 24/7, it can get a bit dicey sometimes. Love can only take you so far ya know.

At the center of our misery is the Bronco. A full week and nearly one-half later, and it still sits without real brakes.

You have to understand the country town mechanic to get this. They tend to be rather strange, loner individuals. They work on their own schedules, and they don’t much need the work.

So we keep getting pushed down the line. Plus he wants us to leave it there, and that means finding a ride. And our ride’s phone is out. (we can drive with what are called “mechanical brakes” which work but aren’t shall we say giving you the “stop on a dime” capability.

So, we, the Contrarian and I and having our stress issues.

And, shockingly, we don’t handle it the same way. I am (typically?) female. I wanna talk it out. I am also a bit of a pessimist, which is good, since I’m usually the one who is right, things always go bad most of the time. I have depressive tendencies, and so I pout, look morose, and snap at people and animals.

The Contrarian is male. He likes to ruminate. He doesn’t want to talk. He likes to handle his stress and depression with diversionary behavior.

To me, it looks like doesn’t care much about the issue of the bronco. He is constantly looking at me and asking “is something wrong?”

Something????? Yeah, how bout everything, I scream silently. I seethed, and wonder what planet is he on. I then punish him by saying, “No, not a thing.” And go back to cursing the day I met him.

I wait for him to tell me what he now plans. He never offers. I wait. I seethed, I curse.

He sits. And sits. But he is ruminating. And as he now tells me, he finds himself at times like this when his plan has gone awry, in a frozen state. He becomes inactive. Until finally he is able to work out another plan. Until then, he is silent.

I can understand that. Now that I know.

I explain. I never had much insecurity as a child. There were never any discussions about not having enough of anything. There were no discussions about putting off this purchase until some bills were paid.

When I left home as an adult, financial security was prime with me. I usually maintained it very well. I like options. I like agreed upon alternative plans. I like security.

I know, I know. Security is illusory, and if only fundamentalists got this, the world would be a better place. Security is not humanity’s lot in life. Never has been and never will be. Until we can defy death (believers of course excluded), we will always be insecure.

But I mean the normal kind of security. The common sense planning that we all do, or should, to ensure that we can survive. The tornado shelter, the savings account, that sort of thing.

Living in the meadow has made me feel very insecure. Weather has the power to dictate when I can leave it and when not. We have only one operative vehicle. Things like that make me insecure.

Apparently such things don’t much bother the Contrarian. Security is a certain amount of insulation from the world that I am finding increasingly hard to bear all the time. Solitude seems to make him comfortable, while I have started to find it more stifling.

Weird how two people can live together for eleven plus years, and still find so much they do not understand about each other.

We are in a better place today. We have talked it out. We understand each others ways of dealing with high drama stress better. I know he’s not just ignoring problems. He knows my bad moods reflect worry. We can be kinder and gentler to each other.

It makes me wonder if other married or long-term partnered people find new things about their other after years of being together. It was a bit of a shock to me, finding out a couple of things my Contrarian divulged. No doubt he got a surprise at some of my  interior mechanisms.

Are we weird? Or what?

Related Articles

• 15 Ways to Stop Obsessing (beliefnet.com)
• Does Your Personality Make You Stressed? (lifescript.com)
• How to Deal with Stress (socyberty.com)
• What is Rumination Syndrome? (brighthub.com)

Ahead of That Curve

Tags

Internet, marriage, newsgroups, Online dating service, relationships, The Contrarian

I was reading an article in the Boston Globe today, realized that I had never really talked much about how the Contrarian and I met and married.

We first met via the Internet, a process that now comprises something like 22% of all heterosexual relationships.

In our case, it was not via such things as EHarmony or other similar dating sites. A few of those were around, but they were as I recall, pretty much self-entry kind of places. Free of charge.

Most interactions occurred by a device called mIRC, knows as Internet Relay Chat. You entered rooms and spot to whomever about whatever. But we did not meet that way, though we used it as a tool for better communication during our “courting.”

I don’t know if there were such faces as Facebook back then, in the last century, 1998, to be exact.  But if there was, it was off my radar and his as well. We didn’t meet that way either.

No we met via the “news groups.” I think they still exist, though I haven’t look at them in years. It was part of you e-mail process and you looked up hobbies or interests you had, and subscribed. People left messages, and you responded or wrote your own.

I was living in Connecticut at the time, and the Contrarian was here in Iowa. He had been a long user of newsgroups, but for me, it was fairly a new thing. I’m not sure how I found it or even heard about it.

There were plenty of men seeking women, and so forth, and I posted on a women seeking men. I made it clear I was looking for a long-term relationship, would relocate, and general information about me, age, education, and so forth.

The Contrarian responded with a lengthy e-mail about himself. We began to write back and forth for a few days, and felt very quickly that we had found something significant in each other. We made plans quickly for me to visit him.

I had a number of online friends (men mostly), from IRC, many whom I had met. I left them the pertinent information and flew off to Iowa on February 1, 1999, only about two months after we had started communicating.

I arrived in O’Hare in the early morning, and was supposed to connect with a flight into Eastern Iowa Airport. Fog was my nemesis. I spent the day in the airport and finally got a bus late in the day. I arrived very tired somewhere around 9 pm that night. Not an auspicious beginning.

But within a few days, we felt very sure of “Us” and I notified my moving company to set a date for packing me up. I returned three weeks later to Connecticut, and the Contrarian followed by plane about two weeks later.

Oddly, he got snowed in in Chicago, and ended up on a different flight. I too had to wait a good while for his flight to arrive.

We left Connecticut by car on March 16, arriving back in Iowa on the 17th. And well, that about says all there is to say. We married in September of that year, and are now approaching our eleventh anniversary this September.

Telling people, early on, of our method of meeting, usually brought some stares and some “wows”. Most people had tales to tell of Internet meetings going awry, and the media usually reported stories of dead women who had gone off to meet serial killers.

Plenty of folks gave us that “look” that said, “it will never last.” You can’t build a relationship over a computer! And truthfully, I knew a couple of such relationships that had gone sour  after some months. But I suspect that the statistics are pretty much the same as the more “normal” means of meeting.

Clearly, people aren’t afraid of this method any more. I’m not sure it’s better than other methods of meeting people. Smart people I think find it an easier medium to fess up the truth about yourself. After all, you can only communicate by mail and phone so long. There is no point in lying about things that will be discovered at meeting. But then, perhaps some thing that by then the person might care enough to ignore the extra poundage or the lesser stature. I’m not sure.

All I can say is it worked for us.

Related Articles

• After 10 Years, Online Dating Is A Mainstream Pick-Up Scene [Love For Sale] (jezebel.com)
• Dating Site Plans Ad Campaign to Mark 10 Years (nytimes.com)
• Dating Site Reviews (datingsite.org)

Loyal Opposition or A Convenient Excuse?

Tags

bible, Don't ask don't tell, gay rights, John McCain, marriage, Military, religious right

It is common for the religious right to complain that the left demonizes their “legitimately” held religious views on homosexuality. And I grant, that there is some efficacy to their argument. After all, one can be supportive of gay rights from an economic sense, and from a personal sense, and still believe that they must adhere to a biblical understanding that they are convinced (however much I might disagree) prohibits such unions, involving marriage or otherwise.

And, no doubt there are plenty, maybe even many such conservative Christians out that that react in this manner. But I have to say, some things give me pause–causing me to think that in reality religious objectives are a convenient excuse that supports an already personally held belief that the GLTB community is an “abomination.”

A couple of things have happened recently that suggest that my concerns have some “legs.” One is the recent Daily Kos poll of self-identifying Republicans.

An outrageous 73% of all Rethugs answering, claimed that gays should not be allowed to teach school. This in a nutshell, belies the argument that one’s opposition is strictly biblically based and that one has no personal fear or animosity of the gay community per se.

Such a response suggests that the holder of such an opinion is mired in the usual anti-gay pseudo science that suggests that somehow gays are predatory and take every opportunity to “recruit” new members into their club, especially children. This horrifically wrong and well documented fallacy points rather to a personal homophobic fear that is illogical and not at all based in real world facts.

It falls directly into that very old and very warn out cliche, that gays “choose” this lifestyle. It denies any genetic component, except insofar as one might have “a predisposition” much as a person has a predisposition to be alcoholic or a drug abuser. Along with the predisposition, they would argue, comes all the tools (God given of course) to withstand the “urges” and to live aright.

I truly understand their reasoning, because they in the end, must admit that they believe that there would be no gay community, if God did not desire it. God creates directly, from their prospective, thus God created the gay world. For reasons that are inexplicable, gays are placed in a trap not of their making, and with no way out. They cannot “choose” to be celibate, they must be, to remain in good stead with God. Or so the theory goes. They are no different than singles or priests who are also called to celibacy. However, of course, singles and priests can choose to marry or leave the priesthood to get out from under their celibate hardship.

What they finally must admit to is that God created gays and then leaves them with a life long prohibition to have families and intimate love like the rest of humanity. This is a permanent condition, end of story. That in a nutshell is why most religious right anti-gay adherents, will never agree that gayness is a matter of genetics with some environmental aspects.  They do not agree that people are “born that way” except insofar as God by his mysterious ways, so designs them.

My second concern is with the uptick in the discussion on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Here again, we see the fallacies run amok. We are told by Senators that openly gay men and women will destroy morale and unity within the armed services, and this dangerous change will harm our fighting objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Plenty of time down the road, when we are at peace (whatever century that might happen) to carefully work through these issues.

However, I have as yet to see ONE single piece of research analysis that says that being truthful about ones sexuality has anything to do with morale or unity. Are not most of us sophisticated enough these days to identify the sexual preference of others after a short time? In fact, one of those who is most vocal, a young West Pointer, drummed out for coming forth with  his orientation, says that the Honor Code he learned at West Point was the REASON he cannot maintain the lie. It is abhorrent to him as a graduate of the institution.

Worse yet is the flagrant and ugly turn about of John S. McCain on this issue. Faced with a crazy extreme right attack against his Senate seat at home, Johnny has thrown all sense of right and decency out the window in now making it clear he will try to block any legislation that would overturn the policy. His swaggery mewling makes one shrink in revulsion.

Only a few short years ago, McCain claimed that he would be guided by the military brass on this issue. Only they, he argued were in a position to actually judge whether a change in policy would harm the morale and unity of our military forces. Their expertise on this issue should be controlling.

That opinion has been given.

Secretary Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, agree, that the time of “DADT” has passed and that it is right both morally and practically to end this sick practice.

But McCain, apparently like many Rethugs, is unable to comprehend that we actually keep video footage and written records of what people say. He ignores his previous stance, and is “disappointed” in the military for their position.

How can we forgive this unmitigated assault on decency and morality all in the name of one’s personal political ambitions? We simply cannot, and one John S. McCain needs to be openly vilified in the strongest terms possible. We understand that he puts John first. He did that when he was willing to put forth a complete moronic idiot as a Vice Presidential candidate, hoping that it would shore up his failing candidacy. So we are not surprised.

So excuse me if I’m just a tad skeptical of those that protest that their opposition to gay rights/marriage/military service is honestly the result of a deep adherence to religious principles. That works, until you open your mouth–then we see your true colors. Shame on you all.

I Do–In A Manner

Tags

husbands, last names, maiden name, marriage, psychology, remarriage, social mores, sociology

My grey matter works in mysterious ways. This topic has been on my mind off and on for years. It is not momentous, yet it nags at me now and then, for no other reason than that I cannot decipher the thinking behind some of the choices.

Let me explain. And before I do, let me just say, that I have no opinion as to what is proper, good, normal, or rational as to one’s choice. I simply find some of the choices obvious  and others fairly not an option from my standpoint, and I wonder at the thinking behind the choice. Wonder only, not judge or condemn in any way.

That said, I wish to discuss the manner of naming ourselves in marriage. When I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s of the previous century (read way long ago time), it was more than the norm, it was the only really known means of marriage. A woman dropped her “maiden” name, and acquired her husbands last name in marriage. “Maiden” signified unwed. Thus Susie Brown became in a flash Susie Snicklegruber, whether she liked it or not.

As marriage began to break down, and more and more couples parted company, a problem ensued. During my time, a divorced woman, no matter how long divorced was still referred to as Mrs. Snicklegruber. She had, apparently the honor of notifying the world that she had at least once obtained the golden ring of matrimony. (Given that era, this was the highest attainment most women could expect and old maids were both pitied and looked upon with a certain suspicion.)

As divorce became more common, and especially as many women remarried, an issue arose. Should the second husband’s name be taken to replace the first husband’s. What if there were small children of the woman’s?

This all coincided with the women’s movement and the desire to embrace “ourselves” as complete and whole without recourse to a man to give us identity. This meant that some “modern” women no longer desired to take on the man’s surname. Or, they innovated with the often thought “snooty upper class” practice of hyphenated names. So Susie and her husband Carl became Mr. and Mrs. Carl Brown-Snicklegruber.

This preserved the identity of the woman, but gave the kids a hellacious last name oft-times, and well, what happens then? Amanda Brown-Snicklegruber marries David Brockman and becomes what? Amanda Brown-Snicklegruber-Brockman? You can see the problem with being politically correct here.

Perhaps some solved it in part by the woman retaining her maiden name, the husband of course retaining his, and the children getting the hyphenated name.And then as I said, some women retained the name of their first husband so as not to make the kids feel weird with the odd name.

Today, we find that many women retain their maiden names as a matter of course. Many do not. I’m not sure, but I suspect that the latter still prevails across most of the land. Certain areas  of the land, no doubt weigh the issue differently.

So, I’m not sure why people make the choices they make. For me it was simple, I disliked my last name and was happy to acquire a simpler neater name. I was tired of having to spell it out in it’s entirety, only to have some hapless form filler outer remark, “ah, it spells just like it sounds.” Yeah well, yeah, but nobody says that until I have had to spell it out.

So it was a no brainer for me. And in a manner I recognize why some women choose not to “for women’s rights” reasons. And I get the not changing it for “the kids” reason.

Still, I am troubled by why women would keep names of men whom they no longer love, and with whom they often had a very acrimonious parting. Who wants to be reminded of unhappy memories for the rest of one’s life? Children can be talked to, and they grow up and move away from home eventually. So I figure I’m missing some reasons here.

Worse yet is the woman without children who becomes divorced and keeps the husband’s name. This one really puzzles me. Again, why be reminded every time you sign a check that your marriage was a failure? Why do you not reclaim your maiden name? I’d really like to understand this decision.

Perhaps that last because my husband’s former wife who lives in Troy, chose after barely four years of marriage, some of which was spent separated, to keep my husband’s name. This is so small a town it is not incorporated and everyone knows everything. She could not have assumed that somehow she would gain some advantage in the town by being a Peyton. Everyone knows her short history, and much longer one of being the wife of three other men previously. I’d be schizophrenic if I changed my name that many times in a life  time.

I have never come to a satisfactory answer, and so I ask if there is something I am missing about taxes or whatever that makes this make sense. It doesn’t to me. It seems, as far as I recall, a part of the divorce decree that a statement is included about name. So it seems fairly simple to revert to one’s maiden name.

Just what I was pondering the other day again, and I thought I’d ask your opinion.  Pardon me but the temperature outside is just barely this side of frozen tundra from hell, so my brain case is cranky. Maybe I’ve missing something.