This attitude, especially among those that should know better, is astonishing. That no-wave feminists have picked up on this fake meme and run with it tells me they need their mom’s feminism even more than ever.

I mean, come on: feministing? Who’s last great traffic driver was an article about how Apple must have no women execs because they chose the name “iPad.” Because, you know, it reminded them of sanitary napkins.

Yeah. I think you better take a closer look at your mom’s feminism.

I didn’t see it that way at all. I think it came from the spirit that we are accustomed to the battle for women’s representation and rights being most passionately led by women. To see a man internalizing the inequality of women, accepting it as his own issue, as a problem for humanity as a whole and leading a personal, widespread effort towards change is unusual. People applaud it loudly because they want to encourage it and see more of it.

On the other hand, TED talks by women regularly get standing ovations among the ‘main’ TED talks. Just off the top of my head, I remember several recent ones, like a brilliant one from Jessica Jackley (founder of Kiva) that had the room exploding, another about war from Zainab Salbi who had everyone standing and many in tears (with reason)…

I’ve wondered about this strategy. Doesn’t it, to a certain degree, perpetuate the problem? For one, girls are still more likely to give up their name in marriage, and for two, there’s something simple about deciding that daughters should be so tied to their mothers, and sons to their fathers. Just like it is something for a man to change his surname to match his wife’s, it would be a similarly notable thing for a son to be able to be named for his mother. Even though this method retains a 50/50 chance for either parent for their surname to go on, it still means that one parent has zero chance to be named because of a particular sex.

Obviously, since you have agreed on it, it is not an issue for you. And this: “But kids could be named anything – who cares as long as it is what the parents agree on?”

Pretty much! That’s feminism for me … thoughtful discussion, agency, conscious, educated choice. The worst offense of traditional social norms is that they’re perpetuated mindlessly. I will cheerfully and respectfully (and probably a little nosily) offer my opinion (as above) but in the end, I am happy to know that there are equal discussions taking place.

Does your daughter have your surname or her maternal grandfather’s?

Iceland is the only place I know of where a child carries on her mother’s name.

Though I’d love to hear of more such places.

If that is your whole question, you need to watch the talk again.

Feminism only equates to misandry in the minds of those who misunderstand it, and who do so willfully, and often maliciously.

I have heard similar statements on communism, Christianity, almost every ideology really.

did anyone stand up and say that feminism IS the problem?

Because the people applauding, and promoting the “beauty” business, and all that shit are not feminists. Feminism can’t be all things to all women, or it won’t be anything at all.

Even aside from the biological fact I would have to do about 100% of the physical childbearing work, I *would* still be one of the two key parents … so shouldn’t I have 50% of the chance — not even definite share! — in determining its surname? Apparently not.

This, of course, hasn’t changed my opinion of him as a good, humane person, the most trustworthy I know; if anything, it just showed to me that these little things persist to an amazing degree even in the best of people.

One of the few men to speak today was Tony Porter, who runs an organized for men to end violence against women called A Call To Men. Porter was raised in Harlem and the Bronx, where men were raised to have no fear, no emotions except anger, to be dominant, in charge, superior, and strong. Women, on the other hand, are inferior, have less value, and are objectified. He calls this the collective socialization of men, or the “man box.”

Porter makes a call to redefine manhood. Why can’t boys cry if they’re scared or sad? Why does a man have to apologize for crying at his own child’s funeral? It if destroys a boy to be called a girl, then what are we teaching him about girls?

He ends by saying: “My liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman.”

This.

> Please don’t let it happen, moderators.

Censoring views you don’t agree with is never very becoming. While the comment you were responding to is a bit cavalier, the concern is valid.

I think its very difficult for people to feel that feminism is about equality when the very word itself centers around women, and a small, yet extremely vocal subset of its proponents are often seemingly misandrists. As unfortunate as it may be, groups are often defined by their outliers.

And as many have pointed out, if feminism were about equality, it would be called humanism.

What does it even mean to be “a woman” anyway. I’ve never been able to tell.

If I could opt out of gender, I would.

I’m guessing that too; seemed obvious, in fact (especially since it’s an example I often use too–how many hetero women still lose their own names in marriage? how many [oh so persecuted!] hetero men take on their wives’ and lose theirs?).

What is the neutral position on that? Is there one? Bucking the traditional role has a high social cost for men, as the gentleman in the article describes.

Personally, if I ever get married, I would like to choose a new name that we would both take. (I have external genitalia.)

Oh, no . . . it looks like the comments for this wonderful post are going to spiral down into “But what about us poor, poor menz!!” territory.

Please don’t let it happen, moderators.

Feminism only equates to misandry in the minds of those who misunderstand it, and who do so willfully, and often maliciously.

When there is what looks like hatred in feminism, it’s almost always hatred for patriarchy, not for men. There’s a big, big difference there.

Except some how women aren’t as human as the other humans it seems.

It simply is not hatred of men. Calling it that is silly and defensive.

The streams of thought and argument that occur within ‘feminism’ are incredibly diverse. No doubt there are some women who have a low opinion of men – but there are plenty of men who hold a low opinion of women.

As for naming – my spouse and I decided before the kids were born that boys would have my name and girls would have hers. But kids could be named anything – who cares as long as it is what the parents agree on?

Could we agree that some who espouse feminist theory* ALSO misunderstand it, and should be grabbed by the same short hairs?

Failure to admit when one has been hoisted by ones own petard also tends to send conversations spiraling downhill.

* – or communist theory, or number theory

This comment is not about feminism, it’s about the asshattery of anyone who clings so hard to a belief they lose their perspective.