it seems my academic interests are always finding their way into my blog posts. if you don't care for women's issues in the france, please follow the links in the column on the left for more interesting posts by 'a few of my favorite people.' i would recommend this post by jourdan on love, and anything by chase is pure, peaceful poetry. oh and amy always, always has good stories to tell. often illustrated, for the win.
in any case, i'm spending a lot of time reading and thinking about women's issues in france starting in the mid-18th c. lately. i found this treasure i thought worth sharing.
the journal "la femme libre," and later "la tribune des femmes," was a newspaper written exclusively by and for women in the 1830s. what is most striking is that the women published under their first names only - suzanne, marie-pauline, jeanne-victoire - because they felt that "to use their husband's name was to perpetuate their condition of slavery." [1] these women were about 130 years ahead of their time, eh? i think i hear the crackle of torched corsets mingled with the smell of burning microfiber bras.
i guess this is interesting to me because lately i've been a bit preoccupied with the idea of exchanges in relationships. what does it mean to take your spouse's name when you get married? is it a sign of "slavery" as these women (and so many others) believe? i've tossed the idea around of keeping my nom de jeune fille if/when i get married, but i think sharing a last name with your spouse is probably an important part of the unity necessary for a durable relationship.
i also got into an interesting conversation/mild tiff with a (yes, male) friend last night about wedding rings - another symbolic exchange. this friend wants to buy his wife a nice ring - "bling," he called it. me? i want nothing to do with a capital-R rock. it's just that something like this marks an exchange in which the ring is a sort of guarantee for a well-provisioned future. "hey!" says man, "i can buy you this shiny thing now, and that means i can buy you more shiny things later!" i don't want to be convinced of someone's earning potential by the size of the ring they can offer. i guess i tend to look at oh-you-fancy-huh rings as a status symbol: man buys ring for wife to reflect his paycheck. and while i know that's not what everyone sees in shiny wedding rings, it's certainly what i see.
spend five minutes talking to me about relationships and you'll see how far removed my paradigm is from that one. now, i'm not going to claim an real expertise in relationships, seeing as i am far from wed + bed. however, i want my marriage (again, if/when, friends) to be one founded on partnership, joint effort. we're equals here, partner. fancy rings aren't my taste, and i won't wear one to your corporate dinners as a sign of how well your latest investment is doing.
on the other hand, a simple gold band is perfect. keep the symbolism, lose the materialism.
i know, i know... burning microfiber. i just want to have an evaluated perspective on this kind of cultural symbol: rings, names? all great, if done for the right reasons.
[1] McMillan, James. France and Women, 1789-1914. Kindle for Mac, Loc. 2,019.
Grace,
ReplyDeleteI like this post because you evaluate rings and exchanges and names well, but you don't condone anyone. I wish I could follow that pattern. It sure is a fine line between going a tirade about social issues and resigning oneself to the norms of one's community (society would fit better here - that is why I put community. By community I mean the warm and fuzzy group one is a part of, not the big bad evil influences of society).
About names...it is interesting that more first names in western societies today are more inventive and "new." Whereas in developing nations (as I am confident will be the case in Senegal) everyone is named the language equivalents of Juan and María. Why am I (the westerner) so obsessed with individuality? By being an individual I seek to destroy the "us" and "them" present in society (and communities ;) ). What about when I deconstruct all the "us" and "them" components of society and in turn deconstruct society altogether. That sounds lonely. I will take a leaf out of Senegal's book, I think. Part of Gross National Happiness lifestyle, then, should be the pursuit of "social inclusion," "social solidarity," and just plain friendship. What does this have to do with names again? It's fine to name your kid apple to name them juan - "if done for the right reasons."
Thanks for your great post grace!
Jeff
Grace,
ReplyDeleteFrom a man's perspective, or just mine I guess, I don't think taking the husband's name is very important. Why doesn't the husband take the wife's name? I think it's because people look at men as the leaders of the family (my very un-academic opinion on the matter). But, if we (not you and I, but a man and woman) are to be partners and equals (which I think we should) maybe it's best to keep your own names...But then what about kids? See, I would have no problem with my wife (of course, if slash when)kept her own name...but for some reason by golly I want my sons to be Crutchers! Again, for another reason, I'd be way less adamant about my daughters keeping that name (they'll probably lose it anyway). This makes no sense, I don't have a good reason for those ideas...it's just the way I see things. My mom kept her own name when she married my dad. For her, it was for professional reasons, but still, I think it's cool and my dad didn't care--it wasn't about that. It was about being married. Besides Mary-Lynn Theel has a much better "ring" to it than Mary-Lynn Crutcher (that's my mom).
As for rings...Grace, I want someone who thinks the same thing! I don't think I'd be attracted to a woman who wants "bling". My values and personality are such that someone who I'd be compatible with would probably hate a fancy ring. This one friend of mine and I were looking through the "Sundance" catalog (ya know, as in Sundance Utah...they sell clothes and artisan jewelery also...Go Robert Redford...and I use wayyyyy too many ellipses and parenthesizes) and she was pointing out these silver artisan rings with trees on them, or ones that just had cool designs in the metal but no "precious" stones. They were about 2-3 hundred dollars and were very beautiful pieces of jewelry. I was thinking, "I'd probably like a girl who wanted something like that" because (a) I'm a cheapskate...it seems preposterous to spend thousands on diamonds, (b) the reasons you mentioned above resonate with me and (c) did I mention they are very, very expensive? See, I'm not a cheapskate. I spend money quite liberally...BUT I spend it on cool things. I'd rather spend thousands on plane tickets to Patagonia and do a backpacking trip with my wife than a ridiculous ring...and I like to think the women I like would rather do the same as well. Ok, enough about my preferences...
I think what you are studying is AWESOME. I think many women find joy in being a submissive partner...not sure what to say to that...other than I can't understand why anyone (male or female) would enjoy that role. It's some of these stereotypes of women that keep many in bondage. Anyway, I'm all about solving problems and being practical (I AM a male, right? jk...well, I am, but that's not why I'm practical) so I hope that your academic research can find it's way into the "real" world and inspire women and men to seek more harmony and equal yoking in relationships. I guess what I'm saying is, make your voice heard somehow, so your lovely findings don't just sit in a journal on a library shelf.
I gotta go.
If I may, I'd like to offer my own thoughts on these two interesting points.
ReplyDeleteNames - when I finally enchant that woman waiting for me in the café, with the museum pass book mark, I hope we can create whatever meaning we'd like out of our names. In other words, I'd hate to give her only one option - take my name because you now belong to me and my family, and I hereby claim all the fruit of your womb. That just doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth. Instead, I'd want offer her an additional meaning - you can take my name, and make my legacy our legacy, to make your life our life, to mean that the stories that we've been tracing with our big toes in the sand are now one story, so that even when the tide of time washes over our feet, there will still be something there because we walked together. So ya, I guess I'm for a traditional practice but invested new meaning, meaning she and I will create together.
The Ring - You know, I need to express my admiration for Elder Nelson. Once upon a time he offered his wife a large, expensive anniversary ring. She thanked her husband and kindly asked him a few questions. One of them was: "do you want me to wear this ring because you love me or because you want others to see that you can afford this kind of ring?" Actually, I should rephrase - I admire Sister Nelson and I'm glad Elder Nelson is enough like her to share that story. Again, recognizing meaning.
When I drop onto my knee, I don't want to offer a ring saying, "wear this to show that I now own you, that I've purchased you like any other, and when the time comes, I'll expect you to honor my investment." Again, a bad taste. Instead, I would rather forge a simple ring myself, with my own hand engraving an inscription on the inner band, and saying to her, "I have made this with my words and my hands, to show that for the rest of my life, all that I hope to create, I hope to create with you. So that when we are gone and our children hold these rings, they will read and feel all that I loved in you". Or something like that. If she and I will have rings, they'll have a new meaning, one that honors who we are and what we hope to become together. So ya, traditions with new meanings.
And I'm grateful for women like those you found in 1830, who started questioning meaning all that long time ago, making it so easy for me to create a new meaning for myself.